Federal Court Dismisses & Mocks Lawsuit Brought by Pro-Israel UPenn Student; Dave Portnoy, Crusader Against Cancel Culture, Demands No More Jokes About Jews
A federal court dismissed and called out the absurdity of a lawsuit brought by pro-Israel students alleging that the University of Pennsylvania allowed for antisemitism on campus. Plus: Dave Portnoy, who used to vehemently oppose "woke" cancel culture has a meltdown over jokes about Jewish people. ----------------------------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update: Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook LinkedIn
Hi, I'm Richard Karn, and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one expandable garden hose.
Well, the brand new pocket hose copperhead with pocket pivot is here, and it's a total game-changer.
Old-fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the copperhead's pocket pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home.
When you're all done, this rust-proof anti-burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage.
Plus, your super light and ultra durable pocket hose copperhead is backed with a 10-year warranty.
What could be better than that?
I'll tell you what.
An exciting radio exclusive offer just for you.
For a limited time, you can get a free Pocket Pivot and their 10-pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size copperhead hose.
Just text WATER to 64000.
That's WATER to 64000 for your two free gifts with purchase.
W-A-T-E-R to 64,000.
By texting 64,000, you agree to receive recurring automated marketing messages from Pocket Hosts.
Message and data rates may apply.
No purchase required.
Terms apply available at pockethost.com slash terms.
Good evening, it's Tuesday, June 10th.
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 U.S. has been consumed for almost two straight years now with a victimhood narrative that holds that American Jews in general and Jewish students on college campuses in particular are uniquely threatened, marginalized, and endangered.
The U.S. Congress has held endless hearings and investigations, and both it and the executive branch have issued a seemingly weakly set of new measures and laws designed to combat this alleged epidemic of anti-Semitic bigotry sweeping the country.
The Trump administration has taken unprecedented steps to threaten and control universities in the name of stopping all of this.
One of the faces of this student victimhood narrative has become Yal Yacobi, who is a vocal pro-Israel activist and a student at the University of Pennsylvania.
In 2024, he was invited by House Republicans to stand next to House Speaker Mike Johnson, and he proclaimed, I do not feel safe.
And he said it over and over.
I do not feel safe.
It's kind of become the motto for his adult life.
Now, he seized on those opportunities by initiating a lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania seeking damages for what he said was the school's failure to fulfill its duties to keep him safe.
Mind you, he was never physically attacked, never physically menaced, never physically threatened, but nonetheless claimed that the school had failed to keep him safe and told the Congress and the country that he did not feel safe.
But the federal judge who was presiding over his lawsuit, who just happens to be a Jewish judge, a conservative judge, appointed by George W. Bush, not only dismissed Jacoby's lawsuit as without any basis, but really viciously mocked it.
Depicting his claims as little more than petulant, entitled demands from a privileged Ivy League student that he not be exposed to any ideas or political activism that might upset him.
Sort of depicting him as the princess and the princess and the pea parable about a princess who's so sensitive to anything that might concern her that she's even unable to sleep if there's a pea buried beneath the 17th mattress on which she sleeps.
Now, this judicial decision is worth examining not only for the schadenfreude of watching one of America's whiniest pro-Israel activists be exposed as the self-interested fraud that he is, but also for what it says about the broader narrative that has been so relentlessly pushed and so endlessly exploited from so many corners,
insisting that the supreme victim group of the United States is, of all people, American Jews, and therefore numerous laws and special protections, including free speech erosions, are justified in the name of protecting this one singular minority group.
We'll look at the lawsuit, the rationale dismissing and mocking it, and what it says about this broader narrative.
Then, speaking of extreme entitlement, Barstool founder Dave Portnoy made quite a name for himself over many years by ranting against the evils of cancel culture.
Championing the virtues of free speech and viciously mocking as snowflakes and as people who are far too sensitive, anyone who takes offense at jokes, offensive jokes told by comedians.
That is what made it so odd yet so telling when this weekend we watched the very same Dave Portnoy viciously berate one of his employees for disagreeing with Portnoy's insistence.
That while jokes about everyone and every group continue to be appropriate, continue to be something we ought to celebrate, there must now be one exception.
Namely, according to Portnoy, jokes about Portnoy's own group, American Jews, must now be suspended and deemed too dangerous to permit.
This is the type of extreme contradictory reasoning we have repeatedly seen in our discourse from many of our country's most vocal self-proclaimed free speech champions and opponents of cancel culture.
Where they've suddenly decided over the last couple of years that all of these freedoms they had been defending, all of these sensitivities that they had been mocking suddenly have an exception.
When it comes to their own group, and yet this particular case of Dave Portnoy here is so extreme and glaring that it has its own illustrative value and therefore is worth examining.
And so that's what we're going to do.
And finally, President Trump earlier today talking about the protests and the tumult in California and Los Angeles issued what has long been a tempting measure for politicians of all kinds to advocate.
namely that anyone who burns the American flag should be criminally charged for doing so and even face jail time President Trump earlier today said that people who burn the American flag ought to be facing prison for up to one year previously one of the most vocal and relentless advocates for such a measure was Hillary Clinton Who, during her time in the Senate, repeatedly sponsored laws that would have provided for criminal punishment for people who burned the American flag.
The problem with that proposal, one of many, is that the Supreme Court has clearly held more than once that burning any political flag, including the American flag, is clearly protected political speech.
Obviously, if you do so in a way that might endanger people or start a fire or harm anybody.
That's already a crime.
It doesn't matter what you use.
You can use the American flag.
You could use the Chinese flag.
You could use any inflammatory material.
That's not what we're talking about.
The issue is whether you can criminalize the mere act of burning the American flag.
And the Supreme Court said that the burning of the American flag is clearly designed to convey a political message and therefore is protected as free speech under the First Amendment.
As a result, the only way to change that, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't decide on its own to reverse itself, would be to amend the Constitution to basically create an exception to the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment of the Constitution that says that even though free speech is protected, We'll examine the political and the constitutional implications of what has been a proposal for many politicians and what today, earlier today, Donald Trump himself endorsed as well.
Before we get to that, we have a programming note, which is that System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after they first broadcast live here on Rumble, on Spotify, Apple, and all their major podcasting platforms, where if you rate, review, and follow our show, it really helps spread the video.
The visibility of our program.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
you There have been really a lot of radical and fundamental changes, first on the political culture and then in our legal landscape.
As a result of the attack on October 7th, and particularly the desire in the United States by both parties to arm the Israelis, to fund the Israelis, to protect the Israelis, as they went about and destroyed Gaza.
And the obviously most significant implications were for the people In Gaza who have faced some of the most horrific atrocities we've seen, certainly in this century, perhaps in our lifetime.
But it's also had a lot of serious effects, I would argue quite harmful effects, particularly for our civil liberties, at home.
