VA, WV, SC, MS, IA, TN, NE & FL National Guards to the Mexican border. Why? Because TX Gov. Abbot has asked for help. To learn about Gov. Abbot's Operation Lone Star program, visit the Texas Indigent Defense Commission site.

But can they do that? Isn't regulating immigration the role and responsibility of the federal government? And what is "Immigration Federalism"?

Strangely, for an issue that is and has been so important to our nation's history - hint: we are a nation of immigrants, immigration is not even mentioned in the Constitution. And as Prof. Gulasekaram tells it, for the initial 100 years of our history, immigration was pretty much run and regulated by our states. It wasn't until after the Civil War that the federal government got involved in immigration matters the way we think of it today.

From the 1870s to the mid-20th Century, immigration was a race-based regulated system. For example, for the longest time, only white people could become US citizens. There were also quotas that favored Northern and Western Europeans. All of this changed in the 1960s, from which time to 2001, immigration became a bipartisan matter. But after 9/11, immigration became a hot-button, political and polarizing issue. As a result, our Congress hasn't really passed a robust immigration law for a long time.

Prof. Gulasekaram is co-author of the leading immigration law casebook used in law schools, Immigration & Citizenship: Process and Policy. And he is also co-author of The New Immigration Federalism - a book that provides an in-depth empirical and theoretical analysis of the resurgence of state and local immigration lawmaking, which is the subject of our conversation in this episode.

You may also be interested in an earlier episode, in which, my guest, Prof. Jennifer Chacon, answers this question: do immigrants commit more crime than native-born Americans? Listen here: https://bit.ly/HbN-S3E18

Adel

Host of the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠History Behind News⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ podcast

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠:

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Click here⁠ and join⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

Danny Masterson. Donald Trump. Did you know that rape is the most underreported crime?

Did you know that rape was originally a crime of trespass against property? Why property you may ask? Because the raped woman was deemed to be the property of her father or her husband!

But what if, in the above original definition of rape, the rape victim was an unmarried orphan? This is more than an academic question. Because, as my guest, Prof. Diane Rosenfeld explains, over time governments stepped in on behalf of rape victims. And therein lurks another problem: rape laws were written by men.

So rape cases were and are prosecuted with laws that reflect men's perspectives on this terrifying crime. It's no wonder that most prosecutors, in fact, try to dismiss allegations of rape and dissuade victims from bringing charges. And when rapes are prosecuted, only 2-4% succeed. 

In the last 30 days, we've had two high-profile rape cases - one civil, the other criminal. Donald Trump was not found liable for rape in the civil suit brought by E. Jean Carroll (although he was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming her). And Danny Masterson, the actor from "That 70s Show", was found guilty of two of the three counts of rape.

When it comes to violent crimes, rape seems to stand apart from others. For example, in other violent crimes, we don't generally ask the victims if they fought back or screamed. But we do that in rape. Also, victims of other crimes don't suffer from the social stigmas that rape victims do! I am referring to victim blaming.

So to better understand the legal, cultural and social history of the crime of rape, I spoke to Professor Diane Rosenfeld of Harvard Law School, where she teaches courses such as Gender Violence, Law and Social Justice; Theories of Sexual Coercion; and Title IX, which is the federal civil rights law that protects discrimination based on sex. In addition to teaching at Harvard Law School, Prof. Rosenfeld has taught several courses at Harvard College, including a seminar on Creating Cultures of Sexual Respect on Campus. Prior to teaching, she served as the first Senior Counsel in the Office on Violence Against Women at the United States Department of Justice and as an Executive Assistant Attorney General at the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.

Prof. Rosenfeld’s research areas include Title IX and campus sexual assault prevention and response; prevention of intimate partner homicide; and addressing commercial sexual exploitation of women and girls. Her current focus is creating a bonobo-inspired sisterhood among women to overcome patriarchal violence.

