All Episodes
Feb. 28, 2020 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
59:16
Denaturalization Picks Up Steam
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, wherever you are, it is our pleasure and it is our honor to be with you once again for this latest episode of Radio Renaissance.
It's episode 172.
I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance and with me is the indispensable Paul Kersey.
Always glad to have you with me, Mr. Kersey.
Well, good morning, good afternoon, good evening to all of our listeners worldwide as Black History Month in the United States comes to a sad ending, but we're here to bring you the news and commentary and we thank each and every one of you.
Get the housekeeping out of the way real quick.
Make sure that if you aren't subscribed, subscribe to our channel.
There are 15,300 of you roughly.
We'd like to get that to 16,000 in the next month.
16?
Yeah, so go ahead and make sure you like the channel so you get...
Yeah, exactly.
We want to keep it going gradually, but make sure that you subscribe so you get notified immediately when the latest Radio Renaissance goes up, and give us a thumbs up for this podcast as well.
If you like it.
Now, Black History Month came to a happy end, I'd like you to know, because this very day was passed by the House.
The Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act.
It was passed by a 410 to 4 vote.
Pretty overwhelming.
It was introduced by Representative Bobby Rush, of course, black, of Illinois, and it's named after Emmett Till, who himself was lynched in 1955 in Mississippi.
There were, as I say, four opposing votes.
These four people, it's worth naming who they were.
There was independent representative from Michigan, Justin Amash, and GOP reps Louie Gohmert, Thomas Massey, and Ted Yoho.
They stood up against the bill.
Now, you are scratching your heads and wondering, why is it we needed to pass this?
Isn't lynching already against the law?
Well, in fact it is.
But, as Representative Karen Bass, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus said on the floor, ahead of the vote, make no mistake, lynching is terrorism, said she.
Now, it goes back many years.
Nobody ever considered it terrorism, but she says it's terrorism.
And I'd like to point out that lynching by means of this federal law is made a federal hate crime.
More about that later.
Bobby Rush, who sponsored the bill, introduced it.
He says, we are one step closer to finally outlawing this heinous practice.
What?
How many more steps is it going to take?
I don't know.
But we are one step closer.
Well, murder is already against the law, Congressman Rush.
Then he said, the passage of this bill will send a strong and clear message to the nation that we will not tolerate this bigotry.
Again, it's already against the law.
History must be alive and well, because Mr. Taylor questioned, when was the last actual lynching in the United States?
Well, the last actually classified lynching act was in the 1970s.
73, 76, something like that.
So we have to go back quite a ways.
And needless to say, the people who did this lynching, I believe they ended up with a death penalty.
Yes, it's not as though they got off scot-free and now we need this law.
Furthermore, for it to be a federal hate crime, it makes no sense.
They talked about the 4,000 victims of lynching are now avenged.
It's a little-known fact, but 1,000 of them, 1,500 of them, actually, were white people.
White people got lynched, too.
Yeah, this is over a span of, what, like 1866 to 18... Oh, no, it goes back... No, no, no, no, it goes back before that.
I think Colonel Lynch, for whom Lynch is named, was an officer in the Revolutionary War, maybe the War of 1812.
It goes back a long way.
And this was not unusual in rural areas where there just wasn't much law enforcement, especially out West.
Well, you couldn't wait for the sheriff to show up.
People just took justice into their own hands.
There were white people who were lynched.
There were cases, actually, of black people lynching white people.
The point is, it was not necessarily a racial crime at all.
It was a way to exact immediate and rather rough justice.
Oddly though, I don't understand why it's a federal hate crime.
In other words, if today you had a group of white people who were infuriated about something that happened, strung up a guy who was a rapist or a murderer, no matter what his race, that becomes a hate crime?
And how do you define lynching anyway?
But here we are, a happy ending to Black History Month with the passage of this bill.
House Republicans were so excited about finally getting a federal law to ban lynching that they expressed frustration that more of them did not have a chance to become co-sponsors.
And so, there was a motion made to allow co-sponsorship even after the vote, because all of these Republican congressmen want to be on board with this utterly useless and pointless, strictly grandstanding-for-the-minority-community bill.
But there you go.
It's passed the House, I'm sure it will be passed overwhelmingly by the Senate, and of course, Donald Trump will sign it.
There was a study done by the Tuskegee University that actually broke down lynchings from 1882 to 1968.
There were 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States.
So that's an actual, as you said, at this point you're saying, what is actually going to be defined as a lynching?
This study that Tuskegee University did, 4,743 lynchings between 1882-1968, Of those people that were lynched, 3,446 were black.
So that means what?
1,300 were white.
We're Caucasian.
And the point is, lynching goes back to before slavery.
It was just the way that justice was meted out when there weren't any courts around.
But there you go.
Now, every single act of lynching, how that's going to be defined is something that we'd have to get into the details of the bill to understand, but it's going to be a hate crime.
So, you better not do it.
As the Justice Roy Beane once said, justice is the handmaiden... Have you seen that movie?
Oh, never mind.
Let's just skip it, then.
We'll skip it.
This is a bad reference, so... Good movie, though.
Further matters having to do with crime.
In Florida, the Florida voters in 2018, they passed a constitutional amendment that allowed felons to vote.
Heretofore, all felons had been permanently disfranchised.
But the constitutional amendment said that they would be allowed to vote upon completion of all terms of sentence.
Now, a state legislature law was passed to clarify just what exactly that meant, and it said that for a felon to vote, the felon had to have paid off all legal financial obligations associated with a sentence, such as restitution to victims, payment of all fines, and court costs.
Well, lo and behold, a three-judge federal appeals court of the 11th Circuit has said that this is unconstitutional.
How can this be unconstitutional?
You may be asking yourselves.
The judges decided that this violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S.
Constitution because it is a form of wealth discrimination.
If you are an indigent ex-con, you have come out of the big house, and you don't have the money, and you can't scrape together the money to pay your fine, or whatever it is, and you can't vote, well, that is unconstitutional.
I guess they're saying it's in effect a poll tax.
If you don't have the dough, you can't vote.
Now the federal court recognized that Florida could have continued to deny all convicted felons the vote for the rest of their lives.
That's right.
If this constitutional amendment had not passed, but they said they have this two-tier system and so it's unconstitutional.
Now the court went on to say The government of Florida can distinguish between deadbeats, that is to say ex-cons who have the dough but don't pay, and ex-cons who really don't have the dough and can't pay.
So, what does this mean?
That means, presumably, the state of Florida has got to subpoena all their financial records, find out who's got money, who doesn't have money.
Well, you know, the first thing they do once they start asking for financial records on these people, the ACLU is going to be in court saying this is an invasion of privacy.
Yes, they will.
But in any case, that is what the 11th Circuit Federal Appeals Court has done.
In its wisdom and its bliss, it has thwarted the will of the people of Florida.
Now, speaking of felons, who are all going to be happily going to the polls on election day, coming up in not too many months.
Speaking of felons, we have had some bad felonious activity, really rather gruesome activity, that she wanted to tell us about, and I'm afraid this may be something that will, well, turn a few hairs, but in St.
Petersburg.
You know, I was thinking of the late, great Lawrence Oster when I saw this story because it reminded me of the concept that he brought from H.G.
Wells' Time Machine, the Eloi and the Morlocks.
And I think this story is the perfect metaphor for not just what he was trying to go with when he brought up that allusion or that reference to that wonderful book and to our contemporary racial problem in this country when it comes to whites and The threat of black crime, but also this story kind of showcases the meekness of whites.
And let's, like you said, roll the ugliness.
If there are children listening, I encourage you to leave the room because this story involving a... Oh, you know that's only going to make them stay.
Go and get closer.
Go and get closer.
So we're talking about a situation that happened in late January.
Now, when I first saw this, I thought, this can't be real.
This has to be made up.
This must have just been a prank or something.
No, it turns out that A white guy by the name of Scott Scotty Jinks.
He was a popular bartender in St.
Petersburg.
Well, he was beaten to death over 80 minutes for an hour and nine, nearly 80 minutes for an hour and 19 minutes.
This is at 3 a.m.
there in St.
Petersburg.
It was right outside of The Omega Club, Simply Cleaners, and the Sports Bar and Grill.
So there's video surveillance of this, where it shows both Jinx and this black Jamaican guy he was friends with, actually, who ends up beating his friend to death.
While he's doing that, he allegedly says, quote, Fuck you!
Fuck your white life!
White motherfucker!
Don't treat me like a street...
Yes, that's the one word we're not allowed to say.
I could shoot you!
You want to die on the ground?
End quote.
Now, this guy's name was Christoph King.
Now, buried in the story that I read from a local news affiliate there in St.
Petersburg, it pointed out this.
King was arrested on January 16th and transferred to Pinellas County Jail on January 21st, where he is being held on no bond on a ice hold.
What does that mean, Mr. Taylor?
That means he should not even be in the country.
But there's so much I don't understand about this.
How could he have spent an hour and 20 minutes outside?
It sounds like he's in some sort of strip mall beating some poor white guy to death.
Yes, at 3 a.m.
again.
So let's go back here.
It was as the St.
Pete police are saying in this story and this journalist tries to convey.
Of course, he buries the most important point.
This guy was an illegal immigrant who committed a hate crime against a white guy shouting anti-white, he was motivated by anti-white animus which motivated this 80, nearly 80 minute attack.
So here we go.
The suspect, of course, is heard making numerous racial epithets indicative of a hate crime.
That's what the state's attorney's office in Florida says.
According to arrest warrants, the investigators were able to piece together the events where both Jinks and King were known regulars of this sports bar.
So these guys were friends.
And they both left separately at around 3 a.m.
that morning.
So the warrant says besides being beaten to death, Jinx was also robbed by his friend Kristoff King.
His pockets were turned inside out and his earbuds and keys were near his body.
It turned out that during this event, The white guy, Jinx, who's on the ground, he's reportedly heard saying, quote, no, please stop.
Stop.
I'm sorry.
Followed by sounds of him crying out and groaning in pain.
He reportedly said this, Mr. Taylor and dear listener, quote, Chris, I love you.
We are friends.
I love you.
I love you!
Chris, don't do this!
You were my friend!
You were my friend!
His body was discovered Roughly about 30 minutes later after this onslaught ended at 4 40 a.m.
and like I said he was arrested roughly a day after the attack two days after the attack and that's when the anti-white aspect of the story came out and again as stated this news article buries one of the more important points this was an illegal alien Jamaican who killed a white guy and the It seems like the motivation was anti-white?
Well, of course, this poor guy who was beaten to death.
I gather he had a family?
He did.
There's a picture of him and his daughter you can see.
I don't know if he was married, but he did have a daughter.
At least he can take some satisfaction in knowing that only white people can be arrested.
Can be racist, I mean to say.
And so, even if he was called all those names, he can take deep satisfaction in knowing that this was not racism.
Because only whites can be racist.
That's right.
Right?
That's right.
Rough story.
It's a rough story, but now moving to a different part of the country.
The Molson Coors mass shooting.
Yeah, this is a story that's just breaking.
So yesterday, breathlessly, the corporate media and anti-gun activist groups were dominating social media saying, Here we go again.
A mass shooting in Milwaukee.
Oh my goodness.
Multiple people dead.
This is why we've got to get these guns out of people's hands.
These big bad rifles.
These automatic weapons.
They've got to go.
Well, as news began to actually trickle out about what was happening, it was a handgun.
And we know, most of the time, when a handgun is used, invariably it turns out that it's a black mass shooter.
What's Ann Coulter's great rule about a mass shooting?
If the racial aspect isn't immediately known and thrust out there by the media, then we know.
It's not going to be by a white person.
Well, it turns out that the individual who killed five of his co-workers and then turned the gun on himself, committed suicide, his name was Anthony Farrell.
He was a 51-year-old electrician According to the Milwaukee News Journal, he believed he was being discriminated against because he was an African American.
Not a clown, not a bad electrician, but because he was an African American.
Well, you know, I think I read someplace that he'd gotten into some disputes with some co-workers because he would spend the day playing video games on his phone.
And I guess somebody told him, come on buddy, get to work.
He would say that only because you're prejudiced, only because you're racist.
How dare you have these stereotypes?
So a co-worker who asked not to be identified for fear of being disciplined said Farrell believed he was being discriminated against because he was African-American and that he frequently argued with at least one of his victims, a fellow electrician.
The co-worker said, Farrell, as you noted, watched movies on his phone during the day, which the other electricians took issue.
Obviously they would.
You gotta work, pal.
What are you doing?
And the two accuse each other of going into each other's offices and stealing or tampering with office equipment.
Be all that as it may, we now have five dead people.
They appear to be white people, but we don't know for sure.
Yeah, it sounds like one of the names might be Latino, Hispanic.
But again, this is yet another mass shooting in Milwaukee and the state of Wisconsin.
This reminds me of the Omar Thornton story from 2010.
Remember that?
Was that the guy who worked in the beer warehouse?
I think so.
It was in Connecticut, I believe.
And he shot a bunch of people and he claimed that it was done because of racism.
They actually investigated the guys who were dead to see if they had said anything.
And they're like, well, no, no, they didn't say anything.
They're just dead.
They're just dead white guys.
He'd been caught stealing.
Yeah.
But no, if you get caught stealing and you're black, well, that was racism.
Well, as part of the process whereby we have to placate the people who are increasingly important in the United States, I have a story about Old White Joe.
Now, I thought I was going to be clever and call Joe Biden Old White Joe, with the assumption that all of our listeners, at least above the age of about 12, would have heard of Old Black Joe.
But having done a bit of a query among the younger staff, I find that the old Stephen Foster song, which was a great favorite in my childhood, Old Black Joe, is no longer known.
So if I talk about Old White Joe, nobody's going to get the joke.
So I'll just talk about Sleepy Joe.
Well, there are two things, actually.
The only reason I know about Stephen Foster is because, A, his statue was just removed in Pittsburgh last year.
Yes, that's right.
And in the great movie Tombstone, there's a wonderful scene where Doc Holliday, played by Val Kilmer, is playing Chopin on the piano.
And someone says, is that Stephen Foster?
And he goes, well, no, it's Frederick Effing Chopin.
It's a great scene.
Well, can you then not name a single song that Stephen Foster wrote?
You're putting me on the spot, and there's one that I know because it's, it's, it's... I think Swanee River.
Oh, Susanna?
Oh, Susanna.
Yeah, Oh, Susanna.
I think Swanee River was one of his.
Swanee River, yeah.
But anyway, Old Black Joe.
I could sing it, but I will spare our readers, our listeners, that experience.
In any case, Sleepy Joe.
This week he told a South Carolina crowd, and I'm quoting him, I had the great honor of being arrested with our UN ambassador on the streets of Soweto trying to get to see Nelson Mandela on Robben Island.
This is back in the 90s before Nelson Mandela was released.
And later on at a Black History Awards event, he claimed that Nelson Mandela himself later thanked me.
He threw his arms around me and said, I want to thank you.
And Mr. Biden said, what are you thanking me for, Mr. President?
He said, you tried to see me.
You got arrested trying to see me.
Well.
How you get arrested on the streets of Soweto trying to get to Robben Island is a bit of a trick because that's 700 miles from Robben Island.
The New York Times decided they would investigate this.
And it turns out that he was there with Andrew Young.
Andrew Young was the U.S.
ambassador at the time.
Correct.
The U.N.
ambassador has no recollection of anybody getting arrested.
He certainly wasn't.
And so Joe Biden's deputy campaign manager, Kate, betting for him.
Had to come clean and said, ah, well, none of it happened.
None of it happened.
He just cooked it up.
Just cooked it up.
But that goes to show you just how hard he's trying to cater to black voters.
Yes.
Well, the fact is, since the late 1980s, Sleepy Joe has claimed a lot of things.
He claimed he marched for civil rights in the 1960s.
In his words, to desegregate movie theaters and things like that.
Well, He never did.
He didn't?
Oh.
He didn't do it.
He didn't do it.
And when he was actually scrutinized for these claims during his short-lived presidential campaign of 1987, he admitted that he didn't do that.
He was not out marching.
No, he didn't do that.
But it sounded good.
It sounded good.
In fact, these days, it sounds so good, it sounds essential.
Well, just Tuesday of this week, He said he has been working like the devil to earn the vote of the African-American community.
I think he should have been more active.
He's been lying like the devil to get the vote of the African-American community.
Well, back to this 1987 campaign, this short-lived campaign of his for president.
This is probably while you were still in your crib sucking your little pink toes, but it collapsed When it turned out that he had been plagiarizing his campaign speeches.
Yes.
Certain British Labour Party politicians, they had come up with some oratand phrases that Joe Biden was so tempted by, he had to use them without any kind of attribution.
And it turned out, it came to light, that he had plagiarized papers in law school.
Yes.
Sounds like one of his idols, Martin Luther King.
That's right, Martin Luther King.
They're in the same, same boat.
Well, last summer, just last summer, Biden's campaign acknowledged that he had lifted phrases without attribution from various non-profit publications for his website.
It's still happening.
It's still happening.
And then, just to round out some of his tall tales, in 2007, Joe Biden claimed that he was shot at.
In the Iraqi Green Zone.
Well, he later clarified.
He said he was near where a shot landed.
Now, was this a 75mm shell or was this a .22 caliber round?
This was an errant basketball shot.
He was walking by a game with some GI grunts playing ball and they were playing airball.
That was right next to him.
Do you remember Hillary Clinton claimed that in the Balkans at one point, in Yugoslavia, she was being shot at when she was investigating?
Oh, a bunch of baloney.
Complete baloney.
And then, this is one of my favorites.
In 2008, he told the Associated Press that Literally.
Hundreds of thousands of people were at my speech when I launched my campaign for the Senate in 1972.
Hundreds of thousands.
That's a lot of people.
That's a lot of people.
You know, I looked this up.
You know how many people the largest stadium in the entire country will hold?
112,000.
That's pretty doggone close.
It is the Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
It'll hold 107,601 people and not one more.
Well, he had hundreds of thousands.
So I guess he had two stadium folds listening to him while he announced his campaign to the Senate back in 1972.
And in 1972, I think the big house, maybe its capacity was 75,000.
So it's been expanded upon many times.
Actually, you know, when I looked it up, that stadium has been expanded.
Oh yeah.
Okay, I see.
Because it's been around for a long time.
But be that as it may.
So, you know, Sleepy Joe is a little sleepy with the facts.
But moving from one sport, namely the sport of Joe Biden politics, to yet another sport, I think you had a rather comical story about what happens in a different kind of boxing ring.
Well, for all those pugilists, I didn't know that you were a pugilism enthusiast.
You actually watched this fight.
I just watched a few excerpts from it afterwards.
And I'm referring to the heavyweight unification match between Deontay Wilder, he's a black guy from Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
He fought a gypsy, Britain's Tyson Fury.
Big white guy.
Big white guy.
Big white guy this past Saturday night in their highly anticipated rematch.
Fury, the white guy, defeated in the 7th round Wilder.
By TKO.
So Wilder's corner, they threw in that white towel.
That must have been bad.
Throwing in a white towel.
Was it a white towel?
It was a white towel.
I saw it go.
Oh my gosh.
Talk about symbolism.
Well, we need to dig a little deeper into the symbolism.
So now this big white guy is the world champion.
You know, 100 years ago, was Jack Johnson the champion at that point?
Or had he already been banished from the sport?
I think he was the heavyweight champion.
Yes, he knocked out... Oh, I can't remember now.
Jack Dempsey.
Was he the guy who knocked out Jack Dempsey?
In any case, yes, he was the first black heavyweight champion.
Yeah, and now Fury is the great white hope.
He's no longer a hope, I guess.
But anyways...
After the fight, Wilder said he had no excuses for the defeat, but he blames his Ring Walk costume, which he wore, Mr. Taylor, as a tribute to Black History Month for being, quote, too heavy, end quote.
How much does this thing weigh?
Well, it looked like something out of the fictional Wakanda.
Looked like, I guess, our friend Wilder wanted to be the Black Panther.
He wanted to be T'Challa.
He wore a 40-pound armored cape and headgear into the ring, but said that it zapped, it zapped his energy before the match even started.
40 pounds?
The guy weighs about 300 pounds himself.
He's probably, I think he's about 220.
He's pretty cut.
He's a pretty lean dude.
He's tall, but he doesn't, he's lean.
So, he said this, quote, Fury didn't hurt me at all, but the simple fact is that my uniform was too heavy for me, said Wilder.
He said, quote, I didn't have no legs from the beginning of the fight and the third round my legs were just shot all the way through.
I was only able to put it on for the first time the night before, but I didn't think it was going to be that heavy.
I wanted it to be good, and I guess I put that before anything, Wilder said.
Didn't he say, I have no excuses?
Well, that just sounds like an excuse to me.
No, he made a point of highlighting Black History Month in interviews multiple times prior to getting in the ring with Mr. Fury.
He said this, quote, they picked the wrong month for this fight to happen.
When I knock the Gypsy Queen out... The Gypsy Queen, he calls it?
He calls him the Gypsy Queen.
He's referring to Fury.
He'll become a Black History Month trivia question.
End quote.
Well, there may still be a Black History Month trivia question, but it ain't going to have the same answer that he had in mind.
Well, let's play the Jeopardy.
Here's what it's going to be.
who was the black heavyweight fighter who blamed a costume for his defeat at the hands of a white
exactly but he wore in tribute to black history month for his defeat to the great white hope
mr fury oh well there you are ladies and gentlemen okay well uh continuing in a certain vein here
and i will uh let the listeners draw their own conclusions as to why we're continuing in a
a certain vein. We'll move on to Maxine Waters.
Maxine Waters recently had an interview on Showtime, and she said this about Donald Trump.
I've worked in some of the toughest communities.
I've worked with gangs.
I've worked with Crips.
I've worked with Bloods.
And there's more integrity in many of those young men in the hood than this man Donald Trump has.
So, gangsters have more integrity than Donald Trump.
Well, if you look back over her previous observations about Donald Trump, I guess this is no surprise because she has called the president the most deplorable person I've ever met in my life.
So I should think every single gangbanger has got more integrity than he does.
Now, Donald Trump had been in office for only one month.
When she first started calling for him to be impeached.
She didn't have any particular crime in mind, but she just wanted him out.
And with Trump in the White House, she called it now the White Supremacist House.
Very clever, huh?
But now, this is a lady who called George Bush Sr.
a racist.
Yes.
Well, George Herbert Walker Bush is probably one of the most gentlemanly people to live in the White House in the past 50 years, so if she's going to call him a racist, anybody's fair game.
And she is also, as you will recall, the lady who in the summer of 2018, remember when it was, I guess it was Kellyanne Conway, was stopped from having dinner at the Red Robin restaurant because people recognized her and came all around and chased her away.
This is, you know, Maxine Waters encouraged that.
She says, if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome.
Wow, okay.
But I think perhaps just as significant in certain ways is back in 1998.
And by the way, she's been in Congress since 1991.
She's been in Congress for 29 years.
In 1998, she wrote a personal letter of thanks to, believe it or not, Fidel Castro.
Oh, really?
Yes, because she wanted to thank him for providing refuge to those who needed to flee political persecution.
That was back in the days when people like Joanne Chesimard and these various Black Panther types were escaping the country because they didn't want to do time for various crimes.
This was liberation, you see.
This was uprising.
And so Fidel Castro let them come on in.
Some of them are still there.
And so she wrote him a personal letter of thanks.
As I say, because she has been in the House of Representatives for so long, she is now the chair of the House Financial Services Committee.
She has been in office for quite some time.
She's 81 years old and apparently is not wearing out at all.
So, just another little story about one of our premier legislators.
And that's putting it lightly.
Yes.
Well, let's say one of our senior legislators.
One of our, yeah, statesmen.
Now, I have a good news story.
This has to do with the establishment of a new section within the Department of Justice.
And it has a lovely name.
It's called the Denaturalization Section.
I love it already!
Yes, yes, yes.
And what's its job?
Its job is to revoke the citizenship of people who got it who shouldn't have got it.
And according to the press release that announced the establishment of the denaturalization section,
and I quote, the growing number of referrals anticipated from law enforcement agencies
motivated the creation of a standalone section dedicated to this important work.
Boy, I couldn't agree with more. And as I say, they anticipate more and more reference,
more and more referrals of people who shouldn't be U.S.
citizens.
Now, they're going to concentrate on what they call terrorists, sex offenders, and war criminals.
I wouldn't have thought there were all that many of those.
I'm sure there are a lot in Minneapolis.
We call that the Somali community.
Well, are they really war criminals?
Well, maybe sex offenders.
In any case, they also pointed out that they had denaturalized recently four people who fraudulently claimed to be members of the family of someone who had won the Diversity Immigrant Visa.
So, that's one of the things they're going to be doing too.
Remember at one point, there was something like 50% of the people coming in from Somalia claiming to be family members.
Once they started testing them, they all turned out to be frauds.
But, you know, white people can't tell black people apart, so, you know, you had to DNA test them.
And to a lot of people, they're more American than you or I. Ah, that's what AOC would certainly say.
That's what a lot of people would say.
Yeah, you're right.
Not just AOC.
That's what Bernie Sanders says now.
Oh, is he saying that now?
That all the people who are coming illegally, they're more American than people who have been here for 10 generations?
Well, Bernie Sanders has definitely... I'm sorry.
Joe Biden, Uncle Joe, has definitely said that.
Bernie Sanders has now come out and he's spoken about how we need open borders.
We need it.
These people are great.
These people are Americans.
Already, before they even got here, they were Americans.
In any case, just briefly on this, the denaturalization section, Any lie, any lie in an application for citizenship is grounds for denaturalization.
And I hope this denaturalization section is fully staffed, fully funded, and gets right to work.
Now, not only should these people be denaturalized, citizenship revoked, take their passport, out they go.
Yeah.
So, now, better late than never, I wish that Donald Trump had set up this section the day he was appointed, and I fear that if Bernie or any of the others becomes the tenant of the White House, they're going to immediately denaturalize this denaturalization system.
You know, it gives the ax right away.
I think we forget how incredibly overwhelming the Russian meddling and all that happened immediately with the firing of Comey and Jeff Sessions having to spend so much time on that.
You know, Jeff Sessions is running for Senate again in Alabama and he's taken a lot of credit for a lot of stuff, including something very big that just happened.
Would that be the public charge?
That would be the Sanctuary City victory.
This is where the first things that Attorney General Jeff Sessions started to push.
Now on Wednesday Yesterday, February 26, a federal appeals court handed a major win to the Trump administration in its fight against sanctuary jurisdictions, ruling that it can deny grant money to states that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling That stopped the administration's 2017 move to withhold grant money from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistant Grant Program, which dispenses over $250 million a year to state and local criminal justice efforts.
So this is restricted to law enforcement related grants?
Yes, but this was going to be the test case for doing all sorts of stuff.
This was one of the first things Jeff Sessions pushed and then of course we saw the terrible way in which he was treated on Twitter by the President of the United States and Jeff just got tired.
Of course he recused himself from the Russian investigation.
He was a loyal soldier for a long time.
He's the true hero.
He's taken so much abuse.
I have the highest regard for him.
He'll be back as Senator, defeating Tommy Tuberville, hopefully, in the upcoming Republican primary.
And he'll be back to doing the great things he was doing before he became the Attorney General.
And he did do great things.
When all is said and done about the Trump administration, we're going to look back and we're going to think, He really, you know, there's a lot to criticize Orange Man bad about, but he did try and do a lot of stuff that was completely handcuffed by the courts and overwhelmed by the endless barrage of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia.
Well, I assume these sanctuary cities and sanctuary jurisdictions, they're going to appeal this?
They might.
So, the latest decision conflicts with rulings from other appeals courts across the country concerning sanctuary policies, indicating a Supreme Court review is ultimately likely.
Now, let's just break down real quick New York and liberal states, including New York City.
and liberal states including New York, Washington, Massachusetts, Connecticut.
They sued the government and the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York backed them, ordering the money to be released and stopping the
government from putting immigration related conditions on grants. Again this
is all about the left wants to nullify federal laws and we're beginning to
really see that the center cannot hold.
The country's headed to something very interesting and it is exciting and it is great that this happened because it's better late than never.
The denaturalization department.
Great name, by the way.
That's really a great name.
I can think of actual American citizens who probably need that as well for their treason that they've committed against our great nation.
Yes.
Well, you know, it's a great first step.
The fact is, there is a bill that's been proposed in the House, and there was an excellent commentary piece written about that by Robert Hampton.
And the title of it was Proposed Immigration Bill Would Destroy Immigration Law Enforcement.
This is a bill that will not be passed by this Congress, but it's already got 40 co-sponsors.
Are you familiar with this?
I actually am the one who gave Mr. Hampton that idea.
Okay, well good for you.
It's astonishing.
Well, I guess I shouldn't be astonished by anything anymore.
Basically, this Exactly.
would upend immigration law completely.
Precisely.
To mean that once you're here, you have a presumption,
the presumption is you belong here.
Exactly.
It becomes almost impossible to pitch you out.
It is a terrifying bill.
And I urge all of our readers to, all of our listeners,
why can't I get that right?
Well, because you've been doing this for 30 years.
You're the editor of this great publication.
Yes, yes.
But go to the website and read this proposed immigration bill that would destroy immigration law enforcement.
It is a great article.
And this is what the Bernie Bros and all of their pals have up their sleeves for us.
Yeah, young white progressives and their Hispanic allies, and Bernie Sanders, who's embracing this new energy, this vitality that is going to come to a head here in the next couple of weeks, as we find out.
It's going to come to a head.
But speaking of coming to heads, back to Heather MacDonald.
Heather MacDonald is one of my heroes.
She writes for the Manhattan Institute.
I think she's a national hero, a national treasure.
Our cop's racist, and the great book, The War on It's one about diversity and inclusion.
Yes, she just recently came out with a book that's really quite good.
I can't remember its precise title, but War on Cops.
Yes, she really is an absolute down-the-line trooper on all of these great questions.
Well, last week she spoke at Colgate University.
Colgate.
Oh yes, the name of her latest book is called The Diversity Delusion.
How race and gender pandering corrupt the university and undermine our culture.
Well, no wonder I couldn't remember all of that.
It's just a mouthful.
But yes, but it's the diversity delusion.
And she really goes into it.
It's like, it's as if all of her material came straight from the AmRen webpage, but be that as it may, she spoke there.
Well, what the student activists did Was they, first of all, they planned a non-violent protest in the foyer where all this was to gather.
And a sit-in in the lobby leading to the lecture hall so they wouldn't let anybody else in.
You had to step over these people who were sitting there and then they all climbed into the lecture hall themselves, all these activists, so that anybody who actually wanted to listen to Heather MacDonald couldn't get in.
While they were there, while she was speaking, they did not beat on pots and pans.
So we should, I suppose, thank them for their consideration in that respect.
Are you saying they're evolving?
Well, they seem to be evolving, yes.
But instead of beating on pots and pans and beating on clanging cymbals and making her inaudible, what they did was make her inaudible in a different way.
They pulled out their smartphones and they plugged in their headphones and listened to music.
Or they did homework.
Or they read books.
And so they very deliberately refused to listen.
And so, at the end of the talk, then they just peppered her with a bunch of very hostile and stupid questions.
And a few students came down to the front of the room and unfurled large banners, including one written entirely in Spanish.
And another one that read, we won't be silenced.
Well, nobody's silencing them.
In fact, their plan is, we will silence you.
Yes.
But we won't be silenced.
Then, and this is just so much, this is, who could even come up with this stuff?
Afterwards, there was a debriefing and self-care session.
Where all the people who had been subject to the horrible things that Heather McDonnell was likely to say could be debriefed and engage in self-care.
I suppose there's probably mutual care too.
You know what that self-care meant?
What does self-care mean?
That's when they listen to the audio of Christophe King beating Scotty Jinks to death for 80 minutes.
That's what they want to hear.
That would be self-care.
That's how you get rid of white privilege.
You know, I'm triggered by that.
And they planned to, quote, continue the conversation among students, faculty, and administration at Colgate about allowing speakers like McDonald to take up space on our campus unopposed.
How dare she even breathe?
Exactly.
How dare she breathe?
How dare she breathe?
How dare she fill her lungs with the air on our campus?
Well, she wasn't unopposed.
She was very much opposed.
Well, as Heather McDonald said, this was a stunningly apt emblem of the campus left's rejection of dialogue.
In other words, they made it sure that nobody could come listen to her and the people in the room deliberately covered their ears.
You know this.
When was the last time you spoke on a college campus?
Oh gosh, I can't remember.
It's been years.
Dialogue is virtually impossible.
The left has made sure of that.
The gatekeepers of Conservatism Inc.
are even more rigid in their policing to ensure that they don't have to cede any real estate to us.
They don't even have to hear an opposing idea.
And this is preparing them to be great contributing adults, critical thinkers.
Good grief.
Well, one of the male students in the question and answer session says, if someone says they've been raped, they've been raped, says he.
Okay.
Believe all women, right?
Yes.
Well, Heather McDonald had a great answer.
She says, good luck if any of you are accused of a crime, and you're not given the right to cross-examination, and you're not given the right to a lawyer.
She said, we have a presumption of innocence in this country, but not if a woman says she's raped.
So there you go, Heather MacDonald, keep it up.
You are my hero.
She took this with great equanimity.
She's a tough one.
She's a very tough one, a very tough one.
Now, there was an interesting story about DNA.
You know about how the cops, when they collect DNA, they've been submitting it to some of these DNA banks, 23andMe and Ancestry.com, and sometimes there are enough people now, they have enough of a database in these private databases, so they say, aha, this guy's the second cousin of somebody who's already here, and he's the third cousin of this guy, and you sort of piece it all together, he must be, and they can track him down, even if they've not actually sent in their DNA, so it's quite a crime-fighting tool.
Well, This has to do with a crime that took place in 2001.
A Christine Frank, a white woman, returned to an empty apartment, but her girlfriend was out of town.
She was later found shot in the head, her clothing had been partially removed, and investigators found semen on her body.
Police decided that she must have been resisting the killer's attempt to rob and rape her.
This has been a cold case for all this time.
Well, how did they warm up this cold case?
This is based on this standard technique.
Well, back in 2018, a woman named Eleanor Holmes, a black woman, was approached by detectives saying they were trying to identify someone who'd been found dead many years earlier and might be a relative.
might be relative and they wanted DNA samples. And she didn't ask too much about it because they
were pleasant and polite. She gave her DNA. Well, soon after that, she found out that her son,
her son had been arrested for this fatal shooting and attempted rape of Christine Frank.
Now, this is really quite an interesting case.
It's interesting because he's using this technique, using this technique to track people down.
They had DNA that they had collected from the crime scene and saved it all these years.
I think that's really quite remarkable.
And they were narrowing in.
They used one of these DNA databases and they got some ideas to who it might be.
But just to confirm, they got DNA from the from the suspect's mother.
But they had to lie to get it.
This is a dilemma.
Now, the guy who is in the doc, Ben Holmes, he's claiming he's innocent, and of course his lawyers are all going to say that this was unlawful search and seizure or whatever it was.
The evidence was acquired deceptively and by means of a lie.
But this is rather thought-provoking.
You wonder just how How far are the police allowed to go?
I'm generally sympathetic to the police.
And here's this poor girl who's dead.
And Christine Frank's parents are finally delighted to hear that somebody has been caught for this crime.
But are you really allowed to use evidence that you've obtained through deception?
It's a bit of a dilemma.
What's your feeling about that?
My feeling is fine.
You think they should lie?
They should lie through their teeth?
I'll make it simple.
I look at a book by a guy named Robert Heinlein called Star Trek Troopers and it is a book that I think puts the state in the right manner.
The state exists to have a monopoly on violence and when people do evil, That should be something so shocking that the punishment must be unusual or else it serves no purpose.
But that's the punishment.
This is talking about the state using underhanded means to get the evidence.
I think the state should not have absolutely unlimited power.
No, they shouldn't.
And the individual does have rights and their lawyers will fight back and the lawyers will be able to say, you know what?
That might but not be the case.
This is inadmissible in court because, again, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what the technicalities will be.
But you're right.
As I'm looking at it as an outside observer, I'm like, hey, you know what?
They found some criminal, someone who committed murder.
Let's get him off the streets.
Why do you want that?
We want safety for all communities.
I agree.
I agree.
But it does stick in my craw that they had to lie to this woman to get the... Now, they probably could have gotten the DNA in some other way.
In any case, it's an intriguing situation.
And it leads me to another DNA question.
This was an article written by a black American by the name of Derecka Purnell, writing in The Guardian.
Okay.
And she's writing about these DNA testing services, such as Ancestry and 23andMe, about finding your ancestors.
Well, listen to this.
I will quote directly.
She says, now this has nothing to do with crime.
This is just people who send in their own DNA just to find out where they're from.
She writes, I am deeply suspicious of genetic companies that profit from the consequences of slavery, colonialism, and forced migration.
And I often think, wait, they stole us, created industries on the backs of our free and forced slave labor, and now they're charging us to find out where they stole us from?
I mean, where do you even begin to deal with a sentence like that?
They're profiting from the consequences of slavery?
That's got nothing to do with it.
And nobody's saying they got to do this.
No, it's all voluntary.
It's all completely voluntary.
Anyway, then she goes on to say, she's talking about this use in law enforcement.
She says, our DNA is disproportionately collected, stored, planted, You know, they drop DNA on crime scenes all the time.
Yes.
And used against us in criminal proceedings.
Well, there you go.
So, the whole idea of DNA.
I mean, she comes pretty close to saying DNA should be excluded from court because it's used disproportionately against us.
Now, this rather incoherent and completely resentful article is by a woman who has written quite a lot, as it turns out, from the Huffington Post as well.
And I looked at her bio.
Go ahead.
She is an organizer, writer, and dancer.
Oh, a dancer!
Yes, that improves her prose style, I'm sure.
She believes in loving unoppressed people holistically.
Identifying problems, working together to meet pressing needs while fighting for systemic change.
In other words, getting rid of DNA testing, I guess.
Now, it also goes on to say, in August 2014, she was part of a Ferguson uprising that took place in her old neighborhood in the wake of the murder Of Michael Brown.
The murder of Michael Brown.
So Darren Wilson murdered Michael Brown there on Canfeld Drive.
That's right, that's right.
Even Eric Holder's Justice Department determined that it was a justifiable firearms use by the police officer.
Even Eric Holder.
So you would think that it takes the most elementary understanding of the law to say it's incorrect to talk about the murder of Michael Brown.
Well, you'll be reassured to know That Derricka Purnell, you know what she's doing now?
She is a third year law student at Harvard Law School.
Oh wow!
Yes!
So, I wonder if she will come to any different conclusions about the murder of Michael Brown.
No, I don't think she will.
You know, I don't think she will.
I think they're rigid and her ideas are quite... I think her ideas are all set in time.
In any case, I think you had some fascinating statistics for us about Hispanics and gun control.
Yeah, the Pew Research Center, they came out with a study, it was published on February 20th, showing that around 7 in 10 Hispanic voters, 68%, say gun laws should be stricter than they are today.
While a mere 24% say current gun laws are about right.
And only 7% of Hispanic voters say gun laws should be less strict.
Now the survey was conducted several months after the Walmart mass shooting in El Paso involving a suspect who did target Hispanics.
Among Hispanic Democrats, Mr. Taylor, 80% say gun laws should be stricter.
Hispanic Republican voters Sadly, are more evenly divided with 44% saying gun laws should be stricter and 42% saying gun laws are about right.
All 25 Hispanic Republicans.
There you go.
Among the US public, 59% of registered voters said in September that gun laws should be stricter, including 89% of Democrat voters.
But only 27% of Republican voters.
There's a real divide there.
I'm actually one of those voters who might tend to vote Republican, who is in favor of stricter gun laws, but they would impact certain groups that disproportionately commit the gun crime in the United States of America.
Well, you are a true radical.
Well, I might be.
I want to save people's, I want to save lives.
Yes.
I want to save lives.
But I want to point this out.
A 2017 Pew Research Survey found that white Americans are more than twice as likely as Hispanics to report having a gun in their household, roughly 50% to 21%, while 32% of black adults say the same thing.
This one kind of shocked me, although I am one of those people who do know someone who has been shot.
In the same survey, 42% of Hispanics say they know someone who has been shot.
A similar share to white, which is about 43%.
Now, meanwhile, blacks, 57% of black Americans said that they know someone who's been shot.
You know, those figures strike me as so high.
But I guess you can know a lot of people, but really get been shot.
Now, I suppose it just means shot, not necessarily killed.
That's right.
That's right.
It could have been an accidental shooting.
It could have been a cop or maybe it was somebody.
It might even have been a family member who's in the military.
We don't know what the survey question asked.
But those are still very high figures.
Basically, it says essentially, well, 40%, 45% of all Americans know somebody who's been shot.
Wow.
And you're among them.
Well, I'm sorry to hear that.
But yes, as the population changes, our rights will likewise change.
They're not inalienable.
No, they're not.
And when you hear about First Amendment rights, too, we've been talking a lot about Second Amendment for a whole host of reasons, one of them being the kinds of antics that my state legislature, the Virginia state legislature, has been up to.
When it comes to freedom of speech, the differences, the racial differences and the age differences in terms of, is freedom of speech more important than offending people?
You get shocking numbers of people.
It's striking.
That's right.
Offending people is so awful that speech should be restricted.
And it's heavily Hispanic, like you said, who find the First Amendment problematic for that very reason.
Yes, yes.
Can't upset people.
We do have a foreign story.
And it comes from Sweden.
And it is brought to us by the Gatestone Institute.
A great website, by the way.
Those of you who are unfamiliar with Gatestone, please take a look at it.
And it says, and I'm quoting from it, For the first time now, more crimes in absolute terms are committed by persons of foreign background than by persons of Swedish origin.
And the most crime-prone population subgroup are people born in Sweden to two foreign-born parents.
You know, you get some of the same effect here in the United States.
The first generation, they may be more crime-prone than natives, but they're at least almost grateful to be here sometimes.
Attempts to assimilate.
Yes, they may attempt to assimilate, and they're certainly not going to go running around killing their hosts.
It's the people who have been born in Sweden from immigrants who are not going to fit in, who are never going to fit in.
They are the ones who are the most crime prone.
Now, something else quite shocking.
The number of children who rob other children has increased 100% in four years.
These are people and children under the age of 15 are both victims and perpetrators.
In 2016, there were 1,178 such robberies.
People under the age of 15, both perpetrator and victim.
In 2019, that number had gone from 1,178 to 2,484.
Under the age of 15, both perpetrator and victim, in 2019, that number had gone from
1,178 to 2,484.
In 2015, there were 6,360 violent crimes reported where the suspect was a child under 15, overwhelmingly
of non-Swedish origin.
In 2019 that number decreased from 6,360 to 8,720.
Again, overwhelmingly committed by people of non-Swedish origin.
And this is something that's particularly shocking.
Crimes committed by children under age 15 are not investigated by the police.
They are left to social workers.
Oh, okay.
If they got a criminal record, it might bruise their little psyches.
Oh, yeah.
Which reminds me of a story we don't have time for, but it's so good, we'll save it for next week.
We'll save it for next week?
We'll save it for next week.
Yeah, it's also about your home state, the Commonwealth.
Yes, yes, I fear so, I fear so.
And you know, we had a great letter from the reader, but we may have to save that as well.
We've got a couple of great letters from a reader we'll bring up next week, but Mr. Taylor, I think this was a fantastic episode of Radio Renaissance.
Ladies and gentlemen, we encourage you to like our channel, subscribe to it, Give us a thumbs up for this video and get in touch with us.
We want to hear from you, your questions, your comments, your stories.
We'll share them on a future edition of Radio Renaissance.
BecauseWeLiveHere at ProtonMail.com.
Shoot that email to me at BecauseWeLiveHere at ProtonMail.com or You can come to Amran.com to the Contact Us page.
So for Jared Taylor, this has been Paul Kersey.
Tune in next week.
Export Selection