And much of that has been accomplished by insisting that there is a victim group in the United States that is so endangered, so So discriminated against, so marginalized,
so hated, so attacked, that all sorts of new measures by the government need to be introduced in order to protect this one particular minority group, which happens to be American Jews, who began insisting in large numbers that— Both the general sentiment against the war in Gaza by Israel but also the protests on college campuses put American Jews in general and American Jewish students on college campuses in particular in a kind of severe,
virtually unparalleled danger.
And of course they insisted on this even though these protest movements were often Not only composed of, but led and organized by many Jews.
The target of these protests had nothing to do with targeting Jews themselves, but only supporters of the Israeli war in Gaza.
Nonetheless, there emerged this very familiar victim group that conservatives had long spent mocking, viciously mocking, when offered by the left in defense of any other group.
African Americans or black people in the United States are uniquely endangered, therefore we need these measures to protect them.
Women have long been repressed and therefore we need affirmative measures to elevate women and to empower them.
Trans people or immigrants or Muslims, same kind of narrative.
This has been viciously mocked by conservatives as kind of a whiny, petulant.
Self-victimizing narrative and yet suddenly in the last two years it became not only embraced but almost mandatory among a lot of factions of American conservatives to endorse the view that black people are not a victim group, trans people are not a victim group, Latinos or Muslims are not victim groups.
Native Americans are not victim groups.
The real victim groups are American Jews, and in particular Jewish students on campuses.
And both parties in Congress led the way in not just embracing but perpetuating and insisting upon the truth of this narrative, and not just the narrative itself, but all sorts of measures that were justified in the name of combating this bigotry.
It became a top priority of the U.S. government and continues to this very day to be a top priority.
Of huge numbers of people in Congress, I think Congress spends its time on no issue more than it does on this one, even into 2025.
That's something Marjorie Taylor Greene observed today, as we'll show you, and I think it's undoubtedly true that it remains one of the top priorities.
In the latter part of 2023, The U.S. Congress, the Republican-led Congress in the House, decided to begin summoning Jewish students from around the country who are vocal supporters of Israel to testify in Congress about how endangered Jewish students are.
None of the people who they called to testify had actually been physically attacked in any way, had not been physically threatened, had not been physically menaced.
They insisted, though, that they were unsafe.
And felt unsafe, felt scared, felt terrorized, felt to be the targets of violent bigotry as a result of the protests against the Israeli government taking place on their campuses.
One of the people who became a kind of victim star, a star of this victim movement, was named Shabbos Kastenbaum, who was a very, very underprivileged and discriminated against marginalized student at Harvard.
He kind of had a starring role when he spoke at the Republican National Committee.
We had him on our show one time to talk about all of the difficult atrocities he's had to endure in the United States as a Jewish student at Harvard.
It was very moving, very tragic.
I remember to this day the sadness and anger that I felt for all the things that he has had to suffer.
And here he is at, I do want to offer you a kind of, I guess you'd call it a trigger warning, a little bit warning that a lot of what he's about to say here is very, very emotionally heavy.
A lot of you will feel an extreme level of empathy for him, a lot of sadness for him.
He's clearly very traumatized.
So if any of you have faced similar trauma, you might want to turn away for a while.
You might not want to watch it.
I personally find it difficult to think about the sorts of things that he was subjected to.
But here, in the name of news, we're going to show it to you nonetheless, of Shabbos Kastenbaum describing his experience and the danger he faces as an American Jewish student at Harvard.
The first day of Passover, hundreds of Harvard students and faculty members set up encampments in Harvard Yard in direct violation of Harvard policies, demanding that Harvard divest all monies from the Jewish state.
The protesters cheered thunderously when they replaced the American flag overlooking Harvard with that of Palestine.
They screamed about globalizing the Intifada, drew pictures of our Jewish university president with horns and a tail, and screamed at all hours of the day that, quote, Palestine will be Arab.
Perhaps most concerning, the protesters established their own rule of law on campus, creating self-appointed safety marshals to patrol the campus.
These safety marshals followed Jews, like me, on our way to class, monitoring our every move.
They often recorded us and demanded that we leave their encampment as if we did not have a right to exist at Harvard.
But they did nothing when their encampment participants physically threatened Harvard community members.
This campaign was designed for one reason and one reason only, to intimidate, to harass, and to bully Jewish students at Harvard University.
In fact, although President Alan Garber himself admitted that these students threatened both students and employees, the encampment was allowed to continue uninterrupted for nearly three weeks.
While the encampment finally ended yesterday, if you would like to see Harvard's anti-Semitism in real time, look no further than the fact that Harvard has agreed with almost all of the encampment leaders' demands.
In exchange for leaving, the anti-Semites will face zero consequences.
They will get to meet with the university to discuss a Palestinian state.
I know the heaviness of this victimhood is very difficult to process, so I just want to highlight some of the points that he's made, which is Harvard has a Jewish president.
This anti-Semitic institution is presided over by a Jewish president.
One of the things that he witnessed was a student movement for three whole weeks that was permitted to exist.
Three weeks.
Which, among other things, called for the divestment of funds by Harvard from Israel and Israeli companies as a way of protesting against Israeli aggression in the region.
That's one of the things he had to endure.
And then he claims that the The student protest movement, among other things, followed and surveilled Jewish students like him, which is extremely odd given how many Jewish students actually participated in this encampment.
One of the places that was depicted as ground zero for anti-Semitic endangerment and violence and rage was Columbia University, which every single Friday night had a Shabbat dinner inside the encampment.
To respect and honor and practice the religion of the Jewish students who were protesting against the Israeli war in Gaza.
It was attended by a group of multi-faith students.
We interviewed some of those students, including Jewish students, who participated in and led those protests.
And that was the case throughout most of these campuses as well.
But here he is in Congress basically saying that he had to wake up and walk through campus and see people protesting against what he called the Jewish state.
It has long been a tradition in the United States that you can protest against the United States government's policies.
Obviously, a lot of the anti-war activism against the Vietnam War took place in college campuses, with college campuses being the epicenter of those protests.
There have been protest movements of all kinds, including against the apartheid South Africa regime in the 1980s, where people also called for divestment of university funds from another government that they felt was practicing apartheid and other sorts of crimes, which was the South African government.
And this is the sort of thing that became acceptable as some sort of narrative that he himself was endangered, that Jewish students themselves were physically endangered.
You'll note there's no suggestion on his part that he was physically attacked.
He looks perfectly fine to me, quite healthy there, quite robust.
Everything is about political activism.
Or the fact that somehow the university didn't immediately imprison them all, instead was willing to meet with them.
The very robust presence of Jewish faculty and administrators at Harvard that run the school.
That somehow turned it into a place of anti-Semitic orgies where Jewish students like him were endangered.
