All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 8, 2017 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
46:44
DACA: What Is Trump’s Plan?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to another installment of Radio Renaissance.
And as usual, we have a lot to talk about because every week produces a great deal to talk about from our point of view.
And as usual, we have our indispensable guest, Paul Kersey.
Welcome to the studio, Paul.
Well, a good morning to everyone listening and a great morning to you.
Great. Of course, the big news, the big news of this week, I would say, is the fact that Donald Trump finally got around to doing something that he said he was going to do his first day in office, and that is, by executive power, get rid of DACA, which is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
I think I may just take a little time here and go over what the thing actually did.
This was a unilateral order by President Obama in June of 2012.
And what it did was protect from deportation anyone who had been brought to the country illegally before the age of 16, had lived here for at least five years, and who had no felonies or significant misdemeanors.
They were allowed to work, not only be free from deportation, but they were allowed to apply for a work permit, a two-year work permit that could be renewed every two years.
This was clearly a first step on the way to making them not just legal citizens, permanent citizens, but I'm sorry, permanent residents, but eventually probably citizens.
And I think Barack Obama was absolutely clear about that was what was very much his intention.
The aspect of this that is particularly interesting is that he had tried many times to get this program passed by Congress.
And as I recall, the House had passed one version of it, and the Senate had passed one version of it, but they had not gotten the two to agree, so there was no law.
And out of frustration, Barack Obama, who's supposed to be a constitutional scholar and know what the Constitution requires and does not, he said, okay, the heck with legislation.
I'm just going to do it entirely on my own.
That, to me, was an extraordinary admission on his part, don't you think?
Oh, an absolutely extraordinary admission.
We need to go back and make it quite clear that Barack Obama made his declaration day one, Mr.
Taylor, that he was adamant and fundamentally transforming the country.
DACA was one of the reasons why Donald Trump differentiated himself on the campaign trail, and he had such a massive Response because he did as you said he stated quite unequivocally that he was going to get rid of this day one of his presidency and The other candidates who were running with him again against him for the Republican primary They were they were they weren't as adamant and with the language as Trump used to say we're gonna get rid of this guys and you know every time Trump would go out in the campaign trail was a focus group and The people who attended his rallies, they wanted to see this end almost as intensely as Barack Obama wanted to see the country of our founding fathers end, if that makes sense.
Well, it sure seems that way.
And I was very disturbed that Donald Trump did not move more quickly on this.
It was one of his, I think, very clear promises.
First day in the office, because he had unquestionable power to issue an executive order that undoes a predecessor's executive order.
Now, it's taken him all this time, and as we'll talk about later, there are some questions about what his real intent is.
But one aspect of this that I think is worth realizing is that what he did today makes it not possible for anybody to apply for this DACA procedure.
You had to apply and explain who you were and show that you didn't have a string of felonies.
And prove that you're brought into the country at a certain time, etc., etc., all this stuff.
Nobody can apply. And on October 15th, it ends for anybody who wants to apply for renewal of their work permit.
No more renewals of work permits.
And according to the immigration authorities, about 800,000 of these work permits had been issued.
Of which, about 690,000 are still in force.
A certain number of them, since the program started in 2012, have not been renewed.
But nearly 700,000 are in force, and they're going to start withering away.
Now, the question to me is whether or not, and how many of these people, now that they are subject officially to deportation, unless Congress changes its mind about something, how many of them, in fact, will be deported?
But the curious aspect of this is that Donald Trump—I don't know how closely he paid attention to this— But he said, okay, it's in Congress's lap now.
So why don't we talk about what Donald Trump may or may not think about this.
He to me is sometimes a real enigma.
He has talked about how wonderful these people are.
They're great Americans.
They're doing all these wonderful things for our country.
But the rule of law requires that Congress do something.
And he has in fact officially invited Congress to do something.
Do you think he is sincere in wanting Congress to succeed?
Or do you think he thinks Congress is going to fail and these people are going to have to be deported?
What is your view on that?
