Speaker 1: Now let's get to the NAACP.
Speaker 2: In two headlines linked to the civil rights organization, the
Speaker 2: first involves President Donald Trump, the organization announced they will
Speaker 2: not invite the president to their national convention next month
Speaker 2: in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Speaker 1: This would mark the first time.
Speaker 2: The NAACP has opted to exclude a sitting president in
Speaker 2: its one hundred and sixteen year history. NAACP president Derek
Speaker 2: Johnson announced the move during a press conference, accusing Trump
Speaker 2: of working against its mission. Here's a portion of what
Speaker 2: Johnson had to say. Quote this has nothing to do
Speaker 2: with political party. Our mission is to advance civil rights,
Speaker 2: and the current president has made clear that his mission
Speaker 2: is to eliminate civil rights end quote.
Speaker 1: The NAACP has filed.
Speaker 2: Multiple lawsuits against Trump in the last few months, including
Speaker 2: to stop the Department of Education from withholding federal money
Speaker 2: for schools that did not end DEI programs, arguing the
Speaker 2: department was prohibiting legal efforts to provide equal opportunity to
Speaker 2: black students. First things, First, respect to Derek Johnston. Dereck Johnson,
Speaker 2: I understand where you're coming from. I just don't agree, respectfully.
Speaker 2: I don't agree that this was the right decision to make.
Speaker 2: Number One, let's stop associating DEI with black people when
Speaker 2: you talk about diversity, equity, and inclusion. We all know
Speaker 2: that the biggest beneficiaries of DEI has been white women.
Speaker 1: And we all know.
Speaker 2: That folks associate DEI with individuals who weren't qualified but
Speaker 2: were just giving an opportunity so a place could be diverse.
Speaker 2: And that's not what I would classify us as, and
Speaker 2: I'm certainly I'm certain that you wouldn't either, mister Johnson.
Speaker 1: So that's number one.
Speaker 2: Number two, here's where my reticence really really comes in.
Speaker 2: Why not let the forty seventh President of the United
Speaker 2: States come and address the NAACP convention. Why not give
Speaker 2: Donald Trump a chance to sit before your audience, your constituents,
Speaker 2: and explain exactly what he's doing.
Speaker 1: And why why not let him do that?
Speaker 2: Why not let him stand before the very people whose
Speaker 2: lives he's purported to have had a profound effect upon
Speaker 2: with some of his decisions, and let him explain what
Speaker 2: is it that he's doing and why. When we talk
Speaker 2: about the Department of Education again, we all understand that
Speaker 2: our students need all the help that we can get,
Speaker 2: especially in the public schools.
Speaker 1: There's no question about that.
Speaker 2: Federal funding is essential and we understand that. But at
Speaker 2: some point in time don't we have an obligation to
Speaker 2: look at exactly what the Education Department has done and
Speaker 2: whether or not it has served to benefit our commun
Speaker 2: unity as in the black community, along with various communities
Speaker 2: throughout the country, throughout this country, the United States of America.
Speaker 2: Do we just write a check and automatically give it
Speaker 2: to people, taxpayer dollars to people without deciphering how well
Speaker 2: they do their jobs?
Speaker 1: Are we not allowed to probe.
Speaker 2: And a look at them and to say, what exactly
Speaker 2: are you doing with the American dollars? With the taxpayer
Speaker 2: dollars from the American citizens. I don't know the answer.
Speaker 2: I'm not proclaiming to know the answer. I'm simply saying
Speaker 2: I want to hear if the president is taking this
Speaker 2: strong position, and he's campaigned on eradicating the Department of
Speaker 2: Education for years, why does he feel that way? What
Speaker 2: evidence does he have to validate his assertions? And if
Speaker 2: indeed there is profound evidence to support such a position,
Speaker 2: who are those that are supporting it? We need to
Speaker 2: ask those questions, and I think that standing before members
Speaker 2: of the NAACP at your very own convention. I think
Speaker 2: that that would serve well to invite him and let
Speaker 2: him come before you all and try to explain what
Speaker 2: he's doing, so you'll have him on a record, not
Speaker 2: just sound bites that airs on CNN or MSNBC or
Speaker 2: Fox News or ABC, CBS, NBC or whatever. No, let
Speaker 2: him sit before you and explain and defend his position.