And if you are wondering what bonobo is, well, you've come to the right place, Prof. Rosenfeld is the author of The Bonobo Sisterhood: Revolution Through Female Alliance, a recent book that we discuss in this episode. To learn more about Prof. Rosenfeld, you can visit her academic page or personal website.

I hope you enjoy these episodes.

Adel

Host of the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠History Behind News⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ podcast

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠:

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Click here⁠ and join⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

How would she feel about the first-ever U.S. default? How does she feel about high inflation?

My guest, Jon Hilsenrath, a senior correspondent of the Wall Street Journal, tells us exactly how Secretary Yellen feels about inflation (a stain on her record), and would feel about the first-ever U.S. default (heart attack!).

And he also explains how she was compelled to take this job — a job she initially declined.

“These are fucking people!” shouted Janet Yellen as she pounded the table. But it was not vulgarity. It was passion about the plight of people, people who are more than numbers, people who deserve better policies.

Secretary Yellen has been worried about a potential U.S. default for at least two years now. And she is determined to get inflation under control. But Janet Yellen has been here before — speaking about and dealing with America’s economy. So her story, as told by Mr. Hilsenrath, is really the story of America’s economy and its economic thoughts and policies. And in this story, her husband, Dr. George Akerlof, who is a recipient of a Nobel Prize in economics, plays a big role (as she does in his professional life). Yellen, Akerlof and their son, who also has a doctorate in economics, talk shop “all the time” at home. They live and breathe economics.

In this episode, Mr. Hilsenrath tells us the many sides of Yellen’s personality, and explains how they have in the past and may now influence her decisions — decisions with profound impacts on our economy. You’ll hear about (1) Yellen’s compulsive preparation (which, at least once, got in the way of swift decision-making), (2) her transition from the regimented and methodical approaches of the Fed to the hustle and bustle and politics of being a member of the U.S. President’s cabinet, (3) her and her husband’s moral purpose, (4) their desire, from early in their lives, to solve the unemployment issue, (5) their humilities versus the hubris of economists in general, (6) her legacy, and (7) her desire to do good, to do the right thing, in a town in which right and fairness aren’t easily defined or attainable. You will also learn and laugh about many important figures in the U.S. economy, and their quirks. You will hear about a family who talks economics all the time — at the kitchen table and on vacation.

You can learn more about Mr. Hilsenrath by clicking this link. And here is an Amazon link to his recent book, Yellen: The Trailblazing Economist Who Navigated an Era of Upheaval, which we discuss in this episode.

Also, to about the history of the US dollar and its dominance, you can listen to my conversation with Dr. Barry Eichengreen of U.C. Berkeley here: HbN-S2E26.

Adel

Host of the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠History Behind News⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ podcast

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠:

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Click here⁠ and join⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

From Atatürk to Erdoğan. From Secularism to Islamism. From a parliamentary system to absolute presidential power.

Türkiye is set to hold a runoff election next week, on May 28th, between President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the opposition leader, Mr. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. And the general consensus is that Erdoğan is in the lead. This has come as a surprise and a disappointment to many, particularly since there is much discontent against Mr. Erdoğan. But as you well know, we are not here to cover the news. So let's uncover the history behind this news.

Atatürk is writ large in modern Turkish history. Many businesses and government offices (at least up to the recent past), hung his portrait on the wall. He disliked religion and "despised" Islam in particular. Accordingly, he set out to sever Türkiye from its Ottoman past - practically in every way. For example, Atatürk changed the Turkish alphabet from its Arabic base to a Latinized European alphabet. He forbade the hijab in many government institutions and essentially relegated religion to the private realm. Additionally, he pivoted Türkiye toward the West, especially the ideals of the French Enlightenment. Whether or not the Turks liked it, Atatürk drastically changed Türkiye and its direction into the 20th century.

Dr. Sinan Ciddi, my guest in this episode, explains that Atatürk acted like a benevolent dictator. He is the "Father of the Turks", a title bestowed upon him by the Turkish parliament in 1934.

