All Episodes
Previous Next
July 27, 2018 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
57:37
It’s ‘Racist’ to Deport Illegals
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to this edition of Radio Renaissance.
I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance, and we have with us today Paul Kersey, based in Denver, Colorado.
Are we coming through all right, Mr. Kersey?
Hey, we're coming through all right, and just for posterity's sake, I'd like to point out that today is July 26, 2018, and as you always like to start off with, Another fascinating week of events has transpired that I think give cause for optimism, as they always should, based on an interpretation of what's happening in not just the United States, but around the world.
As Mr. Taylor, we watch what I believe is a global awakening that has been years in the making.
And I'd like to point out that you and American Renaissance have been very formative in making this moment happen.
And I'd like to just say once again to all of our listeners out there, thank you for listening.
And Mr. Taylor didn't like to do this, but today Facebook just lost the largest amount of money
in the history of the stock market, Mr. Taylor.
And that's one of the social media giants that actually declared war on you guys not too long ago, removing the American Renaissance page.
So I know that you're sometimes too, you know, you don't want to rattle the tin cup, so to say, but I'd like to point out that you are engaged in a war with Twitter.
That has deep ramifications.
Donald Trump just tweeted out today about the shadow banning that's going on about conservatives.
And I'd like to point out that it's only been American Renaissance, the New Century Foundation and Jared Taylor that have had the fourth right to go and take the fight to Silicon Valley and Twitter.
Well, that's not quite correct.
Others have sued, but no one has gotten through the initial dismissal phase.
That is where we have succeeded.
A number of other cases.
Dennis Prager.
Correct.
He sued against YouTube.
Chuck Johnson sued Twitter, and there have been other suits as well.
In every single case, their lawyers have not made the arguments quite that ours have.
The facts have not been quite the same as ours.
And Taylor v. Twitter, which I think has a nice ring to it.
It does have a great ring.
This is the first case to get through that initial barrier, and barring some sort of unforeseen circumstance, we should go to trial.
As you say, this is not something that has happened that happens for free.
We have very hard-working and very self-sacrificing lawyers, but they must eat and they must pay rent too.
And so we really appreciate any contribution.
This is not how I had expected to open the show, but Mr. Kersey, Mr. Kersey has his own independent base of operations and I will accept this opportunity to rattle that tin cup.
And just remember those donations are tax deductible and this is a big opportunity to once again stand and state we are not going to go quietly and allow you to censor us.
We are right.
We are right.
Truth is on our side.
And I agree with you.
I'm hugely optimistic about this worldwide reawakening of the white man.
It is unmistakable.
There are going to be many bumps along the road, and we will talk about a few of those bumps today.
But in the long run, I think that we are growing a spine again.
We have ceased to be total invertebrates.
And once there are enough of us, we will be unstoppable.
But to start with a heartwarming story from New York.
This is the story of a fellow by the name of Pablo Villavicencio.
He's not yet a household name, but he may end up being one.
He is the pizza delivery man who was arrested last month after he made a delivery to a Brooklyn army base.
Now, I don't know quite how he's tipped off, but he is here illegally, of course.
But this guy prompted a huge outrage because, despite the fact of his unmistakably illegal status, there are supporters of illegal immigration who think that he's an absolute model citizen because, having come to the United States in 2008 illegally, He lives in Hempstead, New York.
He married a U.S.
citizen, and he has two citizen daughters, ages 2 and 4.
In 2010, he went for an immigration judge who told him to clear out.
But, as usual, there were no teeth in the order, and as usual, just disappeared in the community.
And that is when he ended up... It was subsequent to that that he had these two U.S.
citizen anchor baby children.
In any case, the Legal Aid Society has gone to bat for this guy, and he has gotten outspoken support from Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, U.S.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Every one of them lining up behind this illegal immigrant.
It's sometimes hard to figure out which state has worse elected representatives to protect the interests of the actual American people.
Is it California or is it New York when you see these type of stories?
You know, Michael Anton wrote that article in Washington Post that we talked about last week, arguing that this 14th Amendment version, or the interpretation of the Anchor Baby Clause, the birthright citizenship from the 14th Amendment, Trump needs to do an executive order.
We're not going to be able to get to his follow-up because he was attacked and blasted by conservatives for being a xenophobe and a racist.
It's like, guys, I'm not your enemy.
Everything that you guys care about, these free markets, lower taxes, all of that is gone.
The Second Amendment, all of this stuff is gone if you don't have a country, if demographics are gone.
And reading this story, of course, we see a judge who said, hey, this Ecuadorian, Illegal immigrant?
He has no criminal history.
He's paid his taxes, and he's worked diligently to provide for his family.
Yes.
And that's the reason why, hey, you know what?
He should stay in the country.
He should stay.
Now, the other point that I find fascinating is, in their argument to the judge, the Legal Aid Society says that Mr. Vila Vicencio did not get good legal advice in the past when dealing on immigration issues, and his deportation would harm his family.
Now that makes him suddenly legal?
If you're in the country illegally, then there should be absolutely no impediment to sending him home, just because deportation might inconvenience his family.
Of course, as everyone fails to point out, if he wants to stay with his family, his family can leave along with him.
Now, these two citizen daughters, he has ages two and four.
I would bet you any amount of money that despite the fact that this judge notes that he has been paying his taxes, I suspect it's not nearly enough to have covered what I would guess is two births in the New York area on the public dole.
Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal that published a long and sympathetic account of this fellow, notes that one of them has a congenital heart defect and she is being treated in New York City.
Once again, I'm sure, well I can't be sure, but I would bet you the next 12 mortgage payments that this family does not have health insurance And my guess is that, once again, he's on the public dole and she, with her heart condition, is likewise on the public dole.
And these two daughters were conceived after he had been told in 2010 to leave.
That's right.
I mean, that's the whole purpose of the story is to create this heart-rendering, this sympathetic character.
It's like, hey, he could have gone back and he could have been in Ecuador for the past seven, eight years.
That's right.
He could have started a family there.
I mean, what type of What type of breadwinner is a pizza delivery man?
And this is no offense to anyone who's listening who has to deliver pizzas, but what type of breadwinner can actually create any wealth to actually take care of a family?
Well, I suspect that his wife probably has a job too, but who the heck knows?
Well, she's a U.S.
citizen, so she probably qualifies for all of the handouts that U.S.
citizens qualify for.
But apparently, the judge says, um that he apparently has now that he's been arrested he's sort of tried to get some sort of process going whereby he would be legalized now i don't know exactly what that process is uh just because you're married to a u.s citizen i suppose that's one way and the judge says
What's the harm to the country in letting him finish a process that's fairly accessible to him?
If he's deported, he would be deprived of this.
In other words, this opportunity to go through some sort of legalization process.
Well, he's had that opportunity since 2010, since he was told to clear out.
And furthermore, as the U.S.
attorney has pointed out, he can go through that process, if he wants to, back in his home country.
We can't base social policy on individuals.
And guess what?
If he's not deported, we're going to be deprived of our country because there are millions and millions and millions more of people just like this.
Just before we came on to talk, I was talking with your colleague, Henry, and he pointed out this incredible video of Spaniard the Spanish border being overrun by scores hundreds of African migrants and they were chanting and cheering and laughing and celebrating this 20 border patrol
We're harmed in this.
Spaniards, Mr. Taylor.
And this is one of those moments where I saw this story all over Voice of Europe, that fantastic website.
It's getting massive traffic there.
All these other websites, Breitbart's running with it.
This is one of those visualizations of the Camp of the Saints.
And, you know, at a macro level.
But at a micro level, this story of our friend who was told to be deported, Pablo, go back to Ecuador back in 2010.
This is being played over, not just in New York, but all across the country.
Because guess what?
Our entire country is now a border town.
Every city, every state is a border.
Yes, yes.
But at least the Trump administration is picking up guys like him and doing what the law says that they're supposed to do with him.
And that leads us to our next story here.
And this is the extent of what Homeland Security investigations have been up to.
Now, it's taken a little while for the Trump administration to get into full immigration control mode, but it is significant to point out that the investigation process has led to checks of employment records at 6,093 work sites in the latest fiscal year.
As opposed to $1,716 in the prior fiscal year.
That is a five-fold increase.
This is exactly what we like to see.
The targeting of 7-Eleven stores has gotten a lot of news.
They have looked into 100 such stores.
Very good.
And 77 different companies in California.
And apparently, investigations are proportional to arrests.
Because compared to the previous year, there have been over 1,600 arrests.
Again, that is five to six times the number of arrests compared to the previous fiscal year.
You've long talked about the appearance of resolve, the perception of resolve, and what that will do to start scaring people and sending a message.
This is one of those instances where you just start doing it.
You get the media talking about it, the local media talking about it.
You hear people start to whisper.
What's going on?
What happened here?
This guy got arrested.
That guy got arrested.
But when you start seeing arrests of managers and supervisors who have okayed all of this under the table and who have allowed this illegality and the hiring process to persist, that's when you really start to send a message.
That's exactly right.
If people don't hire these illegal immigrants, if they know that there are consequences for doing so, that's profoundly important.
And I think one of the great examples of just this last fiscal year, there was a Swiss-based company, it's a bakery that hired, they had to lay off 800 illegals because it was discovered that they were cooking the books and pretending that they weren't.
And guess what happened as a result?
Almost half of their profits disappeared when they had to actually hire Americans and pay them prevailing wages.
This is exactly what is supposed to be happening.
And this is a perfect example of what the left insists never happens.
They're all doing jobs we won't do, right?
Well, no.
These 800 were doing jobs that Americans were happy to do, but they got a slightly higher wage for doing it.
And similarly, the JBS meatpacking company, that's a huge meatpacker.
Once they had to lay off all their illegals, they raised salaries by 25% in their Texas slaughterhouse, and yet more Americans are back to work.
I just don't understand.
You know, the left has this whole notion of intersectionality, who their pet victims are.
If they really cared about American workers, black, white, Hispanic, any of them, would they not say that what the Homeland Security Investigations Unit is doing is exactly the right thing?
This is putting Americans to work and raising their salaries.
What's wrong with that?
Lower wages is basically a nicer way of saying some form of indentured servitude.
I don't want to go as far as saying creating a permanent slave class with illegal aliens, because guess what?
How many billions of people are on the planet?
How many of those want to come to the West?
How many of those people do the Chamber of Commerce smile and salivate the opportunity to see increased profits for those who they're advocating for at the local, state, and national legislative level, knowing that, hey, We want better profits, and what's the best way to do that?
