JD Vance Confronted at Turning Point about Israel and Massie; Stephen Miller's Wife Screams "Racist" and Threatens Cenk Uygur with Deportation; Rio's Police Massacre: 120 Dead
Young conservatives press JD Vance on U.S. support for Israel at a Turning Point event, marking a significant sea change in public opinion on Israel. Next: Glenn reacts to Stephen Miller's wife's unhinged and revealing comments on Piers Morgan, calling for Cenk Uygur's deportation. Finally: Glenn explains the debate over the deadly police raid in Rio. ------------------------ Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update: Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook
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.
As we can see, we are back in our studio after being about a week away, and we are happy to be back tonight.
Vice President J.D. Vance last night appeared at a turning point USA event at the University of Mississippi along with Charlie Kirk's widow Erica Kirk.
The event included a Q ⁇ A session and the questions asked of Vance by young conservative students who attended have now become ones that are to be expected in such settings and yet still reveal a great deal about the younger members of the MAGA movement and their views.
We'll review some of the more illustrative exchanges.
Then, Stephen Miller's wife, Katie Miller, appeared on Piers Morgan's show last night to debate matters relating to Israel along with two Israel critics, one of whom was Jank Iger.
Miller did what Israel loyalists do more than anyone these days.
She screamed bigot and racist over and over in lieu of debate.
But she also threatened Jank that her husband, Stephen Miller, would deport him.
Truly creepy, sinister, and authoritarian stuff, but hardly an idle threat in light of administration policy.
And then finally, earlier this week in Rio de Janeiro, the state governor ordered what is being called a mega operation of the police against drug gangs, where the police entered two favelas or slums and killed 116 people, at least 60 of whom were gunned down when they were trying to escape their slum in the woods, and their bodies were just left on the ground.
Four police officers were also killed.
This became international news because the death toll is so astonishing for one day.
It's Gaza numbers for a police force operating outside of a war zone against its own population.
But it's also really worth examining, not just in its own right, but also for the lessons it has, the vital lessons, I think, for several key current U.S. debates, including the current one on Venezuela and drug gangs and the attempt to use military force ostensibly to resolve it.
So we'll tell you all about that.
Before we get to that, a couple of quick programming notes.
First of all, 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.
Finally, as independent media, we do rely on the support of our viewers and members, which you can participate in by joining our locals community where you get a wide range of exclusive benefits.
And most of all, it's the community on which we really do 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.
We're at the point where if you are a media member, a prominent media member or a politician who is associated with the conservative movement and you go to an event where you allow questions from the audience.
it is basically 100% guaranteed that you are going to be asked very challenging, confrontational questions about Israel and specifically the U.S. policy of financing Israel, arming Israel, supporting Israel.
As I think most of the viewers know, I was last Friday night in San Antonio where I appeared with Megan Kelly and Emily Jaczynski for the second trip on Megan Kelly's 10 City nationwide tour.
And before I went up on the stage to speak to Megan, she did a Q ⁇ A session with the audience, maybe 10 minutes long, not really any longer than that.
So she didn't have that many questions.
And sure enough, somebody stood up and asked her about the intense, vehement split in the MAGA movement when it comes to Israel and questioned why the U.S. government continued to finance it.
The night before, when she was in a different city in Texas, along with Donald Trump Jr., members of the audience asked several questions, I believe at least two, more confrontational ones about Israel.
And it's not a surprise anymore.
Everywhere major figures in media or politics and the conservative movement go, people in the audience, especially young people, are going to ask challenging, demanding, confrontational questions about Israel, ones that are very well thought through, ones that are quite informed, sometimes tinge with some ideas that people consider to be anti-Semitic, but it just is the case that there is a lot of resentment toward Israel.
The whole world has watched Israel for more than two years, blow up babies every day, blow up hospitals, burn people to death in tents, starve them to death.
Some of the most hideous crimes we've seen in a long time.
And that has brought attention, in addition to the horrors at what Israel has done, to the fact that it's the United States that finances Israel, that funds Israel, that arms Israel, that essentially is the reason Israel is able to do all these things that the world has become so horrified by.
So here is the event that took place last night.
It was a sponsored turning point USA event.
It was at the University of Mississippi.
And there you see, this is the promotional materials for it.
It featured Erica Kirk and Vice President J.D. Vance, both of whom spoke.
And the questions that J.D. Vance was asked were so reflective of the MAGA movement broadly, but also especially the opinion of younger conservatives in particular.
Nick Funtes was on Tuck Carlson's show.
Today, the Heritage Foundation executive director came out and addressed what has become this very tumultuous conflict in the American right about the fact that Tucker has become quite skeptical, quite opposed to U.S. support for Israel.
He had a largely amiable conversation with Nick Fuentes, who appeared on his show.
He, of course, appeared on my show about a month ago.
He's been on many shows that probably he would not have appeared on even a couple of years ago, signaling his ascendancy.
And the Heritage Foundation defended both Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, said, look, Nick Funtes says things we don't agree with, even some things that we abhor, but it's vital that he be included in the debate and defended Tuck Carlson vigorously from what they call the smear artists who want to place the interests of a foreign country above the United States.
And for the Heritage Foundation to come out and say that, we're talking here about a very mainstream conservative organization that is very influential in the Trump government, has been influential in Republican administrations for decades, for them to come out and make that kind of a statement in light of what the debate currently is, I think, reflects that they understand where things are headed.
And they're headed in a much more, well, let's just say an erosion of support for Israel that has been the cornerstone of that country's ability to wage wars without any kind of concern or fears or limits of the consequences because we paid for it, we arm it, and we protect it.
Here is one of the questions J.D. Vance was asked and how he responded on this topic last night at the University of Mississippi at this turning point event.
I'm a Christian man and I'm just confused why there's this notion that we might owe Israel something or that they're our greatest ally or that we have to support this multi-hundred billion dollar foreign aid package to Israel to cover this, to quote Charlie Kirk, ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
I'm just confused why this idea has come around considering the fact that not only does their religion not agree with ours but also openly supports the prosecution of ours.
Now, a couple of things to note about that question.
First of all, that's a guy who, by the looks of him, by how he sounds, is a very mainstream MAGA follower.
He has a Make America Great hat on.
He's at the University of Mississippi attending a turning point event.
quoting Charlie Kirk, who called what Israel was doing in Gaza, according to him, ethnic cleansing.
And he's saying, why do we owe them anything?
Why are we giving them all this money?
It's a very blatantly reasonable question, especially for a movement that has repeatedly told its adherents that their guiding overarching principle is America first.
Of course, people are going to wake up and start asking, why are we sending all this money?
Why do we fight their wars?
Why do we fund their wars?
Why are our politicians constantly there?
Why are we being censored for this foreign country?
How does that get reconciled with America first?
You can't hide that level of inconsistency for very long.
And then on top of that, one of the things he said was he made a religious argument, which was, we're Christians.
We don't agree with their religion.
So why are we so closely aligned with them?
And that's the sort of thing that, until very recently, would have produced a consensus was just a wrong way to think about the world.
United States is based on religious freedom, always has been, free exercise of religion.
We are allied with countries of all sorts of different religions.
We have an alliance with India.
That's not a Christian country.
With Saudi Arabia, that's not a Christian country.
The list goes on.
And that was never considered strange.
But I think one of the things that has happened with the immigration debate, with these calls for people to be expelled from the United States, deported from the United States, who are illegally in the United States, even to have their citizenship revoked if they're naturalized citizens.
A lot of discourse about Muslims not being allowed to do this or that is it's given credence to this notion that it's not just that the United States is a Christian nation in terms of the majority of people's religion or in terms of the principles and on which it was based or in terms of the religious views of the founders of the country, but also that any non-Christian people or non-Christian views are anathema to what the United States is.
So you can be offended because he said this about Jews instead of Muslims, but had he said it about Muslims, it would have been something very few people would have noticed.
And if you're going to endorse that idea when it comes to Muslims, it's going to spread to other groups as well.
I think that's part of the ethos of what has happened.
Now, here's J.D. Vance's answer.
I think it's worth remembering.
J.D. Vance, as another question I asked about, and we'll show you, married a woman of Indian descent who's not white and didn't grow up Christian.
And I'm certain that when he hears a question like this, that's part of what he's thinking about.
But he's also, because if the idea is, anyone who's not Christian can't even be allies with the United States, can't have anything in common with the United States because it's a Christian nation.
The questions are going to be asked about his wife as they have been.
And he needs to get through a Republican primary, obviously needs to attract MAGA support.
But also, I think it's worth noting about J.D. Vance before I show you this answer.
Right now, he is a little constrained, a little bit hamstrung by the obligation that he defend everything Donald Trump does.
He's not free to say everything on his mind.
Me probably ethically feels that as Trump vice president, he has to defend administration policy, but also pragmatically, he would probably lose all influence in the administration if he didn't, but he would also risk losing Trump's endorsement in the 2028 election if Trump is alive and healthy and active, which by all appearances I would put my money on.
Trump's endorsement, very like, well maybe the whole primary, whoever Trump endorses, if he chooses to endorse anybody.
Basically, J.D. Vance won the Ohio primary for Senate because he got Donald Trump's endorsement.
And the last thing he's going to do is say anything that seems to undercut or subvert or deviate from Trump's policy.
This is a very constrained J.D. Vance, but I still found his answer.
He's usually a pretty skillful order.
I'm not saying he's the most charismatic order at all.
I'm not saying he's exciting, but he's skillful in terms of his capacity with words to say things the way a politician, a good politician by definition, does, making you think they've told you what you wanted to hear, but giving themselves all sorts of owls.
This was a very unconvincing answer.
Here's what he said.
So.
And by the way, that applause is quite notable as well.
Let's say a few things about this.
First of all, when the president of the United States says America first, that means that he pursues the interests of Americans first.