Well, if all of this is true about Atatürk, then who is Erdoğan? How did Erdoğan rise to power in a country that was modeled after Atatürk's visions of secularism and Westernization? And how did Türkiye lose its parliamentary form of government that was founded on strong institutions, and replace it with an all-powerful presidential system of personalized government in which Erdoğan essentially rules by decree - like an Ottoman Sultan? 

Per Dr. Ciddi, Erdoğan is essentially the anthesis of Atatürk, at least in several major areas that matter most to Türkiye and the world. And the danger that Türkiye faces now is that Erdoğan has imperiled its democracy, its secularism, and its international alliances and commitments.

Dr. Ciddi is an Associate Professor of National Security Studies at Command and Staff College in Marine Corps University. He is also an Adjunct Associate Professor at the School of Foreign Service in Georgetown University. In addition, he is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Dr. Ciddi is the author of Kemalism in Turkish Politics: The Republican People's Party, Secularism and Nationalism, a book that we discuss in this episode.

To learn more about Dr. Ciddi, you can visit his academic ⁠homepage⁠.

Also, the shift from secularism to Islamism seems to be a trend in the Middle East since Iran's 1979 Revolution. In an earlier episode, Dr. Ghamari-Tabrizi of Princeton University spoke with me about Iran's dichotomy of an Islamic state pretending to be a Republic! How would one even write an Islamic constitution for a republic? Here is a Hint: Iran's Ayatollahs had no clue! Click ⁠here and listen⁠ to this fascinating episode.

Adel

Host of the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠History Behind News⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ podcast

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠:

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Click here⁠ and join⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

Title 42 Expired.

From Chinese & Catholic & Jewish immigrants of yesteryears to immigrations now at our southern border.

After Title 42 expired last week, America expected a deluge of immigrants to pour over our border with Mexico. But the post-Title 42 reality hasn't yet met the awful specter that everyone feared.

Regardless, the strains of migration from our southern border are not limited to the border states of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California. They are felt as far away as Chicago, which identifies itself as a sanctuary city. And the pressure on the resources of US cities is expected to increase rapidly, now that Title 42 has ended.  

As the number of migrants swells in US cities, such as Chicago, some Americans are asking this: will we be safe? Will crime rates increase?

This question comes with its own history, dating back to the 19th century when Catholic and Jewish, and Chinese immigrants flood our cities. And the same questions were asked back then by Americans - will we be safe? Will crime rates increase? 

To better understand the history of US immigration and its correlation with crime, criminal procedures, and religious and racial biases, back in 2021, I spoke with Professor Jennifer Chacon. And hat conversation is relevant and highly informative, today. In our discussion, Prof. Chacon brings focus to the history of eugenics in the context of immigration and answers questions like do immigrants commit more crimes than native-born Americans? What is a sanctuary city and how is it different than secure communities? What is the immigration paradox? And what was the purpose of Dillingham's Commission on Immigration, which was formed during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency? 

At the time of our conversation, back in 2021, Professor Chacon was a professor of law at UC Berkeley. She is now at Stanford University Law School, where she researches issues that arise at the nexus of immigration law, constitutional law, and criminal law and procedure.

She is the co-author of the immigration law textbook titled Immigration Law and Social Justice  - which is now in its 2nd edition, and the co-author of a forthcoming book exploring how the past decade’s shifting immigration policies have shaped, and been shaped by, immigrant communities and organizations in Southern California.

Professor Chacon was a co-convenor of the Immigration Policy Advisory Committee to then-Senator Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign, and an outside advisor to the Immigration Transition Team of President-Elect Obama from November 2008 through January 2009. To learn more about Professor Chacon, you can visit her academic homepage.

I hope you enjoy this episode.

Adel

Host of the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠History Behind News⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ podcast

p.s.

Click here and listen to the WSJ's podcast episode about the history of Title 42.

