All Episodes
Previous Next
May 4, 2024 - System Update - Glenn Greenwald
01:11:11
Post-9/11 "Terrorism" Hysteria Returns With a Vengeance

TIMESTAMPS: Intro (0:00)  War on Terror Framework is Back (4:32) Outro (1:09:42) - - - Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community - - -  Follow Glenn: Twitter Instagram Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook LinkedIn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening, it's Friday May 3rd.
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...
The post 9-11 discourse about terrorism and domestic terrorists is back with a vengeance, as is the defining mentality of that era, a constant attempt to exaggerate fears and inflate threats with the principal purpose of putting the population into so much fear that it will acquiesce to any new powers the government attempts to seize in the name of stopping it.
Over the last two months, we have seen one attack on core free speech rights after the next, all justified by the alleged threat of anti-Israel activism.
We have covered many of these erosions of core free speech rights since October 7th, and especially since the campus protests against the Israeli war in Gaza began.
and the explosions and the death threats and the violent and fatal attacks on people.
Now, we have covered many of these erosions of core free speech rights since October 7th, and especially since the campus protests against the Israeli war in Gaza began, and will do so again tonight.
But it is hard to overstate how extreme and excessive was the bill that was passed this week with the support of the leaders of both parties in the American House of Representatives, a bill that nominally seeks to expand the definition of, quote, anti-Semitism for purposes of federal anti-discrimination anti-Semitism for purposes of federal anti-discrimination law, but which in fact bans a wide range of obviously valid and permissible criticisms of both the state of Israel and Jewish individuals.
and the animals.
When one looks at all of these incidents in isolation, it is easy to object and even get angry about each one.
But it is really important to take a step back and examine the underlying tactics and mentality and framework that have taken root and that are now driving all of these incidents.
And when one does so, as we will do tonight, you will see that the same destructive approaches that degraded the so-called war on terror into one of the greatest sustained assaults on core civil liberties in American history is very much vibrant and active once again now.
Before we get to all that, a few programming notes.
We are encouraging, first of all, our viewers to download the Rumble app.
If you do so, it will work on both your smart TV and telephone.
I think it navigates the site better than a browser on the internet does.
And if you download it, it means you can follow the programs you most like to watch here on the Rumble.
if you do that and then activate your notifications.
The minute any of those shows that you follow begin broadcasting live on the platform, you will be immediately notified by link, through email or text, however you want.
And then you can just click on that link and begin watching.
No waiting around for shows to start.
No trying to remember when every show begins.
You'll just be notified through the app the minute any of those shows begin.
As another reminder, system update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our program on those platforms, it really helps spread the visibility of our show.
Finally, 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, where we have our live interactive after show that's designed to take your questions, comment on your feedback, hear your critiques and suggestions for future shows.
That after show is available solely for members of our Locals community.
And if you want to join, which gives you access not only to those twice a week after shows, but to the multiple interactive features we have there.
It's the place we publish written transcripts of every program we broadcast here.
It's where we first publish our original written journalism, as we did yesterday with the story that we broke about the Daily Wire.
And most of all, it's the community on which we rely to support the independent journalism that we're doing here.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that site.
As one final reminder, I will be in New York City on May 20th, In order to debate Alan Dershowitz on the question of whether or not the United States should militarily attack its nuclear facilities that is at the Soho... I forget the name of it exactly, but it's the So...
The Soho Forum.
It's sponsored by Reason Magazine.
I think there are still some tickets left for those of you in New York City or near New York City and you want to come, definitely check out that debate.
I'm sure it'll be quite spirited and I hope nutritious as well.
Well, for now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
What propelled me to stop practicing law and to instead begin writing about politics was the constant excesses of the war on terror, specifically the attempt to repeatedly put the American specifically the attempt to repeatedly put the American population into fear about so-called domestic terrorists and foreign terrorists after 9-11 and constantly increase that fear level so that the population, as all scared populations do, will acquiesce to any power.
as all Power that the government wants and says it needs in the name of defending people from that threat.
And for years there was an assault of every kind, one after the next, on our core civil liberties by constantly telling Americans that we were in danger of another 9-11 attack, that there were sleeper cells from Al-Qaeda all around our midst, and that the only way to stop them was to accept and embrace very extreme measures.
Such as the Patriot Act or warrantless spying that radically changed our political system forever and there is no question that exactly that mentality is being rejuvenated often by the very same people who did it the first time though this time in the name of not stopping Al Qaeda or ISIS or other terrorist groups but instead stopping people who are critical of Israel who are marching against the U.S.
funded war in Gaza.
Now I think That because the war on terror is now somewhat of, not so much even recent history, but for a lot of people, history that they didn't live through and that they don't recall, I think it's worth highlighting just some of the exemplary incidents to illustrate the kind of mentality that reigned then and is still reigning now.
So to begin with, one of the things I think people have forgotten a lot is, and here is a political article in 2012 about it, when Newt Gingrich was running for president, Which is that in 2006, Newt Gingrich backed censoring the internet.
Quote, back in 2006, Gingrich argued that censoring the internet would be the right thing to do when it comes to Islamic radicals who use the web to organize jihad against the United States.
Quote, we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city.
Which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we're unfortunate.
Mr. Grigingrich said during a speech in New Hampshire, according to a story I wrote at the time for the New York Sun, quote, "We should now be "empaneling people to look seriously "at a level of supervision that we would never dream of "if it weren't for the scale "We should now be "empaneling people to look seriously "at a level of That we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of this threat.
I remember very well when Newt Gingrich said that because 2006 was just a year after I had started writing about politics and obviously when you have a major politician standing up and saying that a threat of terrorism now justifies amending the Constitution, amending the First Amendment to allow for a kind of political censorship by the government in the name of terrorism that we would, as he said himself, never dream of previously.
That's going to attract my attention.
Here from NBC News in November of 2006, quote, Gingrich's free speech warning sparks debate.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sparked a nationwide debate about the First Amendment after saying the war against terrorism may force the United States to re-examine the freedom of speech guarantees.
Gingrich, a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2008, said Monday that, quote, a different set of rules may be needed.
To reduce the terrorist's ability to use the internet to recruit and communicate.
In the same discussion loop, others argued that Gingrich may have a point.