This was the sort of thing that became overnight a narrative that previously had been laughed at and mocked when it came from any other group into a national scandal, a cause for not just hearings but all sorts of measures.
In the name of combating it.
Here's the rest of what he said, and this part gets particularly difficult to listen to in terms of sadness and anger over what he suffered, so I just want to reemphasize that warning.
And not once has Harvard publicly condemned the objective anti-Semitism that we Jewish students have faced as a result.
Not once has Harvard's anti-Semitism task force said anything.
More importantly, not once have they done anything to combat anti-Semitism at Harvard.
The encampment espoused near daily anti-Semitism, harassed and followed Jews, called for the violent destruction of the Jewish state, all in direct violation of school policy.
As a result, they will all be rewarded.
I am a Jewish student and have thus far been unable to meet with President Alan Garber or my Dean Marla Frederick to discuss the pervasive anti-Semitism on campus.
Only those who call for the ethnic genocide of Jews, violate school policy, and send mask thugs to follow Jews are given the honor of having a seat at the table.
That is the reality of being a Jew at Harvard in 2024.
All right, so that is the reality of being a Jew at Harvard in 2024.
I almost, sometimes when I hear that,
I can barely imagine it's not within my capability to even comprehend what that terror must be like to walk through Harvard as an American Jew in 2024 and see people calling for Divestment from this foreign government on the other side of the world with which you empathize or to which you have loyalty.
And that was why the Congress convened these very important hearings over and over and over and over again.
One of the students, another of the students who became one of the stars of this movement, kind of a martyr or a prime victim of the anti-Semitic violence and pogroms sweeping the United States that made it almost impossible for Jewish students to walk safely on the street or on American campuses was named Yal Yacobi.
Sorry, a little emotional.
I'm having trouble.
I know his name very well.
I'm just having a hard time composing myself, keeping things together.
He was invited by Mike Johnson, not just to testify at Congress, but then to give a press release And this became kind of the, I would say, battle cry of the movement to protect American Jews from whatever they thought they were needing protection from.
This is what he became noted for, I would say even kind of famous for, for having popularized as a slogan.
This is what he said.
As a student, despite what my university says, I do not feel safe.
Let me be clear.
I do not feel safe.
He does not feel safe.
Now, remember, for a long time, there was a big political movement in the United States that came from conservatives mocking the notion that college students have the right to feel safe from protests or political ideas that made them uncomfortable.
That made them threatened.
Trans students would say, I don't feel safe.
When people are marching and saying there are only two genders, it feels like there's a genocidal sentiment behind that, that I'm trying to be, that I'm being the target of eradication.
Our black people, when there was Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality aimed at black people, and other students counter-protested and defended the police, and they said, I feel as though My life is being devalued or even threatened by people who don't take seriously the threat of violence against black people.
And that was in the wake of several actual massacres against black people where self-proclaimed white supremacists went into a black church or a supermarket in a black neighborhood in Buffalo and just gunned down and slaughtered black people, and they were told, "Get over yourselves."
You have the right not to be punched, you have the right not to be threatened with physical violence, but you don't have the right to feel safe on college campuses in the sense that you're going to be shielded and protected like some eight-year-old from ideas that make you uncomfortable.
Part of being an adult, part of going to college, part of facing the world is that you're going to hear things not always expressed nicely, not always expressed politely, that are ideas that you're going to feel not just uncomfortable by but maybe even threatened by.
And that's part of being life.
You're not entitled to be shielded from those sorts of things.
And conversely, the whole left-wing movement of trying to impose speech codes on college campuses was done in the name of safetyism, of making sure that college students, even though they're adults, didn't have to feel threatened by ideas that they were heard.
And suddenly, everything inverted.
So here you have a male student, very seemingly physically, Healthy and capable, who was able to stand up at a podium set up by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and over and over say, I do not feel safe.
Let me repeat myself.
I do not feel safe.
Again, no threats to his physical security, only having to hear protests against a foreign country to which, since birth, he has been trained to be loyal.
And all this got taken very seriously.
Mike Johnson was one of the people, the House Speaker, who exploited this the most to essentially proclaim it to be a national crisis and to vow that the Republican Party, with their control of the Senate, and the House would do everything possible to protect American Jewish students going forward from these sorts of what I guess they thought were assaults.
Here's part of what he said after hearing that UPenn students say that he does not feel safe.
Anti-Semitism, if less unchecked, will not stop for the Jewish people.
It goes to other minorities and ultimately to persons of all religions.
We have to stand up to this hatred.
And I'm so proud to stand alongside leaders like this team behind me and all the House Republicans who have made this unequivocal where we stand, that we are for the good in this battle.
We are for religious students, Jewish students across the country.
And we want them to be protected and respected.
Now, anybody who has ever paid the slightest attention to these protest movements or interviewed the people who participated in them, not just the Jewish students, but anyone, understood very well that these protests had nothing to do with targeting Jewish students.
It was about a foreign country and the destruction of a group of two million people that they were intent on finalizing using American weapons and American money.
It was an anti-war protest movement against a foreign country supported by the United States, and that got morphed into anyone who protests the Israeli war is anti-Semitic and guilty of not just harboring negative attitudes against Jews, but threatening them and being anti-Semitic.
And again, there was the irony that one of the primary grievances of American conservatives was that liberals would always take whatever cause was important to them and characterize opposition to that as racist or misogynistic or transphobic or bigoted in some way.
And that's exactly what not just college students, but the U.S. Congress, the U.S. government.
UNDER BOTH THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ALSO DID WAS THEY EQUATED OPPOSITION TO THE ISRAELI WAR IN GAZA, THE ISRAELI DESTRUCTION OF GAZA, WITH ANTI-SEMITISM AND THEREFORE PROCLAIMED A NATIONAL EMERGENCY THAT NOT ONLY WARRANTED VERY DRAWMATIC, MELDRAWMATIC STATEMENTS BY POLITICIANS VALING TO STOP IT, BUT A WHOLE SERIES OF PREVIOUSLY UNTHINKABLE MEASURES TO CURB POLITICAL SPEECH, TO CURB POLITICAL ACTIVISM, TO DEPORT PEOPLE FROM THE COUNTRY WHO
All of this began through this narrative that was completely fabricated and based on premises that for so long had been mocked essentially by everybody.
At the University of Pennsylvania, and I think this is one of the most amazing things about this narrative over the last three years, is that previously one of the most secure and powerful positions you could hold In the United States was to be the president of an Ivy League institution, president of Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Penn or whatever.
It was basically a job that was impossible to lose, except in the most extreme circumstances.
You basically had to get caught stealing money or embezzling or accepting bribes, something like that, in order to lose that job.
And yet, within a very short period of time, no fewer than three, University presidents at Ivy League institutions were forced out of their job over this one issue, over the fact that because they permitted students to protest the Israeli war in Gaza, it meant that somehow they were tolerating anti-Semitism.
And one of the presidents who was forced out was the president of the University of Pennsylvania, Liz McGill.
She had that notorious exchange with Elise Stefanik that also ended up forcing the firing of the Harvard president, Claudine Gay.
Where they summoned the university presidents, and Elise Stefanik was demanding to know whether it was a violation of student rules at Harvard to quote-unquote "incite genocide against Jews." And the university press was trying to say, "Well, it depends on the context." Like, what do you mean by that?
If you write an op-ed saying, "I believe in freedom for Palestinians from the river to the sea," some might think that's a call for genocide, but that would be obviously protected speech.
But in this climate that got created, where any criticism of Israel, any activism against Israel, got equated with the kind of bigotry that was decreed dangerous, that caused the firing, the forcing out of multiple Ivy League presidents, including the University of Pennsylvania.
Here you see from the New York Times, December 9th, 2023, Penn's leadership resigns amid controversies over anti-Semitism.
The school's president, Elizabeth McGill, and the chairman of the board of trustees, Scott L. Buck, are leaving after intense pressure from donors, politicians, and alumni.
I think we've forgotten the intensity and the extremity of this movement to suggest that Jewish students were somehow endangered as a result of what was really nothing more than Political activism and political expression.
Now, the University of Pennsylvania student who stood up and said, I am not safe.
Let me repeat, I do not feel safe, even though he had never been attacked or threatened with physical attack.
And then now has become a sort of social media activist, always in defense of Israel, pretty much a single-issue American who constantly defends Israel, constantly attacks those who are critical of it.
It wasn't enough for him to just become a star victim at the U.S. Congress for there to be all sorts of measures enacted in the name of protecting him even though he wasn't endangered.
He also opportunistically sensed the ability to profit personally from all of this newfound victimhood.
And one of the things he did was he initiated a lawsuit with a fellow Jewish student who was a supporter of Israel against the University of Pennsylvania.
Here from CNN, reporting on the lawsuit, December 8, 2023, two students claim that the University of Pennsylvania has violated the Civil Rights Act by not protecting Jewish students from anti-Semitism on campus.
So he filed a lawsuit saying, it's not just that I feel unsafe, I am unsafe, and the fault of that is the university professors who didn't do enough to embrace me and hug me and hold me close to their To their chest and make me feel safe from all this anti-Semitism surrounding me.
One of the books that was most celebrated was written by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt called Coddling in the American Mind, which I highly recommend, and it's a book about, especially if you're a parent.
It's a really good book to read about the tendency to overprotect children these days, to keep them safe from every conceivable danger.
And how doing so can deprive them of the ability to develop the antibodies, both literal antibodies physically, if you protect them too much from germs, but also metaphorical antibodies from things that make you uncomfortable in the world.
Part of being an adult is to let kids feel uncomfortable, to have to have them navigate through life.
And we've created this situation where not only is parenting now about overprotection of children to the detriment of their ability to grow, but extended childhood.
Where now we expect that childhood to extend to colleges, where you don't send your kids away any longer to be adults, you send them away to be extended children.
And it's the job of resident assistants or college deans or college presidents to keep them safe, to shield them the way an overprotective parent would.
And now how that has become Made even more extreme through extended childhood into once you leave college or graduate school and you get a job, it's now the job of human resources and human resources managers to make sure you never feel uncomfortable, never feel unsafe, never feel that pee beneath the 17th mattress on which you sleep.
Everyone's a little prince and princess.
Any straight comment that you hear at work?
Now it gets reported to HR that then takes action to protect you, to make sure you feel safe.
That's what this book is about.
It became very popular among conservatives, but a lot of other people as well, because it describes so presciently, so insightfully, this dynamic.
And yet all of that was instantly forgotten by things like two very privileged University of Pennsylvania students accusing the administration of the University of Pennsylvania of not keeping them safe.
Not from physical assaults or threats of physical assaults, but from ideas that made them uncomfortable.
And the complaint was so over the top in terms of what it alleged about the University of Pennsylvania.
Here was a little glimpse of the lawsuit filed by Yael Jacobi and Jordan Davis in the District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania in December.
There you see their name versus the University of Pennsylvania.
Here's part of what they alleged.
Quote, Penn, the historic 300-year-old Ivy League University, has transformed itself into an incubation lab for virulent anti-Jewish hatred, harassment, and discrimination.
Once welcoming to Jewish students, Penn now subjects them to a pervasively hostile educational environment.
Among other things, Penn enforces its own rules of conduct selectively to avoid protecting Jewish students from hatred and harassment, hires rabidly anti-Semitic professors who call for anti-Jewish violence and spread terrorist propaganda, and ignores Jewish students'pleas for protection.
In doing so, Penn has placed plaintiffs and other Jewish and Israeli students at severe emotional and physical risk.
Laws and other causes of action that it claims the University of Pennsylvania is guilty of.
And here are just a few of the examples that they provide to substantiate these allegations, such as, quote, Penn proudly hosted an anti-Jewish hate fest, euphemistically dubbed the, quote, Palestinian Writers Literature Festival, that calls to mind the infamous August 2017 Unite the Right hate rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
So one of the things Penn did to put them in danger was they allowed Palestinian writers to come and have a literary event at the University of Pennsylvania, probably included some criticism of Israel that they felt threatened by.
That was one of their examples.
Another was Penn hires rabidly anti-Semitic professors who call for anti-Jewish violence and spread terrorist propaganda, meaning that these professors criticize Israel.
Depict Israel in a way that they consider to be terrorist propaganda.
And that Penn just didn't do enough to protect these students from all of these dangers that they faced.
Now, students at Harvard also sued based on very similar grounds, claiming that Harvard became a breeding ground for anti-Semitic violence.
And in January of this year, the day after Trump was inaugurated, And Harvard became the subject of a lot of threats.
Harvard settled its lawsuit with the students accusing it of permitting anti-Semitism on campus by making all sorts of concessions to these pro-Israel students at Harvard, including all kinds of measures designed to modify the curriculum.
That was the lawsuit brought by Chavez Kassenbaum.
But the University of Pennsylvania did not actually settle the lawsuit.
Brought by the I am not safe, I do not feel safe, let me repeat, I do not feel safe student.
They contested it, and just last week, here's the Delhi, Pennsylvania, the student newspaper of the University of Pennsylvania reporting the following, quote, Federal judge dismisses the lawsuit alleging insufficient university response to anti-Semitism.
The lawsuit originally filed by 2024 college graduate Yael Yacobi and college junior Jordan Davis on December 2024 was dismissed after federal judge Mitchell Goldberg found there were, quote, no allegations that the university had taken any actions which could, quote, be interpreted as anti-Semitic with the intention of causing harm to plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs, which grew to include Wharton engineering senior Noah Rubin and the group Student Against Anti-Semitism, Now,
this lawsuit went to a federal judge who is not only Jewish, Judge Mitchell Goldberg, but is also a conservative judge appointed by George W. Bush and has Long been regarded as a right-wing conservative judge.
