Feb. 19, 2022 - The Political Cesspool - James Edwards
50:40
20220219_Hour_2
|
Time
Text
You're listening to the Liberty News Radio Network, and this is the Political Cesspool.
The Political Cesspool, known across the South and worldwide as the South's foremost populist conservative radio program.
And here to guide you through the murky waters of the political cesspool is your host, James Edwards.
Well, if you were in the movie theaters in 1993,
as I was as a 13-year-old young man, perhaps you heard that score in the movie Tombstone.
And I'll tell you what, I am honored to be able to share the airwaves every week with fighting men.
In fact, it is Peter Brimelow tonight who sort of reminds me a little bit of Doc Holliday in that movie, walking down the street with the gaze in his eye, ready to battle injustice.
Born in England, Peter Brimelow came to the United States to attend the Stanford Graduate School of Business.
He spent four decades as a financial journalist working for a number of prominent publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Barons and Fortune, Forbes and Market Watch.
He went on to write the best-selling book that you all know and love, Alien Nation, before launching VDARER.com on Christmas Eve of 1999.
And it's great to have Peter back on the program tonight.
Peter has been with us earlier this year as well, back in January.
But tonight we are talking about something hugely important and incredibly time-sensitive, as it were.
So, Peter, the floor is yours, my friend.
Welcome back.
Thanks for having me on, James.
I really appreciate it.
Well, you and the great Ann Coulter are both writing about a certain case that could be heard by the United States Supreme Court.
And in fact, the decision on that may be made as early as next week.
If you go to VDARE.com tonight, ladies and gentlemen, and you should be going there every week, rather every day, certainly every week, but every day.
Great articles at VDARE.com.
This featured article reads, left on the verge of huge anti-First Amendment victory unless SCOTUS takes up VDARE versus Colorado Springs.
Peter, explain to us what this case is all about and why we should be concerned.
Well, James, you know, at VDARE, we've, over the course of the last several years, we've, I think, more than 10 times attempted to have conferences in public venues in hotels.
And they're always canceled because of anti-fire pressure.
Now, because of the way we write our contracts, we don't suffer institution damage.
They have to pay us to cancel the contracts.
These hotels are owned by Americans who think they live in a free country, but they don't.
Because as soon as there's anti-fire gets involved and all the usual noise makers, the corporate suits cave and forced the hotel to cancel.
In Colorado Springs in 2017, what happened was the mayor of Colorado Springs, who is actually a Republican, John Sothers, announced that he wouldn't be extending city services to our conference and that he didn't support hate speech.
In other words, he wasn't going to provide us with police protection or fire services.
Of course, the hotel immediately cancelled.
Now, It turns out there's a ton of litigation in the civil rights era, which made it very clear that local government citizens are obliged to protect distant speakers, even if they don't approve of them.
They have to protect them against attack.
So those just completely ignored that.
And our lawyer, our first lawyer in Toronto, was so excited by this prospect because a civil rights violation carries very substantial punitive damages with it that he took the case on contingency.
He just thought that Colorado Springs would fold.
Well, they didn't fold.
And that's very rare, by the way, ladies and gentlemen.
Very rare that you have a lawsuit that is so appealing to an attorney that he would take it on contingency.
Peter, continue, please.
I'm afraid so.
But we were so annoyed by this, and our wonderful donors were so annoyed by it that we financed the case and we fought it.
We fought it all the way up to Supreme Court.
To my complete astonishment, it was turned down.
Although it's very, very clear, it slammed on.
It was turned back down by the district court and then by the appeals court, the 10th Circuit.
However, at the Tenth Circuit, we had a dissent of a very heroic judge called Harrison Harts provided the dissent, which basically endorsed all of our positions and said that this case should be heard.
And, you know, he completely endorsed what we were saying.
But he was only one judge.
The other two votes against us.
So we're then faced with the necessity of taking the Supreme Court.
And we just took a very deep breath and raised a lot of money.
And we filed a petition for certain in late December.
And we now learn that there's going to be a conference in late February.
They're going to discuss whether this goes forward.
Now, what's happening here, James, and you alluded to our headline, is that we're right on the verge of a massive victory for Antifa, for the communist left in this country.
They're going to be able to go to cities and say, well, the cities are going to be able to say, we're not going to extend police protection to you.
And that means that you're vulnerable to Antifa, Antifa, can see the overrunning conferences.
One of the really important problems here is that, you know, as you know, Jared Taylor, the American Renaissance, had his problem with conferences being cancelled.
And he eventually settled on going to Montgomery Bell in Tennessee, which is state part.
They can't turn him down because of the First Amendment, as a government entity, they're covered by the First Amendment.
But they wanted to charge him a vast amount of money for security costs because an antifax kept attacking his conferences.
And of course, that's also something which has been settled by litigation in the civil rights era.