Quote, you know he's right, said McKeckie, who I believe was a member of Congress at the time.
Quote, those freedoms just hinder those trying to protect us.
Besides, if you've got nothing to hide, why should you care?
The only ones they're after are the terrorists.
And this was, of course, a very common theme at the time, which was that all of these brand new policies that we're enacting that are bridging civil liberties to spy on you, Why would you care?
Why would you object?
Unless you have something to hide.
I had to give a TED Talk in 2014 in the midst of the Snowden reporting to address precisely that argument.
When we revealed that the internet had been turned, unbeknownst to the American public, into a framework of unlimited spying directed domestically.
And ultimately the primary argument became, Well, if you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the government's reading your emails and spying on you?
If all you're doing is arranging little e-practices and writing to your grandparents or buying airline tickets to go visit your family, if you're a good, law-abiding citizen, why would you care if we get to read your emails?
If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't value your privacy at all.
That was very much the mindset they were pushing.
Now, here's the New York Times in December of 2005 in a story that we've covered many times.
This began, this was reported just two months, not even two months, after I started writing about politics and this became a focal point of mine for the next year.
In fact, I wrote a book, my first book, on this scandal.
Quote, George Bush lets U.S.
spy on callers without courts.
And here's what the New York Times reported, quote, after the September 11th attack, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activities without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.
Quote, this is really a sea change, said a former senior official who specializes in national security law.
Quote, it's almost a mainstay of this country That the own NSA only does foreign searches.
How is this justified?
That a secret, warrantless spying program aimed at American citizens was secretly implemented?
Quote, the Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to the United States, the official said.
Defenders of the program say it is helping disrupt terrorist plots and prevent attacks inside the United States.
This is how everything began being justified from torture to kidnapping people off the streets of New York or off the streets of Europe and sending them to Syria and Egypt to be tortured.
Even arresting American citizens on US soil.
As they did with Jose Padilla in 2002 at Chicago International Airport, and then imprisoning him for the next three and a half years with no charges of any kind, not even allowing him to talk to the outside world, simply based on the then Attorney General John Ashcroft's decree that he was, quote, the dirty bomber trying to import a radiological weapon into the United States to detonate it.
And I remember thinking at that time, That's the one red line that you would never think the government could cross in the United States.
Namely, imprisoning American citizens arrested on American soil without having to charge them with any crime or give them any due process under the law.
Jose Padilla sued, claiming his constitutional rights had been violated, and right before the Supreme Court was set to rule on it, the Bush administration was very worried that they were going to rule, the Supreme Court was, that you can't do that.
They finally brought charges against Jose Padilla, and they did not even include the original claim that he intended to import a radiological bomb onto the United States soil.
He ended up pleading guilty to lesser charges, but he was held for three and a half years an American citizen with no due process, no access to court, no lawyers.
This is what was going on back then and it was all justified by the repeated incantation of the word terrorism and terrorists.
Obviously that was when the Patriot Act was enacted and that Patriot Act is still with us today and it has been used far more often in cases having nothing to do with terrorism than it has in actual terrorism cases.
And that of course is the spying program that in 2005 the New York Times exposed and that is the spying program that Congress went in 2008 when Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats controlled the House and retroactively legalized that program By allowing the NSA and FBI to spy on Americans without the warrants required by law.
That was the law that Mike Johnson, working with the Biden White House, ended up renewing, even though there's been mountains of evidence of abuse.
And they renewed it without any reforms, any meaningful reforms, including your wire requirement.
Do you see how, warrant requirement, do you see how all this gets connected?
And when people get put into fear, and when they're able to be scared enough to acquiesce to powers, these powers stay forever.
There's never anything temporary about them.
Now, one of the things we've seen since October 7th, and especially over the last several months, as these campus protests proliferated, Even though none of them involve things like detonating bombs in public places or threatening to kill innocent people or harming anybody physically.
Increasingly, we're now hearing that these protesters and these protests are actually domestic terrorism and the same kinds of extreme abridgments of civil liberties and even far worse.
need to be accepted by us in order to put a stop to this scary threat of 20-year-olds protesting on American college campuses peacefully against a war in Gaza that their government is financing.
Here is Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas speaking yesterday about this grave threat.
Listen to what he said.
We're here to discuss the little Gazas that have risen up on campuses across America and the liberal college administrators and politicians who refuse to restore law and order and to protect other students.
These little Gazas are disgusting cesspools of anti-Semitic hate full of pro-Hamas sympathizers, fanatics, and freaks.
The terrorist sympathizers in these little Gazas aren't peacefully protesting Israel's conduct of the war.
They're violently and illegally demanding death for Israel, just like their ideological twins, the Ayatollahs in Iran.
I mean, to call that rhetoric unhinged and hysterical is to gravely understate the case.
There's a bunch of, quote, little Gazas breaking out all over the country.
And who are these liberal administrators who are afraid to confront them?
Who are these politicians who are afraid to confront them?
Joe Biden has been condemning them vehemently from the start.
And now we've seen every college administrator calling in police force using major shows of force, the NYPD did, In order to take down the protesters in Colombia.
Even if what Tom Cotton said there was true, namely that it's a cesspool of anti-Semitism, that they're calling for the dismantling of the Israeli state, all absolute lies.
I'm sure there are some people there saying those things.
We've covered these protests, we've put protesters on so that you could hear from them yourself.
What motivated them is very obvious.
Like everyone, they were watching day after day after day after day videos of Israeli bombs blowing up thousands and thousands and thousands of Palestinian women and children, innocent men, destroying their entire civilian infrastructure and ultimately cutting off their borders and not letting in humanitarian aid to the point that they were on the brink of massive starvation.
And those people went and started protesting the war, as students did about the Iraq War, about the Vietnam War.
All the things that were said about the protesting of the Vietnam War and the protesting of the Iraq War were said Exactly verbatim about what Tom Cotton said.
Oh, they're just against the war in Vietnam because they're communists, they're disgusting communists, they're only against the invasion of Iraq because they worship Arab dictators like Saddam Hussein.
Just same tactics over and over.
But even if everything Tom Cotton said there was not a lie but were true, Protesters in the United States have the absolute right to express those opinions.
They're allowed to argue that Israel is an illegitimate state.