Wow. Now we're talking about the whole concept of the 4D chess that so many people want to read and interpret.
Donald Trump is, you know, five or six steps ahead of his opposition.
This concept that he is this great strategic thinker when a lot of times If we go back to when he really took off in the primaries, when the whole Mexican rapist was made and then what happened a couple days later, Kate Steinle was killed in the sanctuary city of San Francisco.
You know, Trump's had luck a lot of times.
This situation with DACA, I don't know how to interpret what's happening here because this was a very popular issue.
It's one of the reasons, again, it's a state.
He was elected to get rid of this unpopular order by Barack Obama.
There's no way to gloss over that fact that it's taken a long time for this to happen.
So you're not willing to speculate as to what his real intentions are.
I'm not sure I am either.
They are. Is he setting up Congress to fail so that The proverbial cucks, for lack of a better term, within the Republican Party won't do what their constituency wants them to do.
Are we going to afford Donald Trump that much?
Are we going to think that he is that strategic to think of the people around him?
I mean, again, is this something that the person who probably is doing the most behind the scenes, Steve Miller, to try and push Trump to get rid of DACA? Do we believe that that's what he's set up for?
Is that what you believe? You know, I think that he has dithered about this.
I don't think he thinks in any kind of systematic racial terms.
And so he is won over every time he hears some sort of Heartwarming story about some noble young Mexican who has worked hard for his country, maybe enlisted in the military, and works as a volunteer in his soup kitchens.
And he thinks, oh gosh, these people, they were butter against their will.
It's not really their fault.
I think he falls for that kind of sob story.
But I can't say for sure.
My impression is that if Congress fails to act, in one of his tweets he said, well, I will revisit this question.
Well, what can that mean but that then he too will issue an executive amnesty just like the one that he has just revoked?
I can't read it any other way.
I completely agree with you.
And there are people out there who I've read.
One of the people that I follow most closely on Twitter is Ann Coulter.
And, of course, she's been very...
Worried about the language that he's been using and what this all amounts to down the road.
And I just...
This was such an easy issue and this was such an easy win.
And is he setting up the Republican Congress to fail, to try and then primary?
I don't know, you know. I wish this was a slap in the face to a guy like Paul Ryan and the Republican Congress that has really done absolutely nothing to try and push the Trump agenda since he was elected.
The only wall that's been built is the one that the Republican establishment built to stop the Trump agenda from being implemented.
It gets distressing.
I was talking to someone who was around during the Reagan era.
And they noted that when Ronald Reagan was elected, they thought that he was going to staff the government with a lot of the people who helped Ronald Reagan get elected.
And of course, that didn't happen.
Personnel is policy. We all know this.
And you have to look around and who are the people who really have Trump's ear in the White House now?
You know, Stephen Miller's on an island all by himself after Bannon resigned.
And I'm afraid it's Ivanka and it's Jared Kushner.
And we both know that they are on the side of some form of amnesty for these dreamers.
Yes, yes. There's no question about that.
And one thing that people do say about Donald Trump is that he agrees with whoever is the last person he spoke to.
It seems difficult to me that a guy be that amenable to just suggestivity, but that's
what a lot of people have said about him.
And if there are not enough voices saying, look, these guys must go, then he's going
to get soft-headed about it.
I find it interesting, though, that the Mexican government, they say that in their official
statement, they say they profoundly lament the fact that this was revoked, but they're
going to welcome their citizens back with open arms and offer them assistance with work
finance, and education.
Well, that's great! And I've also seen some conversations.
These have been reported in the news, and if you snoop around, you can find what these DACA recipients themselves are saying.
Some of them are agreeing.
Well, yeah, it won't be so bad.
I've got family in Jalisco.
I speak Spanish.
I can get a great job as an English teacher or at some sort of call center, helping people out who need help.
Some kind of assistance with their computers or whatever it is.
So there is a certain sense among some of them that, well, you know, this would be kind of an interesting adventure.
Of course, the view of Nancy Pelosi is that she put out a statement.