You can't do that either.
The government has to protect you.
So Jared litigated this at considerable expense in length, and he won.
And so that's why we had the conference in Montgomery Bell last year that I spoke at.
Well, now Tennessee can just say, we're not going to charge you for the security costs.
We're just not going to provide any security.
And then, of course, they will be completely vulnerable to anti-fam.
So we're right on the point of complete suppression of any kind of distant gathering.
You know, it's a vitally important case.
And even I'm somewhat surprised that none of these civil liberties groups or even conservative in-groups have taken this up.
Well, I am happy to do it.
And it's an honor to be able to do it.
And Coulter has done it.
Ann Coulter was on this show.
I was at the Republican National Convention broadcasting there as a credentialed member of the media and Ann Coulter appeared on the program that we did live from the RNC.
Of course, Peter V Dair was prominently featured there on the night that Donald Trump was.
2016, that's right.
The night Trump received the nomination, I saw the cry on of VDARE.com circling the Quick and Moans arena.
And I was all too eager to tell you all about it.
Of course, you were there as well, but that was an amazing week.
And of course, that was a long time ago.
A lot's happened since then.
But anyway, to Ann Coulter, she dedicated her entire syndicated column, her most recent syndicated column, to this issue.
She feels it's so important that she closed her column, which you should read, ladies and gentlemen, look it up, with this.
If the Supreme Court fails to overturn the outrageous opinion in V-DAIRE Foundation versus the City of Colorado Springs, Free Speech's gravestone will read, Bedrock Principle of a Nation, 1791 through 2022.
We're going to take a break.
We'll be back with Peter Brimelow at VDARE.com, and we'll pick up right there with Ann Coulter's remark and why she said it.
Stay tuned, ladies and gentlemen.
important.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I ask you, what is the KQ?
You know, the kosher question.
Most Americans will spend their entire lifetime purchasing food from the supermarkets while having no idea that almost every packaged food product on the grocery shelves is certified kosher.
Indeed, the kosher question encompasses not only food and religion, but also affects our economics, politics, and our identity.
In an effort to promote awareness to the kosher question, developers have published an app for your smartphone that features a database of food products that have not been kosher certified.
The KosherCertified app has prominent advertisement on TPC's homepage, or you can check out its website at thekosherQuestion.com.
With the cesspool of politics getting even deeper these days, why not leave the swamp and start eating in favor of your own interests?
Check out thekosherquestion.com today and download the app.
Okay, girls, about finished with your lesson on money?
Daddy, what is a buy-sell spread for gold coins?
Well, when you sell a gold coin to a coin shop that's worth, say, $1,200, you don't actually get $1,200.
But don't worry, we're members of UPMA now, so we don't have to worry about that.
Daddy, why is somebody seal that gold?
We don't have any gold at the house.
It's stored safely in the UPMA vault, securely and insured.
But the SP 500 outperformed gold.
Daddy, gold is a bad investment.
Some people do think of it that way, but actually, gold is money.
And as members of the United Precious Metals Association, we can use our gold at any store, just like a credit card.
Or I can ask them to drop it right into Mommy and Daddy's bank account because we're a UPMA member family.
Find out more at UPMA.org.
That's upma.org.
I'm Michael Hill, president of the League of the South.
I and my compatriots are Southern nationalists.
We seek the survival, well-being, and independence of the Southern people, our people.
The League wants a South that enjoys the sweet fruits of Christian liberty and prosperity, but our current situation won't allow it.
We must have our independence from Washington, D.C. and the globalists.
The present system cannot be reformed.
Without independence, we will continue down this path of destruction.
To us, this is not acceptable.
I'm asking you, Southern man and woman, to join us today to free the South.
Call us at 256-757-6789 or see our website at www.leagueofthesouth.com.
God save the South.
Well, we're fighting, ladies and gentlemen.
We're fighting up in Canada.
They're fighting in the streets down here.
Peter Brimlow fighting in the courts.
We're fighting it here on the airwaves in the court of public opinion.
But Peter, I want to toss it back to you, of course.
And the comment we read or the closing summation that Ann Coulter put in her most recent syndicated column: if the Supreme Court fails to overturn the outrageous opinion of V-Dair Foundation versus the city of Colorado Springs, Free Speech's Gravestone will read Bedrock Principle of a Nation, 1791 to 2022.
Ann doesn't engage in rhetorical hyperbole to make a point.
She means that.
Why does she mean it?
Why is this?
You covered it, but for the point of emphasis at the risk of sounding repetitious, why again is this case so important?
Well, because it's going to award governments, local governments, the right to suppress speech that we don't like, which means us, basically.
And they can simply announce they're not going to.
They can basically advertise.
And Harris Hart, the judge said this, they're basically calling on Antifa, advertising trying to say, hey, it's okay if you attack these people.