That's allowed as political speech in the United States.
They're allowed to engage in hate speech.
That's been a cause of the American right for at least the last decade.
That censoring political speech on college campuses in the name of stopping hate speech is repressive and tyrannical.
Remember all of that?
And yet, over and over now, we are regularly hearing this kind of language from the Tom Cottons of the world, that these student protesters are not just evil terrorists, little Gazas, little Hamas contingents, but that as a result of the presence of terrorists in our country exercising their constitutional right, the government needs to be involved.
That's why Tom Cotton's having a press conference.
Because they want to take all kinds of actions to interfere in the speech and discourse that is permitted to take place on American college campuses in the name of stopping this terrorism threat.
Here is Tulsi Gabbard earlier today on Fox News who has long been a vehement supporter of Israel.
Tulsi's a friend of mine.
I've spoken to her many times before.
There's a lot of things I agree with her about and a lot of things I don't.
But she has long viewed almost every political conflict involving Israel and the Middle East through this lens of the need to stop radical Islam from contaminating our shores.
And she too is trying to depict these student protests who are exercising the First Amendment right of free speech and organizing and protesting as some sort of new terrorist organization that has invaded our soil.
Listen to what she told Fox News about these protests.
We're talking about over at Columbia last night.
What are your thoughts when you're looking at that?
Again, the NYPD, law enforcement into save the day, vilified by the faculty, but there was no other choice at the end.
I mean, there's a few layers of issues here, Brian.
Obviously, it is first and foremost maintaining the peace, law and order, enforcing the laws.
We're seeing our police officers do every single day.
But the underlying issue that I hope everyone is paying attention to is the violence, anti-Semitism and the pro-Hamas calls.
You hear some of the calls that these kids are doing on these campuses saying we hope October 7th happens 10,000 times over.
They are parroting this radical Islamist terrorist ideology that Hamas, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, all of these organizations are trying to perpetuate around the world, which is the extermination of Jewish people and a propagation of their radical Islamist rule.
They want to establish Sharia law and a caliphate around the world and that's the short-term and long-term threat that these groups pose to freedom-loving people and civilization.
The real goal of these protesters at college campuses all over the country is not what they claim it is, which is to protest the Israeli war in Gaza.
Instead, it's to establish Sharia law in the United States.
There are large contingents of Jewish students, including Jewish Voices for Peace and all kinds of Jewish organizations that have been created in the wake of October 7th to oppose the war in Gaza, that are part of these protests.
The idea that they are working for Sharia law
In the United States, if that's what these protests are really about, it's not just such an obvious wild exaggeration and delusion, but it's a very dangerous one because obviously if you convince the American public that we once again have some kind of invasion of Islamist terrorists or Islamic radicals, that all the things that they acquiesce to as part of the war on terror will be things that they are willing yet again to to embrace.
And that's exactly what that kind of rhetoric is designed to do.
Now, one of the things that has really disturbed me, in addition to the laws that the House passed earlier this week and the executive order from Greg Abbott and the constant attempts of Congress to haul administrators, college administrators before them to dictate to them
the range of political speech is what the New York Police Department has been saying over this last week as justification for why they sent an army of police officers with all kinds of paramilitary gear into Colombia and...
In order to take down that encampment and remove those students from occupying that campus.
Now, the New York Police Department created a video praising itself, very melodramatic with music, showing the planning of this.
They were so proud of themselves, they were talking as if they had like taken down every organized crime family in New York and dismantled all the drug traffickers and drug trafficking gangs and had dismantled Al Qaeda and ISIS and fought and conquered the Russian and Chinese army all at once.
You would have thought that that's what they were planning for and that's what they accomplished by the way they were speaking about themselves.
Instead of what they actually did, which is remove a few dozen unarmed 19 and 20 year old college students from occupying a building that has been occupied many times in Columbia's history as part of peaceful protest.
Here is the head of the New York Police Department Counterterrorism Bureau.
That's who they assigned to these protests at Columbia and across New York City and other colleges as well.
A Counterterrorism Bureau.
So the assumption, again, is that they're trying to take this protest movement and turn it into a terrorist threat.
Now, it is true that there's some civil disobedience going on if they occupy a building and the administration tells them to leave and they don't.
They're technically in violation of administration policy.
But there have been a lot of protests that have done similar things that the American right has cheered.
Obviously there are a lot of people who think that the January 6th defendants either are heroes or were excessively punished.
Needless to say, the January 6th protesters did engage in illegal behavior, even the peaceful ones.
They broke windows.
They marched into the Capitol.
A lot of them fought with police officers, assaulted them violently.
None of that has happened in these protests.
There's the trucker protest in Canada, which I defended on every civil liberty ground.
They also broke the law.
They purposely moved their trucks in order to block transit, to block traffic for days to protest the government's COVID mandate policy.
There's a farmers protest in Holland that is also engaging in civil disobedience and shutting down transit and the flow of farming goods throughout the country.
That's what protests entail.
And you have to distinguish between protesters who break minor laws, but who do so peacefully and peacefully in the sense that they're not violently and physically attacking other people.
And protesters that are merely engaged in a form of civil disobedience that might be disruptive but by no means is some grave threat and yet the New York Times is counting this as a counter-terrorism action.
Do you see how systemic the effort is to turn this protest movement against Israel and against its war in Gaza into itself a terrorism threat?
Here is Rebecca Wiener, the head of the New York Police Department Counterterrorism Bureau, explaining why the New York Police Department needed to do what it did.
This is not about students expressing ideas.
It is about a change in tactics that presents a concern and a normalization and mainstreaming of rhetoric.
And I'm not just talking about language.
I'm now talking about tactics.
And that's what shifted our response yesterday.
But a normalization and mainstreaming of rhetoric associated with terrorism that has now become pretty common on college campuses, right?
You see people wearing headbands associated with foreign terrorist organizations.
This happened in October when you had a viral TikTok reissuing of Osama Bin Laden's 2002 letter to America.
So that's a larger concern.
Why is the New York Police Department sitting in judgment of what rhetoric, what political rhetoric they think is, quote, dangerous or impermissible?
Why is she talking about the way in which people on TikTok discovered an Osama Bin Laden letter explaining to America why Al Qaeda viewed the United States as a threat to it?