That is our entire foreign policy.
And that doesn't mean that you're not going to have alliances, that you're not going to work with other countries from time to time.
And that is what the president believes, is that Israel, sometimes they have similar interests to the United States, and we're going to work with them in that case.
Sometimes they don't have similar interests to the United States.
And this example, the most recent Gaza peace plan that all of us have been working on very hard for the past few weeks, the president of the United States could only get that peace deal done by actually being willing to apply leverage to the state of Israel.
So when people say that Israel is somehow manipulating or controlling the president of the United States, they're not controlling this president of the United States, which is one of the reasons why we're going to be able to have some of the success that we've had in the Middle East.
Now, part of that answer on listening to it a second time is actually a little bit better than I detected the first time I answered.
He's trying to say, no, don't think Donald Trump is captive to Israel.
The reason he got a peace deal is because he used his leverage against Israel.
That's easy to say.
We've been hearing that for more than two years under Joe Biden and then Donald Trump.
I'll believe that when I actually start seeing it.
But the reason I believe that J.D. Vance is constrained here is because he paints a very rational, appealing theory.
He says, look, Israel is like any other country.
And America first means that on those occasions, as he said, quote, from time to time when our interests align with Israel, we will align with them and support them.
He said, sometimes their interests align with us.
Sometimes their interests don't.
And that's true as far as it goes.
The problem with that is that that doesn't correspond to the reality of what the United States does when it comes to Israel.
We don't just treat them like any other country whose interests sometimes align with ours and sometimes don't.
They occupy this very exceptional place in American political life where it often does seem as though, even though we pay for them, even though we arm them, even though they depend upon us, the country that dictates the terms of the relationship is Israel.
And it doesn't seem like from time to time we align with them.
It seems like we're captive to everything they want all of the time.
And that's why I don't think this answer is going to be sufficient for J.D. Vance if he wants to win in the GOP primary where this issue is going to be front and center.
It may be that the peace deal holds and so Israel recedes a little bit to the back burner.
But once you've opened this can of worms, once you've seen this, it's not about the war in Gaza, especially in the Republican primary.
It's about the captivity of the United States and our political system to this foreign country.
And a movement that has convinced its adherents, especially its young ones, to embrace an ideology of America first is never going to forget everything they've seen.
That's why this issue isn't going to go away.
Now, Vance went to Israel just about 10 days ago, nine days ago on October 21st.
Here's the Washington Post account.
J.D. Vance seeks to bolster a fragile Gaza ceasefire on a trip to Israel.
Quote, Vice President J.D. Vance traveled to Israel as the U.S. tries to show that it will enforce a Gaza ceasefire deal that is off to a shaky start.
The problem for J.D. Vance when he went to Israel is that about a week earlier, maybe two weeks earlier, Donald Trump was asked when he was in the Oval Office how he feels about the attempts by Israel to annex the West Bank.
Israel is effectively annexing the West Bank.
They're taking more and more territory.
They're burning down homes.
Israeli settlers are backed by the IDF.
They're kicking Palestinians out of their homes.
They're using violence to do it, settler violence.
The IDF is backing it.
The Netanyahu government is backing it.
But the governments that Trump likes at least as much as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, told Trump that if Israel officially annexes the West Bank, it will be impossible for them to normalize relationships with Israel, which is what Trump wants.
He wants an expansion of the Abraham Accords, which he sees as part of his legacy.
He wants to turn the Middle East into Dubai.
And those governments, even though they're tyrannies, can't allow that because the people would never accept watching Israel annex the West Bank at the same time having those governments normalize relations with Israel.
So Trump, when I asked, said, Israel is not going to annex the West Bank.
They're not.
Which is very different from what his ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has been saying.
He doesn't even consider it the West Bank.
He doesn't call it the West Bank.
He calls it by what the Israeli settler movement calls it, Judea and Samaria, which is the biblical term in the views of Israel about what God promised Israel.
And Akabe said, no, this belongs to Israel.
These people aren't settlers.
It's their rightful owners.
Trump said there will be no annexation.
And the Israeli Knesset, the Israeli parliament, while J.D. Vance was visiting Israel, while he was on Israeli soil, voted in favor of annexation, exactly what Trump two weeks earlier said you are not to do.
They just humiliated J.D. Vance.
It's something that the Israelis have done many times with American leaders.
Secretary of State goes there and they purposely do something to show the Americans that Israel is in control of the relationship.
And J.D. Vance was asked about this while at Bemgurion Airport.
I believe he was leaving.
This is the end of his trip.
And here's what he said.
Yeah, go ahead.
We'll do it.
The West Bank vote yesterday that took place while you were in the country.
Oh, yeah, that was weird.
That was weird.
I was sort of confused by that.
Now, I actually asked somebody about it, and they told me that it was a symbolic vote, some symbolic vote to recognize or a symbolic vote to annex the West Bank.
I mean, what I would say to that is when I asked about it, somebody told me that it was a political stunt, that it had no practical significance.
It was purely symbolic.
I mean, look, if it was a political stunt, it was a very stupid political stunt.
And I personally take some insult to it.
The West Bank is not going to be annexed by Israel.
The policy of the Trump administration is that the West Bank will not be annexed by Israel.
That will continue to be our policy.
And if people want to take symbolic votes, they can do that.
But we certainly weren't happy about it.
Thank you.
You know, I think J.D. Vance is speaking authentically there.
I think he was offended that Israel would just slap him in the face that way.
The problem is nothing came of it.
There's no cutoff of aid.
There's no public threats to do so.
There's no cutting off of weapons.
The U.S. continues to ship weapons to Israel.
Israel bombed the crap out of Gaza earlier this week in violation of the ceasefire and Rubio and Trump defended it, saying they have the right to do so.
So there can be all these appearances of a split, frustration, pique, anger.
Even if J.D. Vance means it, the Israelis know, or at least believe, that it will never be followed by consequences.
And until it is, this behavior will continue.
So you can see him being sort of between this rock and hard place, where I do believe he's frustrated by Israel.
Obama was frustrated by Israel.
Biden supposedly was frustrated by Israel.
Trump was in the first term and in the second.
But the money and the aid and the weapons do nothing but continue to flow because these leaders, even though they're our elected leaders, are more petrified of the Israel lobby and of Israel than they are the opinion of their own voters.
And until that changes, this behavior will continue.
Here's the New York Times.
This is October 23rd.
This is Trump saying Israeli annexation of the West Bank won't happen.
Now, here's a question, a different question that J.D. Vance was asked last night.
And this also had to do with Israel and specifically Donald Trump's largest donor in his political career, which was Miriam Adelson.
She's an Israeli who late in life married Sheldon Adelson, an American Zionist billionaire who said one time, unfortunately, my son served in the U.S. Army and not the Israeli Army.
Unfortunately, my son served in the U.S. Army and not the Israeli Army.
Trump has said that they have one issue only, and that's Israel.
And that became Trump's number one donor.
And Miriam Adelson, according to Trump and Sheldon Adelson, were in the White House more than anybody.
Here's what.
We're having an issue with the video, so we're going to just wait a second.
Is it really just a second or should I go on to something else or?
All right, I think the video is ready.
Hello, Vice President Vance.
How you doing?
Good.
I have a question.
Do you condone large private corporations such as Palantir hoarding data cash?
All right, that was the wrong question.
That is a question I'm going to show you and talk about.
So we're going to show you this in just a second when we get her act together.
But this is, I'm not stalling, or maybe I am stalling, but I do want to say something about this video before we show it, which is that two years ago, none of this would be happening at conservative events.
Look at Charlie Kirk's trajectory.
He had always been vehemently pro-Israel.
And then over the last year, over the last nine months, he started becoming far more open to Israel criticism.
We've gone over this many times.
You probably know all of it.
But Megan Kelly put it this way, and I think she was very insightful about this.
She said that what explained Charlie Kirk's evolution on Israel after so many years of being fanatically pro-Israel, dependably pro-Israel, is that he represents, and Turning Point represents, he represented young conservatives.
And there was no way to claim that you were a voice for young conservatives if you were so steadfastly pro-Israel when so many of them have become, if not hostile to Israel, hostile to the idea that the U.S. will support them and that the U.S. will fund them.
Do we have this video ready?
If not, we can just move on to the next one and then come back to it.
All right, we do have this question ready.
So here's the question that I wanted to show you.
Hello, I have a question about Israel and Trump's policy towards it.
Do you think it's a conflict of interest for Miriam Adelson, an Israeli donor, to give millions of dollars to his campaign and then Trump have pro-Israeli policies?
Well, if you're asking, do I think the president of the United States has a conflict of interest?
No, I do not, because I know how the president of the United States makes his decisions and I see it behind the scenes.
Now, as the president himself has said, Miri Madelson, who by the way, I know and I have a very good relationship with her, she is very clear about the fact.
She doesn't hide the fact that she really loves Israel, and that is part of what motivates her political giving.
That is a reality.
At the same time, the president of the United States is America first through and through.
And let me give you just a couple of examples of this.
Number one, we have heard from some pro-Israel voices, some people who really love the state of Israel, that they don't want us to have a relationship with certain Middle Eastern countries.
Well, the president, his attitude is we need to build relationships with any country where we have shared interests, and he's going to do it if it's in the interest of the American people, and he's done exactly that.
Number two, there were people, and I remember this criticism of the president of the United States, I just raised it in the context of a conversation that I had with Charlie.
I remember when people said that the president of the United States was going to get us into a multi-hundred thousand troop regime change war for Israel.
This was four months ago, this was six months ago.
Now, the people who accuse the president of the United States of wanting to get us into a regime change war for Israel, I wonder if they stepped back and said, you know what, we were wrong about that.
Because the President of the United States did not want to get us into a regime change war for any other country.
He wanted to knock out a nuclear facility and get everybody back home.
And that's exactly what he did.