She called on the House of Republicans to help her, quote, safeguard our young dreamers from the senseless cruelty of deportation and shield families from separation and heartbreak.
Isn't that a statement for you?
Well, it's the exact type of statements that we're seeing from corporate America.
It is astounding to see corporations from Apple to Google, all the corporations we talk about that are trying to silence voices like ours and create a sanitized internet experience where anyone who has Anyone who can discern pattern recognitions doesn't have access, of course, to the internet.
Now we're seeing these same corporations that are just jumping over each other to put out the most pro-Dreamer statement.
It is a consensus, Mr.
Taylor, and I know the listeners know this, but it is shocking once again to see corporate America so in lockstep with one another.
I go back to 2015 when Indiana tried to pass a religious freedom bill when Governor, now Vice President Mike Pence, They passed this bill and all the corporations, everyone went nuts.
They threatened to leave Indiana.
They threatened to help relocate corporate headquarters that were in Indianapolis.
I think Salesforce has a big presence in In Indianapolis and they threatened to leave and what happened, there was a great quote that the CEO of one of these corporations basically said that what we're seeing is the party of the CEO emerge.
You've got Republicans, you have Democrats and you have the party of the CEO and we have so much more power than the Republicans or Democrats because we control these multinational corporations and we can set the agenda and that's to me been Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan, I'm not really interested in what they have to say, but when you see every corporation in lockstep agreement, almost as a monolith, saying, We need these dreamers.
They are an integral part of our economy.
It goes back to what the governor of Minnesota said about B-plus citizens when he was upset that people were complaining that Minnesota is basically being colonized by the third world.
And he said, well, you know, sorry, we can't rely on B-plus white Minnesotans anymore to have a global economy.
Are we supposed to believe that these dreamers are that That important to the United States economy.
That's what the corporations are telling us.
And again, it is once again a slap in the face to every American.
Every American, regardless of race.
Every American. When you're seeing corporations try and put out this mindset and this idea that we're going to see economic decline collapse, a calamity, if we don't have these dreamers become citizens.
That's the most stalking reaction to me.
Oh, I know that we just would fall flat on our faces without all of these illegal immigrants and their children.
I know I get sick and tired of hearing that myself.
Going back to what you said about Mexico opening arms, if these individuals collectively are so important to the United States economy, A country like Mexico, which, you know, I don't even know what its GDP is compared to the United States.
I don't have that data in front of me.
Don't you think they'd be jumping over themselves to bring these people back with their economy?
Of course. Now, the other aspect of it is that people always say, well, these people did nothing wrong.
They were brought here.
They had no control over the actions of their parents.
That, to me, though, it's like accepting stolen goods.
If you steal something from me and you give it to your child, it still belongs to me.
It's still stolen goods.
And the idea that somehow they're utterly, utterly innocent, that just sticks in my craw.
The other aspect of it is that they often say, the people who are defending, Nancy Pelosi would certainly say this, that this is the only country they've ever known.
This is the only place where they'll feel at home.
And it would be just shocking to wrench them out of one culture and bring them into another culture.
If that's the case, I'd like to ask Nancy Pelosi, it must be awfully wrenching when someone comes from Mexico to the United States.
Isn't it awfully wrenching when someone comes from Haiti or Honduras or any of those places they want to come from?
It seems that it's not a wrench at all from somebody to come from Haiti to live in the United States, which is a completely different country, but for someone who has gotten used to the United States to go live in Haiti, oh, that's just cruel.
That's just senseless and heartless.
So, you know, they need to get their story straight on something like that.
And at the same time, as I noted earlier, a lot of these guys are saying, hey, you know, I speak pretty good Spanish, and this could be an adventure.
So let them have an adventure.
Once again, we're seeing that the interests of the actual American people are set aside for the interests of the future American people who are supplanting what the country that you grew up in.
And of course, you know, I'm not going to divulge when I was born, but it was already...
