Congress Certifies Election Amid January 6th Hysteria; From New York To Australia: More Free Speech Attacks To Shield Israel
Dems peacefully transition power to Trump after warning that he was literally "Hitler." Plus: attacks on free speech intensify in order to shield Israel from criticism.
---------------
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
It's Monday, January 6th, a very sacred and solemn day.
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, today is January 6th, as I said, just about...
Seven seconds ago, and in our house and in this studio, this date is solemnly referred to as Insurrection Day.
For years, we were told that this is an attempted coup engineered and incited by Donald Trump, all as part of his attempt to install himself as a fascist dictator, a white supremacist tyrant, on par with Adolf Hitler, whom we were told in the last weeks before the campaign is someone about whom Trump frequently spoke.
With admiration.
One particularly absurd liberal personality on television today actually compared, in fact, equated January 6th with the Holocaust and slavery.
Now, such a comparison is understandable.
As you might recall, and I know it was four years ago, but I think it's worth remembering, nine million people were extinguished on that dark day at the Capitol in 2021, and generations of people were denied their humanity.
And all of this was accomplished with an avalanche of media lies and overnight outright neurosis and hysteria over January 6th that began from that very first day and never relented.
All of this was part of a broader effort, one really born out of desperation, to depict Donald Trump as some sort of unprecedented and existential evil, a threat to all things decent and good about our political life.
Yet today...
Every single Democrat in Congress, every single one, voted to confirm the Electoral College victory of the person they claim is Hitler.
Joe Biden, Joe Biden wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, even with those scare quotes, that's such a funny sentence.
Joe Biden wrote an op-ed, totally.
Joe Biden wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, urging that Hitler's victory be honored.
The people who spent years accusing Trump of being an insurrectionist, a fascist, a wannabe dictator.
And even a Nazi certainly aren't acting like any of that is true, given that he's about to assume the presidency in 14 days.
And we'll examine what all of this says about everything that has been turned out over the last four years.
Then, one of our primary topics of coverage over the last year and three months has been the steady and aggressive attacks in the West on core free speech rights and values in the name of shielding Israel from criticism.
Laws have been passed toward this end.
Executive orders have been issued.
Scores of people in media, politics, academia, and entertainment have been fired based on their statements.
And now we have two more extreme examples.
A newly proposed law in New York State that would specifically criminalize the removal of pro-Israel signs but no other kinds of signs.
And then the attempt to charge a prominent broadcast journalist in Australia with quote "hate crimes" for reporting on speech by the leader of Hezbollah will dissect these latest repressive measures in part because they're important and because for obvious reasons there are so few people who will do so.
Before we get to all that we have a few programming notes.
First of all, we are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app.
All you have to do is download it.
You will get all those benefits and it really helps everybody.
It helps you.
It helps every show here.
It helps the free speech cause of Rumble itself.
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 there, it really helps spread the visibility of our show.
Every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, where we have our live interactive after show.
That after show is available only for members of our Locals community, so if you'd like to join, it gives you access not just to those after shows where we take questions, respond to your feedback, hear your suggestions for future shows.
We have a lot of interactive features on that community, on that platform.
It's the place we put a lot of original, exclusive video content that we don't have time to include in this main show.
It's the place where we put professionalized written transcripts of every program we broadcast here.
We publish transcripts there the next day.
And most of all, it is the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update starting right now.
It might actually be doing a A momentary moment of silence in reflection on the solemn day today.
Today is the day when, four years ago, our democracy almost ended.
There was an insurrection, a coup, that was incited by the sitting President of the United States, Donald Trump, who gathered his supporters, about a thousand of them, and told them to go protest at the Capitol, quote, peacefully.
And they went there, and there was a riot that broke out, as often happens with protests, and it lasted about two and a half hours.
Not a single person in the Capitol brandished a weapon.
There were a grand total of four people who were killed on that dark, dark day, all of whom were Trump supporters, two of whom died of a heart attack, one of whom died of an apparent drug overdose, and the fourth Ashley Babbitt, who was shot at point-blank range by a Capitol Hill...
Police officer and killed instantly.
That was the total of the number of people killed on January 6th.
All of the quote, insurrectionists, none of the people who were targeted with the coup.
Now, today is January 6th and the Congress gathered.
As the Constitution requires, and it ratified the electoral, the results of the Electoral College that certified Donald Trump as the winner and Kamala Harris as the loser of the 2024 election.
And despite everything that we've been told about Donald Trump over the last four years, really the last eight years, that he's an existential threat to American democracy, that if he returns to the White House, there will be no more elections.
This is the last one.
That he's a figure who intends to impose dictatorship on the United States, not just dictatorship, but fascist dictatorship, white nationalist dictatorship, and that he's really a figure on par with the worst monsters in history, if not worse than them, including Adolf Hitler, who we were told right before the election took place that that was somebody that Donald Trump had repeatedly expressed admiration for, according to several of his generals who left the White House very angry with him.
And this is very odd to watch somebody who has been depicted as a fascist threat, as the worst human being that exists in history, or certainly one of the worst two or three, who intends to destroy all American democracy, be voted unanimously by the Congress to become the president in two weeks.
And it's not like they didn't have options.
They had all sorts of options.
They could have claimed fraud.
They could have ran to court.
They could have done what many of them actually vowed that they were going to do, which was vote to render Trump ineligible on January 6th on the grounds that he violated the insurrection clause of the Constitution in there before became ineligible.