So I understand there's some frustrations out there, but I think the president of the United States, more than any president of my lifetime, is willing to stand up to anybody if he thinks it puts the interests of the American people first.
Thank you.
Now, I don't believe that is true.
Like I said, I'm open-minded to it.
I hope it's true.
I'm willing to believe it if I see evidence for it, if Israel actually starts suffering in some way or getting cut off in some way or even having aid reduced in some meaningful way, none of which has ever happened.
And yes, it's true, at least as of yet, the United States did not succeed in engineering regime change in Iran.
There's still time left.
There's certainly efforts underway to do that.
But Trump did bomb Iran for Israel and with Israel and bombed Yemen after Yemen was menacing Israel.
And that was a time when the Houthis were not attacking American ships.
They had stopped attacking American ships with the ceasefire Trump had engineered before getting into office.
They were only attacking Israeli ships.
And they even stopped that until the Israelis violated the promise to allow humanitarian aid and Trump went and bombed the Houthis when they were only menacing Israel.
But I think the more important point that we'll see how that plays out.
Like I said, I'm open-minded.
I just want to see proof.
I want to see evidence, not words.
But the more interesting part of this, the very interesting part of this, is that Donald, that J.D. Vance is forced, is obligated to try to convince a conservative audience that Trump isn't as pro-Israel as they believe.
He's required to try and argue to them, Donald Trump is standing up to Israel.
He's defying Israel.
He's doing things Israel is telling him not to do.
For as long as I've been alive, American politics has been about both candidates from each party arguing over with one another over who is more pro-Israel.
He doesn't love Israel enough.
No, I love Israel more.
No, I've been to Israel eight times.
I've been 12 times.
Nobody has ever, in major politics, in major party politics at a national level, felt compelled to stand up and convince people they're defying Israel.
This is such a remarkable sea change.
And you heard the applause of the audience, not like these are stray questioners.
You go to any one of these events and you're going to hear similar questions.
You heard the audience cheering, and the audience cheered J.D. Vance after that answer because he declared that Donald Trump is defying Israel.
That is the prevailing ethos in young conservative politics and increasingly in just conservative politics generally.
Obviously, it's the ethos in left and liberal politics, although I like to see how strong that is when there's a Democratic administration supporting Israel.
Although you saw under Biden and then Kamala Harris, their support for Israel really hurt them among left-wing voters, among younger voters, a lot of whom just weren't going to vote because of the steadfast support Biden and Kamala showed for Netanyahu and Israel during the destruction of Gaza.
This has become a serious change in public opinion.
I don't believe the change has manifested in concrete policy changes at the national level.
They're going to do everything possible to give the appearance of placating the public without changing anything.
You're seeing this already.
There are Democratic members of Congress who are now saying, I'm not going to take any more money from AIPAC because AIPAC's brand has become so poisonous.
It's like a stand-in for how subservient you are to Israel, even though you're an American politician in name.
But all they're going to do is start taking money from other pro-Israel groups.
They're going to keep their pro-Israel position.
That's the game they're trying to play.
But the fact that they even have to play it at all signifies how real and how positive these changes are.
Let's remember, here was Trump in early this month.
This is when he went to the Knesset to speak.
Trump salutes mega donor Miriam Adelson for help shaping U.S. decisions on Israel.
We showed you that video.
He paid flowing, effusive tribute to Mary Malson, although he kind of needled her as well, pointing out how much money she had.
She got $60 billion in the bank.
And he also said, I once asked her, who do you love more, Israel or the U.S.?
And she wouldn't answer.
Really, you know, pointing out in public that this is a woman whose loyalty is not to the United States, but is to Israel's.
And then right before the election, Trump spoke several times at groups that were organized by Mary Middleson.
And here, just as a reminder, was one of the things Trump said.
Do we have this?
Here's one of the things that, this is what he said at the Knesset, actually.
We've shown you this before.
But Trump spoke at U.S.-Israel groups before the election and said things like, we're going to make Israel great again and we're going to make the U.S. great again.
He talked about all the things he did for Israel at the behest of the Adelsons, which is why I say I'll believe that Trump is truly defying Israel when I see it.
Remember, earlier this year, we heard all this, these leagues, Trump and Netanyahu, are at each other's throats because Trump isn't letting Israel go to war with Iran.
Trump is insisting on a diplomatic resolution, which is what he was saying in public.
And there were smart people who said, I don't believe in this split.
I think they're just trying to lure Iran into a false sense of security.
That's why Trump is saying, no, we're not going to let Netanyahu bomb Israel.
We're going to negotiate a deal, get a diplomatic deal for their NUCA program.
And then Israel goes and bombs Israel.
At first, the Trump administration says, we had nothing to do with this.
This wasn't us.
And then once people perceived that first night was a success because of positive Israeli propaganda and U.S. media captivity to Israel, Trump then started saying, yeah, this is me and Netanyahu.
We're war heroes.
So we heard this claim before.
To me, the significant aspect of this is not that Trump really is defying Israel, but that J.D. Vance feels a need to convince conservatives that he's doing so.
Here's another question that I found super interesting and encouraging.
I mean, these are questions from young conservatives, and you see they are not on board with whatever Trump wants to do.
They're asking challenging questions.
Here's one.
Hello, Vice President Vance.
How you doing?
Good.
I have a question.
Do you condone large private corporations such as Palantir hoarding data caches on U.S. citizens?
No, I don't condone.
Now, one very interesting aspect of this question is Palantir, of course, is a surveillance company that has grown massively under the Trump administration in terms of its power.
Founded in 2002, co-founded by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp.
Peter Thiel is where J.D. Vance got his start from.
He went to work for Peter Thiel in Silicon Valley.
Peter Thiel was a major backer of both J.D. Vance and Blake Masters' Senate candidacy in Arizona.
Blake Masters didn't get past the primary.
He then ran for the House, didn't win that either.
But he also was a key backer of J.D. Vance's Senate run in Ohio, and it was Peter Thiel, by all accounts.
Remember, Peter Thiel was one of the earliest Silicon Valley billionaires to support Trump in 2016, spoke with the RNC in his defense.
He was gay.
He's gay.
He was a billionaire of Silicon Valley that made a bid that made that was important for Trump.
So Peter Thiel, even though he's kind of withdrew, drawn from the Trump movement, still carries a lot of cachet with Trump.
And it was Peter Thiel, by all accounts, who got Trump to endorse J.D. Vance.
So J.D. Vance is very loyal to Peter Thiel, to put that mildly.
So this is not an easy question for J.D. Vance to answer, in part because he knows that young conservatives are very suspicious, at least of Palantir.
He also knows that Palantir has become a favorite, the favorite Intel and military contractor for the Trump administration, grown massively in power.
We did a whole show on that, on Palantir's growth and power and the alarming, menacing power they've centralized under themselves under the Trump administration.
But he also knows that Palantir is Peter Thiel's company, who is his political patron.
So I'm so glad J.D. Vance got asked about this.
And here's how he answered.
Hoarding data caches on U.S. citizens?
No, I don't condone it.
And here's the thing.
So I get asked about Palantir a lot because there's this internet meme out there that somehow I am super in bed with Palantir.
And here's the thing that I'd say about this.
Palantir is a private company.
They sometimes do a useful service and sometimes they're going to do things that we don't like.
You should be demanding that your representatives do two things when it comes to Palantir or when it comes to any other technology company.
Number one, protecting your data.
What's going on with artificial intelligence is going to mean that there are massive inducements to steal your data, to harvest it, and to use it against you to sell digital advertisements.
That is not what I believe in and I've been fighting against it, whether it's Palantir or any other technology company literally before I ran for office.
When I ran for office, I was criticized by Republicans in my Republican Senate primary because I was talking then about Google and Facebook harvesting our data.
It's unacceptable.
I don't care who does it.
I don't want them to do it.
That's true.
J.D. Vance is very anti-big tech because conservatives are very anti-big tech, especially at the time in 2022, 2020, 2022, when the perception was, correct, that big tech was censoring conservative voices, especially on COVID, but on other things as well, the 2020 election, the Trump movement.
So he did.
He denounced Google and Facebook regularly.
There was no political risk to that.
You'll notice he didn't say, I denounce Palantir.
And the meme, it's not a meme, it's a fact.
It's not that J.D. Vance is in bed with Palantir.
It's that Palantir is Peter Thiel's company and Peter Thiel is J.D. Vance's political patron.
Now, sometimes people, when they ascend up to a certain level of political power, start to declare independence from their political patrons.
Until we see that from J.D. Vance with respect to Peter Thiel, these kind of questions need to be asked.
I'm really impressed with these questions.
This is encouraging.
Again, this is a turning point event.
They could just stand up and say to J.D. Vance, yeah, what about the trans people?
Thank you so much for keeping us safe from the trans people and kicking the ass of the immigrants.
And there were a couple questions like that.
It's good to see young conservatives standing up to J.D. Vance and asking very well-informed, thoughtful, important questions, including about Palantir.
Here's the rest of what he said.
Number two, and this is also very important.
What's going on with artificial intelligence, we got to be worried about large-scale surveillance, okay?
Everything.
You asked about Palantir.
Do you know that every time you make a credit card transaction, the credit card companies are collecting data on how you spend your money?
Do you know that every time you linger over a link on the internet for more than a half second, the search engines are collecting data on you so that they can sell you advertisements?
One of the biggest questions for American policy over the next 10 years is how to ensure that you are a sovereign citizen and you cannot be a sovereign citizen if any private corporation or any government can steal something from you that belongs to you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now, one thing that's very notable there, and you know what?
There are views that I believe J.D. Vance holds that I agree with.
But you'll notice there, the question was about Palantir.
And the reason I presume this student asked about Palantir is not only because J.D. Vance and Peter Thiel have a very long and important and deep relationship, but also because Palantir is the surveillance company that has far and away gained the most favor within and therefore the most power within the Trump administration.