I'm sure these students who were suing the University of Pennsylvania and their lawyers were very happy with the fact that it got assigned to this judge.
If I were their lawyers, I would certainly consider this the ideal judge, a Jewish conservative judge appointed by George H.W. Bush.
And yet, the decision that this judge issued that threw this case out by concluding that It doesn't even deserve discovery.
It doesn't even deserve depositions or the gathering of evidence.
Just even if you believe everything that's in the complaint, the judge said, it doesn't even come close to alleging that the university failed in its duty to keep them safe, that it was a laboratory for anti-Semitic hatred.
And the judge made very clear his disgust for This lawsuit for the allegations in it and for the tactics used by the lawyers in order to try and demonstrate that any of this was true.
Here's the decision.
We'll just read you a part of it.
It was issued on June 2nd, 2005.
It was against the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.
It was a 100-page amended complaint.
Here's what the court said.
Quote, Sets out a variety, a wide variety of general allegations, complaints, historical and current events, and alleged anti-Semitic incidents that allegedly took place not just on Penn's campus, but elsewhere in the United States and the world.
The amended complaint also includes sweeping allegations of ideological, philosophical, religious, and political concerns and grievances that have nothing to do with a federal lawsuit.
It is unclear why plaintiff's counsel deemed it necessary to allege so many unrelated facts.
When doing so is directly contrary to federal pleading requirements.
The University of Pennsylvania has filed a motion to dismiss and to strike the amended complaint.
After review of the plaintiff's amended complaint, I find that it fails to sufficiently allege the facts necessary to plausibly state viable claims under Title VI, writing of the other laws that the plaintiff cited.
Consequently, I will grant, hence, motion to dismiss.
In order to state a claim for relief under Title VI, a plaintiff must plead facts that would support an inference of discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin.
It must allege he was treated differently from similarly situated persons who are not members of a protected class.
Annex the plaintiff's response, an opposition defense motion to dismiss, are declarations from plaintiffs Jacobian Davis attesting to incidents of anti-Semitism, which they experienced personally.
And to the fact that anti-Semitic campus hostilities are ongoing.
Turning to the allegations in the case before me, plaintiffs allege at paragraphs 22 and 278 have made a complaint that Penn is a private university which receives financial assistance and federal funding from the United States government, and therefore is subjected to Title VI.
Plaintiffs claim that through its, quote, "axon omission," Penn and its administrators intentionally discriminated and harassed them.
On the basis of their actual and or perceived Jewish and or Israeli ancestry, race, ethnic characteristics or national origin and force them to endure a hostile environment.
And then this is what the court says about those allegations.
While plaintiffs spend an inordinate amount of space expounding on long past injustices and incidents, some of which dating as far back as 1993, And complaining that Penn did not take the actions or respond to their reports, letters, or emails in the manner which plaintiffs wanted, plaintiffs have failed to plead any facts showing either deliberate intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference on the part of the university.
Indeed, I could find no allegations that Penn or its administration has itself taken actions or position which, even when read in the most favorable light, Could be interpreted as anti-Semitic with the intention of causing harm to the plaintiffs.
And here's the key.
At worst, plaintiffs accuse Penn of tolerating and permitting the expression of viewpoints which differ from their own.
So we're at the stage of a lawsuit.
As I said, there's no depositions yet.
There's no discovery of evidence that has been yet gathered.
All that has happened is the plaintiffs filed their complaint.
And when the defendant, in this case University of Pennsylvania, asks the court to dismiss the complaint, the court is required to assume that everything in the complaint is true.
Just assume that everything that plaintiffs claim happened in the complaint is true.
No evidence has to be presented.
It doesn't mean the court is saying it happened.
The court is just saying, let me assume that everything alleged here is true.
And the court is saying, Even if I assume that everything they allege is true, that it happened exactly as they claim, it still doesn't even get close to proving that the university permitted anti-Semitism to thrive, subjected these students, including the one who went to Congress, stood by Mike Johnson, and said, I do not feel safe.
Nothing even close to proving that they were in any way endangered.
At most, it says.
The worst thing that you can say that the university did, and this is why I think it's so worth delving into this lawsuit because it says so much about this entire narrative, is that, and again, this is the worst thing that could happen,
that you could say that Penn did, that At worst, plaintiffs accuse Penn of tolerating and permitting the expression of viewpoints which differ from their own.
This, the entire time, has been at the heart of this attempt to concoct this false narrative, this false epidemic of antisemitism in the United States in general, on college campuses in particular.
I'm not saying there aren't a Jewish student here or one here who has been menaced or harassed.
That's true of every member of every group, every day, in every college, every place.
But overwhelmingly, this entire narrative has been based on the fact that not Jewish students, but pro-Israel students at colleges have to go to their college and hear people criticizing and complaining about and engaging in activism against a country that they love.
And when they hear that foreign country that they love being criticized harshly, inside of them they feel uncomfortable.
They feel unsafe.
And a lot of students, not just Jewish students, who feel uncomfortable with ideas that they hear in colleges, especially if you're 18, 19, 20, just going to college for the first time, start saying, this seems like it's an attack on me.
And we have reached a consensus in society, at least we had, that that kind of discomfort is part of life, that you're not entitled to have authorities protect you from feeling uncomfortable because you're exposed to ideas that you dislike.
That's part of the experience of going to college and becoming an adult.
And yet in this case, when it came to this one group of people, American Jews and Jewish students, Suddenly all of that was thrown out the window and it all got treated as some kind of epidemic of violence that required basically a rewriting of our civil liberties in order to avoid.
And finally you have this court, a Jewish conservative judge, not just throwing this lawsuit out, which is throwing out the entire narrative that we've been subjected to, but mocking it as nothing more than a complaint by these pro-Israel students that Penn Permitted the expression of viewpoints that these college students disagree with.
And that, said the court, was the entire basis of the lawsuit.
And then the court goes on.
"The amended complaint acknowledges that Penn has responded to the anti-Semitic incidents and expression of anti-Semitism on its campus and has made efforts to address these problems.
Many of the more than 300 paragraphs of the amended complaint contain language which is unnecessarily inflammatory and impertinent and immaterial allegations that have virtually nothing to do with the claims which plaintiffs are endeavoring to raise.
Filing of yet another amended complaint Rule 11 is basically what a court does, is if you file a lawsuit or other process and have no good faith basis for doing so.
If you are really doing it in bad faith, the court can sanction you.
It can sanction you and your attorneys.
It can impose monetary fines on you or other types of punishment.
This is basically the court saying, look, there's nothing here.
The University of Pennsylvania did nothing wrong.