In fact, if you really are passionate about some threat to the republic, if you really believe in something that passionately, like Adolf Hitler is about to take power in two weeks, that is the sort of thing you would do.
In fact, Trump supporters showed that.
Many of them really did believe in late December of 2020 and early 2021 that he was the rightful winner of the election and that there was a major theft underway to steal the election from the rightful rightful winner and hand it to the loser.
And they didn't just sit around whining about it or complaining about it and did nothing.
They actually took action, which is what you would do if you really believe in your maximalist rhetoric.
And yet, is there a single person in media Or in D.C. politics or in the Democratic Party acting as though a fascist dictator is about to take power in the United States over the next two weeks?
Is it possible that none of them who've been saying that for this long actually even believed it?
Just to give you a sense for just the unhinged absurdity that January 6th was depicted as that...
We were told we should think about January 6th as being the reason why, even if you agree with Donald Trump, even if you disagree with the Democratic Party on every issue, you should still vote against Trump because he's just too much of a great threat to our republic as evidenced by January 6th.
Here was one of the hosts of The View today, Sunny Houston, who was explaining why she refuses to allow the United States to move past The atrocity and the evils of January 6th, and here's what she equated it with.
I think we need to find moral clarity, you know, in this country.
And I just remember after January 6th, you had someone like Mitch McConnell placing the blame on January 6th where it belonged squarely on Donald Trump's shoulders.
And then you started seeing people backtrack that and losing their moral center.
You had Condoleezza Rice, I believe, on this very show saying, you know...
We need to move on from January 6th.
I say no.
You don't move on because January 6th was an atrocity.
It was one of the worst moments in American history.
And when you think about the worst moments in American history, you know, like World War II, I think we need...
Watch her as she tries to say this is like the worst moment in American history and then her brain's like, wait, I need examples of what are the worst moments in American history that January 6th is like and here's the thing she compares it to.
When you think about the worst moments in American history, you know, like World War II, things that happened, you know, like the Holocaust, chattel slavery.
We need to never forget.
Because past becomes prologue if you forget any race.
I want to ask you...
So the reason we cannot forget January 6th is because it's an utter atrocity.
One of the worst events in history on par with World War II. And she was like, some of the things that happened during the...
She was like, no, let me be very straightforward about it.
The Holocaust.
Chattel slavery.
The Democrats had been repeatedly, and even a lot of Republicans, like Mitch McConnell and others, had been repeatedly equating it with things like 9-11 and Pearl Harbor.
At least there they could say those were attacks on American democracy, this was an attack on American democracy, there was at least some rhetorical connection.
To compare January 6th to the Holocaust and to the 150-200 years of chattel slavery in the United States, Trump is demented beyond belief, and yet that was the level of desperation that a lot of people in media, a lot of liberals resorted to over the past, well, eight years since Trump descended on the escalator, but certainly since he left office and then decided he wanted to return.
Here was, right before the election, October 22nd of last year, The Atlantic.
With the headline Trump, I need the kind of generals that Hitler had.
Quote, the Republican nominee's preoccupation with dictators and his disdain for the American military is deepening.
That's really what they tried to do right before the election is to say Donald Trump is not just like Adolf Hitler.
He has expressed explicitly admiration for him.
That he was a Hitler figure.
That he's basically coming not just to end...
American democracy, the way Hitler did with German democracy, but ultimately imposed fascism in the United States.
No less of a person, at least in terms of stature, in the Democratic Party than Kamala Harris said that also in the week leading up to the election.
Here's what she had to say on CNN. You quoted General Milley calling Donald Trump a fascist.
You yourself have not used that word to describe him.
Let me ask you tonight, do you think Donald Trump is a fascist?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
You know, if any of that were true, if she really believed that Donald Trump were a fascist, if actually the entire Democratic Party at the highest levels believed he were, you would think they would be doing something other than just acquiescing to his return to power.
Here's Joe Biden on Sky News Australia when he was visiting that country in July of...
Actually, he was at a rally when he was still planning on running.
In July of 2024, it just happened to be on Sky News.
Here's what he said.
Most importantly, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, Trump is a threat to this nation.
Here was the Hill, which published on December 26, an article by two quote-unquote legal scholars, Evan Davis of Columbia Law and David Schulte of Yale Law, who...
Seemed at least to take their rhetoric seriously because they were trying as recently as 10 days ago to convince people not to allow Trump to return to the White House despite the fact that more Americans voted for him than any other candidate and that he had won the election in accordance with the rules imposed by the Constitution with the Electoral College.
They were arguing, which is what you would argue if you actually believed any of the things that people were saying about Donald Trump in the highest levels of media and liberal politics.
Which is that we can stop Trump from coming to power, and here's how we do it.
Quote, Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now.
And the argument they constructed was that you probably recall that there was an effort by the Democratic Party and by various activist groups to have Donald Trump declared ineligible to run, to have him kicked off the ballot after he had already won the Republican nomination.
And those activist groups took those lawsuits to various states where there were either Democratic majority courts, like in Colorado, or Democratic attorneys general, or secretaries of state in Massachusetts and Maine.
And their argument was that under the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, Section 3, that any citizen who is guilty of inciting an insurrection shall be ineligible to run for the presidency.
And the Colorado Supreme Court, by a 4-3 ruling, actually decided that was true, that Trump was ineligible to appear on the ballot in Colorado because they found him guilty of an insurrection.
And then quickly, Democratic Party secretaries of state began concluding that he couldn't be on the ballot in other states as well.
They were trying to kick him off the ballot, the Party of Democracy.