To have a cheaper labor force.
But the left is not supposed to be sympathetic to the group that they used to call the bosses.
No, they're not.
No, they're not supposed to be.
That's not their job.
And all these Democrats who have lined up all in favor of Pablo Villavicencio, who want this pizza delivery man to stay in America.
They're supposed to be in favor of a tight labor market.
They're supposed to be in favor of people being paid more.
And if there are fewer illegals available to deliver pizzas, Americans who deliver pizzas are going to get higher wages, just like these people working for the bakery in Chicago and in the slaughterhouse in Texas.
Well, the Democrats are no longer the advocates of the working class.
And, you know, we can make a joke about, hey, Democrats are the real racists.
Well guess what, at this point Republicans now begrudgingly, and we know they're kicking and screaming because they really don't want to advocate for the white working class.
Gregory Hood has a couple of brilliant pieces up on American Renaissance, Mr. Taylor, that point out that the Republicans have an opportunity to really win some important elections, but they're trailing so significantly because they're running on these Nonsensical issues of tax cuts and the stuff that doesn't gravitate people and get them engaged and want to vote come November.
I mean, he's got that fantastic example of what's going on with Lou Barletta in Pennsylvania where he's running for senator.
This is a guy who, let's be honest, he should be part of the Trump administration making policy, as opposed to running for an office that I'm sure there's someone else just as qualified to run for.
And this is, Mr. Taylor, one of the problems with the Trump phenomenon.
There just aren't enough people who are getting into position to be On the Trump train, and to win elections based on Trumpian-type language.
Brian Kemp down in Georgia just crushed his Chamber of Commerce opponent in the Republican primary runoff on Tuesday.
Chris Cagle, who's the Secretary of State.
And he's running on Trumpian-type language.
And we're going to be talking about that a lot more as we move to the election.
But what we need to start seeing is a Republican Party that wants to understand that, hey, A lot of this great stuff that's happening at the national level with immigration enforcement, this could all go away in 2020 when Kamala Harris wins the White House.
It sure could.
And it'll go away fast.
It will go away with a flick of the wrist.
It'll be gone overnight.
The very first thing she'll do is countermand every single order that Jeff Sessions has ever issued from his office.
She just signed a book deal, by the way, Mr. Taylor, which is going to come out in 2019 strategically.
Well, she's thinking ahead, that girl.
But moving on to a little more good news, on top of this stepped up enforcement of our immigration laws, the DOJ Attorney General Jeff Sessions has issued a formal order, and I would have thought this happened long ago, that they are no longer ever to use the term undocumented.
All these people who are here illegally are illegal aliens.
He has laid down the law.
There will be consistency across the board in the Department of Justice.
It's little things like this that make a difference.
They make a difference.
I mean, can you imagine ICE walking up to you and say, it's our understanding that you are an undocumented Democratic voter and we're going to put you under arrest.
No, they're illegal aliens for heaven's sake.
And I'm delighted that they're actually getting a little consistency in that respect.
A lot of people on the right, a lot of conservatives, a lot of Trump supporters have a lot of antipathy toward Jeff Sessions because he's not trying to prosecute the Clintons or he's not doing enough to get rid of what's the number two gentleman's name in the DOJ, Rod Rosenstein?
Yeah, they're mad that he's staying behind him.
It's like, oh, impeach this guy.
Whatever.
Look, Jeff Sessions has been a stalwart.
He has been implementing the Trump agenda through the DOJ.
It's not going to happen overnight.
It's a process.
You get in place the machinations to prepare to actually get great things happening.
And of course, our next topic we'll get to in a second is all about that, which now a federal judge is trying to stop.
But the point about Jeff Sessions is this.
The other day at the Turning Point USA high school convention, the crowd started chanting, lock them up, lock them up, to him.
Lock her up, lock her up, about Hillary Clinton.
He kind of smirked.
What they should be chanting is, lock them up and deport.
Who cares about Hillary Clinton?
The thing we should be talking about, that's in the rearview mirror.
Trump defeated that.
He defeated the Bush.
He defeated the Clinton dynasties.
What we should be doing is dealing with the ramifications of those dynasties' refusal to deal with Illegal immigrants.
That is the first step toward bringing sanity back to our country.
You know, it seems to me that Jeff Sessions is to Donald Trump as James Longstreet was to Robert E. Lee.
The man he could always count on.
Now, there is a difference, of course, of Robert E. Lee never low-rated or bad-mouthed James Longstreet.
Sessions does not get the kind of real credit I think he deserves.
And Longstreet's reputation suffered over the years.
He's slowly coming back and people recognize the contribution he made.
But yes, I think he is an absolute hero to our cause.
And he works quietly, doesn't seek glory, but he does what's necessary.
And this step of saying, no more undocumented.
You're all illegal.
Live with it.
I think that's great.
But now we've come to one of those bumps in the road that we mentioned.
And this, again, is an obstacle that's been thrown up by the legal system.
The other day, you and I talked about this TPS, temporary protected status.
These are people who are in the country illegally.
Who were found to be here illegally at a time when in their home country there was some sort of development that all of a sudden means that it is inhumanitarian.
It would be cruel to send them home.
And we've talked about some of these.
Haitians have had this TPS status ever since that earthquake eight years ago in 2010.
Correct.
El Salvador.