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠:

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Click here⁠ and join⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

To watch our distinguished guests tell the history behind our news, follow us on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok

King Charles III will be crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury. But Napoleon crowned himself!

As my guest, Dr. Jaume Aurell, tells it, many monarchs have performed self-coronation. What is interesting is that they did this, perhaps defying firmly adhered-to precedence, to establish their own authority, their own supremacy, and to send a clear and visual message about their real and perceived power. Quite tellingly, as Dr. Aurell explains, generally, successors of self-crowning monarchs within the line of their dynasty did not perform self-coronation. This is perhaps because they felt secure in the legitimacy and of their reign.

1) Medieval Self-Coronations: The History and Symbolism of a Ritual (2020) (on Amazon), and

2) Genealogies of the West: Civilization, Religion, Consciousness (2023) (on Amazon)

Interestingly, although this is not an episode about Persia or Iran, our story and my conversation with Dr. Aurell about the history of self-coronations begins and ends with Persia/Iran. To learn more about Dr. Aurell and his extensive research and publications, you can visit his academic homepage.

Also, here is another episode about British and other European royal families:

S2E31: The Family On The Throne, History of Royal Self-Staging, Dr. Mehrkens

I hope you enjoy these episodes.

Adel

Host of the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠History Behind News⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ podcast

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠:

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Click here⁠ and join⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

To watch our distinguished guests tell the history behind our news, follow us on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok ⁠

Hey there News Peelers,

We have a great lineup of episodes starting this Fri., May 5, through the end ofMay. Listen to this brief trailer to find out more about them.

Also, if you are not already supporting the History Behind News podcast, please consider supporting me and this program. It's easy. Just click the support link below.

⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT⁠⁠⁠⁠

Your financial support helps and motivates me to keep on chugging along and producing news episodes with distinguished scholars to uncover the history behind a variety of topics in our news. So thank you.

Adel

Host of the ⁠⁠⁠History Behind News⁠⁠⁠ podcast

From Walter Cronkite to Tucker Carlson. And Dominion v. Fox News.

The history of defamation suits against journalists is quite colorful. More than mere legal standards of proof for litigants, it goes to the core of our country's liberty and freedom of the press.

In this episode, Dr. Aimee Edmondson explains how the US Supreme Court's Sullivan decision in 1964 liberated journalists to do their jobs. She is a professor in media law and journalism history with a particular focus on civil-rights-related libel law, and, lucky for us, is the author of In Sullivan’s Shadow, The Use and Abuse of Libel Law During the Long Civil Rights Struggle, which we discuss in this episode.

With respect to defamation law, back in March, our former Attorney General, Mr. Bill Barr, published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, "Dominion's Weak Case Against Fox", in which he offered three legal defenses that Fox News could have used (had the case gone to trial) against Dominion's defamation suit. Although we don't get into Mr. Barr's article in detail, Dr. Edmondson discusses the history of defamation law in parallel to the legal defenses Mr. Barr proposed for Fox News.
In addition to discussing defamation law and its history in the context of journalism, she brings focus to something that most of us, more or less, tend to gloss over - the difference between journalism and news media. They could be the same. But often are not!
Dr. Edmondson believes that we must provide media literacy classes in our schools - similar to civic classes we had back in high school (or was it junior high?). Although I wholeheartedly agree with her, I just don't think polarized parents will ever agree to such a class in their kids' schools! She also believes in truth-telling in journalism. This is important to her. In fact, it's so important that she has taught classes and held workshops about it not only in the U.S., but also in many other countries, some of which may surprise you. In this episode, we'll talk about what she told foreign journalists and students of journalism about news in America, and what she can tell us Americans about journalism and news in those other countries.

Dr. Edmondson teaches data journalism using the techniques of Investigative Reporters and Editors. She is the Director for Graduate Studies at E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University, and also the Acting Associate Dean for Graduate Studies, Research and Creative Activity at Scripps College of Communication. To learn more about Dr. Edmondson, please visit her ⁠⁠⁠⁠academic⁠ homepage.