And that was when that case went to the Supreme Court and by a 9-0 ruling, they ruled unanimously.
All conservatives, all liberals, everyone in that court said that the states have no power to enforce that provision, that only Congress can enforce that provision.
Congress can on January 6th or any other time meet and declare somebody guilty of inciting an insurrection and therefore being ineligible to assume the office of the presidency.
So they do have an instrument.
They have a constitutional weapon.
Those two legal scholars had argued explicitly they should do just 10 days ago.
People like Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School were also insisting that Trump should be declared ineligible by Congress.
The argument was the Supreme Court basically said the only way for Trump to be ineligible under the Constitution is if we, the Congress, vote and declare him ineligible.
And so...
There were Democratic Party leaders like Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland who served on the January 6th committee and has become a kind of icon and hero in liberal politics.
And he argued last year in February that that's exactly what the Democrats not only should do but will do in the event of a Trump victory.
Here's what he said.
What can be put into the Constitution can slip away from you very quickly.
And the greatest example going on right now before our very eyes is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which they're just disappearing with a magic wand, as if it doesn't exist, even though it could not be clearer what it's stating.
And so, you know, they want to kick it to Congress, so it's going to be up to us on January 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified.
qualified and then we need bodyguards for everybody and civil war conditions all because the nine justices, not all of them, but these justices who have not many cases to look at every year, not that much work to do, a huge staff, great protection, simply do not a huge staff, great protection, simply do not want to do their job and interpret what the great 14th amendment means and I'm glad that Sherilyn's creating her new center so we can bring that back.
Now, I don't know why he said that it was only some justices.
I believe, and we should confirm this if we can, that it was a 9-0 ruling that the Colorado Supreme Court and other states lacked the authority to declare a presidential candidate and nominee of a major party ineligible for the ballot.
Only Congress could do that.
He was trying to criticize the Supreme Court.
I think he lost his courage to criticize the liberal members, even though they were part of that decision.
But I think the broader point is that Jamie Raskin was saying, and he's correct, That Congress did have the ability to vote to render Donald Trump ineligible to assume the office by accusing him of insurrection.
Why didn't they today?
Every single Democrat in the House voted to certify the Electoral College victory of Donald Trump.
It's the first election that Democrats have won since 1992 when at least some Democrats in the House didn't stand up and object to the certification of the Electoral College results.
Rather, I'm sorry, it's the first Republican victory since 1988, when George H.W. Bush won, that the Democrats in the House didn't, at least some of them, object to the certification of the Electoral College results.
They did so in 2000, when they claimed that the election was stolen by George Bush and Dick Cheney.
They did so in 2004, when leading members of Congress, including Benny Thompson, the head of the January 6th Commission, Believe that Karl Rove and this company called Diebold had manipulated the voting machines in Ohio to take away the victory from the rightful winner, which is John Kerry, and give it to George Bush, which swung the election in his favor.
So you had numerous Democratic House members objecting to the certification of Bush's victory in 2004. Then the next time they lost in 2016...
When you had multiple members of the House standing up and objecting to certification of Donald Trump's victory and even got a member of the Senate to go along with it.
This is the first time you don't have a Democrat standing up and objecting to Donald Trump's victory.
Why wouldn't you?
If you really believed anything you've been saying about him, especially because you have this weapon that Jamie Raskin just outlined and that a lot of professors on the liberal side of the aisle are suggesting should be invoked.
Let's just remember some of the things that have been said about this issue.
Here from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in October of 2021. She said, quote, any member of Congress who helped plot a terrorist attack on our nation's capital must be expelled.
This was a terror attack.
138 injured, almost 10 dead.
Those responsible remain a danger to our democracy, our country, and our human life in the vicinity of our capital and beyond.
I love that sentence.
Now, everybody was very confused.
Like, what do you mean almost 10 people died on January 6th?
First of all, why would you use that formulation?
Why not say the number of people who died?
Why would you say almost 10?
What does that mean?
Like, 6, 8, 9, 7?
What does that mean?
But, as I said, there were only 4 people who died on January 6th.
She's apparently counting some of the protesters who died.
She says five protesters died on January 6th.
I believe she said four or five.
She's counting police officers, including, as you might recall, Brian Sicknick, who we were told had his head bashed in by a fire extinguisher and died at the Capitol.
And in fact, it turned out he died of natural causes.
The autopsy said she's counting police officers who committed suicide days or weeks after.
January 6th, it would of course be embarrassing if you tried to call it a coup or an insurrection and the only people who died on January 6th, which was true, were the people who were actually there protesting for Donald Trump, one of whom was shot, two of whom died of a heart attack, and one of whom died of a drug overdose.
These were not people who were part of a well-trained militia, to put that mildly.
But there was a need to exaggerate it.
Intensely from the beginning.
And so it couldn't just be that four Trump supporters died.
You had to have other people dying as well.
And so they just lied about it constantly.
Here, just to give you a reminder of how these lies proliferated from the very beginning about January 6th.
All with the intention, while these emotions were still raw, to make it seem as though there was some kind of mass murder spree on the part of Trump supporters at the Capitol.
Listen to what...
The people who insist they're the only ones who combat disinformation ended up saying, we'll fight it.
Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the hours-long attack.
They beat a Capitol Police officer to death with a fire extinguisher.
Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the fight.
He died at the age of 42 after he was bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher.
All with such a melodramatic tone.
He was beaten.
Just think about this.
They went on television and they said that Brian Sicknick was murdered by Capitol Hill protesters because he was beaten to death.