They're not going to be, we're not going to defend them.
It's what Sam Francis, you know, the late Sam Francis called anarcho-tyranny.
It's an alliance between the government on the one hand and anarchists on the other hand to suppress things that they don't like.
And it's very, very close to being enacted if the Supreme Court doesn't take up this case.
I talk to people, you know, what happens if the Supreme Court doesn't take up the case?
Well, you know, if Tennessee actually does do this, if Tennessee does say to John Taylor that they're simply not going to extend police protection to him, of course, he could try to get an injunction if he can move quickly if they're given enough time.
But the fact is the precedent here has been set, and it's quite likely that judges would allow the Tennessee to do that.
So that's the end of American Renaissance conferences.
The other thing is, what can we do if it seems very likely if we can actually get control of the legislative branch?
One of the lawyers I know, and we have a lot of very eminent lawyers advising us behind the scenes.
He said, well, all we can do is repass the First Amendment and say we mean it this time.
We've already said on black and white law that people have the right to assemble and to speak.
But apparently the Colorado federal courts don't, the federal courts in that jurisdiction don't seem to care.
I mean, the problem is, you know, this is not news to you, God knows, James, but these courts, you know, it's pretty bad.
They're extremely anti-white.
I was talking today to a lawyer I know in England and he said just exactly that from his point of view, these American courts are just completely unreliable.
A lot of the judges are completely political.
In England, they have bad laws.
They don't have a First Amendment.
The judges on the whole will enforce the law, but not here.
You just can't rely on them.
Well, that's another thing.
But then, you know, James, if we can't litigate our way out of this and we can't legislate our way out of it, what do we do?
What is the option at that point?
Well, that is the question, and there's an answer to that that, of course, those of us who are fathers of young children don't want to consider.
We want to believe.
But, of course, this system has abandoned us, and there is certainly an allure to abjuring the realm, and this whole thing with the courts.
I mean, the courts are so criminally corrupt now, as are all of our institutions, academia, the media, the churches even.
I mean, it's just so bad.
But at the same time, as you say, what else can you do?
All you can do is everything you can do.
And to litigate these things, as I have done, as you have done, and to try.
I mean, you certainly want to throw the kitchen sink at the problem, do you not?
You want to exhaust every possible remedy, and you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't, even though you know, as a dissident and as a well-known dissident, the odds are stacked against you in these system courts.
I have to say, you know, as you know, we also have a libel case, which is also, ironically, going to be heard of.
We're going to be at the conference on October 25th.
But libel's one thing.
I mean, if the Supreme Court doesn't take up our libel case against the New York Times, it's just going to go on lying and, you know, like it's done before.
It's just reaffirming that New York Times has a license to lie, which is not new.
Well, this is new.
The fact that the Carl Springs can just selectively suppress people, the citizens can selectively suppress people that they don't like, it's completely new.
Because it wouldn't happen if this was a NAACP conference.
No.
Because that's all been settled.
So what we have is fantastically unequal justices emerging.
It looks like we're right on the verge of having an anti-white justice system.
Well, let's talk about that, Peter, very quickly, if we can.
I mean, because again, as you mentioned, this runs so contrary to the sense of fair play that so many white people, I think, still misguidedly have, because if they haven't been paying attention, there are rules for support groups of the regime and there are rules for the rest of us.
But I should say that in 2008, I had the experience, and I wrote about this in my book, which was just banned by Amazon a few days ago, by the way.
But yes, the book came out in 2010.
2010, the book came out in 2010.
Just a couple of weeks ago, it was banned by Amazon.
I mean, you do the math on that.
I don't know why.
It was around the same time that the ADL redefined what racism is, which is what I said it was in the book in 2010.
Racism means a white person, and racist is a white person, and racism is anything a white person does that liberals don't like.
But I did write about this encounter in 2008 when I had a conference.
We were having a conference in Memphis, where I live.
And the weekend before, literally just a couple of days before the conference, the hotel called me and said that they had to cancel because the general manager was getting death threats at his home.
And that was the first time, to my knowledge, I mean, it was certainly before Amran.
Where's the FBI here?
Where's the FBI?
And this is what I said.
I said, well, and this runs contrary.
And, of course, we all know the great work that Jared does at Amran and the problems that his conferences have had.
But that all came after this.
This was the first case that I know of where a legally binding contract was just declared null and void because of the heckler's veto, because of death threats.
And that is not any exaggeration.
That is exactly what happened, and that is how it happened, and that is why that conference was canceled.
We were able to scramble and put it together and salvage it, but not without a great deal of trouble.
And so, yes, this is the thing.
I mean, wasn't this what the whole civil rights movement was about, or at least the so-called civil rights movement, that everybody could sit at the same lunch counter.
Everybody had these same rights to have a meeting, to have a rally, to do these things on the public square.
But of course, we know that that's full of gold and that's fairy tale.
It doesn't apply both ways.
It applies only to those who are against the world.
The sheer scale of this is relatively recent.
The sheer scale of this totalitarian wave of sweeping to American institutions is relatively recent.
You're right, you were early.
But, you know, I don't think most Americans realize this.
We talk to lawyers.
We spend a lot of time talking to lawyers.
We're trying to protect ourselves in various ways.
And they're generally just dumbfounded when they hear these stories.
They just don't know about it.
Because it's never reported in the mainstream media, or for that matter, in the consumer media.
There's no effort to discuss what's going on.
No attempt to make to illuminate all the people as to what's going on.
So as I say, we've had no trouble.
Lady, my wife, who handles all this stuff, had had no trouble prior to COVID in getting the TAL reservations, even though we've been canceled many times because the people who run the TELS think we live in a free country.
And they're very happy to sign contracts saying that if we cancel out of it, we have to pay a sum.
And if they cancel out of it, they have to pay some.
But they will have to cancel until, of course, the noisemakers start beating on the drums, you know, and the usual hysteria begins.
People just don't realize, don't you Americans still don't realize what's going on here.
No, I think you're right.
I think that they don't.
I mean, certainly your readers and my listeners do, but the average American at large who agrees with us fundamentally on the issues, they've still got a learning curve.
We're getting there.
We're getting there, and that's encouraging.
We'll continue with Peter Brimolow.
We still have you for two more segments.
Ladies and gentlemen, go to his website, support his work.
This is a guy who's at the tip of the spear.
VDARE.com.
We'll be right back.
Pursuing Liberty, using the Constitution as our guide.
You're listening to Liberty News Radio, USA Radio News with Wendy King.
Russian forces are now shelling Ukraine.
Russia claims that some of the shells fired were from a government-held part of eastern Ukraine and landed on their side of the border.
Earlier, separatist leaders ordered a full military mobilization.
President Biden and his defense chief are convinced that Russian leader Vladimir Putin has made the decision to invade.
Secretary Lloyd Austin in Lithuania.
For months now, Russia has been building up its military forces in and around Ukraine, including in Belarus.
They are uncoiling and are now poised to strike.
At a security conference in Munich, Vice President Kamala Harris warned that Russia would face unprecedented financial consequences if it attacks Ukraine.
This is USA Radio News.
Water.
It's essential to life, but it's also something that so many of us here in America take for granted.
Imagine how different your life would be without access to clean water in your home.
What if you had to walk to the nearest creek, stream, lake, or pond to get water?
Suddenly, going to work in school wouldn't be an option because you and your children would have to spend your days collecting water.
This is the day-to-day reality of most families living in the world's poorest countries.
But what if I told you that you can change that reality for just pennies a day?
Through our water projects, Food for the Poor is working to meet the need for water in 17 impoverished countries.
But it won't happen without you.
Incredibly, it only takes $15 to provide a child access to clean water for life.
$15.
Decades and decades of access to water for a child.
Give the life-changing gift of water now.
Just text USA Radio to 91999.
Text USA Radio, all one word, to 91999.
Police have arrested more than 100 protesters involved in the so-called Freedom Convoy demonstrations in the Canadian capital of Ottawa, which officials said turned violent.
The convoy protests began in late January and were initially focused on the Canadian government's vaccine mandate for cross-border truckers.
But now it's expanded into a broader movement against public health measures to limit the spread of COVID-19.
On Friday, police arrested more than 100 people and have had 21 vehicles towed in Ottawa.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act to allow the government to expand measures to end the protests and pointed out to CNN that some people in the U.S. are funding the protesters.
Officials in the U.S. are also concerned about a potential trucker convoy protest ahead of President Biden's State of the Union address on March 1st.
According to CNN, you're listening to USA Radio News.
Well, welcome back, everybody.
Great to be back with you tonight.
And again, I should say what an honor it is to be able to do this show and to still love doing this show, to still love the fight, and to still hunger for the fight.
After nearly two decades on the air, we've still got that hunger.
We're still lean financially and otherwise.
We're lean all the way around.
But we're rich in terms of the brothership and the brotherhood that we share with men, like you're hearing on this program tonight and every other week that we broadcast.
People like Peter Brimelow.
Peter, people will think that I look for any opportunity to bring this up.
They're wrong.
I wish I didn't have this story to tell.
But we do take into account that new listeners are tuning in every night here.
And so I should make mention of the fact as we're talking about these things that a slam dunk in court isn't what you think it may be.
Certainly not if you have beliefs that run contrary to the narrative.
If you believe in the diversity of opinion, you've got a tough road a hoe in the courts.
And we had a slam dunk case, a libel lawsuit, as you are well familiar with, Peter, with a brilliant lawyer in Kyle Bristow.
It was the textbook definition of libel to allege that somebody is a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
Well, in fact, the Detroit News, which is the daily newspaper that services the city of Detroit and its outlying area, said I was the leader of the Klan.
And we thought, well, my goodness, this has to be libel.
And so we filed this lawsuit and we lost in the trial court level.
And I said, well, that's weird, but we'll appeal it.
And we appealed it to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
And we had a panel of three judges.
And they made their decision.
And you know it well, Peter.
And the decision was, and it was a precedent-setting decision.
It actually rewrote libel law in the state of Michigan.
A new precedent was set as a result of this published opinion when they wrote that, yes, this is the textbook definition of libel.
When it comes to James Edwards, you have to judge him by the company he keeps.
So therefore, we rely on Aesop's fables to inform our decision.
And the example that they gave, of course, is the fact that I am friends with Sam Dixon, who is a friend of yours and a friend of all of ours who thirsts for justice.
And that Sam took his duty as an attorney seriously and represented a client in the 70s, I believe, who was a member of the Klan.
Well, there you go.
And by the way, somebody from the Klan could tune in, and therefore I could be a leader because I could be saying things that they agree with.
Well, so there is no justice in the courts.
We know that.
But yet still we must fight.
We must fight.
I heard Sam on the show saying that there's simply no hope in a woman.
But that's not true because Jared did prevail in Tennessee.
He forced the government of Tennessee to defend his conference.
And so it's not completely true.
And similarly, there was a case in Baltimore where the government of Baltimore, which of course is all black communists, wanted to suppress church militants, which is a right-wing Catholic group's conference, which was time to be opposite right outside the toll that the Catholic bishops were having their conference.
And Baltimore fought to the death to try and stop that conference going through, but they lost because it's very clear that the cities don't have the right to discriminate against people on political grounds.
So you have this situation where in different jurisdictions, different districts, court districts, you're getting anomalous rulings.
Your case was astoundingly horrible.
But a First Amendment lawyer I know said to us about our New York Times case that it's obvious that everybody knows that at some point the Supreme Court is going to revisit Sullivan, which is this case which basically gave the American press a license to lie.
Completely different from what happens in other common law jurisdictions like England and Canada.
I mean, in that situation, if you say something that's false, that's libelous.
That's all there is to it.
If it's false, it's libelous.
Now in America, they developed this very complicated rational laws.
Well, maybe they didn't know it was false, or maybe they were publishing good faith.
That's because the Sullivan decision in the 60s was a case where a segregationist sheriff in the South had a civil rights group, dead to rights.
They absolutely libeled it.
But the Supreme Court wasn't about to give a segregation sheriff a victory.
So they just rewrote the law.
And it's caused this, it's resulted in this fantastic situation where the American media increasingly feels completely free of any kind of factual discussion.
I mean, Rachel Maddox, for example, said that One America's news network was literally Russian propaganda, literally.
And there's no evidence at all that was Russian propaganda.
So they argued in court that whether she said literally, she meant she went figuratively.
And the courts accepted that.
And I'm very sorry to see that One America's News Network didn't do what we did and go to the Supreme Court.
Yeah, I know.
You've got to fight these things to death.
I think you've got to fight.
You're left with this very, very serious situation where what is the option now?
If you can't legislate, litigate out of it and you can't legislate that, what is your option?
Well, and I don't know what to answer.
Well, and it's a tough question to answer.
And I think we all know what comes after that, but we don't want to consider it.
And we shouldn't consider it.
Having said that, I know you just had Paul on.
I lived in Canada for many years.
And to me, it's utterly astounding what these truckers have done.
The Canadian government, the Canadian ruling class, just thought they had these people under their thumb.
And it suddenly turns out that they don't.
And in some ways, it's like the whole Trump election.
I mean, nobody, the entire ruling class had no idea.
I mean, we should go back and look at it from time to time.
They had no idea.
They could not believe that Trump was going to, first of all, get a nomination and then win the election.
But he did.
So, you know, these rogue waves come up out of nowhere.
And the puzzle class is fooling itself if it can go on repressing people like this indefinitely.
Well, yes, I mean, that's a great point.
And with regard to the question at hand, whether we should litigate or not, or I think you have to use any means at your disposal.
I mean, not because you want to make a political point, but because you have been damaged, first of all.
But I can remember very, very vividly standing with Sam Dixon and telling him about this.
And he said, well, you're right, but you're going to lose.
And I said, well, I'll show you.
You know, now you, of course, you know, you're younger.
You always want to prove to your better and to your elder that you can do something.
And he ended up being right.
But I think that, of course, he was wrong with Jared Taylor.
And then I was like, that's right.
Yeah, I was going to say, yes, you're right.
Jared did win.
I think it's a mixed bag.
In some jurisdictions, you could win and some you lose.
I mean, it just depends on the court you draw, I guess.
But I have a nuanced view on it.
I mean, it is more difficult for people like us.
There's no doubt about that.
The chance of success is more difficult.
But I think you still win in a way, Peter, if you can make the system spend its ordinance.
If you can make them reveal themselves, there is still some benefit in that.
Well, we have litigation.
We have quite a lot of investigation at the moment because I just decided we had to start fighting just there in the public square.
And the result is mixed.
But I have to say that we do force them to spend a lot of money.
I mean, our litigation has PayPal, which I have to, we have to, I haven't discussed quite what's happened there yet, but our law is estimating that PayPal spent, you know, the council hasn't destroyed our subscription list to IV there quarterly.
They had to spend well over half a million dollars to defend that case.
We had to spend nearly 100,000, but they spent now, of course, they can afford it.
But still, the damages are damage on them.
And we're not through with them yet.
Well, we do continue to fight, and others are continuing to fight as well.
So Peter has two lawsuits that are now pending before the United States Supreme Court.
That's as big as it gets.
And we will revisit those at the top of the next break.
But before that, Peter, there are others that are similarly fighting.
And one includes Sarah Palin, who I certainly don't have any connection with, and Michelle Malkin, who is a little bit more in our orbit.
But with regard to Sarah Palin, the headline this week reads, A Manhattan jury found that the New York Times did not defame a former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, in an editorial that claimed that her political action committee was connected to the 2011 shooting of a Democratic member of Congress.
So here you have, look, they're saying that you are personally connected, your committee, your associates are connected with a shooting, you know, actual malice and violence, but yet that is not, that is not.
Have we got time to talk about this here going to break?
Well, we got a couple of seconds and then we have one more slide.
Okay, well, I mean, Hayes, the judge, that will certainly be appealed.
The behavior of the judge is simply outrageous.
She quite clearly was directing the jury to find against her.
And she proved a case.
We think what was going on there is that he was afraid the jury was going to plan against the New York Times.
Because absolutely clear that they knew they were lying.
They just went ahead and lied.
But to your point, Peter.
Pardon the interruption, my friend, but to your point, the Associated Press reported that District Court Judge Jed Rankoff, Raycoff, announced that he would dismiss Palin's lawsuit regardless of the jury's verdict.
Now, that's incredible.
I mean, it almost defies belief that you could even read something like that aloud.
I mean, it's a somewhat complicated question going on to procedure measurement.
But the question is, why did he do it then?
Why didn't he either do it before they litigated or do it after Joey found or made this decision?
Why do it in the middle of the trial?
And the answer is he wanted to direct the jury, which is in fact did.
Hold on right there.
When we come back, Peter Brimbelow, the great Peter Brimberlo, the comparable Peter Brimbelo of VDARE.com, will talk again about his cases versus Colorado Springs and the New York Times.
They're in tandem.
They're not connected, but there's two happening at once before the United States Supreme Court if they will hear them.
The final countdown indeed.
Stay tuned.
Hello, TPC family.
It's James, and I've got to tell you that I sleep better at night knowing that there are organizations like the Conservative Citizens Foundation.
The purpose of the Conservative Citizens Foundation is to promote the principles of limited government, individual liberty, equality before the law, property rights, law and order, judicial restraint, and states' rights, while at the same time, exploring the dangers posed by liberalism to our national interests and cultural institutions.
The Conservative Citizens Foundation also seeks to educate the public on the dangers of extremist ideologies like critical race theory and cultural Marxism.
I've worked with the good people at the Conservative Citizens Foundation for many years, and their work comes with my complete endorsement.
For more information and to keep up with all the latest conservative news headlines, please check out their website, MericaFirst.com.
That's M-E-R-I-C-A-1ST.com.
MericaFirst.com.
Why don't we say to the government writ large that they have to spend a little bit less?
Anybody ever had less money this year than you had last?
Anybody better have a 1% pay cut?
You deal with it.
That's what government needs, a 1% pay cut.
If you take a 1% pay cut across the board, you have more than enough money to actually pay for the disaster relief.
But nobody's going to do that because they're fiscally irresponsible.
Who are they?
Republicans.
Who are they?
Democrats.
Who are they?
Virtually the whole body is careless and reckless with your money.
So the money will not be offset by cuts anywhere.
The money will be added to the debt, and there will be a day of reckoning.
What's the day of reckoning?
The day of reckoning may well be the collapse of the stock market.
The day of reckoning may be the collapse of the dollar.
When it comes, I can't tell you exactly, but I can tell you it has happened repeatedly in history when countries ruin their currency.
Find your inner rebel at Dixie Republic, the world's largest Confederate store, located in Traveler's Rest, South Carolina.
The anti-white, anti-Christ, anti-Southern world ends at the asphalt.
Welcome to God's Country.