We've done a lot of reporting on this about how much surveillance data about American citizens has been centralized under Palantir's control.
It's run by Alex Karp, who's an absolute maniac, an extremist of the worst kind, and an Israel fanatic.
And one of the things A.D. Vance did in this answer that I think people should find questionable, if not disturbing, is he did everything possible to distract attention away from Palantir, even though that was the question was about.
He said, first, you should be concerned about people weaponizing your data.
And he said, that's why I've denounced Facebook and Google.
And he sort of threw in, yeah, any company, including Palantir, it's bad.
And then the second one was, hey, look over there.
The credit card companies are collecting all the data about you and your transactions.
Yeah, but what about Palantir?
And the way there have been executive orders issued by the Trump administration empowering them to essentially centralize all data in the hands of the federal government, the IRS, homeland security, your health data, all your movements under the control of Palantir.
I didn't think that was a, not only did I not find that, not only did I find that to be an evasive answer, I found it to be a disturbingly evasive answer given what seems to me his unwillingness to criticize Palantir, notwithstanding how much more powerful that they are than, say, the credit card companies.
Even though what he said about the credit card companies, Google, and Facebook is true, to the extent that you just look at it in that very limited way.
The question was about Palantir.
And that's the one that I think J.D. Vance should answer.
All right, I think this is the last question we have to review.
Another great question.
There's a young lady who stood up and asked this.
Endorsed a candidate to run against Republican Representative.
You've endorsed a candidate to run against Republican Representative Thomas Massey, who has opposed and criticized some of the Trump administration's aims.
How would you address those who fear that principle disagreement or independent thinking is discouraged within the party because of how it can be framed as a betrayal instead of as internal accountability or an opportunity for debate and negotiation?
Now, this is a great question.
And as you know, last night we interviewed Senator Rand Paul, and this was one of the questions we asked him, because Trump is not only targeting Thomas Massey, but he's increasingly targeting Rand Paul, who's not up for reelection in 2026, I believe in 2028.
And Rand Paul, in response, has been supporting and has endorsed and vowed to campaign for Thomas Massey.
They're both from Kentucky.
And the reason it's so notable is because Thomas Massey and Rand Paul are both among the leading anti-war and anti-interventionist voices, certainly in the Republican Party.
They're among the leading pro-free speech voices in the Republican Party.
They're among the very few Republicans who have criticized Trump's censorship programs for protecting Israel.
Rand Paul has been denouncing the bombing of Venezuela on anti-intervention grounds, the same grounds he's been defending his whole career when criticizing Obama and others for instituting war on terror policies based on the same theory.
Thomas Massey has been criticizing Trump for overspending, which is part of Thomas Massey's libertarian view, but also for things like concealing the Epstein files.
But most of all, they're both targeted by Israel, by AIPAC, especially Thomas Massey.
And it's so notable that Donald Trump is doing everything possible to remove APAC's biggest enemy from the Congress, Thomas Massey, biggest enemy in the Republican Party, and one of the most principled anti-war voices, Rand Paul, while he's campaigning for Lindsey Graham and Randy Fine, the very living, breathing embodiment of neocon warmongering that MAGA claimed it was designed to crush.
And that's me, and that's the genesis of this question.
And also, what, are we a party now that if a member of Congress or Senate questions the great leader, the king, on some policy, on principle, now they have to be destroyed?
Here's J.D. Vance's answer.
So it's a very good question.
Let me say this one is hard for me.
And the reason it's hard for me is because Thomas Massey and I, he's one of the first people that ever reached out to me about my book or about political office.
I've known Thomas Massey well before I ever got involved in politics.
Thomas's wife died a, well, maybe it was a year and a half ago, two years ago, it was a little while ago.
She died very unexpectedly, was a very sweet and kind woman.
And I was probably one of the first people that called Thomas to offer my condolences.
I think the problem with Thomas, and I've told him this in private, and now I guess I'll say it in public, is it's one thing to disagree with the party on a particular issue.
It's one thing to take, you know, to take, to have your independent stand on a number of questions.
And by the way, some of the stuff where Thomas Massey has been independent against the Republican Party, I've agreed with him with.
Thomas and I worked together during 2023 where I was trying to stop the limitless flow of American money to Ukraine and Thomas was one of the people I was working closest with it.
But that's one thing.
Being independent, having your own opinions is one thing.
Voting against the party on every single issue, you're eventually going to make too many enemies.
And that is the problem that Thomas has had.
It's not one issue.
It's not three or four issues.
It's that every time that we've needed Thomas for a vote, he has been completely unwilling to provide it.
That is why the President of the United States has trained his ire on Thomas Massey.
It's because we can never count on him for some of the most difficult votes.
I wish that that weren't the case.
I say that as somebody who's known Thomas well before I got into politics, but politics is politics.
And when you always vote against the party, you can't expect the party to actually back you.
Now, you know, he says, oh yeah, like, for example, I agree with Thomas Massey and certain things.
For example, when it came time to stop funding Ukraine, I worked with Thomas Massey.
That was during the Biden administration.
That didn't take any courage from JD Vance.
The question is now, why is there no room in the conservative movement for somebody who votes no on funding Ukraine, given that Trump himself campaigned on a promise to stop it and has continued it?
Yes, he's tried to end the war, but hasn't been able.
And he's funded Ukraine and the war in Ukraine.
He's drawn down the billions that have been authorized the whole year.
And it's not true that he votes no against everything.
Trump dislikes him because he and Rand Paul spoke out against bombing Iran, which was absolutely antithetical to this idea that we weren't going to get involved in more wars.
Brandon Paul is doing that with Venezuela.
It's very specific things.
The Epstein files is something that a lot of MAGA objects to.
So again, very good question.
I think J.D. Vance clearly likes Thomas Massey, was dancing around the fact that he likes him.
He couldn't, he can't say that given Trump's jihad against Thomas Massey.
But let's remember that the people who are funding the anti-Thomas Massey PAC are three extremely pro-Israel billionaires, including Miriam Adelson, whose allegiance is not to the United States, but to Israel.
And the animus from them is coming is due to the fact that Thomas Massey is one of the loudest voices critical of U.S. support for Israel, consistent with his opposition to U.S. support for Ukraine.
All right.
I have to do one last question.
I think this question is interesting and notable and definitely something that J.D. Vance is going to face.
And yes, my wife did not grow up Christian.
I think it's fair to say.
So we don't have the question.
The question was about J.D. Vance's wife, Usha Vance, who grew up Hindu.
She's not white.
She's from India.
She's not from India, I believe.
She was born in the United States, but her parents are from India.
She's of Indian descent.
And I don't know the exact wording of the question because we don't have it, but it was something like, we're a Christian movement, we're a Christian nation, and yet your own wife isn't even Christian.
She's Hindu.
How can you lead a movement, a Christian movement, given that your wife and presumably your kids are non-white, but also are Hindu?
And this is what he said.
And, you know, I have to say, as somebody, my husband was in public life.
He was a member of the Brazilian Congress, played a big role in the Snowden story.
I had to watch him get criticized sometimes, have people say things about him.
It's hard to keep control when that happens.
This is your family.
So I think J.D. Vance answers with a little peak, which is highly understandable.
I empathize with that completely, but it's a question he's going to have to answer, I think, a lot.
Not a question I necessarily like or think ought to be asked, but one that he's going to get asked given the realities of this movement.
Not grow up Christian.
I think it's fair to say that she grew up in a Hindu family, but not a particularly religious family in either direction.
In fact, when I met my wife, we were both, I would consider myself an agnostic or an atheist, and that's what I think she would have considered herself as well.
You know, everybody has to come to their own arrangement here.
The way that we've come to our arrangement is she's my best friend.
We talk to each other about this stuff.
So we decided to raise our kids Christian.
Our two oldest kids who go to school, they go to a Christian school.
Our eight-year-old did his first communion about a year ago.
That's the way that we have come to our arrangement.
But thank you.
My eight-year-old was also very proud of his first communion.
Thank you, guys.
I'll tell him that old miss wishes him the best.
But I think everybody has to have this own conversation when you're in a marriage.
I mean, it's true for friends of mine who are in Protestant and Catholic marriages, friends of mine who are in atheists and Christian marriages.
You just got to talk to your, the only advice I can give is you just got to talk to the person that God has put you with, and you've got to make those decisions as a family unit.
For us, it works out.
Now, most Sundays, Usha will come with me to church.
As I've told her and I've said publicly and I'll say now in front of 10,000 of my closest friends, do I hope eventually that she is somehow moved by the same thing that I was moved in by church?
Yeah, I honestly, I do wish that because I believe in the Christian gospel and I hope eventually my wife comes to see it the same way.
But if she doesn't, then God says everybody has free will and so that doesn't cause a problem for me.
That's something you work out with your friends, with your family, with the person that you love.
Again, one of the most important Christian principles is that you respect free will.
Usha's closer to the priests who baptized me than maybe I am.
They talk about this stuff.
My attitude is you figure this stuff out as a family and you trust in God to have a plan and you try to follow it as best as you can.
And that's what I try to do.
All right, I guess that's about the best that he's going to be able to do.
You know, I think it's notable that he has to face that question.
Remember, Vivek Ramaswamy has faced this question too.
He is not Christian.
He's, I believe he is Christian actually, but he's gotten questions about his faith.
Oh, he's Hindu.
Is he Hindu?
Yeah, Vivek Ramaswamy is Hindu.
And Coulter said, I would never vote for you because you're not white.
He's been asked questions, including a turning point.
We could just listen to this question.
Vivek, you would profess to be a conservative, correct?
I'm a proud conservative.
If you are an Indian, a Hindu, coming from a different culture, different religion than those who founded this country, those who grew this country, built this country, made this country the beautiful thing that it is today, what are you conserving?