His head was bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher by protesters.
A complete and utter fabrication.
And you just see one network after the next as usual saying it in unison.
Hear from NBC News.
Three months later, three and a half months later, reported the truth because they had to because the medical examiner pronounced it.
Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes after the riot.
A medical examiner says an autopsy revealed that Sicknick, who died hours after the Capitol riot, suffered two strokes at the base of the brain stem caused by a blood clot.
And then here from Newsweek in August, quote, four Capitol Hill police officers have died by suicide since the January 6th insurrection, and they decided just they're going to count four suicides by police officers for who knows what reason.
I mean, is it really reasonable if a police officer kills themselves?
To blame their participation in a three-hour riot, if that's not something they can withstand, what are they doing as police officers?
And could you imagine any other instance where that framework would be used if a Black Lives Matter protest happened and it turned into a riot and it was violent, which often happened, and there ended up being clashes between the protesters and the police officers, which happened?
And then a month later, a month and a half later, a police officer involved in that killed themselves.
Would anybody say, oh, this was a violent victim of the Black Lives Matter mob who murdered this police officer because they killed themselves after being involved in a clash?
Of course not.
This is a deliberate attempt to take this three-hour riot, wildly exaggerate it, with the dual purposes of trying to demonize Donald Trump and his movement, obviously, but also...
To justify domestic crackdowns by the U.S. security state, that's what they always do.
That's what they did after 9-11.
It's what they've done in countless instances where they claim there's a domestic threat.
That's the playbook.
And that was a major part of why this was exaggerated.
I don't mean to keep citing AOC, but she was really at the top of her game when it came to drama queen hysteria, even though she was nowhere near the actual riot.
She wasn't even in the building.
Here she is on CNN. In a very contemplative way, really feeling like she got a second lease on life, just escaping by the most incredible amount of luck.
Some spirit must have really been protecting her.
It was a miracle that she made it out alive.
And here she is talking about what became very close to happening, according to her, on January 6th.
I didn't think that I was just going to be killed.
I thought other things were going to happen to me as well.
So what sounds like what you're telling me right now is that you didn't only think that you were going to die.
You thought you were going to be raped.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I thought I was.
And that you now understand having thought about it is because of your experience.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think so.
I think so.
Look at that expression by Dana Bash there at the end.
She's like, this is really serious.
This is very grave.
Elsie not only thought she was going to die, she thought she was going to be raped, even though she was nowhere near anything that was happening.
That all was in her mind.
And then you might remember, hours after the riot was subdued, she went on to Twitter and she put her notorious tweet that said, quote, I'm okay.
I'm okay.
And then about three weeks later, there was a controversy because there were various stocks that were skyrocketing that Reddit speculators had purposely caused to skyrocket in order to impose a lot of financial pain on short sellers who had bet on the collapse of those stocks.
And instead, they sent those stocks like Game Store and others to a very high level.
Because it was harming very rich people, some of the apps that people were using to trade froze the selling and buying of that stock in order to protect those short sellers.
And Ted Cruz said, AOC came out and said, this seems very improper.
We should investigate.
Ted Cruz said, you know what?
I agree with AOC here.
We should join together and investigate it.
And she responded by saying, Sorry, but you tried to have me murdered three weeks ago.
I'll work with Republicans, but not ones who have tried to have me killed.
This was the insanity.
It was as bad as Russiagate, if not worse.
Everything that was being said about it.
But the issue is that it was really hard to try and discern whether or not these people actually believed what they were saying, despite how facially preposterous it was.
Or if they were saying it for a fact, for a purpose, in order to manipulate the public, to be put into a state of fear-mongering.
Usually it's a very complex mix of those two ignoble motives.
But in this case, it's no longer a question.
It's so incredibly clear that none of them meant anything that they were saying, because if they did, they wouldn't be unanimous in standing by and allowing Adolf Hitler to return to power, and yet that's exactly what they're doing.
They were urged today by Joe Biden in his op-ed, in the op-ed written by who knows who, the same people who have been running the government in his name, that was published yesterday, quote, Joe Biden, what Americans should remember about January 6th.
Quote, four years ago, our democracy was put to the test and we prevailed.
Quote, on this January 6th, order will be called.
Clerk, staff, and members of Congress will gather to certify the results of a free and fair presidential election and ensure peaceful transfer of power.
Capitol Police will stand guard over the citadel of our democracy.
The citadel of our democracy.
The Vice President of the United States, faithful to her duty under our Constitution, We'll preside over the certification of our opponent's victory in the November election.
For much of our history, this proceeding was treated as pro forma, a routine act, but after what we all witnessed on January 6, 2021, we know we can never again take it for granted.
Violent insurrectionists attacked the Capitol, threatened the lives of elected officials, and assaulted brave law enforcement officers.
We should be proud that our democracy withstood this attack and we should be glad we will not see such a shameful attack again this year.
But we should not forget.
We must remember the wisdom of the adage that any nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it.
We cannot accept a repeat of what occurred four years ago.
An unrelenting effort has been underway to rewrite, even erase the history of that day, to tell us we didn't see what we all saw with our own eyes, to dismiss concerns about it as some kind of partisan obsession, to explain it away as a protest that just got out of hand.
That's exactly what it was, a protest that just got out of hand.
In time, there will be Americans who didn't witness the January 6th riot firsthand but will learn about it from footage and testimony of that day, from what is written in the history books and from the truth we pass on to our children.
We cannot let the truth be lost.
I allow the truth to be lost.