The catastrophic demographic situation was already well advanced when I was born, and it's just so disconcerting to watch as individuals continue to, individuals in both parties.
I believe that the governor of Ohio basically said that dreamers are welcome in our state.
Again, you're seeing John Kasich is like the epitome of what The Republican Party wants to be.
And again, Trump is the guy that white America, in a lot of ways, forced onto the scene because the issues that he was bringing up, you know, even if he doesn't, obviously, you know, he's disavowed all of anything associated with, you know, the Unite the Right.
He's disavowed white supremacy, all these non sequiturs over and over and over again.
Since he basically announced it in June of 2015.
Well, sorry go ahead.
Well, my point is that when you hear a guy like John Kasich is exactly what the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican
Party want the face of the party to be.
It's acquiescing, it's surrendering the country to An inevitable future where obviously whites are a powerless minority who can only subsidize the dreams of non-Americans who are more American than you or I. That's the whole situation with Dreamers.
A lot of normal people out there who don't really care about politics, when they hear about DACA, they're like, wait a second, why can't American kids dream?
That was something that Trump said on the campaign trail, and it resonated with a lot of people who probably never paid attention to politics.
Well, the fact is, I read some discouraging statistics just the other day.
According to one survey, only 22% of Republicans said they wanted DACA recipients deported.
Only 22%.
And among all voters, only 14% supported deportation.
Now, this, when you think about it though, despite the fact that these figures are very low, it makes me wonder, the 22% of Republicans who said they want DACA recipients deported, they are the most active people in primaries, for example.
And my suspicion is that if some of these limp-wristed Republicans are considering voting for an amnesty of this kind, they're going to have to have an eye on what happens in the primaries.
And primaries these days are often more important than the general election for some of these utterly uncontested districts.
So despite the fact that that figure was low, we'll see.
And I don't know. Who knows whether those figures are believable?
But those figures both struck me as surprisingly low.
Only 22% of Republicans want DACA recipients deported.
But if that's the case, and if the popular sentiment is reflected in Congress, then there will be a vote to basically do DACA by legislation rather than executive fiat.
Well, make it constitutional.
You're exactly right. The constitutional question was kind of an odd one.
Obama claimed that this was, what did he call it?
He called it prosecutorial discretion.
In other words, from time to time, a prosecutor, and these are lawbreakers, actually, of course, they came here against the law.
And a prosecutor, under certain circumstances, can just decide not to prosecute.
But what a prosecutor cannot do is what Barack Obama did, and establish an entire class of people that are exempt from prosecution.
There's just no way around that being a law, that being the province of law.
And the other thing, of course, was that by giving them the right to work, That's not prosecutorial discretion at all.
That is giving them a kind of standing before the law that they never had before this executive amnesty took place.
So, I suppose, if we could conceive of Donald Trump as a punctilious reader of the Constitution, someone who cared deeply, deeply, deeply that the procedures be followed in every possible way, then you could think, well, okay, he has decided that Barack Obama went about it the wrong way.
He's going to go about it the right way.
And DACA is going to take place the way the Constitution said it should, not simply the way Barack Obama said it should.
And that's a fear that I think a lot of people have that this is just the same type of compassionate
conservatism that was so egregious and saccharine when George W. Bush was trying to push comprehensive
immigration reform.
And you have to wonder, is this part of a strategy?
Going back and you're asking, what is Donald Trump's overall strategy?
Is it to negotiate?
Is this part of his perceived art of the deal persona?
Is this some step?
Is this some olive branch to create an atmosphere where there can finally be Quote, comprehensive immigration reform, unquote.
And if this is a bargaining chip that you're going to create the constitutionality for these 800,000 dreamers, Plus dreamers.
I mean, I don't know.
I just... Executive order.
So we'll see. It is possible that DACA is in fact dead.
I hope it's dead, but I just don't think that Donald Trump's heart is in killing it.
But we'll see. One thing that can be said is that arrests, immigration control, the ICE people, have arrested nearly 40% more people.
In the first 100 days under Trump, then in the same period of a year earlier.