You're just petulant, entitled children upset that you had to hear views about Israel that you disagree with.
And if you really want to try and, for a third time, Rewrite this complaint and submit it and say, oh, this time we have incidents that justify our lawsuit.
Be cautioned that unless you really have something this time, and so far you're not even close, I will not only throw this lawsuit out again, but I will impose punishments on you, fines on you and your lawyers for abusing the time and the energy of the court and filing lawsuits in bad faith.
That's a pretty extreme threat for a judge, especially in a case like this to make.
And yet, I feel like finally there has been an institutional recognition of what has been going on for so long over the last almost two years, since October 7th in the United States, where one particular minority group that wields a lot of power in Congress and in other sectors of American power We're able to claim for themselves an entitlement that no other minority group has succeeded in claiming,
which is the right not to have to hear or be exposed to criticism of foreign country that they love.
And here's finally a court saying, your complaint, your grievance is not that you have been made unsafe.
It is not that the administration permitted anti-Semitic threats or violence against you.
Your complaint is nothing more than the childish view.
That you have the right to be protected from views that you dislike, that you think the administration should have silenced and censored those views, and because instead these views were allowed to be expressed by other students, you're so upset about it that you have filed a frivolous lawsuit in court that if you continue to pursue, you're going to end up not just having your case thrown out again and scorn heap on your claims again, but you will actually be punished this time.
This is not aberrational.
This has been what this entire movement has been about.
Just to underscore the point, Marjorie Taylor Greene, it's really interesting.
I remember in 2022 and into 2023, a bunch of times I had a lot of people from the kind of right-wing populist movement, the MAGA movement, all of whom were opposed to U.S. funding of the war in Ukraine.
And I would ask them why.
Marjorie Taylor Greene was one of them.
Lots of others, too.
And they would all say the same thing, which I totally agreed with.
They would say, this is not a war.
This doesn't affect the American people.
We have too many problems at home to be continuously financing these foreign wars.
we should be spending our money to improve the lives of our own citizens and our communities that are broken, that are disintegrating, and we just can't keep And I would let them say all that, and they knew I agreed with that.
And then I would say to them, that's very clear reasoning.
Does it apply to the policy of the United States to also fund Israel's wars and Israel's military?
Or is your view the same, that we can't afford to fund other countries' wars, or American workers shouldn't have to finance other countries' wars?
And a lot of them would stop and stutter, know that they can't apply it to Israel.
They would try and grope around for reasons why it was different.
Very clearly weren't able to, but nonetheless politically felt like they had to.
One of the people who did that was Marjorie Taylor Greene, and recently she has decided no longer to maintain that pretense.
She has been repeatedly complaining.
About how much Americans are forced to do for Israel, for foreign countries, and how much time Congress constantly spends on this one claimed epidemic of bigotry and on this one country.
And just this morning, there was yet another resolution to condemn anti-Semitism, and it passed unanimously with the exception of two people in Congress who abstained.
One was Rashida Tlaib, and the other was Marjorie Taylor Greene.
And in explaining our vote, this is what Congresswoman Greene posted: "Anti-Semitic hate crimes are wrong, but so are all hate crimes.
Yet Congress never votes on hate crimes committed against white people, or against Christians, or against men, or the homeless, or countless others.
Tonight the House passed two more anti-Semitism-related resolutions, the 20th and 21st, I have voted on since taking office." Meanwhile, Americans from every background are being murdered, even in the womb, and Congress stays silent.
We don't vote on those resolutions, defending them.
Prioritizing one group of Americans and or one foreign country above our own people is fueling resentment and actually driving more division, including anti-Semitism.
These crimes are horrific and easy for me to denounce, but because of the reasons I stated above, I voted present.
And I think her willingness to say that Is indicative of what she accurately describes as a growing resentment on the part of a lot of Americans who are now starting to realize, why does my government spend so much money on this foreign government, this foreign country across the ocean?
Why are the politicians I elect to improve my life traveling so often to this foreign country, speaking so often about this foreign country, introducing resolutions about this foreign country, demanding Punishment for certain speech against this one foreign country or for this one particular group.
It's impossible not to notice and it's impossible not to spawn resentment and credit to Congresswoman Greene for having the courage to say that even though a lot of people in her party still are unwilling to even though they know it's true.
Thomas Massey talked about this a lot how it feels like Sometimes they spend more time on Israel than they do on the United States.
And you just go check how often members of Congress call hearings, call press conferences, put tweets up about this one issue almost to the exclusion of every other one.
But I think a lot of credit is due as well to this federal judge for having the courage to lay very clear, lay very bare, exactly what this entire victimhood narrative is about.
And what it's designed to do and what it's not about.
And I think this judicial decision and the threats that he included in it, if it continues, are an important instrument for finally revealing the fraud of what has been taking place with this victimhood narrative for so long.
All right.
We have three segments prepared tonight, including Donald Trump's claim of Call for criminalizing flag burning, something that Hillary Clinton has long championed as well and wanted to delve a little bit into the constitutional impediments to that.
Probably going to save that for tomorrow just because I did want to delve into this judicial decision and kind of the implications of it.
But just to add one more segment, and in a way it's kind of a light segment, but also I think it is a very revealing segment.
As many of you know, Dave Portnoy has become quite well known.
He's the founder of Barstool, which grew into a very successful sports company, a very successful site that covers sports, and it has really become a major business.
There are now Barstool bars all over the place.
I was in Scottsdale, Arizona just a week ago or two weeks ago.
There's a big barstool bar right at the heart of downtown Scottsdale, all over the place.
He's become extremely wealthy as a result, but he's also ventured out more into politics, and he's one of those kind of guys that you could kind of describe as being adjacent to what has become the manosphere.
Very kind of, you know, just men being men is the idea without any embarrassment.
Talking about women, sports.
Those sorts of things.
And the political ethos that has come out of this is very much one that says cancel culture is wrong.
People shouldn't be punished for offensive things they say, especially for jokes.
They're particularly offended.
The whole kind of whole Rogan sphere is when a comedian tells a joke about a certain group and people get offended.
It's like, why would you get offended by a joke?
We can't keep having this repressive atmosphere.
Dave Portnoy has been one of the leaders of that.
He endures Trump as a result of a lot of these issues.
And he has been known for and associated with that kind of ethos, like anything goes, anything can be said.
If you're offended, who cares?
Just be offended.
And that's what was so remarkable to see this weekend that Dave Portnoy went on one of the podcasts, the various podcasts that Barstool hosts.
And he was on there with an employee of his.
I believe his name is Kirk Minahan, Minnehane.
To tell jokes at the expense of American Jews, to tell jokes about Jews.
You can joke about other groups, he was arguing, just not jokes about Jews, the group to which Dave Portnoy coincidentally happens to belong.
That's the one group that is too endangered, too vulnerable, to the point where not even jokes about them should be permitted.
I'm not saying he was arguing for a law that would imprison people for telling Jewish jokes, just that at this point, It should be considered utterly unacceptable socially to even tell a joke about Jewish people.
And here was part of that exchange.
I think right now you probably don't do it.
Silence everything.
Every comedian, don't tell a joke about it.
That's how the world works.
I agree with you.
Go back to your question.
When does freedom of speech impinge?
That was your question.
Answer it.
How many deaths?
Yeah.
I don't have an answer.
In America, American citizens...
Now.
So now what?
So now what do we do?
maybe you stop with the fucking Jew jokes and act like it's not a big deal when someone does fuck the Jews in a bar.
I'm with you a thousand percent on that.
You should fucking kick those people out.
Of course you should.
I'm not talking about kicking them out.
Like, what do you want?
He's not anti-Semitic.
I'm not defending him.
If your brain goes in, you are anti-Semitic.
What I'm saying is you should have him on here or somebody else like that and fight with them because then you have a conversation.
That's what this idiot wants.
Dave, these guys wrote the thing at the bar.
Fuck the Jews, right?
Yes.
You're going to fucking fly them to Auschwitz.
Some guy tweets at you something, you want to fucking...
It was a bar.
I agree.
They should have been kicked out.
No, it's not just kick out, Kirk.
Are you ignoring what's going on in the world?
No, I'm not.
Dave, what do you want to do to those guys?
What do you want to do with those guys in the bar?
Put them in jail for 50 years?
Fine.
I didn't say that.
You're quite literally changing everything you say.
Kirk, if you just want me to kick them out and not mention it, not care that this kid is anti-Semitic, shut up.
If you just want me to ignore it.
Don't tell me to shut up.
Shut the fuck up, you bald fuck!
Okay, go ahead.
How's that?
Oh, it's kill.
I'll never recover from that, Dave.
Go ahead, continue.
I'll never recover.
Well, you're the one who, like, oh, big boss man, don't tell.
I'll tell you, you work for me.
Okay, go ahead, continue.
You little bitch, you work for me.
Sure, you bet.
For now, continue.
For now, quit.
I don't care.
I'll save 500 grand.
Is this a show or not a show?
Like, is this a show or not a show?
Like, we can't have a conversation?
You're an idiot.
You're literally saying people should be allowed to make Jew jokes, say whatever they want, right fucking now.
Yes, I think people should be allowed to make jokes.
So how many motherfucking Jews have to be killed before you stop?
Then everybody should...
Where else is that happening with the religion or people?
All right, so obviously that was quite an erudite conversation, a lot of philosophical inquiry embedded within it, but I think nonetheless the point was, So many Jews are being killed." I don't know exactly where that's happening.
There was an incident where two staffers of the Israeli embassy were randomly murdered a couple weeks ago in Washington, D.C. I don't think that makes an epidemic of Jews being killed, but Dave Portnoy is essentially saying, look, this is not the time to be telling jokes about Jews.
Maybe there's other times when it's okay to do that, but given all the things that are happening in the world, how many Jews have to die before we finally agree that jokes about Jewish people, jokes about Jewish people, are off limits?
And again, this is the person who has basically Made a name for himself championing the cause of everything goes.
Say whatever you want, as offensive as it is, especially if it's a joke.
Nobody should ever say you can't say it, that it's offensive.
And in fact, in the very same discussion where he more or less proclaimed that there ought to be a moratorium on telling Jew jokes, the very same day, Portnoy advocated for and called for He incited and called for the IDF to go and murder Greta Thunberg for the crime of trying to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza as an expression of opposition to what Israel is doing in Gaza.
Here's what he said.
This model of probity and responsible discourse, here is what he said in that same interview after declaring a moratorium on jokes about Jews because it's too dangerous.
You should just go over to Gaza.
We can do unnamed.
You can be live in Gaza.
I'll jump on Greta Van Forsten or whatever that girl.
She's sailing there.
Whoever that fuck.
I hope they hit a fucking missile on her boat.
Well, I hope they hit.
So, I don't know, it seems a little selective to me, but That's been a very common theme on our show.
People who are rallying against the snowflakes, who want to cancel people for saying offensive things, suddenly want all kinds of people fired, who make comments that offend them about Israel.
And so it was something I just couldn't help noting because in this case it was such a glaring example of somebody who has been so proud, so aggressive, so vocal about how only losers and snowflakes get upset with jokes and at the same time now suddenly declaring a moratorium on jokes when it comes to the group to which he belongs.
And this is what I said in response to this video, quote, so many people transformed in record speed.
From, quote, only woke losers and snowflakes want to ban offensive speech to, quote, we must urgently ban jokes against one particular minority group, which coincidentally happens to be my own, because these jokes are too dangerous to allow.
And that is the thing I've seen over and over.
In response, this is what he said.
Hey, Glenn, baby, you clearly didn't watch the entire video and are just using my name for clicks.
I didn't even use his name.
I don't know why I would need clicks.
So let me clarify.
I recently found out you were into that gay kink shit that got leaked.
No judgment.
We all have kinks.
But I'll put it in terms you can understand.
After the Pulse nightclub attack, when Omar Mateen killed a ton of gays because it violates his religion.
If somebody tagged you seconds after that tragedy with a homophobic joke, you'd presumably hate that person and assume they were a homophobic dickhead, and rightfully so.
It doesn't make it illegal, it just makes them an asshole.
Now, if a person says being gay is against the will of God and says you should murder all gays, including you, in cold blood, that to me is a problem and is no longer just free speech.
So what I was saying...
But those people are anti-Semitic pieces of shit.
The, oh, Dave, can't take a joke angle doesn't work for me in that case because I'm sure if somebody made fun of a bunch of gays getting slaughtered, you wouldn't think it was funny.
I didn't say they should go to jail, just that they are pieces of shit.
And then it just kind of goes on in that vein.
Now, the Pulse shooting.
Did end up killing a lot of gay people.
It wasn't a gay nightclub in Orlando, but as anybody who is familiar with that episode knows, the intention on the part of the person who did the killing had nothing to do with targeting gay people.
He didn't even know Pulse was a gay nightclub.
He was looking for a nightclub that was a soft target that didn't have security.
Because of its popularity, that was the first one that came up in a Google search when he searched nightclubs Orlando.
Never made a single homophobic remark while there.
Never suggested that was part of his motive.
The trial proved that it wasn't.
He was there to avenge what he said was U.S. aggression in Iraq and Syria and killing innocent civilians in places like Afghanistan.
A kind of common terrorist attack and motive for it.
But I don't recall anybody after the Pulse nightclub attack saying that jokes about gay people are now prohibited or banned.
Or inappropriate.
I don't recall people saying jokes about black people are now inappropriate or banned when there have been hate crimes committed against black people.
And I also don't know what he thinks is comparable that has been done to American Jews comparable to something like the poll shooting where I think 51 people were murdered in cold blood.
This is clearly him being extremely insensitive about claims of Prejudice or claims of victimhood from every other group that he has nothing to do with and a hypersensitive about supposed threats to or jokes about the group with which he identifies, which has become a very common dynamic that we've seen over and over from exactly these kinds of people.
Now, just to give you a sense for the kind of Dave Portnoy that we're talking about and his lifelong crusade to justify jokes of any kind.
Here he was on the show Inside Edition in 2012 where he was talking about blackout parties and the allegations that blackout parties are glorifying rape.
And here's what he said.
Posted the following on your site.
I never condone rape, but if you're a size 6 and you're wearing skinny jeans, you kind of deserve to be raped.
Correct.
I stand by that.
All right, so that's something that a lot of people would find quite offensive, but he's essentially saying, yeah, that was a joke and I stand by it.
Here he is in 2016 making a point about language that a lot of people find offensive by using it repeatedly.
To all my niggas that have been living up what you do, it's going to be hit after hit.
he'll just yell something in his EDP like twang like fuck this nigga like in the middle and everyone's like what?
and then he'll just go quiet for like another 20 minutes and then he'll say something like bring this a bitch ass nigga fucking rape him and everyone's like just kind of look at him I thought the whole game I was gonna have to be like And then here he is in 2020.
Denouncing people who take offense at jokes and how they ruin everybody's fun.
Here's what he said.
Okay, emergency press conference time.
Well, it took them long enough.
Canceled culture finally coming after Barstool.
I mean, they've come after what?
Jimmy Kimmel, Joe Rogan, Bill Simmons.
Now it's our turn.
You knew it was going to happen.
To be honest, they've been coming after me for 17 fucking years.
People wanted to get rid of us.
And here's the thing.
I've been doing this for two decades.
I've made fun of every group of people, every race, every creed, every culture, you name it.
We've made jokes about it.
So if the No Fun Club, if the cancel culture, wants to go back blog by blog, video by video, day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year, decade by decade, and comb through everything we've ever fucking said and done, Yeah, you're going to find a few jokes that miss the mark.
That things that if they were said today, you'd be like, how they'd fucking say this?
What are they, idiots?
But times change.
Sensitivities change.
Cultures change.
This is pretty much what he has been about publicly.
It's like, yeah, we're going to tell jokes about every group.
We're going to make them as offensive as possible.
IF YOU'RE ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO OBJECTS AND SAYS, NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO TELL A JOKE LIKE THAT, THAT KIND OF JOKE IS DANGEROUS, THAT KIND OF JOKE MIGHT INSIDE VIOLENCE, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY You're ruining all the fun.
And that's why to turn around and watch that very same person very earnestly and angrily argue that telling jokes about Jews at this very gravely dangerous moment for his group is something that nobody ought to be doing, that anyone telling jokes about his particular group— Maybe shouldn't go to jail, but should be deemed by society to be a hateful, anti-Semitic asshole who ought to be widely condemned.
It just goes to show you what I think is this kind of extreme self-centeredness, this very entitled way of looking at the world.
It's so easy to mock claims of victimhood or Concerns or dangers when it comes from other groups of which you're not a part.
Ah, screw those people.
Who cares if they're offended by jokes?
Who cares if they think the jokes that I'm telling are offensive or might subject them to danger?
That's cancel culture.
That's for weaklings.
That's for snowflakes.
That's for the fun police.
But now suddenly, when it comes to my group and my concerns and my fears, I demand that that be taken very seriously.
I demand that it no longer be mocked as snowflake behavior.
In fact, I think anybody telling jokes about my particular group ought to be socially scorned and ostracized by somebody being deeply irresponsible.
And this is what we have seen in so many different manifestations.
This Dave Portnoy thing is just sort of a, as I said, light way of understanding how this twisted mindset works.
Where people radically change their thoughts about everything, their demands and expectations they impose on others when it comes to their own group.
And if it were just some sort of cultural hypocrisy, it probably would be something that I would leave as unworthy of comment.
But one of the things we've been documenting for over two years now, or close to two years now on this show, is that there has been a very steady attack.
On the kinds of rights, on the kinds of freedoms we're supposed to safeguard, on the free speech rights, on the rights of academic freedom, on the right to make decisions without government involvement, on the right not to be punished or fired.
For your political views, attacks on every single one of these rights that people have been insisting on protecting for over 10 years until October 7th.
And it became their group that they felt was under attack and everything radically changed.
And because of the power that they wield, they got away with and continue to get away with demanding radical changes in our legal structure, in our cultural mores about what government ought to be doing, about our constitutional order,
about the government's role in controlling universities, all done in the name of this narrative that is built upon the kind of Radical hypocrisy that Dave Portnori showed here, and that was illustrated in the first segment that we did as well, where this entire narrative has been constructed on a complete fraud.
There is no epidemic of anti-Semitism in the United States.
There is an expression of more criticism than ever before about the state of Israel that a lot of American Jews find offensive, and they've taken the power that they wield.
To turn what would otherwise just be an ordinary complaint or grievance from a minority group that they're hearing views that they dislike and elevating and transforming it into something much graver, an insistence that there is no real unique or genuine minority group that's endangered victim group other than American Jews, and it comes from criticizing Israel.
It's very pernicious and very sinister.
When you consider the ends to which all of this has been wielded, and that's the reason why I think it's so important to continue to be vigilant about watching it, about documenting it, about deconstructing it, about understanding how it functions.
And I don't recall anything that quite has unmasked it as effectively as this judicial decision that finally, openly, courageously mocks these claims of victimhood and describes them as nothing more than what they are, which is a demand.
That everybody else suppressed criticism of a foreign government because there's one minority group in the United States that doesn't want that foreign country to be criticized.
And so much of our politics have been driven by this over the past 18 months.
And it seems like at some point it would tire itself out.
We would get to the point where people realize it and become angry about it.
But in reality, it's picking up steam all the time and becoming stronger and stronger.
It's like a snowball rolling downhill, gathering momentum and strength.
And whatever it is that can be instrumentalized to demonstrate what it really is, to try and put a halt to it, I think is very worth using.
And I think this lawsuit, I think that Dave Portnoy kind of self-embarrassment, I didn't even bother to answer his tweet because so many people understood exactly what he was doing and saying, and there was no need to answer him.
So many people understood what he was doing.
I think all of these are important signs that, Finally, people are realizing what has been going on in this country for 18 months based on this whole fraudulent scam.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, our 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.
So if you rate, review, and follow our show, it really does help spread the visibility of our program.
Finally, as independent journalists, as independent media, we really do rely on the support of our viewers and our members.
The way that you can do that is by joining our locals community.
You can just click And every night at 7 p.m. Eastern live exclusively here on Rumble.