An important historical document, an important set of grievances to understand.
Remember how quickly they acted to demand that TikTok censor any discussion of that Osama bin Laden letter young people were learning for the very first time.
What the grievances were in the Middle East that generated so much anti-American sentiment, they had been fed a pack of lies.
Or even if you don't think they're lies, even if you think they had the truthful version, of course you want young adults understanding history by understanding the grievances of each side.
And that was one of the most disturbing things when they said, no, you cannot read that letter.
And they forced TikTok to ban it from its website.
The Guardian removed it.
Why is the New York Police Department talking about the discussions that took place in TikTok among young people?
Regarding this letter that they learned about for the first time about why Muslims and Arabs had so many grievances against the United States involving interference in that region.
This is not an appropriate role for the New York Police Department and the Counterterrorism Bureau to involve itself in.
Rebecca Wiener is a fanatical supporter of Israel and she has every right to do that.
But to take protesters and talk about their rhetoric being unacceptable or dangerous and to talk about discussions of the Osama Bin Laden letter as a concern, a counter-terrorism concern of the New York Police Department?
Do you see the level of free speech abridgment that the police are now sitting in judgment of what kind of speech is too extreme, what kind of speech cannot be allowed on college campuses?
There's a lot of New York Police Department officials speaking this way.
Let's hear the rest of this.
Separate from what happened yesterday, but they're related.
We do not want ideas.
We do not want campuses, which are where people are supposed to be learning and being in a conducive environment for all of the things that we do in schools, being turned into places where people are committing vandalism, property damage, and committing crimes.
Now, here is Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City, who also was very proud of himself for what the New York Police Department ended up doing, and listen to his explanation about why he thought this was so important.
When I first started seeing the protests take place in the city, it just did not fit right.
I saw similar indicators from the Black Lives Matter.
When I saw protests taking place in the city that did not sit right, who is Eric Adams to decide which political protests are acceptable and which ones aren't, based on the ideas that they're expressing?
He's a very vocal supporter of Israel as well.
Eric Adams is.
You almost have to be to win the mayorship in New York City.
And again, that's his right to be as supportive of Israel as he wants, but people have every right to protest a war that their government is funding in Gaza.
And yet, his comments make clear that he does not think that's true.
When I first saw it, it just did not fit right.
I saw similar indicators from the Black Lives Matter march, when it was brought to my attention that there were those who came to the city to disrupt our city.
And she was able to, her team was able to conduct an investigation and what I feared was actually materialized and actualized by those who were on the ground.
And I know that there are those who are attempting to say, well the majority of people may have been students.
You don't have to be the majority to influence and co-op an operation.
That is what this is about.
And so if we want to play the road police, you could do so.
I want to play the New York City police.
We're going to protect our city from those who are attempting to do what is happening globally.
There is a movement to radicalize young people.
And I'm not going to wait until it's done and all of a sudden acknowledge the existence of it.
When he says there is a movement to radicalize people, first of all, he's basically denying the agency of any of these students that they had no capacity to watch the videos that we all saw of what the Israelis were doing to the people of Gaza, to young children, to babies, he's basically denying the agency of any of these students that they had no capacity The videos that we all saw of what the Israelis were doing to the people of Gaza, to young children, to babies, to women, to innocent men.
They had no agency to be able to hear from Palestinians talking about what was happening in Gaza, to hear from human rights organizations, to see the Israelis bombing an aid car.
With a world hunger organization that has become very celebrated around the world that they can't respond to any of that and go and protest because they're horrified by what they're seeing and knowing the Biden administration is the one financing and arming it.
No, it must be that they're being radicalized.
Being radicalized is nothing more than speaking and influencing other people to understand a point of view and a cause.
That's what we all do.
We all try and communicate to persuade people to see our causes the way we see them.
That's what free speech is about.
And so again, for the mayor of New York City to say that his problem, the reason why he's activating the police force, Is because there's an attempt to radicalize our students, meaning radicalize them against the Israeli war in Gaza, where U.S.
support for Israel, which is something everyone has a right to do, again shows this repressive mindset, the one that drove the war on terror.
You just call everything terrorism that you don't like, and then everything becomes justified in the name of stopping it.
It's a global problem that young people are being influenced by those who are professionals at radicalizing our children.
And I'm not going to allow that to happen as the mayor of the city of New York.
How can the mayor of the city of New York not allow people to engage in free speech?
And this idea that there are these professional protesters or professional radicalizers, who are these people?
There's nothing wrong with being a professional protester.
You can, even when you're not in college anymore, continue to react to injustices in the world by using your First Amendment rights to protest and organize against them.
That's the right of everybody on the right, on the left, anybody has that right.
What you don't have the right to do is to be the mayor of New York City and decide that you're going to use the police force because you're angry that views that you consider radical are proliferating.
And he keeps calling them among our children.
These are adults.
College students are adults.
They're young adults, but they're adults.
And they have every right to protest whatever they want.
It's a tradition in the United States that goes back decades of young people protesting the policies of the government that they dislike.
Here's another New York City Police Department official, the Deputy Commissioner, whose last name is Kat, who also made a lot of statements about what he thinks is the role of the New York City Police Department in policing thought and opinions in the city.
I believe about 99% are students.
And, you know, Chief Shaw is going to talk about some of the literature and the leaflets that we found at both of these sites.
One being here at the New School, the other one being at the NYU.
I just want to say, and I said it before, there is somebody behind this movement.
There is some organization behind this movement.
The level of organization that we're seeing in both of these encampments here and at Columbia.
Leaflets on how to protest.
Leaflets on how to commit civil disobedience.
Leaflets on what to do when you get arrested.
Leaflets on what to say to the police when they ask you.
You're allowed to circulate leaflets Advising protesters what their rights are.
What their rights are if they get arrested, how to engage in civil disobedience in a safe way.
Of course, if people are breaking the law, that is a responsibility of the police.
But on the scale of crimes in New York City, peacefully occupying a college building that has been occupied many times for decades as part of protest is hardly something that warrants the massive attention of the NYPD.
What's clearly motivating this is the distaste for their cause, for their opinions.
And they're saying that over and over.
That, oh, leaflets were distributed advising them of what their rights are if they get arrested.