You are bringing change.
I'll be 100% honest with you.
Christianity is the one truth.
Jesus Christ is God, and there is no other God.
He is part of the Holy Trinity, and any other God is a demon, and it's false.
How can you represent the constituents of Ohio who are 64% Christian if you are not a part of that faith?
Like I said, I'm not here to justify my faith to you any more than you are to me.
But what I do share is the value set this country was founded on.
And I think that it's really important that we, you know, I mean, that's if you're going to build a political movement or stoke political passions based on these kind of tribalistic identities, it can come and snap back at you.
It's easy to say, oh, look at these Muslims.
They're not assimilating.
Look at these black people.
They're violent.
They're committing crimes.
But if you encourage people to think tribalistically that way in terms of identity or group membership, it's in this modern world, it is very likely that a lot of the leaders of the conservative movement are not going to be pure in that regard.
And one of the rising stars of the conservative movement, Vivek Ramaswamy, himself is of Indian descent and is Hindu, and so is J.D. Vance's wife.
And these kind of questions are going to continue to be asked.
And I don't think it's a particularly healthy way to have a country or to run a political system, but these are the kinds of questions that are very valid given the premises that this movement, often for its own political benefit, advances.
Fred, I have just one question for you.
I only have one.
A lot of people do this.
They have a bunch of questions.
That's not me.
I have one question only.
And my question is, this, how much time do you spend every day on a web browser, clicking around, searching, scrolling through endless tabs?
I know it's a lot.
Well, there's a new AI-powered browser from Perplexity called Comet, and it completely changes how you interact with the web.
Using Comet feels like having a personal assistant living right inside your browser, one that can actually do things for you, not just give you answers, but literally click, type, scroll, and search just like you would.
Getting tasks done in the background while you focus on other things.
I've been trying it out.
And here's what blew me away.
I had Comet, find a restaurant that fit my schedule, book the reservation, and even send a calendar invite.
Oh, while I kept working on prepping for my show, along with my colleagues, all I had to do is mention a few things that I was craving and how far I wanted to drive.
And if they were the rest out in the background, they could also shop for you, summarize articles, book travel, or even bulk unsubscribe you from spam.
All you have to do is download Perplexity's new AI web browser, Comet today, by heading to pplx.ai/slash Glenn.
And when you download it, you'll get a free month of Rumble premium.
That's pplx.ai slash Glenn.
Take back your time online with Comet.
All right, I want to talk about a panel discussion that took place on Piers Morgan's program last night.
I think I've talked before about how I often get asked to do these panels on Piers Morgan.
I usually say, no, I don't like panel discussions because they so often degrade into screaming matches.
And it just, I find them undignified.
I don't like screaming in order to be heard for 30 seconds before the person interrupts again.
I'm more than willing to do a one-on-one debate.
I think I actually said yes to one last week, but the other person canceled at the last minute.
Or apparently that's what we were told.
But in general, I've done these a couple times before, but they typically degrade into the things about we're about to show you.
But we're going to show you it anyway, not because it's nourishing, but because one of the people on the panel, it was about Israel, is Katie Miller, who is married to Stephen Miller, who is arguably one of the two or three most powerful people in the Trump administration, certainly in the top five in the White House, behind Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, probably the most powerful, especially on domestic questions, but even on foreign policy.
So that's her husband.
She also has worked in various Republican offices, including in the first Trump administration, with some sort of deputy press secretary.
And now she has her own podcast.
She used to work for Elon Musk, and then Elon Musk and her husband had some big falling out, Stephen Miller.
And so now she's a podcast host, making the rounds in media.
She might, as you might remember, the time when Pam Bondi went and said, hate speech is not free speech.
Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
And if you are spouting hatred, hate speech, we will come after you and put handcuffs on you.
That was Katie Miller, to whom she said that, who very approvingly responded because it was hate speech that Katie Miller considers anti-Semitic, i.e.
critical of Israel.
So they have a debate here.
This is Omar Botter, who's a friend of the show, and Jane Geiger, and there's Jillian Michaels, who I don't know what she's doing there, but I think I'm sure I know she's very pro-Israel.
And Katie Miller is fanatically pro-Israel.
And instead of debating the merits of U.S. Sport for Israel, of Israeli behavior in Gaza, which is what the panel ostensibly was assembled to debate, Katie Miller instead spent the whole time doing what conservatives have claimed liberals and the left do, which is she kept screaming racist and bigot and anti-Semite and accusing Jane Geiger and even Piers Morgan of attacking Jews because they were criticizing Israel.
And I want to show you this because I think it's just so illustrative of an extreme irony, which is that the conservative movement for the last 10 years in consensus, the conservative movement, claimed that one of their big grievances was that liberals call everybody racist and bigots and transphobes and misogynists and xenophobes in lieu of debating issues, which is true.
That at least was, and I think to some extent still is, but the left has kind of learned that it doesn't work.
It's kind of backfired.
It's lost its sting.
But for a long time, that was a main tactic of some people on the left, was to scream racist.
It was a way of shutting down debate, discrediting their political opponents.
Once you attach that label to someone, you no longer have to debate them because you've now destroyed their character.
And this is a major grievance of the American right, everyone in the American right that I know, this was a grievance they shared.
And I have been targeted with those tactics by the left for times when I was perceived to be antagonistic to the left, but I've also obviously been targeted with the same tactic from Israel supporters called an anti-Semite every day, despite being Jewish, et cetera, et cetera.
And I do think Israel supporters use this tactic more casually, aggressively, recklessly, prolifically than anybody.
And they've been doing it for decades.
Not like it's a ironic or tit-for-tat usage as a response to the left.
This has been pro-Israel discourse for as long as I can remember.
It's just that it's now backfiring.
So it's more notable.
People object more readily.
They don't stop in their tracks and get scared.
It doesn't deter people any longer from criticizing Israel.
They've overused it like the left has done with those other accusations.
But Katie Miller, I don't think she understands that.
And in lieu of debating Israel, she just screamed, I'm a victim of racism.
I'm being attacked by bigots in a way that should be very familiar to anybody who pays attention to this debate.
Here's some of what she did.
Why is it that every time someone wants to criticize an Amdami, it immediately comes back to the Jews and the anti-Israel movement instead of actually talking about his viewpoints, which is that he's not.
Nobody said Jews.
You just said it.
You always do that.
We say Israel, you say Jews.
We say Israel is a government.
Please don't make it about Jewish Americans.
And you come back with Jewish Americans.
What's wrong with you?
What's wrong with you?
Is Israel a Jewish state?
Yes or no?
First of all, okay, so oh my God, imagine having to listen to this for anyway.
Yes, Israel is a Jewish state.
It would be like saying Saudi Arabia is a Muslim state, which it is.
Egypt is a Muslim state.
So if you criticize Saudi Arabia, it means you're attacking Muslims.
You criticize the government of Saudi Arabia, you're attacking Muslims.
You criticize the government of Israel.
It means you're attacking Jews.
Same dumb logic.
If you criticize the U.S. government, presumably the U.S. is a Christian country, it means you're attacking Christians.
Oh, I just like what Joe Biden is doing.
Why are you attacking Christians?
And you say, well, I'm not attacking Christians.
I'm criticizing the U.S. government.
Is the U.S. government a Christian?
Is the U.S. a Christian nation or not?
Is the U.S. government a Christian nation or not?
And you'd be like, yeah, but it doesn't mean I'm attacking Christians.
Somehow, as ridiculous as it sounds in every other context, people have been trained to think it makes sense in the context of Jews in Israel.
Like if you criticize Israel, they'll be like, stop.
You say I condemn Israel for this.
You're condemning the Jews.
No, I'm condemning this foreign country called Israel.
Not like Jewish Americans or even Jews at all, just that foreign government.
Is Israel a Jewish state?
Yes or no?
First of all, okay, so say it's not a statement.
If Israel is a Muslim state, you can criticize it all day long, all day long.
There's no special protection.
What you're doing is you're quoting language that calls themselves a Jewish state or a Muslim state.
And to say that we should not be here and we should not be in existence and that you would be happy for other people like him.
No, I want Israel to be safe.
Nothing of the same.
You're totally lying.
It's normal for a Miller to be completely and utterly lying.
Quite frankly, I'm really sick and tired.
Okay, first of all, do you see why I know your panels?
This is what happens.
But in any event, also, you see, if you don't scream and yell, you just kind of stay silent.
But also, that last comment by Jenk was, oh, it's completely expected that a Miller would be lying.
And he's obviously referring to the fact that her husband is Stephen Miller and she's part of that family.
And he's saying Stephen Miller lies a lot.
So we say, oh, it's totally unsurprising to hear a Miller lying.
And she decided this was coded language for Jews.
A Miller is coded language.
This is exactly what the left has always said.
If you say, oh, there's a lot of crime in the United States, that's coded language for attacking black people.
This is the exact tactic the American right has been condemning for so vocally.
And now nobody uses it more than the pro-Israel movement.
They impose censorship.
They call everybody they disagree with bigots and racist.
They want to cancel everybody, get them fired.
It's all the tactics the American right claim to hate and loathe and abhor for so long is now used by the Millers and their allies.
Utterly lying.
Quite frankly, I'm really sick and tired of this racist bigoted rhetoric that comes from people like you against my husband, against my family, and my children.
I am raising Jewish children in this country.
And would you have to pay this?
What a weirdo.
Pierce, I'm going to be done with this if you're going to allow racist and bigot attacks against one of your commentators just for the sake of that he will not let me speak.
Oh, hang on.
Casey, to be clear.
Casey, to be clear.
He inserted a line that says in the Miller flag.
Is that not coded language?
Therefore, we are Jewish.
Come on, Pierce.
Where are you?
What?
Where are you standing?
God, you're so.
