IDF Reservists Fight Anti-Semitism on College Campuses

On today’s show, Glenn was joined by Amit Deri, the executive director of Reservists on Duty (RoD), an organization of former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers dedicated to fighting  and anti-Israel propaganda on college campuses across North America. Founded in 2015, the volunteer group is comprised of army reservists from every religion and background, including Christians, Muslims, and Atheists.

“Our goal is to fight hate groups,” said Deri. “I can tell you those groups are anti-American. They are anti everything, anti the western world. Our group is coming first to expose those groups on campus. To educate and give tools to Jew students and non-Jew students for how to speak about Israel, to refute the lies and bad labels they are spreading all over the place.”

Listen to the podcast above to hear the whole interview.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I found out about a group called Reservists on Duty. It's an organization created because of the military experience and the encounters with the far left that are -- that anti-Semitic organizations are -- are using to attack Israel and the -- the members of the IDF. And these are -- these are becoming very, very powerful groups. And you just can't -- you just can't stand up and tell the truth of what you know about Israel. So these reservists have come together. And they have served on active duty in various combat positions. These are not Jews.

These are Christians and Muslims. And I believe atheists. That are standing up and saying, "Wait a minute. None of that is true."

We have Amit Deri. He's the executive director of Reservists on Duty. Amit, how are you?

AMIT: Good morning, Glenn. Thank you for having me.

GLENN: You bet. Okay. So tell me exactly what you guys are doing.

AMIT: So, yeah, Reservists on Duty is a group of former Israeli soldiers. The reason the Jews are also there, but there are a lot of them that are Americans who today lives in Israel. But also a lot of minorities that lives in Israel. You probably know that in Israel, we have Muslims, we have Jews, we have Bedouins, we have Christians. We even have Palestinians. And a lot of them are willing to come and speak in favor of Israel on college campuses. And our goal is to fight BBC, anti-Semitic groups -- hate groups actually that works on campus. And you mentioned, by the way, that those groups are anti-Israel. But I can tell you that they are actually anti-American. They're anti-everything. They're anti the Western world.

GLENN: Yes.

AMIT: And our group actually has come in first to expose those groups on campus, to educate and to give tools for Jewish students and non-Jewish students, how to speak about Israel, to refute the lies and the blood labels that those guys are spreading all over the place. And -- and that's Reservists on Duty. We are -- we are usually coming when they are producing -- you probably know, Glenn, that they're producing a week -- a whole week against Israel called the Israeli apartheid group. You can find that in -- I think in every college campus in America. You have a week against Israel. They build the big wall. They call it the apartheid wall, which means the separation wall that we have here in Israel. Building the wall with a lot of quotes and a lot of lies. And they're actually, for the whole week, spreading lies, misinformation, and disinformation. Pure anti-Semitism against Israel and against the Jewish people.

GLENN: Okay. So a couple -- so a couple of things. So you can contact you, I would imagine. And ask for you guys to come and speak at the college.

I think having a Palestinian speak is really powerful. You know, speaking in defense of Israel.

What is the reception that you're getting at these campuses?

GLENN: Actually, this is our main challenge. We have a lot of people -- all of them are volunteers. And our main challenge is to -- we need more people to invite us. We're not just coming and showing up in the middle of campus.

So we need groups, more groups, Jewish groups, Christian groups, conservative groups, that will invite to us speak on campus. So I invite your audience and the people who are listening to us now to invite us to their college campus. We will come. We have the best speakers. And you said -- you mentioned the Palestinian guy. I can tell you, it's not easy for those speakers.

GLENN: I know.

AMIT: We just came back from two weeks to the United States, with a minority group. One Christian, one Arab, one Muslim girl, one Bedouin, and one Palestinian. And they experienced a physical attack. Freedom of speech today in America, I think, is under fire. I think you know that better than me.

And those guys two weeks ago, they gave a speech on a synagogue, not in a college campus. In a synagogue in New York. Lincoln Square Synagogue. And in the middle of the speech, temple of Palestinians probably -- Palestinians or Muslims sneak into the building or synagogue and started to shout and yell and scream and curse in every possible language inside a synagogue, and tried to physically attack the Palestinian speaker. Just drive them crazy when Arabs, when Muslims, Christians, Bedouins, speak in favor of Israel.

So I think if this drives them crazy, we're doing the right thing. And we want to bring those guys more and more to the stage, and I invite people to invite us to come and speak.

STU: As sick as our universities are right now and all of the things that they're doing that are, you know, not up to what we kind of thought of as real American foundational principles over the years. There's really, I don't think anything, that seems to get our universities more angry than people saying positive things about Israel. Is that just the sort of dark themes that have gone throughout history when it comes to the Jewish people?

Is that an American military argument? Why do you think that is?

AMIT: I think, you know, the -- the essence is anti-Semitism. If you look from the leader of those groups, most of them are -- are Muslims, that immigrated to the states. And, you know, it's not about '67 borders, it's not about a peace agreement with the Palestinians. They want us out. They want the Jews, the Jewish people out from the state of Israel.

And when -- when we're coming on college campuses, you can always see that this is not only about Israel. It's also against conservative speakers who are coming to college campuses.