Thousands of rioters crossed the National Mall and climbed the Capitol Wall, smashing windows and getting down doors just blocks away.
A bomb was found near the location of the incoming vice president, threatening her life.
Law enforcement officials were beaten, dragged, knocked unconscious, and stomped upon.
Some police officers ultimately died as a result.
None of that is true.
I can basically dissect it sentence for sentence.
But do you see the rhetorical effort to depict it as belonging in the pantheon of major moral evils in the United States, similar to what Sonny Huston did?
Whoever wrote the article for Biden had enough sense to be sufficiently subtle, not to explicitly compare it to the Holocaust and slavery, but that's the ethos of the language being invoked.
This is something that is going to be in our history books.
We can't allow revisionism.
People who didn't live through this heinous event are going to have to learn about it.
But again, if Joe Biden or anybody writing on his behalf actually believes any of this, why aren't they taking the action commensurate with that belief?
Probably remember about a month ago, Joe Biden invited the insurrectionist Nazi to the White House and shook his hand and said, whatever you need, we will be happy to give you.
None of this is the behavior of people who believe in any of the things that they're saying.
From the New York Times today, January 6th, that solemn day that will go down in American history forever.
Congress certifies Trump's victory in ritual disrupted by violence in 2021. Vice President Kamala Harris announced Donald J. Trump's win in a quick session without drama, a stark contrast from four years ago.
Why?
If the Trump supporters were willing to protest on the streets, Because they thought they had the election stolen.
Why wouldn't Democrats be doing more to disrupt the natural order of business if they think that a Nazi, white supremacist, fascist is returning to power?
Obviously, the New York Times needed to do a retrospective to remind everybody of it.
The New York Times today, the January 6th rioters, four years later.
And then here from NBC News.
Congress certifies Trump's 2024 election win four years after he inspired a riot.
You see the attempt, not just to report on what happened, but the constant attempt to massage and manipulate the headline.
CNN, this was, it says, yeah, it's January, it's today.
Four years after his supporters invaded the U.S. Capitol, Trump is more powerful than ever.
You know, it's really, the thing that amazes me, And I actually was on Megyn Kelly's show earlier today, for those of you who haven't seen that or want to watch it, and we touched on this a little bit.
The strategy of the Democratic Party and its allies in media and the establishment of the Republican Party that was devoted to Donald Trump's defeat was very clear.
It was to say, don't care about policy or ideology or any of the dissatisfactions that you have in your life.
There's something bigger at stake.
It's January 6th and our democracy and this person who wants to dismantle it.
And that was what the whole tactic was about with joining with Liz Cheney and parading her around and talking about the Republicans that were supporting Kamala Harris, which was to say even these conservatives don't agree with us on anything.
And that, by the way, was a false sense as well.
Even Liz Cheney said the reason we're supporting Kamala Harris is just because of January 6th, but because we agree more with And that tactic turned out to be a towering abject failure.
No one voted on that.
No one cared.
Nobody thought that Donald Trump was some grave existential threat to American democracy who wasn't already going to vote against him anyway.
That's not the thing that Americans are waking up and worrying about.
They've repeatedly said what they're worrying about in poll after poll after poll, and it's not that.
And yet Democrats and their media allies had nothing else.
They had clung to this narrative for so long, just like in 2016 they clung to the narrative of Russiagate that nobody cared about.
And even though they know that no one cares about it, even though they know it fell on deaf ears, they just cannot relinquish it.
It's like an addiction.
To just give it up would be to admit, like, oh, actually, this didn't really, this was never really as important as we tried to pretend it was.
Is there another example of, and I know, I think even as a very long-time, harsh, devoted, not just critic of, but Someone who really harbors a lot of contempt for the corporate media, even I sometimes think, oh, their lies and propaganda can't be that deliberate, can't be that systematic.
Just look at how often they lie, how continuously and relentlessly they push fault narratives that are only about their politicized agenda, and every time it gets exposed, every time it gets revealed, they continue to insist that they either got it right or they just move on as nothing happened.
The same thing was true with Claiming that anybody concerned about Joe Biden's cognitive decline was engaged in right-wing disinformation.
Only for that, obviously, to have been fully vindicated in every way.
And yet, over and over, they were insisting, angrily, that anyone questioning Joe Biden's cognitive abilities was engaged in some sort of twisted propaganda.
This is why faith and trust in the media has completely collapsed.
You can just almost every night give a different example.
But to try and equate January 6th as a coup and insurrection on par with 9-11 and Pearl Harbor or the Holocaust and slavery to depict Donald Trump as a Nazi-like figure, only to then completely abandon it and not follow through on any of the steps you would absolutely embrace if you truly had that authentic conviction that that was true?
Is this going to erode all of this even further?
None of their actions are commensurate with their state of beliefs and that basically is another way of saying not just that somebody lied but that they are very well aware that what they said was a lie.
I'd like to ask you a question.
Are you still drinking normie coffee that isn't fueling your fight for health and freedom?
Because if you are, it is definitely time for an upgrade.
1775 Vitality Coffee isn't just coffee.
It's packed with lion's mane, reishi, cordyceps, shaga, turkey-tailed mushrooms.
It's coffee that doesn't just wake you up.
It keeps you sharp.
Lion's Mane and Reishi supercharge your focus.
Cordyceps delivers energy without the crash.
And their hand-picked Bolivian beans deliver bold flavor that corporate coffee can only dream of.
No fillers in any of this.
No nonsense.
Just coffee that works as hard as you do.