Speaker 2: Most importantly, you could try to ignore the President of
Speaker 2: the United States, but you know what can't be ignored
Speaker 2: his actions until twenty twenty eight. Mister Derrick Johnson. He's
Speaker 2: not going away. He's not going away. By the way,
Speaker 2: the NAACP did sue him, and remember sue him with
Speaker 2: a civil suit successfully, I might add, as it pretends
Speaker 2: to the insurrection.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty one on January.
Speaker 2: Sixth, Did that stop him from becoming president again? He's
Speaker 2: been sued, He's been convicted thirty four felony council. Whatever
Speaker 2: did its end up the jail. Didn't he still run
Speaker 2: for reelection? Didn't he still skate right through the GOP.
Speaker 2: Didn't he win the popular vote and the electoral College
Speaker 2: vote and every swing state you don't get to ignore him.
Speaker 2: As my point, he has been the most powerful, the
Speaker 2: most influential member of the GOP since two thy and fifteen.
Speaker 1: How does you refusing to.
Speaker 2: Invite him, ostracizing him, not wanting to hear what he
Speaker 2: has to say to you all? How does that help you?
Speaker 2: How I'm not saying to agree with him. I'm not
Speaker 2: saying side with him. I'm not saying befriend him. I'm
Speaker 2: not saying any of those things. But ignoring him ain't
Speaker 2: gonna get it done. None of you truly want to
Speaker 2: be about the business of helping folks, particularly the disolate
Speaker 2: and disenfranchise in our country, the urban communities throughout America.
Speaker 2: Not that that's all the NAACP does, because I'm certainly
Speaker 2: not implying that. All I'm saying is that clearly is
Speaker 2: who you're interested in helping. Ignoring him and not even
Speaker 2: inviting him to come and speak at your convention, what's
Speaker 2: that going to accomplish.
Speaker 1: For the first time in a one hundred.
Speaker 2: And sixteen year history, you're not inviting your president. Are
Speaker 2: you trying to tell me that there's no president that
Speaker 2: has been as offensive to the NAACP as Donald Trump?
Speaker 2: In one hundred and sixteen years, Are you really making
Speaker 2: that argument that, no matter what you think about Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: that's the only person that's the only president of the
Speaker 2: United States that you've been able to say that about
Speaker 2: in a one hundred and sixteen year history of the NAACP.
Speaker 3: One hundred and sixteen years, doing the math that goes
Speaker 3: back to nineteen oh nine. Since nineteen o nine, there's
Speaker 3: no president that has ever been.
Speaker 2: More offensive to the NAACP than Donald Trump. Is that
Speaker 2: your argument, Let's say, for the sake of arugument, that
Speaker 2: it is for the moment. Other than the progressive left,
Speaker 2: who's going to definitively agree with your position. You might
Speaker 2: have folks out there that want to contribute to the
Speaker 2: courses of the NAACP that are center left and center right.
Speaker 2: They may not agree with Donald Trump either, but they
Speaker 2: recognize the importance of being able to work with the
Speaker 2: President of the United States. Just think about it. I
Speaker 2: don't think this is the right move.
Speaker 1: If all of us had to like the people we had.
Speaker 2: To deal with and do business with, how would business
Speaker 2: ever get done in this country if not this world?
Speaker 2: It's a rhetorical question. Mister Derek Johnson, I know you
Speaker 2: know the answer. Let me move on to a second
Speaker 2: headline involving the NAACP, and this is pertaining the Elon
Speaker 2: Musk in the city of Memphis. The NAACP, along with
Speaker 2: the Southern Environmental Law Center, said they intend to sue
Speaker 2: Elon Musks artificial intelligence company.
Speaker 1: Called x AI.
Speaker 2: They have major concerns about air pollution generated by a
Speaker 2: supercomputer facility located near predominantly black communities in Memphis. The
Speaker 2: XAI data center began operating last year, powered in part
Speaker 2: by pollution emitting gas turbines, without first applying for a permit.
Speaker 1: Officials have said an exemption.
Speaker 2: Allowed them to operate for up to three hundred and
Speaker 2: sixty four days without a permit. However, Southern Environmental Law
Speaker 2: Center says there is no such exemption for turbines and
Speaker 2: that it's now been more than a year. They also
Speaker 2: say the use of the turbines violates the Clean Air
Speaker 2: Act and that residents who lived near the facility already
Speaker 2: face cancer risk at four times the next average. That
Speaker 2: last sentence is all that matters to me, no doubt.
Speaker 2: This is in South Memphis. From what I've read that
Speaker 2: it's a poor and impoverished neighborhood. Now Elon Musk and
Speaker 2: his company will tell you that it's generating billions for
Speaker 2: the local economy, if not at least hundreds of millions
Speaker 2: of dollars.
Speaker 1: They're talking about.
Speaker 2: Plants that are being built, one that's cost over thirty
Speaker 2: five million dollars and something else, and that's going to
Speaker 2: generate jobs. We certainly understand the importance of generating jobs,
Speaker 2: generating revenue, stimulating an economy, making sure that folks within
Speaker 2: the Memphis community, specifically the Memphis community are benefiting. As
Speaker 2: mere Poor Young pointed out, they're trying to make sure
Speaker 2: that the revenue generated, at least twenty five percent of
Speaker 2: that revenue is allocated for folks within a five mile
Speaker 2: radius of this plant. I respect that, I understand it.
Speaker 2: I understand the importance of economics. I understand the importance
Speaker 2: of a flourishing local economy.
Speaker 1: I understand about jobs.
Speaker 2: I get it because you want to pay your bills
Speaker 2: and what have you. But air pollution, risk of cancer
Speaker 2: four times greater than it normally is. What good is
Speaker 2: everything I mentioned? If you're dead, we can't have that.
Speaker 2: We can't have that. So the NAACP, according to law
Speaker 2: is obligated. I you're gonna follow this lawsuit, you gotta
Speaker 2: give them sixty days notice. And that is what has happened.
Speaker 2: So this lawsuit essentially is forthcoming and we'll know the facts.
Speaker 2: And in fairness to Elon Musk and Xai, they've essentially
Speaker 2: said that they they violated no laws. They followed all
Speaker 2: the protocols and the rules and regulations necessary to justify
Speaker 2: doing this project.
Speaker 1: And this is what they're doing.
Speaker 2: But if people, if their health is endangered at four
Speaker 2: times the normal rate of what it normally would be,
Speaker 2: ladies and gentlemen, we got ourselves a problem. And there's
Speaker 2: nobody on this planet, especially nobody in the United States
Speaker 2: of America, especially nobody in Memphis, who should sit silent
Speaker 2: about this. We're as strong as our weakest link. And
Speaker 2: those impoverished living in impoverished neighborhoods need our voice.
Speaker 1: They need our help.
Speaker 2: So we need to keep a watchful eye on this
Speaker 2: and to make sure all the odds are dotted and
Speaker 2: teased across to ensure that while revenue is being generated,
Speaker 2: that corners aren't being cut to potentially compromise the well
Speaker 2: being of the impoverished, amongst us. They matter just as
Speaker 2: much as the rest of us, just as much as
Speaker 2: the rest of us, and there's no way in hell
Speaker 2: that we should sit outly, buy and be quiet off
Speaker 2: something like this. It's potentially going on.
Speaker 1: So while I.
Speaker 2: Disagreed with the NAACP's position about inviting Trump to their
Speaker 2: convention to speak, I applaud the NAACP for bringing attention
Speaker 2: to this by announcing that they're gonna follow this lawsuit
Speaker 2: to get this matter addressed. Good looking out, mister Johnson,
Speaker 2: Good looking out.