#22 - What is Going in America?: California's Black Reparations, Mississippi's Jim Crow Laws, Minnesota's Controversial Decision, and the End of Title 42

00:00:00Howdy and salutations. I am your host Radell Lewis, and this is The Purple Political Breakdown. Today we're doing episode number 22. This will be an audio only podcast episode, so I don't have extra content coming with this episode. So if you're listening on the podcast on Spotify and Apple podcast, I do appreciate you.00:00:21And today we're gonna be talking about basically what is going on with America. Sometimes based on different laws and different things that is going on in society. I would like to talk about what those things are, dive into the facts, and give my honest, objective, moderate, independent opinion regarding those topics of discussion. Before we do any of that, I'm going to read off a review. This is from the real Jerry Dugan.00:00:50He said, thank you for bringing the voice of the moderate into a political podcast. There is plenty of who's and commentary out there that take one extreme or the other and it gets tiring, like being a child uses a bargaining chip in a divorce. Radell Lewis brings a middle ground perspective where we can see the issue for what it is and also see the dangers of hiding on two polarized points of contention. Fanatically thank you very much, Jerry. And of course, if you want to drop down a review to get shouted out in a podcast episode, make sure you leave it on Apple podcast.00:01:30Or you could do it on my website and leave a five stars. Four stars is okay too, but five stars is appreciated. So this is just going to be me. So I don't have a guest in today's episode and usually I have them given like, interesting factor opinion. Here's an interesting opinion for you.00:01:50Today's Mother's Day that I'm recording this and I have a question for you, something you can answer individually. Should we have holidays that celebrate individuals in society? And the reason why I asked that question is because sometimes I feel like these holidays are set up to celebrate people. But nowadays, with the self entitlement of a lot of people in America, the holidays is kind of just a crutch. And if you do not kind of celebrate the holiday in the sense of giving that care that people are expecting, thinking that they deserve said care, then it makes you look like a bad person.00:02:32So I'm just saying, is the holidays necessary? Is it a good thing for society? Or should we have holidays that celebrate individuals, or should we just be celebrating individuals on a daily basis? Let me know your opinions about that. Of course.00:02:47So I have four things I want to talk about in today's podcast episode in reference to four things that is going on more at a state level than anything. And it's, of course, California deliberating on giving reparations for black people, Mississippi's infamous Jim Crow laws, minnesota potentially becoming more pedophilic, and Title 42 ending lot to talk about. And I want to dive into the facts of the matter and a lot of these things. But let's start off with California and the reparations thing for black people. And I'm going to give you my honest opinions first, let's lay out the facts and the things that they plan to do in reference to black people.00:03:36So we know California is like one of the more iconic left leaning states in America. Super Libby, super liberal, super crazy libs, all that great stuff, of course. And they want to make amends to all the black people throughout history. So what they plan to do is they plan to give an estimated $13,619 for each year of residency. Now, everything's going to be for a black person, obviously.00:04:06So keep that in mind when I lay out these numbers based on a 71 year life expectancy for harm caused by health care disparities. So black people who have a residency, each year of that residency, they're going to get this amount of money, an estimated $115,000 and 260 cents or $2,352 for each year of residency in the state within the 49 year period between 1971 and 2020 to compensate for mass incarceration and over policing of black communities. So initially, reparations was supposed to be thought of something related to slavery. But as you can see, these two instances of reparations has nothing to do with slavery initially. This is kind of the outlook of the poor treatment of black people throughout the last, what, 30 ish years, so to speak.00:05:03And I'm black. I know that black people were treated pretty poorly, even the 1990s, even in the early 2000s. But I'm just kind of laying out what is going on right here in this situation and I'll give my objective opinions afterwards. They also plan to give out an estimated $148,099 or $3,366 for each year between 1933 and 1977 spent as a California resident to account for discriminatory housing policies. Overall, this is expected to be an estimated amount of $800 billion of reparations, 800 billion.00:05:53We know America right now is not doing great in terms of debt at the moment. Of course, they're doing all these debt repeal plans, debt extension plans, debt, all that great stuff, right? All that amazing stuff we're dealing with as a country. So we have California wanting to give reparations for black people. Now, I want to kind of iterate something I do think it's an interesting question or interesting circumstance of whether or not we should give reparations for people who've been through slavery.00:06:24Now, slavery is a long, long time ago. Well, we know that we gave reparations for Native Americans, of course. We know Germany