That's a nice, that's good.
Of course, as usual, 75% of them have been convicted of criminal offenses.
But, now this is the significant part.
When it comes to people who have been sent out of the country who don't have offenses, these non-criminal arrests, they're up more than 150%.
That, to me, is a great sign.
In other words, it's this idea that once you get into the interior of the United States, you're okay.
That was just such a demoralizing program, both for ICE and for patriotic Americans.
The idea is, if the Border Patrol didn't get you, and if you got to maybe, say, 50 miles in the United States, then, hey, you could, you know, you're home free.
At least ICE is now, of course, 150% is up from probably a very, very small number.
As we know, there are millions and millions of people who are far from the border, pretending like they belong here, who don't have any trouble at all.
But this is a start.
And I've also heard that, as a result, there are fewer people applying for food stamps.
Correct. Yes, that's a great change.
And I hope the case is true for all the other welfare programs that immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, have been using.
Well, one of the interesting things of what you just talked about is, again, the whole sanctuary city Element is still at play where these people who are fearful of some municipalities where ICE is able to do its job.
Let's go back and talk about Chicago because one of the craziest reactions we saw to the whole DACA situation, Mr.
Taylor, was Mayor Rahm Emanuel, our favorite dual citizen, who basically said that the city of Chicago was going to become a Trump-free zone for students in Chicago public schools.
He said that dreamers are all safe in a city, as are illegal aliens.
And you go back to those comments, and I would say that both you and I, before Trump came along, we probably would concede that the anti-federalists had a lot of good arguments when it came to states' rights, the 10th Amendment.
But now we find ourselves in an interesting situation where we're all federalists now.
We want to see the federal government, you know, maybe even go in and remove someone like Rahm Emanuel, who is openly Giving the finger to American laws and the president of the federal government of the United States of America, basically saying, hey, this is a Trump-free zone.
We're going to do what we want to with Chicago Public Schools.
That was the most shocking reaction, even more so than the corporations running over themselves to see who could put out the most pro-DACA statement.
Rahm Emanuel's statements, Mr.
Taylor, are once again a reminder of just how Not just how divided the country is, but how irredeemable things are when it comes to trying to find middle ground, to find a working solution to actually benefit Americans because when you have someone who is so defiant as Rahm Emanuel has been, it's incredible.
Yes, and as you point out, it really brings up the question of how many people are genuinely principled on the subject of federalism or anti-federalism and how many people simply exploit the situation that's available to them.
Back at a time when people were talking about the federal system as one in which it was permitted to secede or that it permitted Certain race relations or certain laws about race relations in some states, but not in other states.
Those people are all overwhelmingly centralizers.
And if that issue were to come up today, I'm sure Rahm Emanuel would be a fervent centralizer.
But when he decides that central government is not doing the right thing, oh boy, oh boy, he becomes a great proponent of local government.
It just puts a smile on my face, really, to see just how utterly unprincipled the huge majority of people are.
People on our side as well.
People who would have said, as you, like you, you bring this up because you have principles in mind.
I think you have Southern sympathies just as I do.
And the Tenth Amendment, it seems to me that can easily be read to justify secession.
But those of us who believe in the power of local institutions, This is something that we have to take into consideration whenever we talk about the kinds of anti-Trump and anti-federal positions that our opponents are taking.
I concede everything you just said.
Again, they would not, of course, these true centralizers that are now positioning themselves as the resistance.
You know, just as we saw, you know, Charlottesville back in, what, February of 2017, they declared themselves the home of the resistance, the center of the resistance.
A guy like Rahm Emanuel is using the same type of language, but really they are the ultimate shills for The managerial state as we know it.
And they're just using the language that is most conducive at the time to benefit their ideology.
That's right. That's right. That's what, as you noted, it's so unprincipled at the same time.
It is principled when you understand what their ultimate aims are.