That's something that civil liberties groups do all the time and have every right to do.
There is somebody funding this.
There is somebody radicalizing our students and our deputy commissioner of counterterrorism intelligence.
We'll find out who it is.
And we'll be, we're going to be asking them some questions when we do.
So there you have it.
He's saying the counterterrorism unit of the NYPD is investigating who is influencing America's college students to turn against the war in Israel.
And they're going to find them and root them out.
Again, you have every right to try and convince young people, convince everybody that you want that the Israeli war in Gaza is immoral and that the United States financing of it and arming of it is morally wrong as well.
To convince as many people as you can of that is your absolute constitutional right.
But the reason these statements that ought to seem shocking and alarming, horrifying, Where police officials and federal politicians are standing up and saying, what we're angry about and what we're going to stop are the spread of opinions that we regard as radical, using the force of the state to do so.
The reason it all seems reasonable is because they're putting it into the context of terrorism.
They're just calling these students and their beliefs terrorists.
Exactly what was done throughout the entire war on terror, where as long as you call something a terrorism, all those abridgements, all those extreme measures Including Newt Gingrich wanting to amend the Constitution to basically dilute the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment and create exceptions for it in the name of fighting terrorism.
That's how it was all justified.
Here is a press conference that was held today where a New York State Senator named Bill Weber appeared and usually state legislators don't get to do very exciting things so they're obviously very Excited about the fact that they get to weigh in on a national issue with cameras there.
And it's really worth hearing what it is that he said about how he sees these protests and the responsibility to stop them.
...that are going on at college universities throughout New York State and really throughout the country right now is really concerning.
I want to thank the New York City Police Department for clearing the domestic terrorist and paid educators.
That's right, domestic terrorists and paid educators that were on this campus wreaking havoc, causing destruction, causing concern, intimidating students.
Students, as Jack Martin said, come here to learn, to learn these fine institutions.
And they should not have to be harassed and intimidated every single day.
So I'm proud of the New York City Police Department on what they did.
And I'm so thrilled to be here today to stand in solidarity with not only the Senate...
So he's calling the Columbia students and the students at other schools domestic terrorists.
Is that a framework you're comfortable with?
That government officials can now classify you as domestic terrorist if you gather and protest in support of a cause they dislike?
One of the things we were reporting on constantly was that before Joe Biden was even inaugurated, top Biden officials were saying that one of their priorities was to pass a bill introduced by Adam Schiff that would basically create domestic terrorism as a new crime in the United States.
Domestic terrorism is not a recognizable concept in the United States and what he wanted to do was to take all the different war on terror laws that gave the government power to fight foreign terrorism and just add the word or domestic terrorism.
And the reason they wanted to do that was because they intended to characterize the Trump movement as a criminal insurrectionary movement And they wanted to call them a terrorist movement in order to justify spying on them and police powers against them of exactly the kind that they're now doing aimed at these political protesters.
Here is the NYPD video that they created to heap praise on themselves, to treat themselves as some kind of brave, heroic fighting force because they successfully stood down Unarmed 19-year-old kids at Columbia.
And again, you would think that based on this video, they had just successfully arrested the leaders of all five families that constitute organized crime in the United States, and at the same time, dismantled all of these street gangs that plague New York City, and confronted Al Qaeda and ISIS as well.
Listen to how they talk about what they did here.
Here's the chief of the department's conference room.
They're showing the planning of this incredibly brave operation.
Can you believe they're putting this with melodramatic music as though there's such high tension as the good guys are going to confront the dangerous bad guys, the unarmed students at Columbia?
This is very similar, this picture, like they're in the Situation Room, to the one that the Obama White House released, where Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Brennan We're all watching the Navy SEALs go and confront and ultimately kill Osama bin Laden.
This is the kind of ethos, the kind of film spirit that they're trying to copy.
And again, the implication is that they're confronting dangerous terrorists rather than who they confronted, which are people who didn't resist, who marched out, who used no weapons, who wielded no weapons, who didn't even fight the police at all.
But this is what the New York City Police Department is trying to imply.
Somehow, Barry, what entrance do we believe is the entrance where we have to reach resistance?
We're not going to be moving to the top of the top.
Right, we've got some playing pro stuff up there.
We want to start getting them all up.
Police officers with all kinds of helmets and paramilitary gear and the big truck that they're using to go and confront these students to enter this dangerous building.
I mean, they're really acting like they entered some sort of ISIS camp and took down the world's most hardened and well-armed and dangerous terrorists.
Oh my god, they have like sleeping bags on they have like sleeping bags on the floor they found.
These people are monsters.
They're like a minute away from blowing up the entire New York subway system.
Can you believe the New York City Police Department filmed itself in this incredibly simple rudimentary operation?
And then produced a propaganda video complete with dangerous music and suspenseful lighting and a narration that suggests that these police officers were engaged in one of the most dangerous operations seen in the history of the New York City Police Department and yet with great skill and courage.
they were able to carry it out and protect the good people of New York City from these terrorists who were occupying this building.
It's all over the place.
And when we actually came in here, they actually had the desk barricaded up to the window.
Oh, wow, they had like school chairs, like the kind that you find in nursery school, like those little desks, those little chairs with the attached desk, these little wooden desks.
They piled about eight of them up.
And put them against the door and yet the New York City Police Department was able to overcome that incredibly sophisticated show of resistance and force to try and stop them.
They didn't blink.
They stared down these wooden chairs.
They got through the wooden chairs.
They put those sleeping bags that they found and they collected them and they did not allow them to remain on the floor.
Courage like that is unfathomable.
I'm going to come in and get you.
No job by Jesus so far, as professional as can be.
I'm going to show everything is safe before we move on.
I feel totally comfortable, totally safe with these guys.
This is who you call.
Oh, wow.
He feels totally safe with like a thousand heavily armed police officers equipped with paramilitary gear and night vision and goggles and massive guns.
He feels totally safe because they're such professionals, even though they're facing down about a hundred unarmed college kids.
is He's not scared at all.
Police need help.
They're showing themselves removing those school chairs.
And then they're going in with shields.
And there's hundreds of them.
And...
And they're taking out college students in handcuffs.
There's more scenery of the wooden chairs, the wooden school chairs.
There's like a stroller there.
Oh, there's a broken window.
So this is the mindset.
It's very much the mindset.
It's this, all of this is about continuously escalating the level of fear to make you think that basically there are Al Qaeda sleeping cells occupying every American campus.
And it's not just rhetoric, it's being accompanied with all kinds of action.
Now, watching Fox News ever since October 7th, I've been talking about this for a long time.
And just as a reminder, the first show that we did after October 7th was that Monday, October 9th.
And I began the show by talking about the dangers of 9-11 and the way in which people might react to a terrorist attack and completely lose their minds, lose any sense of proportionality And then, you know, the United States, in addition to suppressing all kinds of civil liberties, went on a spree of invasions and bombing campaigns that lasted more than a decade over a single-day attack.
And it was very predictable that the same thing was going to happen here, and that's why after October 9th, when I explained why I thought what Hamas did was unjustifiable, I proceeded to urge that people remember the lessons of 9-11.
And yet, from the beginning, starting on October 7th, watching Fox News, Reminded me, it was like watching Fox News on October 13, 2001, and throughout 2002 and 2003, they were speaking of these protesters that were scorned and contempt the way they did the protesters who were trying to stop the invasion of Iraq, while the Fox News company and every one of its personalities was cheering that war and demanding that war, a war that turned out to be a bloody disaster.
For everyone in that region, for the United States, for our military who lost their lives there over nothing.
And Fox News is just right back to doing what they're doing.
Listen to the tenor of their coverage.
But beyond that, are you worried that we could see these scenes being used as an opportunity for a terror attack?
You know, I'm not saying it's going to happen in the next 45 minutes while we're on air, but let's say it's another day of this tomorrow because the powers that be have let this thing foment.
Could you see a lone wolf or an organized group or something seizing on this moment to create a terror attack?
Or if not that, just to use this as a dry run for one in the future?
I think when you see these crowds and everything that's going on and based on what was happening in New York, they probably have made some plans altering what they're looking at doing.
So you always have that and then you always have the lone wolf actor that may take the opportunity that just gets into this and then it is his or her opportunity to do something that they want to personally get that response from.
I mean, they were looking at this student protest at UCLA and the only violence at this protest ended up being the following day when a bunch of pro-Israel counter-demonstrators showed up and began trying to dismantle the encampment, throwing metal barriers and blockades at the protesters, throwing chemical weapons into them like tear gas and the like, pepper spray.
There were protesters that were injured, pro-Palestinian protesters, that ended up being the only real violence at any of these protests, and yet Fox News looked at this protest and said, should we expect a terrorist attack to emerge out of this?
Here from the Free Press, which is Barry Weiss's site, and Barry Weiss of course is, One of the most fanatical supporters of Israel that the country knows, right next to Ben Shapiro.
I mean, it shapes and defines everything she does and says.
From Francesca Block, the title was, quote, the micro intifada, how American protesters are being trained in militancy.
Quote, guides created by radical groups are teaching pro-Palestinian students to use violence on campus.
Instructions show how to barricade doors with heavy furniture, create a, quote, shield against police using trash cans, ropes, sheets of cardboard, or a corrugated metal banner, and to pick locks using a, quote, technique developed by firemen and criminals.
If these less destructive methods don't work, the guide says, quote, more aggressive options are abundant, such as using a crowbar to open a window.
Notice that none of them Suggests, let alone encourage, the use of actual violence against protesters.
And again, the only violence, the only real violence that we've seen since these protests began was at UCLA when counter demonstrators showed up who support Israel and began physically attacking the Palestinian protesters who were there.
And yet the tenor of this media coverage constantly is hysteria.
Hysteria.
It is unhinged beyond belief.
depicting these people who are protesting a war as starting a violent intifada, as being part of Hamas, part of terrorist organizations.
This is the environment, the fear-mongering environment that has ushered in all of these government measures.
This is the framework, the groundwork that you need to lay.
Here is Laura Ingraham, who decided to invite on a student at North Carolina because the students at North Carolina became heroes of the American right and the pro-Israel wing of the Democratic Party because protesters had raised a flag of Gaza, who decided to invite on a student at North Carolina because the students at North Carolina became heroes of the American right and the pro-Israel wing of the oh look, these are the patriots we
And so Warren Ingraham had on one of these great American patriots there to defend the American flag.
Only the problem was he wasn't there to defend the American flag.
As he says himself, he was there to defend the Israeli flag.
Here's what he told her.
Isaac Mella.
Isaac, what motivated you to defend the flag?
Yeah, well, first of all, thanks for having me on.
I really appreciate it.
And I'll say, when we talk about motivation for the flag, the primary reason I was on that quad, right before this ever even began to become an American issue, I was on there because I'm Jewish, and I'm Orthodox, and a lot of members that were holding up that flag were.
And so we were there really just kind of holding up our Israeli flags and trying to stop hate, and there's been a lot of anti-Semitism around the country.
So we were there first and foremost for our country of Israel.
These were the people who were depicted as the American patriots we all admire and love so much.
These great devotees to the United States.
And repeatedly he said, oh I was there because I wanted to defend our Israel, our country Israel.
I was there because I'm a Jew and I wanted to go and wave Israeli flags.
And the whole time the video next to him is playing and there's a bunch of counter protesters waving the Israeli flag.
Not the American flag, the Israeli flag.
And they became, these University of North Carolina frat boys, such a cause celeb that someone created a GoFundMe fundraising account to throw a party in their honor.
And I think the last time I looked, it was something like $250,000 had been donated to them by people who decided that these were the great American patriots.
And yet he himself said, actually, we weren't there to defend the American flag.
We were there to defend our flag, the Israeli flag.
Now, under the new law that was passed by the House, and it's not yet a new law, it needs to go to the White House and to pass the Senate as well, but if that becomes law, one of the things that you are not permitted to say that is formally classified as anti-Semitism or anti-discrimination law on a federal level in education and public accommodations is to suggest that a Jewish person has more loyalty to Israel than they do to the United States.
That's banned.
That's now officially bigotry.
I just showed you that person.
Laura Ingraham said, what motivated you?
He said, we wanted to go and defend our Israel.
We wanted to go and wave the Israeli flag, not the American flag, the Israeli flag.
And so if you wanted to observe about this person, clearly he identifies, as he said, with the country of Israel and not the United States, that would be illegal under federal law That would be classified under this new law that the House passed that wildly expands the definition of anti-Semitism and it specifically includes examples, including saying that a Jewish person has more loyalty to Israel than to the United States.
That is part of the thing that would be banned.
What I just said about that person based on what he himself told Laura Ingraham.
Now, Matt Orfehla, who is one of the best videographers, and he constantly includes at the end of his videos a montage of people butchering his name because it's a very difficult name to say.
I believe it's pronounced Orphela, but that's one of the pronunciations that he includes in the mocking montage of people who are talking about his videos.
But he created a video for us last year that was designed to show Nicole Wallace as what we called her the typhoid Mary of disinformation.
It was one of the most watched videos on our page.
More than a million, a million and a half people have watched that video.
It was brilliantly done and he focused on this complete hate crime hoax where a Jewish student claimed that Pro-Palestinian protesters surrounded her and were chanting vulgar and hateful acts against her, were threatening her, and then stabbed her in the eye with a Palestinian flag.
That's what she claimed.
And she was all over the news where media outlets were repeating this over and over and over and over again.
And if you watch the video, you will laugh.
Nobody paid any attention to her.
They were marching by her and a bunch of people were carrying flags and one of the people walking by her accidentally had contact with that flag and her.
I mean, if you hear someone saying, I got stabbed in the eye, you would picture a person taking a flag and just pounding it into the person's eye.
That's what it means to get stabbed in the eye.
She barely got brushed.
I mean, you see her in these interviews.
There's nothing wrong with her eyes at all.
They're perfectly healthy and normal.
Just the day after she got stabbed in the eye.
But that is part of what this framework as well is.
This environment is our constant hate crimes hoaxes.
Where there's complete inventions of attacks of this kind.
Now watch how the media treated this.
Anti-Israel protests turning violent.
Our next guest saying, quote, I was stabbed in the eye.
Stabbed for being a Jew.
There's a video on my Twitter.
Divest!
We will not stop!
We will not rest!
Disclose!
Divest!
We will not stop!
We will not rest!
Disclose!
Divest!
We will not stop!
We will not rest!
Disclose!
Divest!
We will not stop!
We will not rest!
Disclose!
Divest!
We will not stop!
We will not rest!
Disclose!
Divest!
We will not stop!
We will not rest!
Disclose!
- Dibet, dibet, dibet, dibet, dibet, dibet, dibet, dibet, dibet, dibet, dibet, dibet, dibet, dibet, dibet, - Ow, ow, you're stuck. - So that's the actual footage of the video.
You saw all those people walking by.
Nobody paid any attention to her.
People were chanting their normal pro-divestment chant.
Now watch what, and then you see that last person march by with a flag, was just waving it.
And then she said, ow, ow, you stabbed me in the eye!
Now watch what happened throughout the media.
No, a complete embellishment.
One Jewish student at Yale was stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag.
Stabbing students in the eye with flags.
Stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag.
Saying that her eye had been messed up.
That she was assaulted.
Stabbed in the eye with an anti-Israel protester's flag.
A demonstrator jammed a Palestinian flag into her left eye.
Jabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag.
Stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag.
Investigating the attack.
Having her eye stabbed with a Palestinian flag.
Yes.
There's a lot of violence going on.
Injuring our guest.
Poked in the eye with a flag pole.
It's hospitalized!
You had to receive hospital treatment for your injury.
It's a heart heart attack.
Needed hospital treatment for that injury.
What is the nature of your injury?
I could just feel the pressure, what happened.
And like I have a headache.
Oh boy.
She has a headache.
That's what happened to her.
She kind of has a headache.
Let's hear the rest of this.
Sahar Tartak says she was assaulted for wearing Jewish attire.
Quite obvious.
I wore a modest dress and I have a Star of David.
Quite obvious.
And they identified us pretty much immediately.
Then what happened?
There's a video on my Twitter of students passing by me in a circle as they encircled me.
In a circle as they encircled me.
They started taunting me and giving me their middle finger.
Oh my God!
And they all, one after the other, taunted me.
All, one after the other, taunted me.
Disclose!
Divest!
Disclose!
Divest!
It was not just like one of them taunted me.
They all taunted me one after the other, waving things in my face, and then discriminated in a physical assault.
You have people getting stabbed in the eye.
Stabbed in the eye!
Stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag.
The FBI should be looking very closely at this.
This is not some inert protest movement.
It is menacing.
A Jewish Yale University student says that she was attacked during an anti-Israel protest.
Meanwhile, the IDF launched a deadly series of airstrikes.
This doctor works efficiently to help the baby girl breathe.
Her lungs not yet fully developed.
Her mother was six months pregnant when she was killed in an Israeli airstrike.
At least 22 people including 18 children are dead after an Israeli strike on Rafa Saturday night.
Israel has conducted daily air raids on the Gaza City where most of the population has taken refuge.
And it just goes on showing obviously the contrast between who the real victims are the people of Gaza And this woman who was able to turn a obviously accidental contact with a flag where she wasn't even injured except she had a headache into a complete hate crime hoax that was basically repeated on every network over and over and over.
And she just blatantly lied about what they were doing, that they circled her, that they were taunting her and yelling anti-semitic slogans at her, and then stabbed her in the eye with a Palestinian flag.
You watched them all.
They were walking by, chanting, barely even looking at her.
She was filming them, and so they would look at the camera and chant into the camera.
And she just, every time she went on air, she just played it up more and more.
Now, it would be one thing if this were just rhetorical excess, but as we've said, and as we've reported for a long time, this is being accompanied by some of the most extreme attacks on free speech and other civil liberties that we've seen in quite some time, I would say since the War on Terror.
The law this week that the House passed is absolutely remarkable in terms of how blatant and glaring of an infringement on free speech it is.
In fact, the Jewish Journal, The Tablet, today editorialized against that law saying, how dare you enact laws that limit free speech in the name of protecting Jews.
We don't want that kind of protection.
Talk about how hate speech is absolutely a constitutional right, that there's no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.
I think people are now starting to realize just how far things have gone in terms of clamping down on basic rights in the name of combating this quote-unquote terrorist threat.
But let's remember that the bill That was passed that President Biden signed that went through the House and Senate to ban TikTok or to require a change of sale to a company that would be more susceptible to pressure by the American government had been lurking in Washington for years.
And it was suddenly enacted through bipartisan support.
In November, and the reporting over and over, was that the reason Congress decided to ban one of the most popular apps, social media apps, in the United States, or to force a sale to a company that is more susceptible to American pressure, and it's very unclear whether they will be able to actually sell TikTok in any meaningful way to divest themselves of it.
So it could very well result in a ban, a ban of a social media app that a third of Americans 130 million people choose to use to communicate to organize that it could actually be banned by the government.
And it put the power in the hands of the government to ban similar apps based on its judgment that it's foreknown and presents a threat.
But the reason it finally passed was because members of all political parties became convinced That one of the reasons young people had turned against Israel was because TikTok was allowing Israel criticism to circulate too much.
And every news media outlet reported that that was the reason why this finally passed.
Here from NBC News, November 1st, 2023, quote, Critics renew calls for a TikTok ban, claiming the platform has an anti-Israel bias.
So one of the most extreme attacks on a free internet happened because They weren't censoring enough anti-Israel speech.
Quote, the perceived performance of pro-Palestinian content on the platform depends on how you parse TikTok's data.
Members of Congress, conservative activists, and wealthy tech investors are renewing calls to ban TikTok in the US, arguing that the most popular content related to the Israel-Hamas war on the app has a pro-Palestinian slant that is undercutting support for Israel among young Americans.
TikTok has been the target of criticism for years because of its Chinese ownership and concerns about government control over the app, a relationship that both Republicans and Democrats say is a threat to the personal data of users.
Now, critics allege that TikTok is using its influence to push content that is pro-Palestinian and contrary to U.S.
foreign policy interests.
The claims about TikTok's promotion of pro-Palestinian content are anecdotal, and they have been bubbling up on the social media platform Axe and statements to the media and on conservative media outlets such as Fox News.
That became the tipping point for why they were able to finally get TikTok banned, such a draconian step.
Because they convinced members of Congress and bold parties that there was too much criticism of Israel being circulated, and that was the reason why so many young people have turned against the Israeli war.
That was the reason they finally got it passed, because of concerns about too much criticism of this foreign government in Tel Aviv.
Here from the New York Times, November 8th, 2023, right in the headline, lawmakers renew calls to ban TikTok after accusations of anti-Israel content.
Quote, the criticism has put the popular video app on its heels at a precarious time.
TikTok is back in the crosshairs of Washington.
With Republican lawmakers again calling to ban the popular short-form video app amid accusations that it is amplifying pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel videos through its powerful algorithmic feed.
In the past week, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri asked the Biden administration to outlaw TikTok for its, quote, ubiquity of anti-Israel content.
Representative Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin said the app was, quote, brainwashing American youth into sympathizing with Hamas.
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida accused Beijing officials of using TikTok, his parent company is based in China, to spread propaganda to Americans.
In March of this year, The Verge published an article entitled, quote, How the House Quietly Revived the TikTok Ban Before Most of Us Noticed.
An unusually fast process, a classified briefing, phone lines clogged with teenagers in near tears.
The bill meant to force the sale of TikTok passed by a landslide.
Many members have already looked skeptically at the proliferation of pro-Palestinian messages on the app in the wake of the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas and the subsequent Israeli response that has killed tens of thousands of Gaza residents.
Some lawmakers have accused the app of boosting these messages at the behest of the Chinese government.
TikTok has denied this, saying that between October 7th and November 2nd, hashtag IStandWithIsrael had 1.5 times more views than the hashtag StandWithPalestine.
So TikTok has to try and prove to save itself that there's more pro-Israel content on the app than pro-Palestinian content.
Look how many government measures there have been and how many threatened government measures there are to seize greater power and curb more free speech rights by escalating the fears about these protest movements and young people against Israel being terrorists and terrorist threats in order to scare the population to accepting them.
Now the reality of these protests Not the anecdotes circulated on Twitter, not the hate crimes hoaxes that we've seen where pro-Israel students are wildly exaggerating and not fabricating what happened.
The actual reality, the studied research reality, was published today in The Guardian.
If we could put that headline up.
They reported the following, quote, A new report found that 99% of pro-Palestine protests at U.S.
colleges have been peaceful.
Let me say that again.
A report found that 99% of... 99% of pro-Palestine protests at U.S.
colleges campuses have been peaceful, despite remarks from Biden characterizing such demonstrations as violent.
A brief from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, the ACLD, an NGO specializing in crisis mapping, said that the vast majority of protests have remained, quote, vastly peaceful.
And one of the reasons that 99% number is not 100% is because they included the violence that happened at UCLA.
Violence that was initiated by pro-Israel counter-protesters who attacked pro-Palestinian protesters at that camp.
The idea that these students are running around attacking Jewish students violently, assaulting people, is a hoax.
It's a lie.
It's a fabrication.
And it's not just designed to demean those protests.
What it's really designed to do is to enable more and more government measures to crack down On the right of Americans to oppose the State of Israel, to criticize the Biden Administration's support for it, and the tactics that are being used, the mentality underlying it, the framework that is being constructed is exactly the same one that we watched them construct after 9-11 that led to all of the abridgments of the War on Terror.
And those abridgments remain permanent, and the ones that are being ushered in now will absolutely remain permanent as well.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after their first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all of the major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our program on those platforms, it really does help spread the visibility of our show.
Finally, 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, where we have our live interactive after show where we take questions, respond to your feedback and critiques, listen to suggestions for future shows and guests.
That after show is available solely for members of our Locals community.
And if you want to join, which gives you access not only to those twice a week after shows, but also to the multiple interactive features we have there that we publish transcripts of every show we do here in professionalized written form on that platform.
It's the place where we first publish our original written journalism and reporting, as we did yesterday with the Daily Wire story.
And most of all, it is the platform on which we rely, the community on which we rely, to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
So simply click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you directly to that community.
For those who've been watching this show, we are of course very appreciative, and we hope to see you back on Monday night and every night at 7 p.m.
Eastern, live exclusively here on Rumble.
▲
Export Selection