Log on to DixieRepublic.com to view our Southern merchandise from flags to t-shirts to artwork.
At the store, browse through our extensive collection of belt buckles and have a custom-made leather belt handcrafted in our Johnny Revs gun and leather shop.
That's DixieRepublic.com where you can meet all of your Southern needs.
While you're waiting, drop by our Confederate corner for a free cup of coffee and good conversation.
Remember, there are no strangers here, just friends who haven't met yet.
Dixie Republic, we're not just a roadside attraction, we're a destination for our people.
For more information, visit DixieRepublic.com.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
One more segment with Peter Brimelow.
And this is, again, as it always is with Peter, an hour that has gone by far too quickly.
I say that a lot, but I mean it because every guest we have on this program can make the time go that quickly.
We're talking with Peter about very important litigation, very important lawsuits, very important cases.
He has two now that could be heard.
One could be heard, one could be not.
They could both be dismissed or not heard by the United States Supreme Court.
One, of course, is the case of the V-Dair Foundation against the city of Colorado Springs with regard to them being shut out from having a meeting, which is what, hey, I learned in grade school.
That's what the civil rights thing was all about.
We could all go to the same hotels.
We could go to the same lunch counters.
We could meet and we could talk and we could do these things, but apparently not.
Apparently not.
If you're a white person who believes in the diversity of opinion.
And then, of course, his defamation suit against the New York Times.
Peter, we haven't talked quite as much about that, but I would mention that your defamation suit against the New York Times.
This is interesting because it's so similar to my experience.
You have more experience than me in this and other things as well.
But in court, I'm reading from the system media here, the regime media, and this excerpt reads, the court began its analysis by reciting the well-established principle that, quote, under New York law, you're suing the New York Times here, defamation is defined as a false statement which tends to expose the plaintiff, that's you, to public contempt, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace,
or induce an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking persons and to deprive him of their friendly intercourse in society.
Now, when the New York Times calls you a white supremacist or a white nationalist, which they use interchangeably, what is that if not the textbook definition of defamation under New York law as I just read it?
I mean, I say I'm about to write something more on this change this next week, and I'd like to discuss it more lengthwise.
In my case, it was an actual factual issue.
They said I was an open white nationalist, an open white supremacist.
And I may be a white supremacist, a white nationalist, but I'm not open about it.
I specifically say I'm not a white nationalist and white supremacist.
And they recognized that because they immediately stealth edited the website to remove open.
But they won't admit that.
According to their own terms of conduct, which are published on the website, they're supposed to immediately admit any change of that kind, but they wouldn't do it.
It's just sheer arrogance.
And all they have to do was make a correction, a noise that they made the correction, but they won't do it.
The appeals court judge, the trial court judge said that this was an actual matter.
Well, she said that they'd made me whole by correcting it on the website.
But of course, that doesn't correct the print edition.
It doesn't correct it in the people who read it for the congressional record and so on.
But as I say, you know, to me, if I lose, I think I said earlier, you know, a First Amendment lawyer we consulted said they are going to revisit Sullivan.
They're not going to be able to lie about people like this and to lie about people in definitely, but they won't do it for you.
They're going to try to find a more appealing case or something to do it with because this was cowards and they don't want to be seen.
But that just means that the New York Times are going to go on lying about things.
And it's come back to Biden, because what happens is you get things like Pizza Gate.
I don't know what Pizza, what's going on with Pizzagate, but I do know that the Democrats could not sue over it.
They can't sue for being called child rapists and so on because of the standard, because of the Sullivan decision.
And so they get these fantastic theories and it's damaging them too.
Everybody knows that this has got to be changed.
It's just out of control.
It's one of these things that happened in the 60s that's just blown up in our faces.
But Colorado Springs is much more serious because that means they are awarded the case.
Full circle.
We've only got a few seconds, but I was going to say, you know, what we did when we were faced with this card with this inability to hold conferences, we took a lot of money that we had money and we spent on buying this Berker Springs Castle in West Virginia because we can hold small conferences here and we don't have to worry about being countered by the venue.
And for the last two, three years, over two years, we've been working on remodeling and so on.
And of course, it's fantastically expensive and it's not what we want to do with our money.
But we have no choice if you want to have meetings.
So I do hope you come and do a political cesspool here someday, James.
Well, we've been talking about that and it will certainly be done.
I give you my word on that.
We will see you soon at the castle.
Well, the kids will get a kick out of it.
But I mean, as it says, you know, it's a very expensive way of running an operation if we have to do this kind of thing.
The one thing that's on my mind right now is I just saw Terms of Service.
Do you use Outlook, Microsoft Outlook?
I do not.
I am with Pat Buchanan and we're the last two people on AOL for my personal.
Well, you know, the same will apply to AOL.