Casey, if I can speak into your shit, if I can speak to Sembike, fire him, cancel him, cancel America.
Oh, my God, Israel's feelings have shit.
Why don't you work for this country?
Can we try this country?
Yeah, you are a guest on my show, and I appreciate you coming on the show.
And I like you coming on the show.
These anti-Semitic attacks that is so permeating on CNN and XML.
This is so ridiculous.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I have to jump in here.
Somebody criticizing you personally is not an anti-Semitic attack.
If somebody says that you are lying, that is not an attack on Jews.
That is an attack on you.
And just stop hiding behind identity.
This is all the snowflake behavior that the right is supposedly criticizing the left for that you're simply repeating here.
Yes, Stephen Miller is a destructive force in American society.
That is not an attack on Jews.
That has no reference to his identity.
This is an attack on him individually and just deal with the merits of this case.
He's always great, by the way, on every show.
He's been on a show before.
I really, really, he's always just like a very calm presence.
Maybe the reason why I react so strongly to Katie Miller on a very visceral level is because she grew up in the same area where I grew up, around the same schools.
She went to the same college I went to.
I understand exactly who she is, just listening to her for a little bit of time.
But I show you this, not only because it's such a clear illustration, such a clear, vivid view of this tactic that Israel loyalists in the United States constantly use, weaponizing, cynically weaponizing anti-Semitism and bigotry and racism accusation against anyone who questions Israel.
But also because her husband is, as I said before, one of the three, four, if you want to be generous, five most powerful people in the U.S. government right now.
And this is a window into their mindset.
He says very similar things in very similar ways.
Now, that was just extremely annoying and very illustrative and cynical, manipulated weaponization of bigotry accusations.
That's bad enough.
But something far more sinister that she did is this.
And they're kind of yelling at each other when she says it.
But she basically threatens him with deportation.
Jenkin is an American citizen, has been almost his entire life.
He was born in Turkey.
His family moved here when he was a young child.
He's as Americanized as it gets.
You don't have to like Jank.
You don't have to agree with anything that he says.
I mean, to me, he's an American pundit.
He's an American political analyst, an American political activist.
He ran for Congress.
Started a major left-wing progressive outlet in the Young Turks.
Was an MSNBC host.
Whatever you say about him, Jenk is America through and through.
And he's an American citizen, and that should be the end of the story.
But because he criticized Katie Miller in a debate and criticized the country she most loves, the foreign country, she threatens him to have her husband effectively deport Jenk.
Listen to what she says.
Hold on.
She said you better check your immigration papers and make sure everything in there is correct.
Otherwise, you're going to be like Ilean Omar.
In other words, this has been a big cause on the right.
We're going to denaturalize Ileane Omar's citizenship on the grounds that she lied in her citizen papers 40 years ago.
She's threatening Jank.
We're going to take away your, my husband is going to take away your citizenship.
And in case you think you're in doubt about whether she means her husband, here is her husband, Stephen Miller, on March 20th of this year from the White House.
Quote, if you support terrorism and hate our civilization, we will revoke your visa and deport you.
And this is in the context of Israel critics being deported after their visas were revoked by the Trump administration, which enacted as one of its first immigration policies, not mass deportation of violent people in the United States illegally, as was promised, but instead deporting Israel critics, revoking their visa.
This was in the context of that.
He was saying, if you criticize Israel, we will revoke your visa and deport you.
And that is exactly what Katie Miller was threatening Jank Iger with.
If you stand up to me in a debate, if you criticize the country I love, if you offend me, you're going to get deported.
You better check your citizenship application.
I mean, the threat is all but explicit.
Here from the New York Post, this was just this week.
House Republicans want to strip Zoran Mandani of citizenship, possibly deport the New York City mayoral frontrunner over omissions.
This has become a major threat in the Trump movement.
If you support, if you criticize Israel, if you criticize Trump and you're a naturalized citizen here your whole life, a U.S. citizen, there's no two classes of American citizens, born in United States citizens and naturalized citizens.
The Constitution doesn't recognize tears of citizenship.
American citizens are American citizens, period.
But in certain sectors of the American right, this has become a threat, especially the pro-Israel right.
Quote, Randy Fine, Congressman Randy Fine, Republican of Florida, who's a warmonger and a complete loyalist to Israel, even though Donald Trump, while removing Thomas Massey, is out fundraising for and supporting Randy Fine against his primary challenger to his right, to his America first right.
Congressman Randy Fine last week demanded the feds, quote, review every naturalization of the past 30 years, starting with Mandani.
Quote, I just think we need to take a hard look at how these folks became citizens.
And if there is any fraud or any violation of the rules, we need to denaturalize and deport, Fine told the Post.
Obviously, what he cares about are people who are critical of Israel, who have the protection of citizenship, and he wants to exploit the U.S. government and its power in the Trump administration to deport Israel critics.
And by the way, when I was saying before, I was skeptical of J.D. Vance's argument that Trump is standing up to Israel or whatever.
These are the kind of things I meant.
As long as the Trump administration is opposing censorship in the form of hate speech codes on American campuses to render it anti-Semitic to criticize Israel or to question or criticize American Jews as the Trump administration has been doing, or is deporting students who are in the United States legally and who are law-abiding and valued members of their academic campus for the crime of criticizing Israel, I'm going to be skeptical of the claim that Trump is somehow standing up to Netanyahu or the Perl Israel lobby.
That's why I want to see actions.
Here was an exchange with Ilean Omar, who Stephen Miller's wife in that exchange, threatening Jank, mentioned that she had with Nancy Mays, the Congresswoman from South Carolina, September 17th.
This is what Ilan Omar tweeted, quote, I know you aren't well or smart, but I hope someone can explain to you that there isn't a correlation between my committee assignments and deportation.
Regardless of what you do with these committees, my office will continue to be next to you and I will continue to be in Congress.
And then Nancy Mace replied, woe, we would love to see you deported back to Somalia next.
So again, this is something that has been unleashed in certain segments of the conservative movement.
Typically in defense of Israel, not entirely, but typically.
I just want you to consider the audacity of this.
This woman goes on to Piers Morgan's show to debate a foreign country, is offended that someone's criticizing that foreign country and criticizing her husband.
As I said before, I had a husband in public life.
He was a member of Congress.
Sometimes I also lost control of my temperament or my emotions, got very angry if I saw somebody unfairly attacking him.
You grow a thick skin if you're in public life and getting attacked.
But when you're like a loved one is getting attacked, you feel particularly defensive.
The way he came into public life was he was detained as part of the Snowden reporting in the UK.
The UK threatened to imprison him on terrorism charges because he was working with the Snowden documents.
And I don't recall a moment in my life when I was as enraged as that.
So I understand that temptation, but you have to control yourself.
And you cannot go around if you're the wife of a top government official threatening people with deportation who are American citizens because they criticize Israel.
But that comment didn't come out of nowhere.
This is things Stephen Miller has been saying, who also is very pro-Israel.
And this has become a common strain in the Trump movement, not just to anybody, but to people critical of this one foreign country.
and that's on top of how sinister it would be, even if it were just to people in general, why it's even more toxic and sinister still.
Oh, and I suspect you also know that we have two ages, not one, two, our actual age and then our body's internal biological age.
What I didn't know, although it's obvious to everybody who sees me, is that I've likely lowered my biological age without even knowing.
Because here's the thing, because Americans eat so many processed foods and not enough fruit and vegetables, many, perhaps most, are 10 plus years older on the inside than their actual age.
They're ticking time bombs.
A major university study suggests how to slow aging and diffuse that biological time bomb.
Participants slowed their aging by drinking Field of Greens.
That's all.
They didn't change their eating, drinking, or exercise, just Field of Greens.
Eat fruit and vegetables.
And each fruit and vegetable in Field of Greens was doctor selected for specific health benefits, cell health or hearts, lungs, kidney, metabolism, even healthy weight.
I feel great knowing Field of Greens can slow how quickly I'm aging.
And I encourage you to join me.
Swap your untested fruit, vegetable, or green drink for Field of Greens while there's still time.
Check out the university study and get 20% off when you use promo code GLEN at fieldofgreens.com.
That's fieldofgreens.com, promo code Glenn.
Occasionally, we report on things going on in Brazil, and usually, the reason we do it is because it has some relationship to the United States or some illustrative model by which we can understand things that are happening in the United States.
Obviously, U.S.-Brazil relationships have become very important.
Trump just met with the Brazilian president, Lua de Silva, in Malaysia to try and resolve the tariffs that have been imposed, the sanctions on Brazil's authoritarian judge, Alexander Banaisch and his wife.
So there's a lot going on with Brazil.
We've been reporting on it as it's going on because in part we knew it impacted the United States so much.
There's a event that happened this week that is, regardless of your views, just staggering, staggering.
Because it looked like there was a war zone in Rio de Janeiro on Tuesday.
I was actually in the United States traveling back to Brazil Tuesday night when it happened, but it was Tuesday and you see videos and you would think there was a war zone.
But it wasn't.
It was an operation by the state police under the command of the elected governor of Rio de Janeiro State.
He ordered the police to enter two favelas, which are sprawling slums where almost entirely very poor people live.
A lot of them are work.
Most of them work.
They're law-abiding people, but they're dominated.
A lot of these favelas are by drug gangs that are extremely well-armed, sometimes even better armed than the state.
They've done things like shut down police helicopters before.
They have shouldered air grenades.
In this instance, they used drones that dropped grenades onto the neighborhood.
And the police invaded with the intention of arresting about five or six dozen leaders and members of the gangs that dominate these neighborhoods.
They rely on the drug trade.
They rely on other types of crime to finance them.
They're extremely well financed.
And they become very, very powerful.
In Rio Janeiro, they are actually integrated in the government.
There's a lot of people who work for the government who make a lot of money by protecting the drug gangs.
They get bribes.
The same with the police department.