They've had TPS since an earthquake in 2001, 17 years ago.
And I think this is really what takes the cake.
Hondurans have had TPS since Hurricane Mitch in 1999.
19 years ago.
Good grief.
Good grief.
And the country... Well, so, the Trump administration has decided... Well, hold on, fellas.
Temporary?
That word has a meaning!
Is that permanent protection status?
It's temporary?
Yes, temporary.
However...
Just this week, it was reported, on Monday, a federal judge denied the Trump administration's attempt to throw out a lawsuit that alleges its decision to end this TPS for Haitian Salvadorans and Hondurans might be racially motivated.
Can you believe this?
This suit was brought by something called the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice, which is headed by a fellow named Ivan.
Now that is a bit of a false signal.
His last name is Espinosa Madrigal.
So I don't think he's a full-blooded Russian.
No, I think that's an astute observation.
In any case, not only did Judge Denise Casper rule that this suit can go forward based on the idea that this ending TPS is racist, but also she denied the administration's request to remove President Donald Trump as a defendant.
So he's a named defendant in this case.
What Casper wrote really blew my mind.
which she found was, quote, this court finds that the combination of a disparate impact
on particular racial groups, statements of animus by people plausibly alleged to be involved in the decision-making
process, and an allegedly unreasoned shift in policy
sufficient to allege plausibly that a discriminatory purpose
was a motivating factor in a decision.
Right.
Well, this disparate impact thing is completely crazy.
Correct.
I don't think there are any white people who are beneficiaries of TPS.
Bingo.
None.
None.
That's what I was thinking when I first read this story.
I kept thinking, well, you know, there are nations all across The world that are majority white, that have had earthquakes, that have had fires, famine, you name it, that would qualify for temporary protective status.
Well, so far as I am aware, that has never happened.
No majority white countries ever had its citizens enjoy temporary protective status.
So disparate impact.
That's a completely crazy idea.
Then, she says, statements of animus by people plausibly alleged to be involved in the decision-making process.
I am certain she must be talking about Donald Trump.
Well, he did say Haiti is a shithole.
Yes, he did.
Yes, he did.
But is that a sign of racial animus?
And then she says, an unreasonable shift in policy.
In other words, The reasoning here is, since we have been protecting these poor beloved Hondurans ever since 1999, then if you decide that they no longer need protection, this is unreasoned.
And it's discriminatory.
Good.
Anyway, so now this suit can go forward.
And last month, a federal judge in San Francisco refused to throw out a similar lawsuit challenging the administration's decision to end TPS for the illegals.
And once again, it's important to realize these people are here illegally.
They've been from the beginning.
But illegals from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, And the Sudan.
So every one of these is subject to disparate impact, the poor dears, because no white people are having their TPS lifted.
There's a lot of ruin in a nation, I think is a quote I heard long ago.
And guess what?
The judiciary sure does protect a lot of it.
Wow, I'll say.
I'll say.
And I'm sure in both of these cases, they shopped for judges very carefully.
Got themselves either a Clinton appointee or an Obama appointee.
It'd be interesting to look into the backgrounds of some of these judges, but in any case, They know exactly where to take their lawsuit to get the kind of decision they want.
We'll see how this moves forward, but this means unless there is some kind of writ of mandamus or something that derails the judge's decision here, they're gonna have to go to trial and prove that it was not a racially based decision.
Crazy, crazy stuff.
But this leads me to some research that I think was really quite significant.
It's by the Media Research Center.
They often do very, I think, thought-provoking studies on things, and they have pointed out that during the 18 months of the Trump presidency, immigration has received more airtime on the three major networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, than any other policy topic.
Which is fantastic, do you think?
Yes, that's very interesting.
As polls show, this is the main issue that Americans care about.
And Republicans don't want to even talk about it that much.
But guess what?
Americans care.
Thanks to a guy named Donald Trump who continues to bring it up consistently and constantly.
Unfortunately, what the Media Research Center has discovered is that there are many, many what they call evaluative comments about the immigration policy and immigration enforcement.
In other words, this is some comment that says it's a good policy or it's a bad policy, or people saying, oh, look at these poor victims of the policy, or as opposed to those who say, look at these people who have been killed or murdered or raped by illegal immigrants.
Correct.
And when it comes to these evaluative comments, I must say, even I was surprised at the number that are negative.
They say no fewer than 92% of these comments go one way or another, black or white, plus or minus.
92% are negative, only 8% are positive.
Now, those three broadcast evening news shows that Mr. Taylor referenced, that's ABC, CBS, and NBC News.
I gotta be blunt.
I don't know anyone who actually watches these programs anymore.
These are largely for septuagenarians and oxygenarians who grew up when there were only three to eight channels.
Now we have so many channels, so many opportunities to watch our news.
You're right.
Brent Bozell's Media Research Center does great work and this makes a great headline.
But remember, most Americans are not getting their news anymore from these three sites.
But you're right.
Shocking that only 8% of those feature.
I mean, again, we're supposed to believe that there's some balance to the media.
That's, that's the great lie of our time that there isn't a agenda.
And it is clear, it's been quite clear since Trump came down the escalator and a week later, subsequently utilized the death of Kate Steinle to basically win the, win the Republican nomination for the presidency that they've been Horrified at the prospect of these issues being brought to the front.
And guess what?
In the upcoming primary, this is the ultimate issue.
This is the ultimate issue.
Immigration.
And we will see.
You mean the midterm elections?
The midterm elections in 2018.
Because we've seen all across the country now, Democrats are This isn't even on the agenda for our conversation today, but Democrats are increasingly embracing this concept, Mr. Taylor, of, yeah, we need to get rid of, not abolishing ICE, but we need to start talking about, let's get rid of the DHS too.
Which doesn't make any sense because the DHS, when it's in the hands of the Democrats, can be weaponized quite nicely against dissidents like us.
Uh, I don't know.
I think they would probably use the FBI instead.
As they usually do, right?
Yes, yes.
COINTELPRO and all these other infiltration techniques.
But no, they will find some... Oh, they could use the IRS against us.
They could use... Boy, you name it.
You could use the U.S.
mails.
I don't know.
Google, Facebook, Twitter.
Come on.
Yes, yes.
They're all in line on that.
But no, just the obvious advocacy here, and invariably they will interview some apparently unoffending Guatemalan or Haitian who is weeping at the prospect of having to leave the country in which he spent the last 10 years paying taxes and delivering pizzas.
It's all so, so, so, so sad.
Well, to me, it's always exasperating.
Whatever I do here on the radio or even catch a glimpse of these television programs, I confess I'm not one of these people who watches them either.
But no one seems to bring up the basic point.
They are here illegally.
They're here illegally.
That seems to be completely elided in these conversations.
Disappeared.
Gone.
All we are taught to think is these lovely sympathetic people who are being booted out of the American paradise.
That's one of the ways the media has positioned the whole story of the illegal immigrant children being taken from their families.
In all the headlines you see, immigrant families reunited.
Immigrant families united.
Immigrant children taken from their parents.
No, guys!
It's illegal immigrant families reunited.
It's illegal immigrant children taken from their parents and detained.
Guys, quit using, quit obfuscating the language and trying to paint a picture that isn't reality.
I know.
But, you know, I tend to agree with you that despite what the ABC and CBS NBC are saying in utter lockstep about these things, more and more Americans, first of all, they're not paying any attention.
And when they do pay attention, they say, This is baloney.
This is baloney.
I've talked about this before, but I love to look at the comment sections.
Even in some sort of relentlessly lefty organ like the New York Times, the Washington Post, commenters are wise to this stuff.
Well, Sonny Bono put it best when he was asked about illegal immigration.
He said, what's to talk about?
It's illegal.
Ordinarily, I don't give two hoots what celebrities say, but occasionally they say something worthless.
He was an elected representative at that time.
He was a Republican, and he famously just said, what's to talk about?
It's illegal.
And that should be the reaction of anyone, any American.
If we actually value our citizenship, then we should be offended.
Offended at the notion that we have illegal aliens in our country.
Just one, by the way.
Just one illegal alien should be offensive to an American.
Absolutely right.
And here this Mr. Villavicencio.
I just love saying his name.
He is a scofflaw.
For the last eight years, he has laughed in the face of a duly constituted American judicial officer telling him, you have to go.
So he gets no sympathy from me, and I suspect from the vast majority of Americans who think about these things with any kind of competence at all.
If you've got more of an IQ than maybe a fried egg, you're going to realize that this guy's got to go.
But moving away from this question of immigration, which is always fascinating, It was you who called my attention to a Washington Post article that just came out a day or two ago called, An Unequal Justice.
And the subtitle is, Murder with Impunity.
I must confess, I thought this was the same study we had talked about about a month ago.
Because it's almost on the exact same issue where they talked about how homicide in the United States are largely clustered in shock areas that are predominantly non-white, heavily black.
Well, this is the follow-up story, Mr. Taylor, and it points out, it's by the same authors, it's an exhaustive study with great interactive maps and graphs, and we're going to try and fill in the blanks in the coming weeks with some stories that kind of address why it is that these clearance rates might be so low, but what the authors point out in this Unequal Justice series, Murder with Impunity, In the last 10 years, there have been 26,000 homicides that have not resulted in an arrest in the United States of America.
And guess what?
18,600 cases.
And of those cases, the victim was African-American, a black person.
That's right.
Now, and we are to believe according to the Washington Post.
I mean, they never, well, they quote people who say this.
The post, the authors themselves never say this, but they quote people saying, this is proof.
That a black life doesn't matter in America.
The police just don't care when there's a black victim.
They quote some guy, some minister, saying that if a white person dies, the police mobilize like crazy, especially if he's killed by a black person.
If a black person dies, nobody cares.
They turn their back on it.
When you look at these statistics, and I'm assuming that the Washington Post went about this in a workmanlike way and got the correct figures here, and it's a pity that the Justice Department isn't collecting figures of this kind, but they say that when police arrest someone, if there is a white murder victim, there is an arrest 63% of the time.
In the case of black victims, it's 47%.
I mean, there is a difference, and it's a consistent difference across the nation, but that is not a startling and stark, staggering difference.
This difference is certainly not enough to justify anyone in saying to the police, clearly, just don't give a hoot if a black person is killed.
Look, they saw 47% of the murders, and only 67% when it's a white victim.
Now, according to The Post, now this is The Post talking, this is not some of their people that they've lined up to say bad things about the police.
They say, it sets up a vicious cycle when black murders are not solved.
And I'm quoting, it deepens distrust of police among black residents, making them less likely to cooperate in investigations, leading to fewer arrests.
As a result, criminals are emboldened and residents' fears are compounded.
Terrible, vicious cycle because of this distrust of the police among black residents.
Now, of course, they had to drag in Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown as examples of the sorts of things that have heightened the distrust among blacks for the police.
And I don't recall George Zimmerman actually being a police officer, but I guess somehow he stands in and is an avatar for cops nationwide.
It's because he wasn't arrested immediately.
Because he wasn't arrested immediately after he killed Trayvon Martin.
These people who wrote this extensive article for the Washington Post seem to have absolutely no recognition that the way they spun this and shouted this in the rooftops about Trayvon Martin, about Michael Brown, they seem to have no idea that They have contributed to this distrust, if distrust there is.
Their hands are as dirty with this as anybody they could possibly be describing.
I mean, again, go back and think about how the mainstream media back in 2014 helped proliferate this notion that Michael Brown had his hands up and was saying, don't shoot.
Yes.
They ran with that.
Yes.
And the way they describe it as an unarmed man killed by a white officer.
That's all they say.
They don't say that Barack Obama's Justice Department investigated this about as deeply as you can investigate anything and determined that he behaved exactly as he should have.
This is just nuts.
What was it that Barack Obama... I think I actually called you when Barack Obama went live after the decision not to prosecute Darren Wilson came down and Barack Obama was speaking and there were there were the two screens and it showed the riots breaking out in Ferguson and what was it Barack Obama said That he understands if people have a negative reaction to the decision.
I don't remember the words he used, but it was so stunning.
It was astonishing.
He says, I have great sympathy.
That's right.
Try not to be violent about it.
Oh, I fully understand your frustration.
I'm as frustrated as you are.
This is just incredible.
Nowhere, nowhere, nowhere did he say, and by this time we knew, don't assault a police officer.
Don't commit strong-armed robbery in a convenience store before you have an encounter with a police officer.
Don't try to wrestle a police officer's gun away from him and get into a life-and-death struggle with a police officer.
He never ever said anything about what black people should not do.
He said that we have a deeply flawed criminal justice system and I sympathize.
Could agree.
So, Barack Obama was singing the same song that the Washington Post was singing, and now the Washington Post just can't understand anything at all about what's going on here.
Now, To their credit, they did quote a few people who pointed out that the black crime pattern is different from the white crime pattern.
I thought it was very interesting that they quoted the Detroit police chief, James Craig.
He says, let's face it, when you talk about murder in our urban communities, black and brown, where gang and group violence is prevalent, you get retaliation.
And those are the most challenging kinds of homicides to investigate.
Not just that, you also get witness intimidation, where those who see are then told by those, you know, institutions by, you know, you call gangs institutions.
Unfortunately, they are in cities like Chicago and Detroit.
But in a lot of ways, that's that's also trying to Throw oil into a situation where it doesn't necessarily belong because I've read the studies of the Milwaukee Homicide Commission, which is awesome.
It's an exhaustive study where they break down the reason behind each homicide.
And in most of these cases where you see these police chiefs try and just say, oh, it's categorized as gang violence.
Well, they show that on an individual level.
No, the majority of them are not.
They're just acts where someone is disrespected.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with gang violence.
It's just an incident.
But are these not people who have some sort of gang affiliation?
These are just random black people who have no gang affiliation.
The Milwaukee Homicide Commission is, I cannot commend what they're trying to do there enough.
They go back to 2005 and they break down every homicide.
This is one of the reasons why Chicago got rid of that amazing annual report where they also looked at every homicide and what was the reason behind the killing?
Why did it happen?
Was it gang related?
Was it not?
They started to realize, wow, a lot of this violence isn't gang related.
It's just one brother blowing away another brother, and we never find out who that brother is.
Brother?
But I think that this Detroit police chief, James Craig, is certainly on to something in terms of witness intimidation.
If the shooter is a gang member, then everybody probably knows it, especially if he's an important guy in a gang.
You snitch on him and you get stitches.
Everybody, everybody in these black areas understands that.
And that is something that they got as the post says.
In interviews with more than two dozen police chiefs and homicide commanders, they said they worked just as hard to solve black murders, but those investigations are often hampered by reluctant witnesses.
Watch the great show called The First 48 on A&E.
It's captivating.
Television is probably the best reality show because these police departments agree to let cameras into their investigations of homicide.
And in fact a couple cities have been so embarrassed by the The reality that this show showcases of a place like New Orleans or Memphis, I think it was the Memphis City Council that actually voted to cancel the contract with the first 48 because they were so down on the reality that it showed of violence and homicide in the city of Memphis.
It was all black and then black people had no desire to work with these detectives as they were trying to solve the murder case because they only have, I guess, in cop language and cop lexicon you only have 48 hours to really find solid good leads before you know without a motive you have no lead and without that's what you have to find out and and real quick Louisville is one of the cities Louisville was a 78 percent white city in Kentucky and that's one of the cities where the first 48 has some of their more incredible episodes because the black crime
The black violence problem in that city.
You lived there for a couple years, I think.
It's quite bad.
Which is interesting because that's also the city where our famed Papa John started out his company and his franchise and built his empire that came collapsing down due to using the dreaded N-word on a conference call.
That's right.
Just one word and his career ends.
He's trying to get some piece of the empire back, I understand.
He now realizes he made a terrible mistake.
He did make a terrible mistake, yeah.
So he is showing some, hey, maybe he's reading American Renaissance and he's realizing it's time to get a spine.
He read that great piece that Gregory Hood wrote where he wrote all of that lucre you gave to all these causes.
It didn't matter in the end.
That's right.
It came for you.
You can dump millions and millions of dollars on universities and they will rip your name off the stadium.
They will rip your name off the name of their business school if you say one wrong word.
What was that great thing he wrote about how there are not enough indulgences Martyrdom is no salvation.
of violating the secular religion because there's no profit.
It's a brilliant piece that the great Martin Martin is no
salvation great that's right Martin is no salvation but yes let's hope he is
learning something in any case you know I think the point you made about the
amount of effort that went into this Washington Post story when I was you have to
scroll down to get to the text of this story a list of the name of every
single person who was killed and whose murderer has not been arrested
Did you notice that?
I did.
Oh, I did.
It's almost like the Vietnam Memorial.
All of these names.
And every black name has got a special highlight, you see.
So you're looking down there.
Oh, there's another black one.
You have to scroll down quite a ways.
They put a lot of work into this to let us, to bring home to us.
These are all individuals.
They're all dead.
Nobody's been arrested.
And it is the system's fault.
In the last 10 years, 7,400 cases involving a non-black person have gone unsolved.
Yeah.
And that's kind of brushed to the side in this story.
That's one of the things where, once again, you have this situation where we're told again that black lives don't matter, but there sure is a lot of spilt ink and research hours poured into trying to justify, hey, not only do black lives matter, but God, you know what?
To journalists, they matter a whole hell of a lot more than some white guy gunned down in St.
Louis.
Yes, they sure do.
And the title, the title says it all.
For those of us who are not going to look and read what the police chief of Detroit says, which strikes me as entirely plausible, all you need to do is read the title.
On unequal justice, murder with impunity.
We know what we're supposed to think.
But moving on to another pattern that you and I have discovered, and which I think is an extremely significant one, is the way the command structure of the Democratic Party is shifting.
And we have learned just this week that Representative Barbara Lee, she's a Democrat of California, represents Berkeley and Oakland.
She is one of the wildest lefties in the entire House of Representatives.
She has announced that she will run to be next House Democratic Caucus Chair.
That's the number two Democrat in the Congress.
Now, one of the reasons that Barbara Lee gained a certain amount of notoriety was three days after the September 11 attacks, she was the only member of Congress to vote against giving then President George W. Bush the authority to use military force to go after those who are responsible.
She's now, by the way, dining out on this.
She's claiming, oh, this just goes to show you how independent-minded I am.
Well, in a certain respect, I suppose she is independent-minded.
Now, why did this number two spot in the Democratic Party Congress open up?
It's because... The rising tide of color capsized Joe Crowley's career.
Did you realize what he's saying now?
No, no, what's he up to now?
So he's going on record, not only was his career ruined by this rising tide of color, he's actually saying that those who cross the border illegally should be compensated.
What?
These new Americans who are more American than myself, than you, than our listeners, who have ancestors who predate who predate the actual country being founded in 1776 when we declared our independence.
No, no, they're not as American as these illegal aliens who, guess what, who helped create this climate that ended Joe Crowley's career.
So Joe Crowley is taking this with a big smile on his face, is he?
I guess he's hoping to find some career as a, I don't know, an analyst or speaker in this wonderful socialist anti-white utopia that Ms.
Cortez is destined to create along with her friend down in Georgia.
What's the woman's name?
It was on the cover of Time Magazine this week.
Can she create the new blue wave?
Right, right.
And become mayor of Atlanta?
No, no.
Oh, the governor of Georgia?
Yes, yes.
I beg your pardon.
Abrams.
Yes.
Well, Joe Crowley will discover that the wages of a professional lickspittle are very low.
Unless you're in the Republican Party.
Touche.
Well said.
But in any case, because Joe Crowley, old white man, a relatively old white man, was upset by the latest Democratic darling, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
There is a spot that's open in the leadership.
And so Barbara Lee says she is going to go after it now.
She will face, guess who?
She's going to face Linda Sanchez, also a Democrat from California.
Oh, obviously a Democrat from California, who defeated Lee by two votes in 2016 to be the House Democrat Caucus Vice Chair.
One of the reasons why I think you find this so fascinating is because Lee famously accused President Donald Trump of wanting to make America white again, which I actually believe is synonymous with what a lot of the Democrats believe.
That Donald Trump's agenda is solely about only impacting the white population positively.
I don't even think Donald Trump has actually ever used the word white America in a sentence together.
He's never defined that.
Whatever.
These illusions.
The Democrats now have reached the point, and you've seen a lot of articles, Mr. Taylor, where the Democrats are starting to realize, we've got to reel this back in.
We've got to get these democratic socialists back into The barn, it's too early.
Guys, it's too early.
Well, we'll see.
We'll see.
These midterms will be very significant in that respect.
To what extent can they play on this really radical stuff?
And to what extent will the pro-Trump attitudes among some of the people who have won the primary contest among the Republicans, will that pay off in the general election?
This will be a very significant and interesting set of elections.
Well, the anti-white rhetoric is not going to play with white Democrats, I don't think, in places outside of Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon.