Proudly backed by Rumble, the platform that stands for free expression and for independence.
You can head to 1775.coffee.com and use the code GLEN for 15% off and make your mornings very vibrant and free with coffee that delivers bold flavor, uncompromising quality, and the freedom that Rumble stands for and tries to preserve every day.
There are a lot of conservatives and people on the right who have been waiving the free speech banner for many years and they still continue to do so on the one hand, even as on the other, many of them, by no means all, but many of them, continue to cheer for and support or at best just overlook and acquiesce some of the gravest continue to cheer for and support or at best just overlook and acquiesce some of the gravest assaults on free speech that
That all have the sole singular objective of shielding this foreign government on the other side of the world.
the world called Israel from criticism or activism even though it's our constitutional right both to criticize and engage in protest against them.
We have detailed over and over every kind of example from the House's support of and implementation of the so-called Combating Anti-Semitism Act that's designed to codify a very broad definition of anti-Semitism for purposes of education and discrimination law that basically make it illegal to say all sorts of things about Israel or American Jews that people have been saying forever.
Ron DeSantis in Florida tried to ban, did ban, pro-Palestinian groups on the grounds that they were providing, quote, material support for terrorism, even though the only thing that he ever claimed they did was criticize the Israeli war in Gaza.
And obviously, material support for terrorism can't be composed of only speech, and yet he ordered the pro-Palestinian groups banned from all campuses.
In Texas, Governor Abbott...
Who has a long history of implementing laws that are designed to punish critics of Israel issued an executive order banning anti-Semitism in Texas.
And according to that executive order promising that the police would be deployed in the event that there are protests against Israel and that's exactly what he then proceeded to do.
There have been scores of people in media and Hollywood and journalism and politics and academia fired.
For no reason other than signing anti-Israel petitions or pro-Palestinian petitions or making pro-Palestinian statements.
It's been a systematic effort both legally and constitutionally to erode free speech and in terms of our values to destroy the ability of people to speak freely solely to protect this tiny little country on the other side of the world who the United States, for whatever reason, and continues to fund fully and arm and isolate itself from the rest of the world to protect, even though millions of its citizens live at a higher standard of living than millions of ours do.
We have two late examples, recent examples, just to give you a sense for how this is continuing to escalate.
Politicians and all sorts of pro-Israel fanatics constantly trying to find new ways to punish people who criticize that one foreign government.
In the New York State Senate, A new bill entitled Senate Bill S-531 was introduced, and essentially, well, I'll just read the summary that the sponsors wrote.
Quote, this bill will enact the New York State Anti-Semitism Vandalism Act, which establishes the crime of vandalism of pro-Israel print.
Let's just, if someone can give me that highlighter, because I want to, I mean, you see it highlighted there in green already.
But I just like yellow, so let's make it green and yellow.
It establishes the crime of vandalism, a pro-Israel print, which provides a class A misdemeanor for anyone, any individual who intentionally destroys, damages, removes, or causes to be destroyed, damaged, or removed, any banner, poster, flyer, or billboard, which is located in a public space where the intent or purpose of such banner, poster, flyer, or billboard It's to bring awareness for Israeli individuals who have been victims of a crime.
So this bill is only about the destruction or removal or vandalization of billboards or posters that are designed to bring awareness for Israeli individuals who have been victims of a crime or to positively support the country or citizens of Israel in any way.
That's the bill.
So let me just explain this.
If you put up a bill, a poster, that supports Ukraine or supports Canada or Norway or Korea or Uruguay or any other country in the world, including your own, the United States, and somebody comes and tears it down or vandalizes it or makes some attempt to destroy it or causes someone else to do so, that is not a crime under this law, under this bill.
There's only one type of speech this law is intended to protect, which is speech that is designed to bring awareness for Israeli individuals, not for American individuals.
If you put a poster up saying, here are American citizens who are being mistreated, who have been victimized, and someone comes and tears it down, that is not a crime under this bill.
It is only a crime under this bill if the poster in question is designed to bring awareness about Israeli individuals, or To positively support the country of Israel or the citizens of Israel in any way.
You could put a poster up saying the United States is the greatest country in the world.
We're so happy that we have such great leaders.
American citizens deserve better.
Someone comes and tears that down or vandalizes it.
That's not a crime.
Nor is it a crime if it's about any other country or any citizen of other countries.
Only if it's about Israeli citizens.
Or it's designed to support or positively support the country or the citizens of Israel in any way.
That's the only time it becomes a crime in the state of New York, which is about 7,000 miles away from the country it's designed to protect.
Here is Section 3, Subdivision 7 of Section 693, which says that section that I just cited of the educational as amended, By adding a new paragraph, A1, to read as follows.
A1. This is adding to an existing law, quote, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the corporation shall be entitled to garnish the disposable pay of an individual to collect the amount owed by the individual if such individual is found guilty of anti-Semitism by any administrative tribunal or court of competent jurisdiction, including in a disciplinary proceeding brought by a higher education institution.
So remember I just got done saying that the House has implemented the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act designed to radically expand the kinds of statements you might express about Israel or Jews that now become illegal in the educational system.
And this bill is saying if you are found guilty of that, a corporation can garnish your wages or take other enforcement action against you.
As punishment for anti-Semitic speech.
Not for anti-black racist speech.
Not for xenophobic speech.
Not for homophobic speech.
Not for transphobic speech.
Not for Islamophobia.
Not for hateful acts or statements against white people or Christians.
Only against Jews or the state of Israel.
It's a special crime.
Exclusively for people who express that kind of view.