gave reparations for people who went through the Holocaust, of course. And I do think there's a legitimate point of action in reference to giving reparations for people who've been through slavery. Matter of fact, you can even make the argument that reparations for people who maybe be a generation down from slavery is still appropriate.00:06:56People who actually been through the atrocities that happened during the slavery period, or at the very least, I'm willing to discuss the validity of giving them reparations for what they've been through. I do think that is a valid argument and debate to make for sure. Now, where it starts getting in the nitty gritty is when we start kind of going throughout history or going through the period afterwards and debating whether people who went through and of course, we know they've been through atrocities after the slavery period, whether that's the Jim Crow period, whether that's the 90s, early 2000s, right. The reason why that gets a little more touchy feely is due to the fact that obviously that generation is not too far away. And currently, when it comes down to it, a lot of flourishment has gone when it comes down to black people, I think a lot of the people who are in the unfortunate impoverished communities, what they're struggling with is getting out of the circumstance due to their own kind of culture that is going on right now.00:08:15Now, this is what I mean, right? In situations where you've been through an atrocity, they definitely discern some type of gain to overcome that atrocity they've been through. That's what I believe, and I'm willing to have that debate. But once you step away from that atrocity, of course there's going to be a trickle down effect. But at that point, something needs to change in terms of the culture.00:08:38Something needs to change in terms of what is going on individually throughout each individual community to kind of fix the environment at hand. Because I believe once you start giving people money who's already not in a good state of mind and good kind of cultural mindset, then that money is going to be just a waste of money. That money is not going to be rebuilding what has been lost. That money is not going to be uplifting that community. Just because you throw money at communities doesn't necessarily it's going to benefit that community.00:09:19For example, how many stories have we seen where a person wins the lottery and then they lose all of that money within the next couple of months? How many stories have we seen where someone goes to the NBA, gets filthy rich, and the moment they're out, they're broke in like a couple of months? What matters is establishing a sense of security, consistency and culture to uplift everybody in the community. What I'm always in favor of is making sure, obviously, the justice system is efficient, making sure, obviously, that the education system, the medical system, all these avenues that support these minority communities, they should be put more funding. If you want to do a whole movement to better these impoverished communities, you should do the movement in reference to embeddering these impoverished communities, necessities more so.00:10:29Because even looking on the fact that now in 2023, you want to start giving random money to black citizens. That doesn't even solve the problem. Matter of fact, it creates more issues. You're just giving black, of course, in terms of an innate selfish black person, if I'm in that state, of course I'm going to accept the money willingly, and I don't care, right? I'm thinking selfishly as an individual, free money is free money.00:10:59But when I'm looking objectively in terms of the system, I don't want that system to even exist. Not all black people in California, I guarantee, have went through an atrocity. There's probably a lot of middle class, a lot of rich black people that you're just giving money to. So are you going to put a cap, say, oh, if you make this much money as a black person, you get no reparations? Is that the plan of action?00:11:23When you do something like that, then at that point, that's discriminatory to the people who make more money. Say, I'm black too. Why don't I get free reparations? That doesn't make sense, right? So now you potentially have to start drawing lines in terms of income for black people, and that's still discrimination.00:11:42What about the people who are in those same impoverished communities who are suffering just as much or even worse, that are let's not even go with the white people. What if we go with the Latino? What if we go with the Asian? But you see your black neighbor just get free reparations. I'm in the same community.00:11:59I'm going through the same atrocities, but you are getting reparations. So you're discriminating against the other people in that impoverished community. Once you start singling out people to give out reparations, it's going to create a disdain. Now, in terms of the efficiency of reparations in the first place, that's also a whole debate on whether even works in terms of giving people free money. Does that even work inherently?00:12:25There's a lot of evidence to say reparation doesn't work at all. So not only the fact that reparations may not even fix the problem, not even the fact that giving people free money may not benefit the community as a whole, and you may have to discriminate amongst black people themselves and black people with other communities. But also, at the end of the day, when it comes to this reparations problem, the fact that you plan to go in $800 billion of debt for a situation that's