In addition, below are links to other podcast conversations about protests and revolutions:

S2E18: ⁠⁠⁠DeSantis v. Disney & Florida's History⁠⁠⁠, Dr. James ClarkHow special is Disney's special district status in Florida? And is DeSantis the South's most powerful governor since the Civil War?

I hope you enjoy these episodes.

Adel

Host of the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠History Behind News⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ podcast

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠:

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Click here⁠ and join⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

1. 🎵 attribution, links and license for the theme music in this podcast: The Success by Keys of Moon | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://soundcloud.com/keysofmoon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Musicpromoted by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.free-stock-music.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0): ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.
2. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HIGHLIGHTS⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: get future episode highlights in your inbox⁠.

To watch our distinguished guests tell the history behind our news, follow us on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok

Resurrecting & reinterpreting the 2nd Amendment. Kansas City shooting of a Black teenager who was at the wrong address, New York woman in the wrong driveway shot dead, Alabama birthday party mass shooting, Nashville school mass shooting, Half Moon Bay mass shooting, Monterey Park Lunar New Year mass shooting, and many, many more!

How did we get here?!? I don't remember it being this bad before, back in the 1980s or even the '90s.

My distinguished guest, Dr. Robert Spitzer, takes us through the history of how we got here. How did an amendment about the militia that was pretty much an artifact of the 18th century - like the 3rd amendment about quartering soldiers in our homes - was resurrected and reinterpreted. How the NRA morphed from helping the government write gun regulations to vehemently opposing regulations. And how mass shootings increased after the assault weapons ban lapsed in 2004. And then, there is Justice Scalia's landmark decision in the Heller case, which changed so much about gun rights and regulations.

Dr. Spitzer is a professor at the Political Science Department of the State University of New York at Cortland, AKA SUNY Cortland. He is the author of fifteen

Dr. Spitzer has testified before  Congress, participated in meetings at the White House, and his work has been cited by federal courts.

To learn more about Dr. Spitzer and his extensive research and publications, you can visit his ⁠⁠⁠academic and personal home pages.

In addition, below are links to other podcast conversations about protests and revolutions:

S3E1: ⁠⁠History of the Republican Party⁠⁠, Prof. Paul

I hope you enjoy these episodes.

Adel

Host of the ⁠⁠⁠⁠History Behind News⁠⁠⁠⁠ podcast

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠:

⁠⁠⁠⁠Click here⁠ and join⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

To watch our distinguished guests tell the history behind our news, follow us on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok

Mass protests in Israel against Mr. Netanyahu's judiciary overhaul plan virtually brought the country to a standstill and threatened to split the military and drag it into the current political conflict. My guest for this episode, Dr. Gideon Rahat, explains that this is one of the direst crises in Israel's history. This assessment was recently confirmed by Mr. Netanyahu's speech, in which he talked about preventing a civil war!

In this episode, we look into the history of Israel's constitution, its legislature, its systems of checks and balances, and its polarized and personalized politics. Dr. Rahat is the Gersten Family Chair in Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research fields are comparative politics and Israeli politics. His interests include political parties, electoral reform, the personalization of politics and candidate selection methods. He is a Senior Fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute.

Dr. Rahat is the author of several books, including From Party Politics to Personalized Politics?: Party Change and Political Personalization in Democracies, which we discuss in this episode.

To learn more about Dr. Rahat and his extensive research and publications, you can visit his ⁠⁠academic homepage⁠⁠.

In addition, below are links to other podcast conversations about protests and revolutions:

S3E13: ⁠France, History of Protests & Revolutions⁠, Prof. Glidea

I hope you enjoy these episodes.

Adel

Host of the ⁠⁠⁠History Behind News⁠⁠⁠ podcast

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠:

⁠⁠⁠Click here⁠ and join⁠⁠⁠⁠ our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

To watch our distinguished guests tell the history behind our news, follow us on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok