All Episodes
Previous Next
June 26, 2019 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
58:46
Is the Smart Money on Elizabeth Warren?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
You're just in time for the latest episode of Radio Renaissance.
I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance, and with me is my indispensable co-host, Mr. Kersey.
And I'm afraid we're going to have to start with another story about the increasingly blowhard president we voted in, Donald J. Trump.
As we all know, in May, roughly 144,000 migrants were stopped by U.S.
authorities at the Mexican border, and more than 105,000 came That's the new gimmick, of course, because if you've got a child in tow and claim that it's yours, then hey, asylum!
Nobody asks any more questions after that.
And these numbers represent the largest North American land migration in more than a decade.
I don't know what it was that exceeded that, but we're breaking our records now.
On June 17th, Donald Trump was saying that in order to stop this, in order to make it clear for all these Central Americans that there's no point in coming, he was going to start deporting people.
By the millions!
He tweeted this, right?
He tweeted this.
Out by the millions.
Well, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Mark Morgan said there were no plans to deport people in the millions.
In fact, they were going to start modestly with 2,000 illegals.
2,000 illegals in 10 cities.
In what is nevertheless described as an unprecedented measure.
And the reason it would be considered unprecedented is that it means knocking on doors and arresting people rather than simply deporting people who've already been arrested for some other reason.
And so of course the left is absolutely outraged.
These people are just peacefully going about their business, contributing to our wonderful diverse society.
They're just vibrant as can be.
But the fact is all of these people would have been folks for whom there is a deportation order out already, and they, like 97% of people who get deportation orders, have decided to stay.
Or they don't show up for their hearings.
You know, one of the aspects you didn't mention, and I think is being overlooked, are the videos and the statements we're hearing, Mr. Taylor, from Democrat mayors or Democrat governors.
Gavin Newsom, of course, put out a video saying what to do, If this happened, the mayors of Chicago, Atlanta, and Newark, the first two are black females, in Newark they have a black male mayor, they basically come out and said, we're not going to cooperate.
Oh, they were very clear about that.
They talked about 10 cities.
And Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago.
They all said they're not going to cooperate.
And they said, look, all you illegals, all you lovely illegals in my town, make sure you've got locks on your doors.
Because unless there's a judge's order, you don't have to open the door.
Even if it's La Migra out there.
Great.
So they're all going to defy the president anyway.
But now, of course, just at the last moment, our president, our president who always keeps his word, he decided to change his mind.
And he changed his mind because Nancy Pelosi, God bless her, she called up and said, oh, Mr. President, this would be so mean.
This would be so bad.
And so quick like a bunny, he changed his mind.
He says, OK, we're not going to do this.
But he has given the Congress two weeks.
No, I don't believe a word President Trump says.
I don't believe any of his tweets.
Work out a solution to the asylum and loophole problems at the southern border.
If not, deportations start.
Now, do you believe him?
No, I don't believe a word President Trump says.
I don't believe any of his tweets.
Again, this is a guy who lost me the moment that he called out anyone
who voted for the criminal justice reform bill of 1994, basically saying that was a dark period of American history.
Hey dude, Mr. President, you lived in New York at that time period.
There were 2,000 murders a year.
Within three years they were down to 700 murders after the passing of that bill.
Now you're trying to go out there and say you're going to kick the can again when you already have the authority as president to start deporting.
You don't need Congress to go ahead and Exactly.
Now, he could deport any of these people anytime.
Millions, as he said.
He's got that authority.
Now, he says he's going to give Congress two weeks.
As you know, nothing is going to happen in two weeks.
But what could conceivably happen is a change in this idiotic law that is still in the books, according to which you cannot send any child back at the Mexican border who has come from someplace other than Mexico.
If there is a Mexican child, then you can just ship them across the border.
None of this asylum nonsense.
But the theory is, if they've come all the way through Mexico from someplace else, then this could be a victim of child trafficking, and we have to just walk on eggshells.
And that's why there's all these Central Americans.
And now, Haitians, and Congolese, and Lord knows what, all showing up with children.
The fact that there are Congolese in the country, that hundreds of Congolese were in San Antonio, and then they found their way to Maine.
I don't think we're going to talk about this story, but you and I, in a phone call, I said, Mr. Taylor, did you read the story in the New York Times?
Maine needs immigrants because of its aging white population.
So let's go ahead and just dump as many Congolese here.
And our astute listeners know that we talked about how Portland, Maine was already overwhelmed.
Already overwhelmed with African refugees.
Somalis.
Somalis.
So now you have Congolese, and pretty soon you'll have Zimbabweans, and who knows what you're going to start having show up through Mexico.
Yes, and the Somalis, they had showed up, I believe, somewhere in the south, whether that suited their temperament, you would think.
But they did a little shopping.
They did a little welfare shopping.
And they decided that Maine, Maine had the most generous welfare.
So the word went out.
All the Somalis congregated in Maine.
So, yes, Somalis are not enough of them.
I guess they need Congolese, too.
But, you know, if the United States had any sense at all, you know what it would do?
It would not just get rid of this crazy law that says we can't pitch them back over the border if they are from some non-neighboring state.
The other thing we would do is get out of these refugee treaties.
The refugee treaties we entered into shortly after the war, and it had to do with resettling war refugees.
And the war you speak of is World War II.
Second World War.
Which ended, by my calculations, 1945.
I think you're right about that.
So, 55, 65, 75, 74 years ago.
That's right.
And we are still, we've got all of these refugees hung around our neck because legally, if somebody shows up and says the magic word asylum, we cannot send them back.
It's just nuts.
We should have our own decisions as to who we let in and have absolutely no international obligations in that respect.
That to me would be an absolutely number one priority is getting out from under this crazy refugee treaty.
All treaties have ways of getting out, getting out.
There is an exit procedure.
I don't know exactly what it is, but it could be done and it should be done.
In any case, As we both agree, nothing important is going to happen in two weeks, and so we will see if Donald Trump can be trusted to start the deportations.
We will see.
Spoiler alert!
I will not hold my breath.
I will keep my fingers crossed, and maybe even my toes, but my breath I refuse to hold.
Spoiler alert!
We ain't gonna see nothing.
Just as we were told right before the election, we might see an executive order on birthright citizenship.
We might see something in regards to... The only thing that he's done on the border, Mr. Taylor, has been the threat of a tariff on Mexico, which then forced Mexico to capitulate quickly.
And they've actually put a lot of troops on their southern border.
They have.
They have.
They've actually shown to be more interested in protecting American sovereignty than Nancy Pelosi.
I was very surprised to see photographs of heavily armed Mexican troops with assault weapons keeping people from crossing the Rio Grande.
Well, God bless them.
If our boys can't do that, at least their boys can, apparently.
At least when the men with the cameras are around.
Very precisely.
But going with that segue to Nancy Pelosi, this past Monday, she said, when it called into question our immigration laws, the United States' immigration laws, she is the Speaker of the House, she said, what is the point of tracking down fugitives, of tracking down illegal aliens, And ordering them out of the country.
So this was at a Speaker in the House event hosted by New York rep Grace Ming.
Pelosi started to rip President Trump's plan to track down, again, just those 2,000 illegal immigrants.
Because again, like you said at the start of this podcast, it was going to be millions, millions of illegals he's tweeting out.
We're going to go get millions.
Well, it's actually 2,000.
You actually look at it.
So Nancy Pelosi says, hey, what's the point?
So she described this plan by ICE as something animals Animals would do.
Quote, it is appalling.
It's outside the circle of human behavior, kicking down doors, splitting up families in terms of interior enforcement.
What is the purpose?
What is the point?
End quote.
Yes, and that is the third in line for the presidency, the Speaker of the House of the United States of America.
She doesn't see the point in sending illegals home.
Now, as these people always say, this would split up families.
It doesn't have to split up families.
It doesn't have to split them up at all.
They can all go to Mexico.
What's the problem?
Or to their nation of origin.
Yes.
Isn't Elizabeth Warren on this crazy bandwagon?
Elizabeth Warren is too.
There's one more quote from Ms.
Pelosi that I'd like to add.
You cannot be ignoring the rights of immigrants to our country.
Wait a second.
The rights of immigrants to our country.
We're talking about illegal immigrants here.
What is the purpose of American citizenship anymore in the eyes of Democrats?
Except as a way to add more and more non-white individuals into the country who can then nullify the votes of white conservatives, as they've done in California, as they've done in Colorado, as they've done in Virginia, as they're about to do in 2020 in Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona.
Well, the rights of immigrants to America, she says.
To America, not in America.
Well, that means, she says, everybody who lives on the other side of our borders has a right to come.
Sounds like that to me.
Which was echoed in Senator Elizabeth Warren's address on Tuesday when she said she would be in favor of decriminalizing illegal crossing of the U.S.
border, which is nothing more than a call for open borders and echoing that statement by Ms.
Pelosi.
Well, I don't think you're entirely correct there.
Elizabeth Warren says it should not be a criminal matter, it should be a civil matter.
And the way she argues is that because it's a civil matter, once these people have hopped the border, They will, we can count on them to show up to their meetings, to their hearings with a immigration judge.
It's strictly a civil matter.
Correct.
So she's got this some sort of crazy idea that even if it's decriminalized, it'll be humane, but somehow or other they will be deterred because it's a civil matter.
This is, you know, as far as I can tell.
Now, I believe she's one of the people who wants to defund ICE too.
She wants to defund ICE and she was agreeing with I agree with Secretary Castro.
We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home or trying to build a better future.
president.
Oh, yeah.
Here's what she said when they were discussing illegal immigrant enforcement at the border.
Quote, I agree with Secretary Castro.
We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home or trying
to build a better future.
We must pass comprehensive immigration reform that is in line with our values, creates a pathway
to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, including our Dreamers, and protects our borders.
End quote.
Now, wait a second, Ms. Warren.
Wait a second, Pocahontas.
Protects our borders.
How can you even throw that in there when you basically said that borders won't even exist in this utopian world?
It is a mystery what they really have in mind.
It does seem to me that they really just want the country to be up for grabs.
And if all of these lovely and noble mothers and children, if they deserve to come, why make them make the trek?
Why can't we send 747s out?
Just bring them in by the plane load if they deserve to be here.
Maybe I shouldn't have said that because as soon as Liz Warren hears of that she'll start proposing that.
Some kind of an idea to pass?
Why make them go through the agony of actually having to sneak in?
But nope, the U.S.
is up for grabs.
If you can stagger into the country then you deserve to be here.
And, of course, this is the kind of thing that Google probably approves of.
We just had yet another one of these brilliant exposés by Project Veritas, James O'Keefe's outfit.
They had an undercover release.
of a conversation with a woman by the name of Jen Genai.
I mean, why is it all of these tech companies are run by people with unpronounceable names?
In any case, Jen Genai, she runs Google's Responsible Innovation Team,
which ensures, and I'm quoting, fair and ethical outcomes via.
Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google.
That really gives you a kind of a 1984 possibility here.
In any case, she's quoted as saying, Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google.
And like, I love her, but she's very misguided.
That will not make it better, it'll make it worse, because now all these smaller companies, once everything is broken up, all these smaller companies who don't have the same resources that we do, will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation.
Oh boy.
In other words, all of these little companies won't be able to slant the news the way Google can.
So don't break us up, Elizabeth Warren.
This is very misguided.
The fact that we are rooting for you, we are tilting the table in your favor, don't you realize how much we're doing for you?
Don't you dare break us up.
Now, then she goes on to say, it's like a small company can't do that.
And she went on to say that everybody, including the people in the news media, got screwed over in 2016.
That means Trump got elected.
And as a result, Google has been trying to figure out, quote, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again?
It's just the hubris of these people.
They realize that by controlling the news they can control politics, they control human history.
And that's exactly what they want to do.
Now, apparently Google did not immediately return phone calls for a question and comment on that.
I'm not surprised.
But then there was another person that the O'Keefe outfit identified as a Google insider.
Now his voice and his face were camouflaged.
Now, I'm not sure I believe this.
Let's pretend, of course, that it really is a Google person.
But I don't like these anonymous sources, which is, in effect, what that is.
He said this.
Right after Donald Trump won the election in 2016, the company did a complete 180.
And what they thought was important.
Before, they thought self-expression, giving everyone a voice, was important.
But now, they're like, hey, there's lots of hate.
And because there's a lot of hate and misogyny and racism, that's the reason Donald Trump got elected.
Because of all that misogyny out there.
Got that?
And so we need to fix that, says he.
We need to start policing our users.
What they're really saying about fairness is that they have to manipulate their search results so it gives them the political agenda they want.
There you go.
So now, as I say, I don't like anonymous sources.
Maybe this guy's legit.
He sounds legit to me.
It sounds like exactly the way they think.
But his conclusion was, They are a highly biased political machine, he's talking about Google, that is bent on never letting somebody like Donald Trump come to power again.
Oh, and they're 100% into doing this.
Think about, I don't remember the website, but there's some quilting or stitching website
that just banned any supporter of Donald Trump because they don't want to have,
quote, white supremacy on their website.
It's the largest stitching community online in the country.
And millions of members, but if you support Donald Trump, you're banned
because we don't want that on our website.
I missed that one.
You missed that one.
You can't be a quilter and support Donald Trump.
Well, I guess you have to suppress your support of President Trump if you want to stay part of this burgeoning, growing, stitching community.
I'm sure there's some stimulating conversation on this website.
But this whole Google, YouTube, you've been in the thick of all this.
Is there anything that you can update on what's going on or some of your battles?
Yeah, snitches get stitches.
You better stay off the platform, because you could grief.
Well, there is an aspect of this that I find quite appalling, and that's something that recently happened in France.
Yes, I can tell you that in a world first, This is unprecedented.
Facebook has agreed to hand over the electronic identification data of French users suspected of hate speech on Facebook.
They're going to hand this information over to judges.
Now this was announced by France's Minister of Digital Affairs who is named Cedric Oh.
O is spelled capital O, and nothing else.
Now it turns out, Mr. Cedric Oh, who is one of President Emmanuel Macron's earliest and most trusted advisors, his father is South Korean.
So I suppose he's half Korean, half French.
But he is Macron's big and trusted advisor on Tech.
High tech.
He's an advisor at the Élysée Palace, where Macron's office is to be found, and he's also had frequent conversations with Mark Zuckerberg.
And so, what he has decided is that he has persuaded Facebook to cooperate with French justice on matters relating not just to terrorist attacks and violent attacks.
They've been doing that already.
If a judge says to Facebook, look, these folks are involved in a terrorist attack.
We want to track them down.
Give us the ID info.
The French will do that.
If it's a murderer or a rapist, they'll do that.
Now, they will do exactly the same thing if someone on Facebook, Facebook France, is suspected of hate speech.
Now, I thought that this was an interesting comment by a lawyer by the name of Sonia Sis.
She is at a law firm called Link Ladders, and she says that, quote, hate speech is no longer considered part of freedom of speech.
It's now on the same level as Terrorism.
That's where the Western, that's where the gatekeepers of the Western world who are creating this post-white Western civilization, that's where they want to take things.
This is Horatio at the Bridge.
Pretty much.
Stopping terrorism.
Pretty much.
Saving Western civilization by silencing you and me.
Horatio at the Bridge is actually a great story.
I don't know if I want to use that.
I don't know if I want to use that analogy.
I bet that's the way they're thinking.
That's their moral attitude.
You're precisely correct.
And this is also why we continually, continually ask, dear listener, for you to send us your email.
Because at any moment, at any moment, the Primary Amaran YouTube channel, which has all of those fantastic Jared Taylor videos over a hundred thousand subscribers it could be gone just like that in a blink of an eye and somebody hope someone at the at the Google campus there in Palo Alto could just say okay it's time get rid of this channel or they could get rid of our podcast channel which is why I encourage you
Dear listener, email me because we live here at ProtonMail.com.
Once again, because we live here at ProtonMail.com.
Just get in touch with us.
We'll add you to our email list so we can keep you abreast, keep you updated on all that's going on.
We're not going to spam you.
All we're going to do is make sure that you know in case our channel is ghosted.
Or you can Actually, contact AmRen directly at our Contact Us tab at the AmRen.com page.
And, you know, disconcerting as this French regulation is, it is at least something that is not likely to happen yet in the United States.
Because Google or Facebook, they can silence you, but at least what we're saying is not yet against the law.
And so we're not in a position of being handed over to the police and walking off with handcuffs.
But that's the situation for the French.
Well, let's go back to Elizabeth Warren.
Think of what she said.
She believes that white supremacists pose a threat to the United States like any other terrorist group.
She made this claim back in March of 2019 and she pledged Yes, she did say that.
She said that we would treat white supremacists like Al-Qaeda and leadership starts at the top and that means you've got to call it all out.
As president you've got to use the tools available to you and that means get the Justice Department when they break the law.
But at least we don't yet have laws telling us what we cannot say.
But who knows how long that will last?
Well, we don't have laws that don't tell us what we can say, but as you've noted with what's going on with Google, where they're trying to say, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager.
They're dog-whistling Nazis.
We've got to shut these guys up.
But there is a difference between a private platform kicking you off or manipulating its search results to make sure that you don't come up and go into jail.
There is a difference.
There is a difference.
And at least for the time being, we enjoy that difference in the United States, but that's not the case in many European countries.
You can go to jail.
People do hard time in the big house because they said the wrong thing.
No, and I fear that that's where the United States is heading rapidly.
Rapidly.
Yes, we're going that way.
We're going that way.
But now, while we're still on the subject of Elizabeth Warren, you know, you may be right.
At one time, you said the smart money was on Kamala Harris.
Maybe it sounds like the smarter money is going to be on Elizabeth Warren here.
But on the subject of Elizabeth, she of course is a big proponent of reparations for slavery.
Yes, she is.
But did you know that she is a big proponent for reparations for homosexual couples?
Yes.
Did you know that?
She just announced that.
That's right.
All of the candidates have to continually double down on the give me's that.
Yes.
Cory Booker was in the lead on reparations for slavery, but now, now, good old Elizabeth Warren has surged into the lead.
Reparations for homosexual couples.
So you know the thinking of course is, because they couldn't file joint tax returns.
You've got to get that money back.
They were diddled out of millions of dollars.
Poor choice of words there.
That's right.
Excellent choice of words.
She is going to dip into your pocket and make sure they get that money back.
We're not going to talk about the debate for that long, or the Democrats, but it's important to bring up just how absurd we're seeing the Democrats get in their quest for retaking the White House in 2020 with what Bernie Sanders has come out and said.
About student loans and I've seen a lot of articles recently that point out that it's largely blacks who are defaulting on student loans and it's largely blacks who are burdened.
One of my favorite websites newsone.com continually puts out this concept that It's unfair and it's white privilege speaking to think that blacks should have to repay their loans.
That's right.
That's right.
It's disparate impact of the most egregious kind, expecting people to pay back their loans.
That is a white supremacist idea.
Yes!
And so of course blacks should be exempted.
But, you know, back to Elizabeth Warren.
I'm finding her more and more interesting.
She wants reparations for Indians.
That's her latest wheeze.
Speaking as a Cherokee.
She says because of, and I believe I'm quoting her precisely, America's ugly history of racism.
We need reparations for Indians.
It's just how, what form that will take, I don't know.
But she is really the queen of reparations.
Now I think, you know, I suspect, now here's another idea that I fear to slip across into the general public here, but how about reparations for all women because until 1920 they couldn't vote in federal elections.
Because they were denied the franchise until suffrage came along with the 19th Amendment.
Exactly.
They were denied the franchise.
They deserve reparation for that.
Is this the 100th year anniversary?
1920.
1920.
So what could be a better election year proposal than 100 years later, we're going to make due.
We're going to make whole.
We're going to make whole.
Rectify the inequities of the past.
All of those abused and deprived and exploited women who didn't have the vote.
Now, you know, while we're at it, I think we all deserve reparations or at least a drink on the house because during prohibition, we couldn't have a whiskey.
Isn't that another good one, too?
We were all oppressed by the federal government.
We need handouts for that, too.
But anyway, moving on to a different matter.
And this is having something to do with freedom of speech too.
The Supreme Court has made a ruling on trademark law, which really does support freedom of speech, but it seems to me they're really nibbling around the edges.
Trademark law is not the point where the real fight for free speech is happening, but the Supreme Court seems to think that's where it is.
And they decided that the government cannot censor trademarks just because bureaucrats find them vulgar or offensive.
And the case had to do with a fashion designer who wanted to register his mark for his brand called F-U-C-T.
I won't pronounce that out loud.
But the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office had rejected the name as vulgar.
Apparently it would violate what's called the Lanham Act's prohibition on immoral or scandalous trademarks.
But in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court said that that is an infringement of the First Amendment right of free speech.
And Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion.
And the ruling completes what the Court started two years ago in a case involving, as you will recall, an Asian musical group called I can't remember the name.
Oh, come on.
The Slant.
The Slant.
I knew it was some sort of pejorative.
Yes, yes.
It wasn't the Zipperheads.
It wasn't the Gooks.
It was The Slant.
And they decided that, what happened is the court decided that that was a disparaging stereotype.
And disparaging stereotypes are okay, but this time they went even further, and apparently they're all gradations of trademarks that are no good.
Disparaging, and then there is immoral, and then there is scandalous.
Now, frankly, I'm not quite sure what the difference is, but the Supreme Court just bowled over all the ten pins, and now it can be immoral, it can be scandalous, it can be absolutely anything at all.
Now, what this means, of course, is the Washington Redskills football team, the Redskins, is going to have absolutely no challenge possible.
Oh no, not at all.
It's secure forever.
Well, not just the Redskins, but now you can even conceivably go back and push back against The attempts by overzealous alumni with these schools that have Indian nicknames in colleges, where you've seen the push.
Unfortunately, a number of schools have already jettisoned those nicknames.
That's not a trademark case, though.
That's simply a university decision.
Well, a lot of the time, some of the names are trademarked, like the Florida State Seminoles.
I believe the Seminoles is a trademark that the Seminole tribe actually owns.
Well, yes, but most of those decisions, as I recall, have not been struck down as scandalous.
But in any case, yes, they can all maintain a trademark if they wish to do so.
And also, there was a beverage called cocaine, spelled K-O-K-A-N-E.
And that should be good to go now.
And then there was another.
There was a brand of smoking apparatus called Bong Hits for Jesus.
That's good to go now.
And interestingly enough, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, she is taking a somewhat jaundiced view of this.
She wrote a partial dissent in which she said the court has opened the floodgates to vile trademarks such as racial epithets.
That's what she's most worried about.
Most worried about.
So, as I say, there used to be a distinction between things that were disparaging, trademarks that were disparaging, those that were scandalous, and those that were immoral.
Now, as I say, I don't much understand the difference.
But so long as you've got F-U-C-T now, you could probably trademark white power.
That might just be scandalous.
It might be.
We'll see.
I'm sure there's some entrepreneur, enterprising individual out there who would consider doing that.
And then you find out what happens.
Has anybody ever tried to trademark black power?
You know, years ago, I got a contact from a fellow who had tried to trademark I think it was white power, white power worldwide, and he had been rejected.
He made a formal request to trademark these, and he had a whole list of brown power, black power, gay power.
All that was fine, but white power was no good.
I wonder if anyone, what you just said there, I wonder if anyone, speaking of what we were talking about earlier, since it's June, I wonder if anyone's ever tried to Trademark.
Black Pride.
As I said, they have been trademarked.
Gay Pride, Black Pride, Black Power.
Brown Pride, Hispanic Pride.
Those are all trademarked?
Those are all trademarked, yes.
And you had no trouble getting the Patent and Trademark Office to trademark those, recognize those as legitimate trademarks.
But anything with white in it.
This guy had done a systematic campaign.
Now, I was trying to go through my records and find the specifics of it, but I can't find them, unfortunately.
But this was years ago.
That was scandalous, but Black Pride, Brown Pride, I don't know, Girl Pride, you name it, that's all fine.
And now I guess you could have Slant Pride.
Well, if you recall another story we talked about that kind of deals with the same topic of names that we can't use anymore.
Talking about the National Basketball Association.
Well, it turns out, a story from probably three or four podcasts ago, the NBA was discussing getting rid of the term owner because a basketball player by the name of Draymond Green plays for the Golden State Warriors.
He's a black guy, just as is 74% of the National Basketball Association, the NBA.
He said that he found the word offensive.
So, it turns out that the NBA commissioner, Adam Silver said this past Monday that they're not going to use the word owner anymore.
They actually are dropping the term owner.
They can use majority stakeholder, managing partner, or as the league prefers, governor.
Governor?
Governor is what the league wants to use.
So owner is out the door because of the racial connotations of slavery and MASA, to have all your black players that you own.
I mean, you're paying them salaries well into the tens of millions of dollars.
Some of these guys have salaries, four years, $150 million.
I don't think too many people alive or dead would have the problem calling themselves a slave if they were being compensated that much money.
If that's what they believe themselves to be in this term.
That's a lot of money.
Yeah, especially if you can leave anytime.
I guess they feel those chains clanking heavily around their ankles as they jump for those baskets.
Well, as the league's commissioner, Adam Silver, said, quote, I don't want to overreact to the term because, as I said earlier, People end up twisting themselves into knots avoiding the use of the word owner, but we've moved away from the term years ago in the league.
So basically he's trying to say that they had already had some sort of unwritten rule.
Maybe they're retconning things.
Who knows?
The NBA is hypersensitive to anything that would dare Dissuade their majority black rosters from playing or creating any fuss.
Remember, this is a league that back in the mid-2000s, they actually put a rule into the union contract that mandated players stand up for the national anthem.
Well, governor, I don't know, that sounds potentially racist to me, but I guess we have black governors now, and we have lady governors, and so they're all governors now, huh?
Governor is the term.
Are the media going to pick that up and stop referring to owners?
What's your guess on that?
My guess is you'll still see the word owner used by the media until they can create another controversy to feed this desire for ESPN to constantly have racial strife to try and drive ratings.
Well isn't there another scandal where we're going to change the past?
I think you were about to regale us with yet another story.
This is one that You find stories sometimes that come out of the blue.
We all know that there's a war on.
Confederate memorials, Confederate high schools.
I saw a story, Mr. Taylor, where they're trying to come up with clever ways to save money by changing Robert E. Lee high schools, middle schools, elementary schools, and trying to find another Lee so they don't have to spend all that much money.
Bruce Lee.
Yeah, there you go.
Just name them all after Bruce Lee, the karate master.
Well, a San Francisco school board unanimously voted this past Tuesday to destroy To destroy a controversial school mural featuring slaves and a dead Native American, saying the removal equates to necessary reparations for historic wrongs.
Now, who do you think is pictured in this mural, which they say is so controversial that it needs to be destroyed?
Well, isn't it 13 panels of the life of George Washington?
And I believe it's hung on the wall of a staircase at George Washington High School in San Francisco.
Isn't that correct?
That's the punchline.
Ladies and gentlemen, the board voted to paint over the mural at Washington High School, but it added a caveat, leaving the door open to the possibility of obscuring the mural with panels if painting it results in long delays from legal challenges or other issues.
The preference of this school board, which unanimously voted, is to destroy it.
Now why is that, do you ask?
Well, you tell me.
I'll tell you.
In the words of board member Allison Collins, quote, It might be art, and it can also be racist.
It can be both.
It's not just about removing them from public view.
It's also about righting a wrong.
End quote.
Digest!
Marinate over those words for a second.
Yeah, you could destroy it, but that's going to right a wrong.
Well, you know, I've taken a look at these paintings and they date back to the 20s, do they not?
They do.
So they're really historical artifacts.
It's not like they're paintings from the WPA or they actually predate even the Even Roosevelt's new alphabet organizations.
And I believe there are 16,000 square feet?
That's bigger than a lot of New York City apartments for heaven's sake.
It's bigger than a lot of the apartments that the tech censors who work for Google and YouTube and Twitter there in San Francisco.
You know, I was looking at it.
It's all rather cleverly done, too.
There's a place where there is a doorway that comes up into the painting, and what they have done is they've painted a kind of a bench, and somebody is sitting on it.
And wherever they have heating vents and things like that, they've worked them very cleverly into the painting, too.
And as I say, it's the life of Washington.
Thirteen phases of the life of Washington.
But there are, if you look very hard, there are some slaves in a distant field picking cotton, and there is one dead Indian.
There is a dead end.
So, as stated, the school board unanimously voted to destroy this.
Now get this.
Painting over the mural would cost at least $600,000.
The majority of that cost in producing an environmental impact report.
Think about this.
This building has been around, let's say generously, that it was built maybe in the early part of the 20th century.
The murals have been there for going on a hundred years.
The people who built this building, the people who painted this mural, they wanted their posterity to enjoy it.
It wasn't some poorly built high school.
This is a sturdy building for the ages that they were going to educate their children in.
Their grandchildren would be educated in this.
And now, a hundred years later, we have people who in this hearing were chanting, paint it down!
And they decided, hey, let's vote to destroy it.
You know, to me, what is as astonishing as anything about this, is that this $600,000 cost to paint over the mural, most of that goes to an environmental impact statement?
In order to paint a wall in a high school in San Francisco, you have to file an environmental impact statement?
I'd like to know some of the details about that, but this is just the kind of insanity we're dealing with on that coast.
This to me, I mean, I'm used to people being just round the bend, unhinged on the subject of George Washington or slave owners or any white man or the American past, but an environmental impact statement just to paint over a wall?
Well, here's my favorite quote from the story.
This is from Nancy Truong.
A 2013 graduate of the school.
That's, again, one of those wonderful names that the founders would love.
They'd be able to associate with.
Manifest Destiny.
She said this, quote, I was never taught about the message or purpose of this mural during high school.
This mural is not teaching students about the history of slavery and indigenous genocide under George Washington or
other white settlers.
Instead, it is teaching students to normalize violence and death of our black and indigenous community, end quote.
So, let's vote to destroy, destroy, destroy.
It's gotta go.
It's gotta go.
Well, you know, this is once more another step in this march to madness.
Well, let's just leave San Francisco with one parting thought.
This is a city where there was a story a couple weeks ago that came out where they had a map pinpointing the locations where human feces has been reported since 2011.
And if you've not seen this map, just Google San Francisco human poop map.
And there is poop covering the city because the homeless and vagrants and vagabonds and druggies and losers are defecating in the street nearly every city block in the city since 2011 since they've started studying this.
I have a spoil sport question for you.
Go ahead.
How do they distinguish human from canine poop?
I'm sure You think they do DNA analysis?
Well, I'll tell you this.
I'm sure that the dog owners actually, I'm sure there's a larger fine for if you don't pick up dog poop.
You know, I'm sure you're right about that.
And dog owners, dog owners are notoriously law-abiding because they understand that they want to pamper their pets and they want to make sure that the community they live in is also clean so they don't get fined.
You get fined for that.
But human, human fecal matter, that's a horse of a different color.
Oh dear.
You're probably right.
Shall we move on to Sacramento in that case?
Still within the Golden State.
This is a very sad story.
In Sacramento just this week, a fellow by the name of Abdel Sambranos Ramos, He is a guy with quite a record, but he was threatening to kill his family with a bomb.
Whether or not he had a bomb is left unmentioned in the stories, but that's what he was threatening to do.
Well, who responded to the call?
None other than Tara O'Sullivan, a 26-year-old white girl who had graduated from the police academy in December and had not even been one year on the job.
Well, she shows up, and Adele Sombranos Ramos opened fire with what the police think is a rifle and killed her.
Now, this led to an eight-hour siege, and to me, what is very much the unhappy ending, they talked him into surrendering.
I wish they had just dispatched him on the spot, because he's going to be the guest of the state of California for a long time.
It's going to cost lots and lots of money to try him, all of this nonsense.
This is very much the unhappy ending.
But he had several instances of domestic violence on his record.
He was once stopped by the California Highway Patrol, who found $26,973 in cash in the backseat
and a strong odor of marijuana. Later on, the federal government seized this cash through
federal forfeiture proceedings. So I guess they thought, well, we'll turn him loose and maybe
next time we see him, we'll collect another $25,000.
In any case, this is a bad carrot.
Now, this would just be a routine story, except for one little piquant detail that I thought was especially worth passing on to our listeners.
And that is the fact that there were people in the neighborhood.
The people in the neighborhood were not, well, let's just call them, they were some of our dusky brethren.
And as soon as they learned that a white police officer had been shot, they started taunting the police in the area.
They said, the only people we need to be safe from is you.
And whatever officer getting shot needs to be.
You all need to be.
You all need to be shot.
And some of the women, these are mostly women doing this, taunting the officers.
This is all caught on videotape, by the way.
You can go see exactly what they're saying.
They call the officers punks, bastards, cowards.
Just really getting in there.
Wasn't there some anti-white rhetoric thrown in there, too?
I don't recall that.
About the racial hue of the police officers?
I don't recall that, but that would not surprise me.
And this is significant for a couple of reasons.
One is, of course, this just utter hatred that blacks have for the police in the United States.
The other is that although black people are always telling us that if they look at a policeman the wrong way, their life will be shot.
It'll end their lives.
Any police stop can result in my death, walking while black, driving while black, whistling while black, all of that.
But no, they're not the least bit afraid of the police.
This is the way they treat the police, and the police show remarkable self-restraint in not even replying.
saying nothing to these people that to me is the significance of this the fact that you have a filipino he by the way his photographs he looks very very dark and degenerate but uh this guy is a filipino he really looked like the missing link in his in his mug shots in any case he kills this young Gosh, I'm sure... A young white female cop who's not even... She was still going through training, right?
No, no.
She was not even a year out of the police academy.
That's right.
She was on probation.
That's right.
Starting on a new... Oh, God.
It's heartbreaking.
I saw a photograph of her smiling with her parents by her side the moment she graduated with her brand new uniform, just looking happy, happy and inspired.
Dead.
But, and yes, all of these blacks in the neighborhood are celebrating the fact that she's dead.
And again, the idea that they are terrified of the police, give me a break.
The police have a reason to be terrified of them.
There was another police shooting this week of a white cop in North County, right outside St.
Louis.
A white cop by the name of Michael Lansdorf was executed.
He got a call that there was someone who had written bad checks and went to arrest the guy.
He got in a scuffle, he fell on the ground.
The black guy, his name is Bonette Meeks.
Long criminal history.
Just grabs, he has a gun.
Put it right to Officer Langsdorff's head, pulls the trigger, bang.
Officer Langsdorff's dead.
Well get this, Mr. Taylor.
T-shirts are now appearing online.
that have a picture of the white officer and the shirt says, one down, many more to go.
Better one of theirs than one of ours.
This is a big controversy in St.
Louis.
Now again, this was the exact type of scenario that Officer Darren Wilson encountered on In August of 2014 when they were on Canfield Drive there in Ferguson and he sees two black males who fit the description of a strong arm hold up at a convenience store.
He goes to question them.
Of course, we know what happens.
Michael Brown went for his gun.
All that settled.
Unfortunately, in this case, the exact opposite happened.
And a long-time police officer, a white male named Michael Lansdorff, was summarily executed.
Well, and was this not live-streamed on Facebook as he was dying there on the floor?
Yes, there was a black female who shows up and she starts...
Just live streaming it onto Facebook.
Right, here, dead policeman.
This guy's final breaths, obviously we don't know, he may have died, I haven't seen a report yet, but the fact that these shirts are appearing, the person associated with the company currently lives in Colorado but used to live in St.
Louis, but these are, again, You can't get more racial than this.
One down, many more to go, a picture of Michael Lambsdorff, and then on the very back of the shirt, better one of theirs than one of ours.
I don't think people understand the animosity that the black community has toward police because of the grotesque reporting by the corporate media over the past, what, seven years since Trayvon Martin?
It only amplified during the Michael Brown and You know, I remember a case in San Francisco, oh, probably 20 years ago, in which some black guy went berserk and he took out four or five police officers, most of them white, but one Asian guy.
And the young black people are saying, wow, this is great.
That's the way I'm going to go out.
This is wonderful.
But these things are just a little blip in the news, and nobody takes them seriously.
But yes, the intensity of the hatred they have for us, and it is an intensity that is constantly stoked by this relentless media story.
Hands up, don't shoot.
Yes.
Hands up, don't shoot.
I can't breathe.
All of this stuff that is categorically false.
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter.
And, you know, it seems to me that the editors who write these stories, they must be completely blind to the consequences of their actions.
Because, of course, this story will not be big.
You and I will talk about it.
Our listeners will think about it.
But it won't be on any of the network news.
Not one image of these t-shirts will be anywhere on national news.
I can guarantee you that.
It's only the marginal, the people who are risked being shut up and silenced that are interested in these facts.
And we better not be for long.
Which is why, dear listener, because we live here at ProtonMail.com, send us your email or head over to the AMRIN page, contact us, give us your email so you can always know what's happening with the Noose Century Foundation in case that digital noose tightens and the gallows open and the YouTube channels are lost to history.
That could happen any time.
You know what just happened while we've been talking?
No.
The Project Veritas Venmo channel was... Oh, Vimeo?
Vimeo.
Vimeo was... Is that right?
He lost it.
So you have this idea, Mr. Taylor, of, hey, you know what?
If you don't abide by YouTube's rules, the free market, there are other opportunities to have your videos.
Well, because they're doing this investigative journalism, their channel on that platform...
You know, American Renaissance had a Vimeo channel.
We got one on there before we went to YouTube, actually.
Because we thought if you actually pay them, they'd be less likely to give you the boot.
But they gave us the boot in about 10 minutes.
You've got woke capitalism all wrong.
Remember, I wonder how many of our listeners are actually part of that Stitch community who can no longer be part of it.
Well, if they still support Trump, you've got problems.
Well, we're running out of time and we have got more material to cover.
We are going to move to North Kansas City.
North Kansas City High School.
It turns out that like every other high school in the country, minority students or black students are not achieving at the same level as white students.
And often they have student populations that are more non-white and predominantly white and female teaching and administrative staff.
And so the North Kansas City High School has decided that research confirms that teachers with their implicit biases can be the barrier to students of color reaching their full academic potential.
Now, the district just got its first black superintendent.
His name is Dan Clemens and he likes to use pie charts to show that a black boy is more likely to be expelled or suspended and less likely to be in advanced placement class than a white boy.
Now, he had his first opportunity to address all of the teachers and staff of the North Kansas City High School District, and he told the teachers, 89% of whom are white, that there are only three possible reasons for these disparate outcomes, both in discipline and performance.
He said, either we don't care, we don't believe all kids can learn, or We have to start understanding more about our unconscious biases.
Those are the only options.
Now, here, I can't help fantasizing that one of these, at least one of these 89% of the teachers who are white might stand up and say, well, Mr. Clemens, don't you think it's possible that black children are disciplined more often because their behavior is different?
Can't they even say that?
Can't even one say that?
No.
Don't hold your breath.
I suppose it would be even more of a vaulting fantasy to imagine, but wait, Mr. Clemens, the average IQ of blacks is 85.
You can't expect them to score the same level as white people.
No, no.
No chance of that.
And so, what's going to happen here?
Well, it took the district leaders more than a year to agree on a firm to lead the training and force the conversations about race and bias so that we're going to get rid of these disparities that have been laid definitively to the feet of these white teachers.
Yes.
Now, the training digs deep and it promises discomfort.
It's intended to penetrate into all aspects of the education system.
Teachers are going to be asked to critically examine, quote, how their own identities have shaped their experiences.
And the training proposes a call to action that requires a change on the educator's part to do something, do everything possible to erase these disparities.
One of the particular high schools in the district is Hickman Mills.
90% of the students are non-white, but 70% of the teaching staff is white.
Obviously a terrible and toxic mismatch that is resulting in a school-to-prison pipeline, black failure right and left, and so there is an outfit called the Pacific Educational Group that for five years has immersed the school in training Because, as one of the trainers explains, American racism is built into every element of our society, including education.
Now, this trainer goes on to say, and this is just chilling to me, he says, we ask individuals to suspend certainty and to lean into discomfort.
We go through boxes of Kleenex.
In other words, it's a cult.
What?
It's a cult.
This is just terrifying to me.
Boxes of Kleenex.
In other words, they are reducing all these white teachers, many of whom are women, to tears.
They want them to cry.
This is just crushing the life out of these white teachers who've probably devoted their lives to doing the best they possibly can to very difficult students.
Oh, yeah.
If you're a white teacher in a place that is 90% non-white, you think you've got an easy job?
You have one of the toughest jobs in the country.
You're a glorified babysitter.
I mean, think back to... Even if... Well, see, I suspect they want to be much more than that.
They're trying all the time to beat some sort of learning into these people.
And the school board says, we're going to make these people cry.
It's disgusting.
It's revolting.
It just churns my stomach.
Think about how many share that attitude of going to all these school districts across the country.
I just read an article about Baltimore City Schools, where there are too many white teachers in Baltimore.
The student body is 80% black in Baltimore City Schools, and yet the white teachers represent close to 75%.
And that is a travesty somehow in the mind of the left.
Of course.
Blacks are misbehaving.
Blacks aren't scoring as well.
It's white teachers.
They need black teachers.
That has to be it.
Ultimately, we're going to get to the point where basically white people are banned from school.
White teachers are going to be banned.
White teachers are going to be declared as inherently incapable.
Of fairly teaching persons of color.
That's what it's going to boil down to.
And I suspect once you start saying white people can't teach persons of color, white people can't teach white students either.
So all teachers are going to have to be black or Hispanic.
Their scores are still above black students.
Even when they have black teachers.
What's going on here?
That's right.
In any case, this stuff is really heartbreaking.
Because I think there are a lot of people, a lot of white teachers who go into this because they're idealistic, they want to help people, they want to help not just white people, they want to help all people.
And they're subjected to this kind of Maoist brainwashing, re-education, a kind of psychological torture that reduces them to tears and boxes of Kleenex.
It's just plain sickening.
But, you know, we really had so much more to talk about on this occasion.
I think I'm going to use one of these stories next time, this BART story, the Bay Area Rapid Transit.
We can leave that because there's also another transit story in New York of what's happening as the Calamity of allowing fare evasion takes place.
That's the tease.
That's the tease for next week.
And I have to confess to our astute listeners that there was an aspect of decriminalizing fare evasion that neither I nor Mr. Kersey anticipated and we should have.
And we will enlighten you on that next time.
So, for Jared Taylor, this has been Paul Kersey.
Our podcast time is up.
▲
Export Selection