not even a solution is absolutely foolish.00:13:01All these issues that you laid out health care disparities, mass incarceration, over policing, discriminatory housing policies, those are all things that black people, of course, went through, that black people unfortunately had to deal with and overcome. So the plan of action is bettering those specific things, bettering the medical care system in California, bettering the policing in California, bettering the housing in California. Have you even looked into those specific things? But you plan to just give black people money. Giving people money doesn't work and this idea that you can just give people money and it's going to solve all their issues won't work.00:13:58There is no example in society, basically, where just giving people money is a solution to an atrocity that has happened in the past. California is obviously they're super liberal, they want to be super woke, but all these solutions that keep on conjuring up is some of the dumbest solutions I've ever heard of. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that you could just throw money at people and think you can kind of solve the years of atrocities that have happened. It's ridiculous. The system today should be better than the system of back then.00:14:39And California being the woke state, you are of course you know this better than anybody being in the super liberal state, but you still have a lot of violence in your state. You still have a lot of problems in your state. California is not the creme dollar creme in terms of best states to live in, and we all know this.00:15:02So overall, my objective opinion reference in California reparations for black people is their argument can be made that people who have been through slavery or a generation down deserve some type of reparation. Maybe I'm willing to have that debate. But in terms of black people in general and its entirety, there is no concrete way for this to be done properly. And the pros outweigh the cons in referencing the debt they're going to go into, the discrimination that's going to rise because of it, and the fact that there is no guarantee, none, that this will even benefit the communities at large. So hopefully I made sense.00:15:51I know I kind of rambled on a little bit in this situation because the reparations debate seems pretty cutthroat and dry, but it's just ridiculous that a state thinks that this is a solution in 2023. It's just dumb. But California does California things. So with that said, let's dive into the second state that is going through a lot of things in reference to race, where we have one state that's trying to better black people in their own state in terms of what they're going through. Another state has been argued to be becoming more racist in terms of the new bills that they are trying to implement.00:16:29So a lot of people are calling the new law House Bill 1020, the reestablishment of Jim Crow. And of course, when I looked into it or when I did my research and referencing it, I wanted to look at what exactly does the bill say to make the argument that it's doing this Jim Crow law thing that people are being upset about, right? So first things first. Of course I went into the definition of Jim Crow laws. So some important things to consider when it comes to Jim Crow and in comparison to what is going on now is first, black codes.00:17:10Black codes are basically the idea that the system can determine when, where, and how former slaves worked and how much they were compensated. So they can be as unfair to black people in terms of the working environment as they want. Another aspect of it is that a lot of people in the Confederacy, a lot of racist people, were also within the justice system, the court system. So anytime a black person would complain about the unfair treatment, they would be obviously corrupt in terms of favoring against the black person. So a system of people were inherently against black people in that Jim Crow period.00:17:49And of course, they made sure that segregation was a big part of separating black people and white people in a number of public areas, private areas, to make sure there's a difference in treatment and difference in outlook. So those are the Jim Crow. That's the quick definition of what was Jim Crow, really? So let's talk about House bill 1020. What is House Bill 1020?00:18:15So a few things in terms of the important aspects of this bill, and then I want to try to break it down a little bit. I'm going to go over some quotes that was said about the bill as well to kind of understand why people think this is Jim Crow returning. First things first, it removes the appointment of judges. It indicates that no separate court justice system will be created within the CCID. Now, I want to give a definition for the CCID.00:18:44This is the Capital Complex Improvement District, something that was established in Mississippi during 2017 of the Mississippi legislature in order to establish regular funding and administration of infrastructure projects within a defined area of the capital city of Jackson. So movement, of course, to better the city of Jackson and Mississippi at large, created a new unelected court system within an expanded CCID, add temporary appointed judge to the Hines County Court system, increase the boundaries of the CCID, and allows Capitol Police to work outside the area, increasing their jurisdiction. Now, when it comes down to the police with the Capitol Police and the Jackson Police Department, they do note that the Jackson Police Department still has primary jurisdiction when it comes down to the Jackson City area. So the Capitol Police can't just come into Jackson, Mississippi and do whatever they want. A pro that a lot of people agree with, however, is the fact that they will provide state funding for new public defenders and assistant district attorneys.00:19:57So those are some of the things. Now, you heard these things and you're wondering, okay, what part of what was implemented in the new House bill makes this a Jim Crow situation? Well, here are some quotes that was said from some of the people who opposed the bill. Someone said, the next thing I see coming out of this legislation, 1020, if it passes, is that they will start now to next year, introduce a city council for the capital City complex and a city manager for the Capital City complex. Is that needed?00:20:32Is that next? So this concern is saying that with this new power for the state government that they'll start implementing systems of power that benefit them exclusively. Is the idea based off this quote? Another person said. Johnson particularly spoke against an aspect of the bill that allowed the CCID inferior court, which would only try misdemeanors and preliminary aspect of felony cases, to send convicted individuals to prisons run by the Mississippi Department of Corrections municipal courts, which the CCID court has been compared to in scope send those convicted of misdemeanors to local jails.00:21:18In this situation, there is a concern that these courts by the CCID moving forward would try people with a misdemeanor and send them straight to jail. There has been a lot of deliberation and debate on whether this is an appropriate punishment for these circumstances. On one side, people have said misdemeanors should have people go to jail for their punishment to kind of deter them to go any further in terms of their crime. And other people said these misdemeanor punishments are going too far in terms of putting them in jail. That inherently is too out there in terms of a punishment.00:21:58I've actually had a debate on a podcast episode. Unfortunately, I messed up the audio, but I had someone who came in who made that type of argument and there's an actual, legitimate, logical argument to jailing people who have been through misdemeanors. At the end of the day, a misdemeanor, even though you may consider a low level crime, is still a crime, right? It's still a crime. Now, the reason why some people are pushing back against this misdemeanor situation is because mostly people who are black are the ones doing it.00:22:31So the concern is that because they are black, most people who are doing misdemeanors are black. That the courts are going to start sending more black people to jail. Is the speculation that just because they want to send people who do misdemeanors to jail for a certain amount of time that this is inherently racist because of it? Since all these black people are doing misdemeanors, they don't deserve to go to jail. It's a racist criminal justice system that is going on here is what some people are saying.00:23:05Another thing that was said about the new House bill is that this district's boundaries look awfully white. You have fondren bell Haven and east over in there. Now, what do those three areas mean here in Jackson? That's where whites live. You captured about 85% of the white population in that district.00:23:25Now, be important somewhere in somebody's court when the facts are laid out. So the increased boundary, another concern is that it's going to be representing more and more white people. Despite Jackson, Mississippi being predominantly black. They feel like that they increase boundaries to make sure that more white representation is counteracting. The black representation and more things can be implemented in terms of the courts, in terms of new bills that will be unfair to the majority community in Mississippi.00:23:57Jackson now, it did also say the area was expended to lower income areas south of Jackson State University. So I'm not really sure if the boundaries are preliminarily only white or the boundaries are also helping white people and lower income. I'm trying to see if this quotes from both sides is done in favor of an agenda or if in reality the boundaries are expanding benefiting both sides. I would need some clarification of that, of course. So those are some of the quotes, those are some of the things.00:24:36Now I want to break down everything a little bit more concretely on the specific reasons why people are calling the new House bill 1020 the return of Jim Crow. Reasoning number one is that the belief that more policing with the Capitol police growing jurisdiction and adding in terms of the policing in Jackson, Mississippi is inherently racist. Of course, this sentiment has been shout out from the left constantly saying that more police, more cops, cops are racist. So more police in these black areas is just more racism. So that is a big idea.00:25:15That is kind of a sentiment from the left is because there's more police, this is inherently a racist thing to do. The second thing is the belief that the state government will abuse their new found power regarding judges and the court system. This bill does inherently give a lot more power to the state, especially when it comes to appointing judges and the court system and their powers. So there's a potential belief, because it's mostly Republican, it's mostly conservative, that it's going to become more and more racist, right? It's going to become more and more against black people inherently, is the potential belief.00:25:59And the third thing that I found is that because there's going to be more white representation, that inherently is going to be more racist because Jackson, Mississippi is predominantly black. So more representation of white people and something that's revolving Jackson, Mississippi is inherently going to be racist. So I'm looking at this in reference to Jim Crow. I think the only thing that people could argue that is potentially related to Jim Crow in any way is that the increased power of the state and the courts could be you could make a slight comparison to how Jim Crow was taken over from former Confederates and racist people. Other than that, inherently, there's nothing in the bill itself that's anti black, pro white, unless I'm missing something.00:26:55I read through a lot. I try to do my research. Of course, I didn't want to read through the entire bill, but I try to look for specific things that made it specifically against black people and I couldn't. Now, the potential of being against black people is there because the worry will be now that the state has more power, the court has more power. It'll be more pro Republican and white, less and more anti black and Democrat is a possibility.00:27:25Is a possibility. But we have to see how it ultimately turns out to really make that claim. But I do see the possibility in the future being there. Overall, I don't really see how this is inherently racist. I don't really see how this is Jim Crow.00:27:47I think it's kind of insult to say this Mississippi House bill is inherently Jim or is comparing itself to Jim Crow in any way. That's like disrespecting the people who've actually been through Jim Crow, who've actually been through a system where the system itself was telling black people how to work. They're getting underpaid. They were put in through the wringer in terms of the work they were doing. It was compared to like, indentured servitude.00:28:15And the systems were inherently against black people. It was segregated against black people. To compare this bill to that period of time is disrespectful. It's foolish. It's ignorant.00:28:29Now, it's possible I miss something. I never want to say that. I'm 100% sure and 100% right in these situations. It's possible that I missed something, and I'm willing to dive into that conversation itself on what I potentially have missed. But from what I've seen, from what I've read, I do think it's an overjudgment.00:28:52And I think it's just a lot of Democrats and a lot, of course, a lot of these Democrats are black people, too. And I can see where their concern comes from. I do. I do see where the concern comes from. But at the same time, to call this Jim Crow I think is very disingenuous to what Jim Crow was really, really like.00:29:14Moving on to Minnesota with the new law that's potentially passing or has already passed called HF 1655. So the idea here is, in referencing pedophilia, and the idea is in referencing sex orientation. Now, there has been some claims out there that this new law that was passed by an individual, I believe I know it was left. I don't want to make any judgments on the person without being 100% sure because I can't remember exactly. But this is to kind of make a more inclusive state in terms of Minnesota, more inclusive in terms of gender identity and more inclusive in terms of homosexuality, all that stuff.00:30:02And some of the backlash in referencing this new bill, HF 1655, or the amendments that this bill introduced, is in referencing sex orientation. Now, initially, this is what the definition of sexual orientation was in the Minnesota civil rights. It said that sexual orientation means having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment or having or being perceived as having a self image or identity not traditionally associated with one's biological maleness or femaleness. Sexual orientation does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult. So the concern here from that definition is that they crossed out parts of the sexual orientation.00:31:04The first part they crossed off is having or being perceived as having self image or identity not traditionally associated with one's biological maleness or femaleness. Now, that part I'm not going to really talk about that much. But the part that a people that is outraged from is that they crossed out the part that says sexual orientation does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult. Why did they cross that part out is the question. Now inherently you can argue that just because they crossed out this portion doesn't mean that they are allowing pedophilia within society.00:31:52But the fact that they cross this out at all is strange. We see a lot of weird crazy lefties trying to implementing different phrases to excuse pedophilies and pedophilic nature trying to tell us to call these dudes maps minor attracted persons. Now there is a distinction from criminalizing demonizing these individuals versus accepting their way of life but still discounting potential dangerous action. And my thing is there are steps to acceptance. We know this.00:32:39I think people need to realize how nuanced a lot of human nature can be because when it comes down to these steps, each step has the potential to introduce a larger step or has the potential to reverse the progress in its entirety. Accepting something as a way of living is definitely a potential step to eventually accepting that person as they are. Now, what I mean by this, there should be no way of acceptance in referencing certain things that happen in society. And pedophilia is 100% one of them. When you try to