GLENN: Yeah.

AMIT: It's all the speakers who are not going with -- you know, with the mainstream, with what the -- by the way, most of the administrations on college campuses want to hear -- you are not welcome. Nobody will give pro-Israeli groups to do a hate week, literally hate week, like the Israeli apartheid group that those guys were producing.

Nobody in the administration would let us to do a week even in anti, even in favor of Israel, nobody would let us do that. And the administration, all college campuses are backing those students. I can tell you that we're experiencing the same, like we experienced in the synagogue, we experienced the same in Minnesota, on the campus. At a state university.

GLENN: When you guys speak or are asked to speak, does it cost -- does it cost the organization inviting you anything to bring you over?

AMIT: No money. No. We don't charge a penny. We want to do that because we believe in what we're doing. And all of our -- our activists are volunteers. There's a lot of people who are passionate for Israel here. And we want to do that.

Because we understand now -- and I think, by the way, Glenn, I think we understand too late unfortunately.

GLENN: Yeah, yes.

AMIT: Those guys started back in the '80s. '90s.

GLENN: All right. So how does somebody get in touch with you?

AMIT: Yeah. So we have our website. Onduty, in one word. Onduty.org.il. And all the details and all of our information, contact information and our activities and videos, on the website.

GLENN: Okay. It's onduty.org.il. Don't forget the .il. Onduty.org.il.

Amit, we'll talk to you again, and we hope to see you next time you're in the United States. Thank you for what you're doing.

AMIT: Thank you again. I want to -- I want to thank you and your audience for all of your support for the state of Israel, for the idea of -- I can tell you that a lot of people here in Israel listen to your radio shows and podcast, and we don't take it for granted. Thank you very much.

GLENN: Thank you, Amit. I appreciate it. God bless you.

Drone mystery exposes GLARING government incompetence

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone issue is getting way out of hand.

Earlier this month, Glenn first reported on the mysterious drones stalking the night sky over New Jersey, but the situation is increasingly concerning as the sightings have escalated. Not only have drones been seen across the Northeast Coast, including over New York City, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but recently, they have been spotted over the night skies of San Diego and other parts of Southern California.

It doesn't take an expert to identify the potential dangers and risks that dozens of undetectable, unidentified six-foot or larger drones pose to national security. Yet, our government's response has been one of unimaginable incompetence, leaving us to speculate on the origin and intention of these drones and wonder in astonishment at the government's ineptitude. Here are three examples of the government's lackluster response to the mystery drones:

Iranian Mothership and Missing Nuclear Warheads

- / Stringer | Getty Images

After several weeks of hubbub, New Jersey Representative, Jeff Van Drew gave an interview on Fox News where he claimed that the drones originated from an Iranian "mothership" off the East Coast of the United States. This theory has since been disproven by satellite images, which show that all Iranian drone carriers are far from U.S. shores. Another theory suggests that drones may be equipped with sensors capable of detecting nuclear material and that they are looking for a nuclear warhead that recently went missing! With these apocalyptic theories gaining traction in the absence of any real answer from our government, one can't help but question the motive behind the silence.

Pentagon's Limp Wristed Response

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

In a recent press conference, national security spokesman John Kirby responded to reporters demanding answers about the government's lack of transparency, which has caused increasing public anxiety. He insisted that the drones did not pose a threat and were not assets of a foreign power, such as from Iran or China--even though he is still uncertain about their identity and origin. He also claimed that many of the sightings were simply misidentifications of normal aircraft.

This lackluster answer has only further inflamed national anxieties and raised even more questions. If the government is unsure of the identity of the drones, how do they know if they are a threat or if they aren't foreign assets? If they aren't foreign, does that mean they are U.S. assets? If so, why not just say so?

The Pentagon has also stated that they are leaving it up to local law enforcement to spearhead the investigation after concluding that these drones pose no threat to any military installation. This has left many feeling like the federal government has turned a blind eye to a serious issue that many Americans are very concerned about.

Where's Pete Buttigieg?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

We are in the closing weeks of the Biden administration, and with the finish line in sight, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg probably figured nothing else could go wrong on his watch—but boy was he wrong. As Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg is in charge of the FAA, the agency responsible for managing all air traffic across the nation. One would think that mysterious, 6-foot-long, seemingly intractable drones are invisible on radar and flying above major cities would pose a serious threat to the myriad of legal aircraft that traverse our skies. Yet, Buttigieg has been silent on the issue, adding another failure to his resume which includes: malfunctioning airplanes, the train derailment in Ohio, and the Baltimore Key Bridge collapse, just to name a few.

Glenn: How Alvin Bragg turned hero Daniel Penny into a villain

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty.

America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.

This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare.

Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.

In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.

Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.

In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.

A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.

The system failed Jordan Neely

It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.

This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.

It’s time to demand change

The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

CEO Brian Thompson's killer reveals COWARDICE of the far-left death cult

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Early on the chilly morning of Wednesday, December 4th, Brian Thompson, CEO of health insurance giant, UnitedHealthcare, was walking through Midtown Manhattan on his way to a company conference. Suddenly, a masked and hooded figure silently allegedly stepped onto the sidewalk behind Thompson, drew a 3-D printed, silenced pistol, and without warning fired multiple shots into Thompson's back before fleeing the scene on an electric bicycle. After a multiple-day manhunt, a 26-year-old lead suspect was arrested at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania after being recognized by an employee.