They are laser focused on the continued dispossession Whites in this country and whatever language benefits them at the time, as we see Rahm Emanuel becoming this impassioned critic of the federal government and ostensibly an ardent anti-federalists, you're scratching your head. You're like, well, wait a second.
If anybody had done this during the Obama administration, just imagine.
I hate playing the whole double standard game because there's only one standard.
It's anti-white 24-7, 365 in this country.
Whatever benefits non-whites to the detriment of whites, that's the standard in America.
But just think, I mean, if there had been a mayor during the Obama administration who basically went against something that President Obama did, whether it was Obamacare, he said, we're not going to implement this.
Sorry. This is an Obamacare-free zone.
The... Well, Mr.
Kersey, I have to be the wet in the conversation, and I have to say that I do not necessarily agree with you that the 100% across the board, 24-7, 365 days a week standard is pro-non-white, anti-non-white. I continue to believe, and you are welcome to mock me for my naivete if you wish, but I continue to believe that many of our opponents really do think that they're doing something that is good for everyone.
I just don't think Nancy Pelosi gets up in the morning and says, what can I do to make life worse for people who look like me?
I really am convinced that she thinks that all of these wonderful Mexicans, all of these Hondurans, they may be in gangs, but we'll get them out of that.
It just takes a little bit of education, a little bit more government programming, a little bit more money spent in the right places.
I think that she must genuinely think this is going to be good for her children and for her grandchildren too, not just for these non-white newcomers.
Well, I would counter that with what we've seen emerge.
Through Vicente Fox's Twitter account and how strange it is that he's basically gloating about how the demographics situation is at a point where you've got to be nice to these people because white people, you're about to be, you know, Vicente Fox is a pretty white looking dude himself.
He's basically saying, hey guys, demographics, it's over.
You guys are the minority.
You've got to be nice to these people.
What do you expect is going to happen when democracy rears its ugly head?
Okay, but you see, he too is not thinking in terms of race.
He's thinking in terms of nationality.
He's a Mexican patriot.
He wants, ultimately, I suspect, the United States to become a province of Mexico, if that could be done.
He wants all of these dual citizens who are living in the United States to use their influence on American policy to make American policy more favorable to Mexico.
That is different from someone like Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton and all these people who are objectively anti-white doing things that I think they sincerely believe are good for Good for morality.
They're good for America.
And if we're a minority, so what?
It's all going to be great.
Now, let me put it to you this way.
Why would Nancy Pelosi want to work consciously and continuously against her own race?
I'm going to hold your feet to the fire on this.
You say this is anti-white.
Why would Nancy Pelosi be consciously and deliberately anti-white?
Why would she be consciously and deliberately anti-white?
Because that's what you've accused her of.
No, I would say that she so richly deserves for her continued adherence to this ideology that is pervasive in everyone's life.
Here's a case in point. I rarely watch television anymore.
And I was on an airplane recently and I was watching a show and there were commercials.
I am astounded when you go back and watch, say, commercials from the 1990s.
There were literally no white faces anymore in commercials at all.
It's this strange...
It's as if Madison Avenue has been given this directive.
You can no longer cast white actors in commercials.
It is astounding when you watch television, actually.
I've cut the cord.
I watched Hulu, Netflix.
I believe that when you see these corporations, when you see them jumping over themselves with DACA, with their anti-Trump stances, let me go back and think about all the corporations that after Charlottesville they pulled out of Trump's business development coalition he had created to the point where Trump basically had to disband it because no one wanted to work with him.
It goes to the point where these Again, Nancy Pelosi probably doesn't wake up every morning and say, what can I do to screw over white people today?
With a menacing grin and rubbing her hands like some Hollywood villain.
But at the same time, the policies that she is actively pursuing would lead you to believe that, wow, what is she doing when she wakes up if not thinking to herself, how can we screw over Well, it's like the governor of Minnesota that you were discussing and the governor of Maine, I can't remember his name, he said the same thing.
Maine is too white.
We're just going to be this secondary part of the country if we remain white.
I think those people do genuinely believe what they've been told over and over, that diversity is a wonderful strength that's making America better.