And that should be shocking, but at this point, it just isn't.
It's not even remotely shocking anymore because that has become the ethos in the United States, and it's been this way for a long time.
One of the things that I still continue to be amazed by that has never gotten enough attention, I've written about it many times myself, and a couple of others have as well, But many states, including Texas that I mentioned, actually implemented a law that made it illegal to boycott the state of Israel.
You can boycott any other country in the world.
You can even boycott states in the United States, your own country.
You may recall there was a boycott of Georgia because it's a voting law which was alleged to be designed for voter suppression, even though Georgia just had a record number of votes.
There was a boycott of Indiana and North Carolina because of bills that enacted banning trans people from using the bathroom of their identity rather than their biological birth.
And those are completely fine.
You're free to support boycotts of other states or any other country.
Just not one.
Israel.
And what these states did was they...
They enacted a law that said, if you work for the state, if you have a contract with the state, you are required to sign a loyalty pledge saying that you will not engage in a boycott of Israel and you do not support a boycott of Israel.
That is a precondition to receiving contract work for the state.
Again, it's not a boycott in general.
It's a boycott solely of Israel.
Most of these were done by red states.
Andrew Cuomo in New York actually issued this by executive order.
He wrote an op-ed saying, if you boycott Israel, we will boycott you.
And yet this same Andrew Cuomo actually ordered his employees to avoid travel to Indiana or North Carolina unless it was an emergency as protest of their trans-bathroom bill.
So he ordered a boycott of his own country states and then turned around and said, if you boycott Israel, though, you will be punished.
We will not do business with you.
Here you see it on the map.
The states in which this Israel-specific bill was enacted, and by the way, a lot of federal courts, when people sued, have found these laws unconstitutional, yet they remain in the books, and there are jurisdictions in which that legality has not yet been decided.
There you see it includes Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arkansas, Minnesota, Nevada, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, Utah, Missouri, Idaho, West Virginia, Kansas, North Carolina, Utah, Missouri, Idaho, West Virginia, Colorado, Mississippi, and New Hampshire.
These are state legislatures enacting laws signed by the governor that have no purpose other than to ban people from working for those states if they participate in a boycott of Israel.
It just, and it doesn't even have New York here, which issued that executive order under Andrew Cuomo.
It could actually be gone by now.
Here you see in the Intercept in 2018 when I was there, I wrote about the case of a speech pathologist at an elementary school in Texas who had worked as a speech pathologist for many years.
She worked specifically with students who have speech disabilities and deficiencies.
And she had...
Perfect performance reviews for many years.
American citizen in Texas announces that you have to sign this pledge not to boycott the state of Israel.
And she refused to sign because she does support the boycott of the state of Israel as a way of forcing them to withdraw their occupation of the West Bank and their blockade of Gaza, which is considered around the world as illegal.
And she lost her job because she refused to sign that pledge.
She ended up suing in federal court.
She actually won.
But this is the sort of thing that has been going on for many years in the United States.
Abject, direct, brutal assaults on free speech to protect this one foreign country.
In Australia, one of the most prominent broadcast journalists in that country was formerly accused of anti-Jewish hate speech.
Because of the fact that she linked to and described and reported on a speech given by the leader of Hezbollah.
Here you see the Sydney Morning Herald in July of 2014. Mary Kosakidis, a respected former newsreader and public face of the national multicultural broadcaster SBS, is accused of misusing her public standing and social media following to share, quote, extreme and hateful speech against Jews.
In a complaint to be filed with the Australian Human Rights Commission, Zionist Federation of Australia Chief Executive Alon Kazudo, who, by the way, is a dual citizen of Australia and of Israel, alleges that Kostikidis breached racial discrimination laws by promoting a speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah in which he said there was no place for Jews in Israel and the occupied territory, sharing a link to the speech on her social media account on January 4th.
Quote, "Sakidis declared, quote, the Israeli government getting some of its own medicine.
Israel has started something it can't finish with this genocide." You can obviously agree with that or disagree with it.
You can think it is a genocide or it's not.
The idea that it should be criminal for a journalist to say that is insane.
It is madness.
And yet she was formally charged.
Remember that whole right-wing thing about how prosecuting people or formally trying to silence them for quote-unquote hate speech is a grave threat.
It's a form of tyranny.
Did you hear any of the free speech heroes who have built their career on that but who also worship Israel, the Ben Shapiros and Barry Weiss's, say a word about this?
Of course not.
These are the kind of things they've either supported or fueled.
Occasionally, maybe in the most extreme cases, in a very cursory way, suggest that they think it goes a little bit too far just to say they can, but nothing like the obsessive focus on what college sophomores are doing in college campuses.
Here was the speech of Nasrallah that she linked to, and it was on Al Jazeera.
It's obviously newsworthy.
He was, before he was killed, a very influential figure in the Middle East.
Of course, a journalist ought to be reporting on what he said and linking to his speech, and if the journalist wants, saying that some of the points he made are good ones, you can link to a speech by Netanyahu and say, I think Netanyahu is...
Justifying the war in Gaza based on very strong, sound arguments like many journalists do, you're allowed to have whatever opinions you want without being formally charged.
Here is the leader of the Zionist group in Australia, Alon Kazuto, CEO of the Zionist Federation of Australia, proud Jewish Australian, Israeli, and Italian, father, husband, human.
And there he has...
The three flags that he is a citizen of with Israel first.
Israel first, unsurprising, even though he lives in Australia, which is second, and Italy third.
And here is what Mary Costacitus was forced to respond to.
She said, statement regarding the CEO Zionist Federation of Australia.
Six months ago, a complaint was filed against me under 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act over a post I made on X sharing a speech of Hezbollah to Hassan Nasrallah.
A number of highly defamatory and gratuitous comments were made about me by several parties around the time of that filing.
On December 11th, I engaged in mediation with a complaint at the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Now, let me just say here that there have been a lot of places in the West, in Canada, in...
Germany and the UK, where people who have made anti-Muslim statements or anti-Islam statements have been summoned before human rights commissions to be charged with hate crimes, and I've repeatedly defended those people and criticized the process of hate speech prosecutions as an obvious frontal assault on free speech.
And other people did as well who agree with the anti-Muslim statements, but none of the ones I know have objected to this or similar cases like it.
Even though it's exactly the same thing, just directed at a different group.
She goes on, quote, "The matter has not resulted in an agreement.
Consequently, I've decided to post the following statement with respect to my post of Nasrallah's speech, the offense taken, and accusations I am an anti-Semite in the hope that it resolves Quote, I condemn anti-Semitism and racism of any kind.
I did not and do not endorse the content of the speech made by Hassan Nasrallah, which I shared on my X account on 4 and 13 January 2024. I accept that some of his comments may be seen as anti-Semitic, but that is not a barrier to reporting them.
To the Jews and or Israelis in Australia who took my post as an endorsement, I am sorry for their hurt, distress, and pain.
Imagine a climate that has been created where a journalist is required to apologize for reporting on a speech by a major figure in the Middle East because Israelis on the other side of the world or Jews in your own country or other supporters of Israel, oftentimes who are not Jewish, certainly that's true in the United States, dislike the speech, not even anything you've said about it.
And then they formally prosecute you or charge you with hate crimes.
Here is that Alon Kazuto, who's a dual citizen of Israel and Australia, responding with his own statement earlier this week.
Quote, in July 2024, I lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission against former journalist Mary Katzakidis after she shared a call by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah for Jews to be ethnically cleansed from, quote, the river to the sea.
Now let me just stop there and say, that isn't what she said, but even if it is, it's obviously protective speech.
Do you know how many Israelis, Or Western supporters of Israel have advocated the ethnic cleansing of Arabs and Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank.
In fact, the formal platform of the Likud party, which is Benjamin Netanyahu's party, the ruling party in Israel, actually says that the entire land of Israel, quote, from the river to the sea, belongs to the Jews.
And you have generals and Israeli officials who are saying, let's get rid of Arabs from Gaza and have it be Jewish land.
I think it's morally reprehensible.
I think it's evidence of ethnic cleansing, but I don't think that their speech should be criminalized, nor should this speech, agreeing with Nasrallah.
Quote, he goes on, this rhetoric from a prescribed terrorist organization constitutes unlawful hate speech, deeply offending and intimidating our community.
Yesterday, Ms. Kosakidis apologized for the hurt she caused and acknowledged the content of Nisrola's speech she proposed was anti-Semitic.
She did so while continuing to regularly pose deeply offensive content, including conspiracy theories about the firebombed Addis Synagogue in Melbourne.
As a result, I am considering my options.
So even when you apologize for something that you've done nothing wrong for, it's never It just fuels these sociopaths.
It makes them even more drunk with power.
It gives them a sense that they were vindicated and validated all along.
And these two examples, although extreme, obviously so, have become so common they're not surprising.
This whole attempt to attack and assault free speech in the name of protecting Israel has become completely normalized in the West.
And the problem with this is, and I talked to Tucker Carlson about this on his show at the very beginning when it became evident this was happening and that conservatives, many of them, who prioritize Israel over everything else were supporting this.
Is that it's very difficult to rely on the left liberals in the West to object to this sort of censorship because of how many years they've spent cheering censorship.
When it advanced their own interests, they would turn around and start complaining about online censorship or prosecution for hate speech crimes.
Nobody would take them seriously.
And as Tucker put it, through a combination of a bunch of happenstance, it became...
Incumbent upon conservatives in the Western right to defend free speech and carry that banner, and yet everybody has watched them turn around, a huge number of them, and completely abandon that and sound exactly like the left-wing censors in order to defend and shield Israel from criticism or to advance the victimhood narrative about anti-Semitism the way the left loves to do about racism or misogyny or whatever to justify censorship.
And as he said, and I agree, and I've said it many times before too, who's going to be left to credibly defend free speech in the West when so many major factions are so willing to abandon it the minute their own interests are advanced by doing so?
At least they perceive that.
They have an opportunity to silence their critics.
The fact that this has been done in the West not to shield our own government or our own country or our own traditions From attack and criticism, but to protect a country on the other side of the world that's so important, sacred, and holy to so many people for all sorts of religious and cultural and ideological reasons makes it even more disturbing.
But that's exactly what's happening.
In a year and three months after the October 7th attack, none of this is relenting.
To the contrary, it continues to worsen and escalate.
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 the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms where if you rate, review, and follow our program, it really helps spread the visibility of our show.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday nights, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals where we have our live interactive after show.
That after show is available only for members of our Locals community, so if you'd like to join, We publish a lot of exclusive original video content, interviews, and segments we don't have time to include in this show.
It's a place we publish written, professionalized transcripts of every show we broadcast here.
We publish there the next day.
And most of all, it is the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
All you have to do is click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and we'll take you directly to that community.
For those who have been watching this show, we are, needless to say, very appreciative, and we hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m.