This was not "vigilante justice." This was cold-blooded murder.

As horrific as the murder of a husband and father in broad daylight in the center of New York City is, the story only gets worse. Even before the murder suspect was arrested, left-wing extremists were already taking to X to call him a "hero" and a "vigilante" who "took matters into his own hands." Even the mainstream media joined in on the glorification, as Glenn pointed out on air recently, going out of the way to show how physically attractive the murder suspect was. This wave of revolting and nihilistic fanfare came in response to the findings of online investigators who surmised the murder suspect's motives to retaliate against healthcare companies for corruption and denied coverage. The murder suspect supposedly underwent a major back surgery that left him with back pain, and some of his internet fans apparently viewed his murder of Thompson as retribution for the mistreatment that he and many other Americans have suffered from healthcare companies.

The murder suspect and his lackeys don't seem to understand that, other than depriving two children of their father right before Christmas, he accomplished nothing.

The murder suspect failed to achieve his goal because he was too cowardly to try.

If the murder suspect's goals were truly to "right the wrongs" of the U.S. healthcare system, he had every tool available to him to do so in a constructive and meaningful manner. He came from a wealthy and prominent family in the Baltimore area, became the valedictorian at a prestigious all-boys prep school, and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a master's in engineering. Clearly, the murder suspect was intelligent and capable, and if he had put his talent into creating solutions for the healthcare industry, who knows what he could have accomplished?

This is the kind of behavior the far-left idolizes, like communists on college campuses who wear shirts that celebrate the brutal Cuban warlord, Che Guevara. Merchandise celebrating the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder suspect is already available, including shirts, hoodies, mugs, and even Christmas ornaments. Will they be sporting his face on their T-shirts too?

This macabre behavior does not breed creation, achievement, success, or life. It only brings death and risks more Americans falling into this dangerous paradigm. But we still have a chance to choose life. We just have to wake up and take it.

Is Trump repealing the 14th Amendment? Here's the truth.

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Trump really promise to put an end to the 14th Amendment, or is this just another mainstream spin?

This past weekend, President-elect Donald Trump sat down on NBC's "Meet the Press" for his first interview since the election. As one might expect, it was a particularly hostile interview, but Trump handled it with grace. The biggest takeaway from the interview was when the interviewer, Kristen Welker, pressed Trump on his immigration plans, specifically his plans to end birthright citizenship.

Despite Walker's claim that the 14th Amendment protected birthright citizenship, Trump defended his stance with the backing of legal scholars, who argue that birthright citizenship has to be granted within the proper "jurisdictional scope." As Glenn reiterated on his show this week, the 14th Amendment was enacted in the context of slavery "not illegal immigration. The 14th Amendment doesn't say, "Come over here, get into a hospital, have a baby, and congratulations, everybody is a citizen."

The media still pushed the narrative that Trump is trying to overstep the 14th Amendment.

But what is the truth? What is birthright citizenship, and what does the 14th Amendment actually say about it? Here is everything you need to know about the "birthright citizenship debacle" below:

The media outrage

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

If you have glanced through any mainstream media articles, they would convince you that Trump will repeal the 14th Amendment altogether and catapult the country back 200 years before slavery was abolished when Congress passed the Constitutional Amendment. But how do these accusations stack up to reality?

What the 14th amendment actually says

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

To get to the bottom of this, we have to understand what the 14th Amendment actually says and the context in which it was created.

During Trump's NBC interview, Welker "quoted" the 14th Amendment as "all persons born in the United States are citizens," but anyone who took a government class in high school can tell you that is wrong. The actual14th Amendment says:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Notice that Welker conveniently left out "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This was no simple oversight.

First, let's define what birthright citizenship actually is and how it relates to the 14th Amendment. Birthright citizenship is an interpretation of the previously quoted section of the 14th Amendment: that by simply being born on U.S. soil, you are automatically granted U.S. citizenship. This has been the historic interpretation of the amendment. However, the border crisis has been incentivized by an abuse of birthright citizenship, which is colloquially called "anchor babies." This refers to when a pregnant woman crosses the border, gives birth, and is granted residency since her child is automatically given U.S. citizenship.

However, Trump says the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" could enable the federal government to crack down on this abuse of birthright citizenship. If a person is here illegally, then they are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S., and therefore, their child would not be given automatic citizenship. This would not apply to legal immigrants who have secured citizenship, despite any claims to the contrary.

What Trump actually said

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

When questioned about the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship and the possibility of using executive orders to get around the 14th Amendment, Trump's first suggestion was to pose a potential amendment to the 14th Amendment as a national vote. When Welker pushed back, Trump stressed the importance of ending birthright citizenship and conceded that, if necessary, he would use an executive order.

As usual, the mainstream media has spun a mountain out of a molehill and blown the entire issue out of proportion. They have spun Trump's reasonable and legal proposition into a dictatorial decree that would send the country back 200 years.