I don't think that they have any malice in their hearts towards their own people.
I think they are more deluded than evil.
They genuinely think that Minnesota and Maine, unless they become carbon copies of Los Angeles or New York City in terms of the demographic mix, That somehow they're going to be left behind.
And in that respect, you could say they are trying to do something that's going to be good for their people.
They think it's going to be good for Maine if it gets its share of Somalis and Turks and Egyptians and who knows what all else.
I think that's what they genuinely believe.
I've left you speechless, haven't I? No, you haven't left me speechless.
I'm processing because I think the current governor of Maine is actually a pretty good dude.
It might be a past governor we're talking about.
Yes, that's right.
I can't think of his name right now, but he's one of my favorite people because he said a number of things about Illegal immigrants and drug dealers, non-white drug dealers who come and knock up our kids and then leave them without a father and on welfare.
He said some pretty cool and refreshingly honest statements that have really chilled the corporate media and the left to the bone.
I was always holding out hope that maybe Trump would find some sort of position for him within the federal government.
You're right. It was a previous governor of Maine who was talking this little nonsense.
Going back to your comments about the Minnesota governor, I think that is, that kind of demonstrates, I don't think he looks at turning the greater Minneapolis area into Los Angeles.
I think he legitimately said, he was quite adamant, if you don't like where we're headed with this mass non-white immigration into Minnesota, leave.
There's no place for you here.
I think that demonstrates quite clearly that he is thinking in racial terms where he doesn't care about.
He's probably never even considered white people to even have a collective identity worth reading about, pursuing or defending.
When he's basically saying, if you don't like what's happening presently in Minnesota, you have no Okay, I agree that that is a brutal expression of what is objectively a non-white or anti-white state of mind, but I think that he probably thinks That by bringing bits of Bangalore and bits of Jalisco to Minnesota,
he's improving the place.
And if you don't want to be improved, well, too bad.
I think he sincerely believes it.
But anyway, this is probably an attempt to read minds, and I never like to have people try to read my mind.
But I'm less willing than you to think that they have some sort of explicit anti-white agenda.
Now, when it comes to Amazon.com, Just on Tuesday, they launched a new program called Brown Sugar.
Can you guess what Brown Sugar is all about?
Well, you know, just the name, I automatically think about some of the blaxploitation films from the 70s.
It sounds like a hilarious nickname or pseudonym for some gratuitously dressed black actress.
Unfortunately, I do know what brown sugar means and it is, yet again, an opportunity for one of the biggest corporations on the planet to pander exclusively to only a small, almost, I don't want to say insignificant part of their client base, but I don't really see too many people in the black community having Amazon Prime membership to be able to watch this.
Well, yes, they say it's going to be the biggest collection of the baddest African-American movies for their Prime members.
Right. Yep. And apparently, you can go and read their promotional material at brownsugar.com.
And the website describes itself as, quote,"...a black explosion of hot chicks, cool cats, and cult classics." And their portfolio of movies apparently is going to include such absolute blockbusters as Blacula, Black Caesar, and Foxy Brown.
Boy, I can't wait for my subscription.
This is the kind of stuff that you think would actually, at some point, Backfire and be negative publicity.
When you try and do something like this, it comes off as so kitsy.
When you see these titles, you're like, well, wait a second, why would you want to highlight movies like Blackula or these movies that were made to spoof?
You're now celebrating these movies as some cinematic...
Classic. Again, it's condescending, it's sanctimonious, and yet corporate America thinks that by celebrating, Amazon thinks that by celebrating this line, I mean, even the name Brown Sugar, when you think about it, what connotations do you have?
I think about this idea of these, what was her name, the actress, Pam Greer, this type of stuff, these blaxploitation films that have no cinematic value.
They were made cheaply and now we're supposed to celebrate these films that a lot of white
liberal movie critics and even blacks with PhDs in black studies would say, we shouldn't
be celebrating these because these perpetuate negative stereotypes.
I agree. I agree.