I mean, Microsoft just put out new challenges of service in which it says you can't use email to promote hate.
Well, that means us, of course.
They're going to ban us from emailing things that we're going to do.
Well, let me take that back.
I'm not on AOL and nor have I ever been on AOL.
I'm ProtonMail.
I was confused.
Yeah, I know.
That's obviously what's happening.
But what we think is we're going to have to get off Microsoft completely, all Microsoft products, if we want to stay online.
Because, you know, this is fantastically expensive.
And it doesn't show on the screen.
I want things that show on the screen that people can read.
But this kind of thing, these defense in depth is what we have to go for.
This gets back to what is hate.
And, you know, I have had a lot of guests on this program.
Everybody from, well, Pat Buchanan to Alveda King, Martin Luther King's niece, and so many in between.
And I have had an email list provider, somebody we use to send out our emails to those who subscribe to our messages for over 15 years.
We've been on the air 18 years.
I've been using them for over 15 years.
Well, a year and a half ago, you may remember this, Peter.
You'll know half of the story.
You won't know what I'm about to tell you.
About a year and a half ago, you were on the show, and I got suspended.
I couldn't send emails, and I couldn't figure out why.
And so I called customer support, and they said, well, you can't send out emails that use vdair.com.
You can't have a link to vdair.com.
Of all the people we've had on this show over all the years, we've got everybody.
That's a pariah.
It's just constant contact.
And so they temporarily suspended.
Do you mind telling me what the service was?
Well, I don't.
It's Aweber.
Aweber.com is our email list subscriber.
That's who we use to send out our emails to our subscribers.
We have thousands of them.
And so they suspended me.
And then I forgot about it.
I forgot about it.
And I sent out an email today that didn't get delivered.
And it was because you were appearing and I had a link to your article about your case against Colorado Springs and it didn't get delivered.
And so now I'm not temporarily suspended.
I believe I am banned entirely.
So for the thousands of people who receive an email from me every Saturday, you couldn't receive it tonight because I linked to an article on VDARE.com.
Now, why VDare.com after all of these years, a decade and a half, that we've been using this service?
Why VDare.com is the one?
That's fascinating.
I hope you can send me a link to it.
You've got to get your address list off of them.
Well, we've got that.
We've got that.
We can go to another provider.
We can import all of them and we can go through the rigors and the expense and all of the inconvenience of it.
Yes.
But I mean, this is the thing.
In justice in court, you can't have a meeting.
You get banned from payment processors as you and I have.
You get banned from sending out emails.
I mean, for God's sake.
You know what, though, Peter?
I tell you and I tell everybody listening, I don't care.
I will never back down from what I believe in.
I will never betray a brother.
I will never betray a friend.
I will never betray this cause.
Take my email list.
Take my ability to process online donations as you have done.
But I will never stop standing up for what's right.
And what is right is supporting Peter Brimelow and V-Dare and these huge, hugely important lawsuits against the city of Colorado Springs and the New York Times, a defamation suit, and a suit that gets to the very heart of, do you have the freedom in this country to meet and to freely assemble and to exercise your freedom of speech?
That is what Peter's fighting for.
And I stand with you, Peter.
Well, thanks, James.
And some of the names of these people, maybe we could sue them too.
Half the time you don't know what's going on with these people, who's blocking them and so on.
One of our projects is to develop a litigation because you've got to punish these people.
Believe me, I want to.
And that's why I don't get so upset about this.
They've chosen the rules by which this whole thing will be litigated.
And when the pendulum turns, and I believe that it will, and if it doesn't, I'll die trying to make sure that it does.
But if it will.
Well, the wonderful thing about Michelle's case, Michelle Markey.
Yes, yes.
go to that but in in that's quite quite a different case from from from she she wants to sue in state court in california because in california there's a law called the unreal law which was passed in the 1960s to stop communists and anti-war people from being fired from from the from their uh place of employment It was designed to protect the left, but it just simply says you can't discriminate against people on political grounds.
I just want to work this in, but we only have seconds remaining.
Michelle Malkin, of course, people know Michelle Malkin.
She was denied the ability to book a reservation at Airbnb because she had spoken at Jared Taylor.
Jared Taylor, like Peter Brimlow.
And it's a California.
She's a California company.
We've known about this for some time, but nobody's ever actually successfully brought an action on it.
We tried to do it against Facebook in our Facebook litigation, which is another story.
But for various technical reasons, the judges let it off the hook.
So we have to sue them in Delaware.
But it seems to me that if she can raise the money to do this and we want to help her, she could probably get nailed on this question.
If the law is applied equal.
What we're seeing in Charleston Springs, these swine don't apply the law equally.
That's a big, big, big if.
But, you know, hope springs, does it not, Peter?
While we breathe, we hope.
And ladies and gentlemen, PeterBrimlow.com support him at VDARER.com.