There are good people all throughout the state of Oregon and Washington who are Democrats, white Democrats, who probably thought that, like you talked about at the very beginning, that the Democrats stood up against the man to protect the interests of the working class.
And as we see, The combined efforts of the Republican and Democrat elite at this point are to flood the country with illegal aliens, to benefit labor owners that the Republican Party advocates for, and the Democrat Party, of course, is the advocate for the illegal alien that is displacing the American worker, the white working class.
So it's a double-edged, it's a double front we're fighting.
I'll say.
Well, we will see.
These will be, I think, some of the most interesting midterm elections that I can remember.
Well, you say that and I got to tell, real quick before we get to the questions, Time Magazine understands that and they're already positioning this battle in Georgia as Trump Versus the New America.
Right.
You know, National Public Radio has really been whooping these midterms as well.
It's beginning to dawn on people that this really is a test between, as you say, Trump and our elites, between people who think of the United States as a real nation with a real heritage and a destiny, and those who think it's up for grabs.
So, I will be very interested to see the results.
Now, we do have time for questions.
We have had some interesting questions from listeners, and one can be answered very quickly and easily.
And someone writes in and says, a while ago, Jared Taylor spoke about the possibility of hiring a full-time reporter.
Did that ever happen?
Yes, it did.
Our full-time guy is Gregory Hood.
And you have mentioned several of his articles.
I think he really is one of the best writers on our side.
And so he has filled that role.
And he will be doing some reporting.
For the most part, it's essays, observations, kind of blogging.
But he'll be doing some reporting as well.
But in any case, we are happy to have him working full-time for us.
I think he's a very, very important voice for our movement and will continue to be so.
The other question, which was interesting, a listener writes in to say, I know it's been a while since the Supreme Court heard a case on affirmative action.
He says, this is before I got red-pilled about race and IQ.
Yes, it's been a while.
He says, how is it possible the subject of IQ has never been raised in such a case?
Well, you know, in my recollection, the question of IQ has never come before the Supreme Court in any serious way.
But in 1963, in a case called Stell v. Savannah Chatham Board of Education, Stell v. Savannah, as it's generally called, this was a case against School integration.
In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education had already been ruled on, and the court said, separate but equal is wrong, and you're going to have all sorts of wonderful things if people are educated together.
In 1963, this was a case that was organized by that great hero of our race, Carlton Putnam, the author of Race and Reason, Race and Reality.
Race and Reason, by the way, is available from New Century Books.
Really a wonderful book.
I wrote a preface for it.
In any case, Carl Putnam put together a court case in which he called all of the eminent IQ experts of his time to explain to a judge that Segregation made sense because the races are not identical.
And separate may not be equal, but merging two unequal groups is not justice either.
And the people who testified were, as I said before, really the most prominent racially aware scientists at the time.
There was Wesley Critz George.
He was a professor of anatomy at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine.
Robert Kuttner, he taught anthropology at the University of Connecticut.
Henry Garrett, he was a distinguished university professor who was head of the psychology department of Columbia.
R. Travis Osborne, who began teaching at the University of Georgia in 1946 and one of his close colleagues in later years.
Frank McGurk.
These are very, very significant names in the history of psychological and IQ testing in the United States.
These names have been completely forgotten.
But the point is, an attempt was made to make a careful case for segregation based on racial differences.
It's almost impossible to imagine a case like that going forward today.
I don't think it would go forward.
And when you have cases such as one that was filed in Florida some time ago, in which the state of Florida was being held responsible for the fact that blacks were not learning at the same rate as whites, and because the Florida Constitution guarantees an education to all citizens, Florida was being held responsible for the fact that blacks are not reading and writing as well as whites.
To me, that is a perfect opportunity for someone to mount a defense saying, well, you just can't expect them to.
You simply can't expect them to.
Haven't there been some court cases where the argument of IQ and the death penalty have been brought up, though?
They've never reached the Supreme Court.
They've only reached lower courts, correct?
Where if someone has an IQ of under 75, they can't be executed.
You know, now that you remind me, I think there is a Supreme Court case to that effect.
Maybe they are lower courts.
Oh, I should point out that this case that I mentioned, Stel v. Savannah Chatham Board of Education, that was a lower court case.
And in effect, what they were asking to do was a court to overrule a Supreme Court case.
After the Supreme Court case, of course, it already ruled in 1954.
It was really a futile thing.
It was a grand theater, basically.
It was theater, but it put on the record an alternative position.
But that's a good point about IQ and the death penalty.
I believe it is the Supreme Court that has ruled on that, but we should look into that and talk about that next week.
I like that idea.
Yes, yes.
Well, I think our time is drawing to a close.
Once again, a pleasure to have you on the line, and I look forward to speaking with you next week.
Hey, real quick, thank you to all the listeners out there.
We can't tell you how much we appreciate the fact that the emails that I get, people tell me how much they enjoyed listening to this, especially hearing Mr. Taylor in a different environment than what they're used to seeing him on video.
A little looser.
These are fun to do, but I would like to say We'd love your questions.
So please, if you have any questions you'd like us to answer on this podcast or in future episodes, send them to me at sbpdl1 at gmail.com.
Once again, that email is sbpdl1 at gmail.com or you can send them to the contact us form at amran.com.
So for Jared Taylor, this is Paul Kersey.
Our time is up.
▲
Export Selection