I think we should quietly circulate the idea that this brown sugar thing is the cinematic equivalent of blackface and that Amazon should be shamed and boycotted for starting this.
Well, Al Jolson will have a regular, you know, be featured in the whole brown sugar.
I'm sure. Anyway, well, let's close on what I think is a positive development.
And that is the letter that Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center put together.
And which is sent to pretty much every media outlet in the entire country.
And he is asking them to ignore the SPLC's data and their various lists and hate maps and things.
He says the SPLC is a discredited lefty organization.
Their stuff is a bunch of baloney.
And he concludes the letter by saying...
We respectfully request that you cease using the SPLC's data and its various lists and maps in your reporting.
I think this is a significant development.
Well, it is significant because there were so many other people that added their signatures to this letter.
The one that surprised me the most, probably, is that of Ed Meese at the Heritage Foundation.
I never expect a day to come when Ed Meese would be signing a letter to the American media saying, SPLC stuff is baloney?
Ignore it. And, you know, there's some other good names.
Well, some of them you would kind of expect.
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, Pamela Geller.
But, you know, they have people like Richard Vickery.
These are mainstream people.
Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly.
Again, mainstream people who are saying, look, the SPLC is feeding you a lot of jobs.
Don't fall for it.
Would you not agree? This is a significant development.
This is wonderful. It goes back to the reality when you think what happened in, was it 2012, 2013, when the guy went in and tried to shoot up the family research.
Yeah, corkums.
Yeah, and another thing, going back, I think we talked about, we broached this briefly last week.
The gentleman who shot up the congressional Republican baseball practice.
He could have killed 20 congressmen and then a few senators that day.
He actually liked the SPLC on his Facebook page.
He liked it. And he liked all these other left-wing, very, very, very left-wing progressive news sites.
But it was so astounding that he liked the SPLC on his Facebook page because As I pointed out, if there really was a right-wing media in this country, they would have jumped on that and never let that point go because that's what the other side does.
Anytime that there can be a connection made to The New Century Foundation, as we saw with, gosh, Stormfront losing its domain.
I saw in all these stories that Stormfront had somehow connections to 100 murders.
It's like, well, what does that mean? Because people went, what?
This PLC situation, the ability that they have to be quoted as this end-all, be-all authority And the conservative concession for them for so long has been so dastardly.
It's just been depressing when you think about how they're able to police the right.
Oh yes, the number of so-called conservative publications or organizations that have fired people because somebody from the SPLC called up and said, oh, did you happen to know that your employee X has been doing Y? And they said, well, yes sir, yes sir, we must get rid of this hate monger.
No, it's been pathetic. I hope that this is an important step in the discrediting of the SPLC, but it's going to take a long time.
And the SPLC, I just hope they continue to be as wild and crazy and utterly as indiscriminate as they've been, because it will make the process of discrediting them that much easier.
Well, once again, if it can ever be established that one of the people that they claim is on their hate list, And then someone goes and, God forbid, does something to inflict harm on that individual.
You've got one of the biggest lawsuits ever on your hands and that organization should pursue it to the ends of the earth because, as we know, they've been offsetting, what, $70 million in offshore accounts.
I think they have operating capital north of $330 million.
Just an incredible hedge fund when you think about it.
That's right. You know, again, it would be a lot of fun.
I know that you recently wrote a letter with Peter Brimelow to the New York Times after there was an editorial stating that the New Century Foundation should lose its nonprofit status.
It would be a lot of fun if someone would actually go after the SPLC from the right, a congressman or a senator, to say, hey, you know what?
Instead of auditing the Fed, as this Ron Paul character wants to say, I think we should audit the SPLC. Maybe that day will come.
Let's hope so. Anyway, well, thank you so much for being on the program again, and I will look forward to talking to you next week.
And in the meantime, all of our listeners, have a wonderful week.
Hey, last thing, everyone that is in the path of this hurricane, if you're down in Florida listening, our thoughts and prayers are with you.
▲
Export Selection