But this operation that the governor ordered involved the invasion of the police into two different favelas.
And it resulted in the death of 132 people in the two favelas.
Four of them were police officers.
So it's 128 people who were killed.
And one of the things that shocked people was that day that it happened, the death toll was something like 60.
And then that night, residents of these two favelas found another 60 or 65 people who were dead in the woods.
Sometimes when there's these kind of major conflicts in these favelas, they try to escape into the woods.
And the police had what they called a wall of police and apparently just shot them trying to escape.
The police claimed they were willing to arrest anybody who was willing to turn themselves in, but it seems like given the death count that they just shot anybody who was trying to flee.
No attempt to arrest them, put them on trial.
It was basically a war operation.
And these corpses were just left on the ground in the woods.
And residents of the favela went and discovered them and carried their bodies and put them in the middle of the favela.
A very kind of melodramatic scene as you can imagine, dozens of corpses that were just left by the state, not even picked up, just killed and picked up.
And it's obviously spawned a big debate.
There's a lot of people who believe that these are all drug gang members who are lawless and criminal and deserve to just be killed.
And then there are a lot of people who believe that the state just can't go around killing people, imposing a death penalty when the Brazilian law doesn't allow the death penalty.
You're killing people with no due process.
Oftentimes, innocent people end up being killed.
There's no real, there's some claims that there were some innocent people who were being killed.
The police say that all the people they killed, of course, are drug dealers.
But it really, it's so redolent of so many of our own debates.
The war in terror was exactly this way.
State just goes and kills people.
Obama orders drones.
The drones pop drums on weddings or on gatherings of people.
Just kill 10, 15, 20 people.
And you say, oh, they're all bad people.
Don't worry about it.
And some people cheer and other people are very disturbed that the government can just extinguish life in large forms outside of a war zone.
We're not talking about two armies like Russia and Ukraine fighting each other on a battlefield.
We're talking about civilians and no way to distinguish who's a bad guy and who isn't.
That was the war on terror.
It's what's happening now with the Trump administration blowing up boats in international waters and then claiming afterwards, oh, don't worry, they were drug dealers.
And as Senator Paul argued last night on our show and has been arguing for a while now, typically the way you deal with drug dealers or drug smugglers is the Coast Guard goes and interdicts the boat.
It's very easy to do.
They board the boat.
If they find drugs, they arrest the people, put them on trial.
And if they convict them, they go to jail.
And if they, but as he points out, 25% of the time the Coast Guard interdicts a boat, they board the boat and find no drugs.
So they suspect a boat is a drug boat, and yet it's not a drug boat.
And this is raising all of the same questions.
I think it's really interesting to take a look at what has happened here because you can take a look at this event and you can say, oh, drug dealers are horrific people, and a lot of them are.
They terrorize principally the residents of the favela.
They rule over them.
The police don't come in.
It's basically a lawless zone.
It's like a parallel government.
And it really is right along with the war on terror because these drug gangs, a lot of times, they're the ones who provide services to the people.
If people need an operation for their mother and can't afford it, they go to the drug gangs.
The drug gangs provide it.
There are different ones, and some are more malicious, some are more sort of managerial in terms of the relationship with the people there and are more popular.
And sometimes the police are resented because they come in and cause shooting.
Other times, it's the resident of the communities that actually want the police to come in and kill the drug dealers because they're the ones principally victimized by it.
So a lot of dynamics here that I think are really relevant to a lot of our own debates, including when it comes to the police and crime in the United States as well and the drug war in general.
So just in terms of the basics of what happened, here's Alpais, which is a Spain-based newspaper, but they have a Brazilian version.
This is October 29th, which is yesterday.
Death toll from Rio de Janeiro police operation rises to more than 132.
Residents of the Rio de Janeiro favelas, targeted by a police raid aimed at capturing Commander Vermelio, the Red Command leaders, that's the big drug gang, found at least 70 additional bodies overnight in the nearby forest.
The residents have been placing the bodies in a row on the ground covered with blankets in a square in the Villa Cruzeiro favela so their relatives can identify them.
The 70 victims were not included in Tuesday's official count, which was 64 fatalities, including four police officers, which raises the death toll from the operation to more than 132, according to Rio's Attorney General's office.
The new death poll makes the Rio operation not only the deadliest in Rio de Janeiro, but also the deadliest in Brazil's history.
Wednesday's official report also listed 81 arrests and around 90 rifle seized.
The drug traffickers even launched grenades at officers using drones.
Around 2,500 officers were mobilized in the raid on two favela complexes considered the headquarters of Commander Vermelio.
The group founded at Rio Janeiro is the second most powerful criminal organization in the country after the PCC, known by its initials, PCC, which is based in Sao Paulo.
Rio's governor Claudio Castro declared on Wednesday after it became known that residents had found dozens of bodies in the forest that the operation against the commander of Vermelio was quote a success except for the death of the four police officers.
So he said basically everyone who died deserved to die.
The only victims were the four police officers who died.
To leave no doubt about his stance, he emphasized that only the uniformed officers quote are victims.
And I should say that Claudio Castro is very right-wing government, aligned with the Bolsonaro movement.
I want to show you this image and just warn you ahead of time before we put it on the screen.
It's a very graphic image.
It's an image of the bodies that were laid out on the ground in this favela, just to show you the mass kind of indiscriminate loss of life.
Here you see, it's an aerial view, so you can't really see the geospat, but there you see in the middle, about half the bodies are covered in blankets.
The other half are just lying there.
It gives you a sense of the magnitude of the death.
These are the people who were just found in the forest.
And there was a member of the Supreme Court today who said, we have to combat drug gangs, but it's not really, doesn't really, it's not really redolent of a government that lives under the rule of law.
If you just have the police go in and just gun down dozens of people of your own citizens in the middle of the forest and just leave them on the ground, that looks like a war zone.
Here's another photo of some of the bodies covered up.
And then we have some video as well of just some parts of the operation.
You see the people coming in with the tanks.
There was just constant shooting.
These are tanks carrying some of the police officers who were shot.
They were taken to the hospital.
There were a lot of other people who were shot who actually didn't die.
So this was a very serious armed conflict.
In the middle of Rio de Janeiro, there you see some of the people who are captured.
They kind of do a humiliation ritual.
And if you look closely, some of the people, these are the people they arrested.
They're all shirtless.
They were told to put their heads down.
The police filmed them and ordered them to lift their heads so you could see their pictures.
It's kind of redolent of what you see in El Salvador, just one on top of the next.
But if you look carefully, a lot of these are just kids.
They're 12 years old, 13 years old, 14 years old.
And there are kids that young who go and join drug gangs.
And they can be dangerous.
They're armed.
They kill people.
But you're talking about 12-year-olds, 13-year-olds, 14-year-olds.
Just to give you a sense of the social dynamics at play, I'm not justifying it.
I'm not criticizing it for the moment.
I'm just giving you a sense of what you see.
Look, those are kids, pretty much, for the most part.
And they are tied up.
There you see them being led away by very heavily armed armed agents of the state.
More of that.
There you see bombed out cars, just kind of an illustration of how much violence and damage there was.
There you see police officers pointing their guns at people.
I mean, this was other people laying on the ground.
This was, you know, and you can imagine if you live in one of these communities how terrorizing this was.
Now, I just want to give you a little sense of the debate.
There's a politician in Brazil.
His name is Nicolas Ferreira.
He's become extremely influential, very, very skilled on social media.
He's a right-wing politician, aligned with the Bolsonaro movement, but he's really his own person.
He's not old enough to run for president.
I think he's 28 years old, but a lot of people expect that, not just that he'll run, but that he has a very good chance of one day becoming president.
And he tweeted this a couple days ago.
If we ever get there someday, meaning in power, my idea is this, consider yourself warned.
And he showed a picture of that notorious president El Salvador.
And a lot of conservatives around the world in the United States, in Brazil, in Latin America, elsewhere, want to be like El Salvador.
It's a very strange thing.
We're constantly told that Central America, Latin America, Latinos are this primitive, governed, these primitive countries that aren't, can't assimilate into the United States, aligned with the United States.
And a lot of conservatives have decided that their political hero is the president of El Salvador, the dictator of El Salvador, President Bukeley, in that the United States needs to be more like El Salvador, which is dictatorship, that basically pacified the country, eliminated violence by eliminating all constitutional rights and all basic civil liberties.
It turned itself into a tyranny.
They built these extremely abusive, sprawling prisons.
This is where the Trump administration sent a couple hundred Venezuelan immigrants at the beginning of his term that created a lot of controversy.
They're now back in Venezuela.
But they're deliberately overcrowded.
They humiliate them.
They go into these prisons.
They never get out.
They're swept up in massive raids.
Basically, no due process, thrown into prison.
The idea is let's just put all the criminals in prison forever, disappear them from society.
And if we sweep up a bunch of innocent people, which we probably are doing, so what?
The principles of our country are much different.
Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Bull said it's better if 10 criminals go free than one innocent person be unjustly imprisoned.
That's the foundation for our country.
Benjamin Franklin actually said it's better to let 100 guilty people go free than to unjustly imprison one person.
But the El Salvador model is the opposite.
Better to imprison criminals, even if it means you sweep up a bunch of innocent people.
You don't need due process.
You just throw them into these dungeons, no human rights of any kind.
And here you have a major Brazilian politician saying that's the model he wants to bring to Brazil.
A right-wing congressman who's also aligned with the Bolsonaro movement and is also an evangelical pastor, he told the Brazilian media that the governor, Claudio Castro, promoted executions and killed people from his church, basically saying that innocent people were among those killed and that that was deliberate.
They were not trying to arrest people.
They were executing people en masse.
Antonio de Paulo criticizes police strategy, says the state government lost any credibility to investigate the case because they went and killed a bunch of people.
So here's what I want to say, which is a lot of people look at these accused drug traffickers or gang members and say, oh, these are bad people.
It's good just to kill them all.
I like seeing them killed.
The problem is, is that these drug traffickers, these drug gangs, are so entrenched in power in Brazil, but also throughout Latin America, including in Venezuela and Colombia, that you're not going to get rid of this problem or even address the problem or mitigate the problem by just killing a couple hundred people.
Remember, the U.S. fought a civil war alongside the right-wing government in Colombia, which was its puppet regime for decades, ostensibly on the grounds that it would kill and eliminate drug gangs in Colombia, and it never even improved the problem, let alone abolished it.
FARC and all those cocaine smugglers in Colombia just got stronger.
The drug war doesn't work.
The drug war, meaning use military force to get rid of drug trafficking, it doesn't work.
The United States has been in a drug war for 60 years.
You can go into Venezuela and change the government.
You can take out Maduro and put in whatever puppet you want.
Even hold elections.
You think the drug gangs are just going to disappear?
The U.S. tried that in Colombia.
The U.S. can't even eliminate drug trafficking in the United States.
Have you ever heard a drug user or drug addict in the United States say, oh, I have such problems.
I can't get a hold of drugs.
I never heard anyone in the United States say that.
Never heard anyone in Latin America say that.
It may satiate a certain desire for vengeance to see people you think are bad people being shot and killed and left on the ground.
Although I generally find a lack of due process highly disturbing.
But even if you assume that all the people they killed just happened this one time to all be guilty or I'll be members of a drug gang, what has it accomplished?
What has it improved?
How has you think the drug trade is impeded?
And that's a question that I think we need to ask for all these United States policies.
You know, it was a big joke during the war on terror.
The United States government under Bush and Cheney would announce every six months, oh, we just killed the number three guy in Al-Qaeda because everyone knew the number one was Osama bin Laden, who they couldn't get.
The number two was Al-Zahiri, who they couldn't get.
And so the number three was just some random operative.
And they would bomb somewhere.
They'd be like, hey, we got the number three.
They needed a war on terror success.
Everyone would cheer.
Yeah, we got the number three guy in Al-Qaeda.
And then three months later, they would bomb somewhere again.
They go, we got the number three guy in Al-Qaeda.
And maybe it was even true because they just replace whoever is killed.
And that's the same in these drug gangs.
Now, the question is, well, how do you solve the drug gangs, the problems of these drug gangs in Latin America?
How do you solve the problem of terrorism?
How do you solve the problem of drug gangs in Venezuela coming to the United States?
Again, there are no real drugs from Venezuela coming to the United States, so we're indulging that pretext for the war.
And probably there are two ways.
One is the way that Nicolas Ferrer in that tweet advocated what the El Salvadoran government did, which is you can just turn yourself into a complete totalitarian regime, eliminate all rights, all constitution, all ideas of due process, just empower a dictator, not allow dissent, just build sprawling prisons where people are disappeared into, never can get out of, abuse them, humiliate them, stack them up on top of one another to terrorize the population.
And eventually you could probably eliminate a lot of violent crime.
El Salvador has done that.
They've turned themselves into a dictatorship to do it.
Again, I think the American ethos is the antithesis of that, which is why it's so odd to see conservatives sometimes saying we need to be like El Salvador.
We all learned in school, Patrick Henry, give me liberty or give me death.
I used to say that during the War on Terror too.
I used to hear a lot of people in the War on Terror say, yeah, we're eroding civil liberties, but we have to just stay safe.
And I would even hear like John Cordon of Texas, the senator from Texas once said, what good are civil liberties if you're dead?
Meaning, oh yeah, we have to turn ourselves into an authoritarian regime.
That's the only way we can stay alive.
Fear-mongering is a very powerful way authoritarian regimes succeed and empower themselves.
Either let us eliminate all your rights in order to keep you safe, otherwise prepare to die.
That was never the American ethos.
The American ethos was give me liberty or give me death, meaning life is not worth living if you don't have liberty, if you're living under tyranny.
That's why so many of the founders of the United States risked their lives to fight against the British Empire.
They preferred liberty to life.
So I personally find the El Salvador model to be unbelievably undesirable.
Why would you want to live in a totalitarian regime?
Oh, so that you're free of violent crime?
Yeah, it is a serious problem to be subjected to violence.
And a lot of people who live in these havelas are the main victims of it.
And you can go and talk to them.
You know, you have all these, it's like the United States.
You have all these like people who go on MSNBC or CBS News or in the New York Times op-ed column or in government and they purport to speak for black people.
And they say, police brutality is evil.
Defund the police.
The police are all racist.
Because the people who are writing in the New York Times op-ed column and writing or appearing on cable news, they're not the ones who live in the neighborhoods where crime is such a problem.
They're insulated from it.
They live behind gates and walls.
So crime is a theory.
So they say, yeah, abolish the police, defund the police.
You do polling of the actual poorer and working class people, including black and Latino people in those communities.
They don't want the police defunded.
They want more police.
And a lot of, I've talked to multiple people who live in these favelas today and yesterday.
And a lot of them said, yeah, I support this operation.
These people need to be killed.
These are bad people.
They terrorize the residents.
And of course, there are a lot of people in favelas who think the police are reckless.
So there's divided opinion.
But it is important to recognize that complexity.
But at the end of the day, even if people want it, it is satisfying.
It's satiating to see drug leaders or whatever killed.
It doesn't do anything.
And the main drug leaders, the people who really finance these drug gangs, don't even live in the favelas.
They live in much better places, or they get advance notice that these are going to happen from their paid informants inside the government or police, and they're not even theirs.
So it doesn't end anything.
It doesn't change anything.
It's killing just to kill.
But that is one alternative.
You can turn yourself into an authoritarian regime.
And then the other alternative is, why do 10-year-olds and 11-year-olds and 12-year-olds pick up arms and go join drug gangs?
It's because they don't perceive they have any other future.
They don't really have any opportunity.
The level of poverty in Brazil and Latin America, it's hard to understand if you're an American.
It's a different kind of poverty.
It's suffocating.
It's deprivation.
You can have very smart kids who just have no opportunity to go to anything resembling a good school.
They have no parents in the home.
They don't know their father.
The mother works.
Two jobs, isn't very present.
She has her own problems.
We're all the byproducts of our influences.
And until there's investment in these communities, until people feel like they have a future, they're going to keep doing that.
So it's always that.
Do you want to solve the problem by turning yourself into an authoritarian autocratic regime or do you want to solve the root problem?
And these solutions in the middle where you just kill people, blow up drug boats, blow up terrorists.
This is theater.
But it can be very dangerous theater because it empowers the government to extinguish lies with no accountability, no due process, no burden to demonstrate that what they're doing or the people they're killing are actually guilty.
And I try to be humble about the fact that I'm not the one who lives in these communities.
I know them better than a lot of people do.
My husband grew up in one.
His family still lives there.
We created a community center in the middle of one of them that I administer and oversee and talk to people who work there.
So I have some understanding, but I don't think I have an understanding anywhere near what it would be like if people live there.
And that's why I spent a lot of time talking to people who do.
And a lot of them say, yeah, these drug gangs just go kill them.
So it's not so black and white in terms of who supports this and who doesn't.
But I think the question you always have to ask is if you're cheering for killing, if you're justifying blowing up drug boats or engaging in a war on terror or removing the government in Venezuela because you think Maduro is a bad guy and you want to replace him with somebody better.
You're going to kill a bunch of people.
Maybe you're going to kill a bunch of people you think are bad people and deserve to be killed.
You're going to cheer that.
You're going to be happy.
But what does it accomplish?
We've been doing this drug war for 60, 70 years.
So is Brazil.
This is not the first time an operation like this has happened, although it's the most fatal.
And any progress is made.
Same with the U.S. drug war.
Same with the war on terror.
And the same is going to be true of blowing up boats.
You can blow up all the boats you want.
There's still going to be plenty of drugs under the United States and available in the United States.
And you can change the government of Venezuela and control the government of Venezuela like we did in Colombia, and it's not going to fix the problem.
And I think a lot of times the way government gets people to acquiesce to things is they encourage them to look at very myopic and short-term considerations.
Oh, let us just go kill people.
We'll show you how bad they are.
We'll give you stories about how they cut organs out of children or pull babies from incubators.
We'll just make stuff up.
You'll hate these people so much.
They beheaded 40 children, 40 babies.
They cut babies out of wombs.
They cook babies in ovens.
We'll just feed you these stories about how evil they are and you'll be happy.
You'll feel good that they're killed.
The question is, like long term or even midterm, like what are you empowering the government to do and what problems are you really solving?
So I don't want to simplify it.
It's very easy to moralize about it, to be sanctimonious about it one way or the other.
It's a complex situation, but I think your responsibility as a citizen, if the government wants to do things that seem kind of remarkable, like let's go just kill, end the lives of 120 people with no judicial supervision, no process, no evidence.
is you have to demand answers about what actually is being accomplished.
And if the answer is not very much, or even it's making the problem worse, no matter how satisfying it seems in a short-term or visceral way, I think the responsibility is to question it and object to it and demand that actual solutions be pursued and not these cheap theatrical shows or gestures toward solving a problem that the government actually has no intention of solving.
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, or all the major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our show there, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
Finally, as independent media and independent journalists, we really do rely on the support of our viewers and members, which you can help provide by joining our locals community.
If you do so, you get a wide array of exclusive benefits, exclusive content.
Every Friday night we do a QA as we're going to do tomorrow night where we take questions submitted exclusively from our locals members throughout the week.
We try and stay in touch with you interactively.
We put exclusive interviews there at times.
But most of all, it's the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night to enable our show to exist.
All you have to do is click the red join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you directly to that community.
For those of you watching this show, we are, needless to say, very appreciative.
We hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m. Eastern Live, exclusively here on Rumble.