kind of make them feel better by calling them minor attractive person when you try to introduce their way of being as a sexual orientation, sure you may not be saying okay, let's allow these people to have sex with children.00:33:56What we are you saying is you're trying to humanize them and incorporate them into society as they are and that is a no go for me. Taking this out of the definition of sexual orientation is 100% a way to try to benefit the pedophiles in society. And I think this is one of the dumbest things you probably heard all day because I went over a lot of dumb things that have happened in America as of recently. There should be no way, there should be no remorse, there should be no sight of moral ambiguity when it comes to pedophiles. They're the scumbags of the earth.00:34:44Now, honestly, I'm willing to have a conversation on what they've been through and of course because a lot of can be incorporated with trauma. But I can never and will never excuse the type of person they are. And the action circumstance can breed. The worst type of persons. It's unfortunate, it's true.00:35:07But we should never excuse that type of person in society, ever. The fact that some Minnesota representative tried to sneak this in, I think it was passed or it's at the very least getting introduced I think just tells you that people on the crazy left is trying to do very, very nasty things in society. Nasty things. For example, the drag shows in front of kids, for example, letting kids doing fucking twerking dances. These are disgusting behaviors.00:35:48This is disgusting. Trying to eliminate that part of the definition. They put that in the definition to make sure that there is 100% a distinction between weird ass pedophiles and the rest of society. But you want to cross it out. You want to leave some ambiguity there.00:36:09Minnesota, get your shit together. That is disgusting. And last but not least, of course, I want to talk about title 42. Now Title 42 is the Title 42 ending. Well first let's talk about what title 42 is.00:36:25Title 42 is something that was implemented by Trump to allow the US to turn back migrants for health reasons, mainly due to COVID, making sure that more and more people with potentially having COVID were not entering the borders of the United States of America. Now as Title 42 ends, something has happened. There is speculation out there that due to social media and due to smugglers who want to bring nasty stuff in America, that they have been spreading some misinformation to migrants and telling these migrants that Title 42 ending means that the borders are open and that is 100% not the case. Now we have a tragic situation and where thousands of migrants are trying to enter the United States through our borders and a lot of the people are also bringing children. It's such a tough situation to happen.00:37:24And of course social media being something that spreads misinformation all the time is obviously something we can't do anything about. But it's definitely a concern when we have smugglers who are trying to sneak in some of the nastiest stuffs within our borders. I do feel bad for a lot of people who are trying to migrate in the United States from this misinformation because what they're going through in Mexico with all the violence and destructive things going on in the state is something anybody, any humane person would want to get away from. But in this situation to just allow the flux of migrants to just come in the United States just wouldn't be smart. It would be very dangerous, especially for the border states to allow something to happen like that because you have to control the people who come within the state.00:38:21Now of course we want to make sure that the people who are trying to come in, who have embassy and asylum, I mean, are taken care of in a very humane way. But if this gets worse and worse in terms of the amount of people sorry, but I am sorry, but not sorry in the sense that we have to start making drastic measures when you're in the position of power as a government. I am perfectly fine for all the people who are like humanitarians, who want to look out for people as people, but logically speaking, that when it comes down to it, we are America and our first priority should be Americans and American power.00:39:12If it's unbearable when it comes to the amount of people who are trying to cross the border, america just will have to start doing what it has to do, and I'll leave it at that. Hopefully we can find a very productive solution to this. But it's going to be tough because just because we tell these people, turn back, you can't come across, does that mean that they're going to listen? I'm not really sure. So those are a couple of things that is going on in America recently.00:39:46Like I said, this is an audio only podcast episode and as you can see, a lot of things are going down. Minnesota trying to be pedophilic title 42 in the immigrant situation. We got Jackson, Mississippi, with the potential to be very racist or potentially be more efficient as a state government. We'll have to see how that turns out. And of course, we got California trying to do reparations for black people.00:40:13Will that benefit the black community or will it ruin it even further? The question is definitely there to see how everything turns out. So I hope you guys enjoyed this episode. Of course, y'all let me know what you guys think about the topics at hand. You all have a good one.00:40:30Leave a review for Apple podcasts and Spotify or my website, www.purplepoliticalbreakdown.com. Take care and peace.