#RolandMartinUnfiltered - Joshua Brown's killers found; SCOTUS LGBT employment case; Penn State athlete gets racist mail

Episode Date: October 10, 2019

10.8.19 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Joshua Brown's killers found; SCOTUS hears LGBTQ employment rights case; Young man who served 10 days for missing jury duty has his record cleared; Penn State athlete gets racist mail; More pictures from Tyler Perry's studio grand opening + We're celebrating Rev Jesse Jackson, Sr.'s 78th birthday. - #RolandMartinUnfiltered partner: Life Luxe Jazz Life Luxe Jazz is the experience of a lifetime, delivering top-notch music in an upscale destination. The weekend-long event is held at the Omnia Dayclub Los Cabos, which is nestled on the Sea of Cortez in the celebrity playground of Los Cabos, Mexico. For more information visit the website at lifeluxejazz.com. Can't make it to Los Cabos for the Life Luxe Jazz Fest? Get your live stream pass at https://gfntv.com/ - #RolandMartinUnfiltered partner: 420 Real Estate, LLC To invest in 420 Real Estate’s legal Hemp-CBD Crowdfunding Campaign go to http://marijuanastock.org Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Thank you. Today is Tuesday, October 8th, 2019. Coming up on Roland Martin Unfiltered, Dallas police announce three men wanted in connection with the death of Joshua Brown, the witness who testified in the Botham-Jean case, will give you the details. The Supreme Court is hearing her arguments today about LGBT employment rights.

We'll talk with the CEO of the leading black LGBT organization. Also look at why we have to engage the black community if we want to stop digital disinformation, the impact that Russia had on targeting African Americans in the 2016 election. You know, the one where Donald Trump said they didn't do anything, but we know that was a lie. A young man who served 10 days for a missing jury duty

has his record cleared. Why in the hell he had a record in the first place? And a Penn State athlete receives a racist fan mail will show you the letter and how a Penn State athlete receives a racist fan mail. We'll show you the letter and how the Penn State community is responding. And also, more photos and videos from Tyler Perry's grand opening

of the Tyler Perry Studios in Atlanta. Plus, yes, another crazy-ass white woman. And today is the 70th birthday of Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr. We wish him a happy birthday. It's time to bring the funk

on Roller Martin Unfiltered. Let's go. He's got it. Whatever the piss, he's on it. Whatever it is, he's got the scoop, the fact, the fine. And when it breaks, he's right on time. And it's rolling. Best belief he's knowing.

Putting it down from sports to news to politics. With entertainment just for kicks He's rollin' Yeah, yeah It's Uncle Roro, y'all Yeah, yeah It's Rollin' Martin Yeah, yeah

Rollin' with Rollin' now Yeah, yeah He's funky, he's fresh, he's real The best you know, he's fresh, he's real, the best you know He's rolling, Martin Martin All right, folks, Joshua Brown, of course, the man who testified in the Botham Jean case,

Amber Guy, of course, was sent to prison, shot and killed on Friday. Today, Dallas police announced that three men are wanted in his death. A news conference took place today in Dallas where they revealed the details of that particular case. This is the video from that news conference earlier today. Police Department, I'm over at the Criminal Investigation Unit. So first, let me thank you for coming out on such short notice. I appreciate it.

The city of Dallas appreciates it, as well as the Dallas Police Department. As you know, Joshua Brown was shot and killed October the 4th of 2019. He was shot and killed at 4606 Cedar Springs in Dallas, Texas, which is why we gathered here today. First, I would like to acknowledge Joshua's family. We in the Dallas Police Department grieve with you. We understand how hard it is and how much pain is related to losing a loved one. No family member should have to suffer that kind of pain.

I want you to know that the Dallas Police Department is working diligently on your behalf to solve this case. It's our policy that we pursue all murder suspects. We pursue them aggressively. We pursue them thoroughly with the hope of bringing closure to the family. As you know, I've said it before, that we value human life. We understand that there are some in the community that do not, but the Dallas Police Department does value human life. Through the dedicated work of my detectives, we have identified three suspects in the Joshua Brown murder. Jacarius Mitchell, black male, 20 years of age. Michael Mitchell, black male, 20 years of age. Michael Mitchell, black male, 32 years of age.

Thaddeus Green, black male, 22 years of age. According to suspect, Eucharist Mitchell, all three suspects came from Alexandria, Louisiana, to purchase drugs from Joshua Brown. Thaddeus Green was the facilitator. He's the one that contacted Joshua Brown. As they drove to the offense location, Thaddeus Green gets out of the vehicle,

has a conversation with Joshua Brown, which escalates into physical altercations, at which time Jacarius Mitchell gets out of the vehicle and he states that Joshua Brown orders him back into the vehicle and shoots him in the chest. As he's laying in the vehicle, he hears two more gunshots. He says that Thaddeus Green shot Joshua Brown two times. According to the autopsy report, Joshua Brown was shot two times in his lower body.

One was a three and through, and the other entered his body just below the spine, traveled upward, damaging vital organs. Thaddeus Green also took the backpack that Joshua Brown had as well as the gun that Joshua Brown had. Michael Mitchell was the driver. He dropped Thaddeus Green off at an unknown location and he took Jacarius Mitchell to Promise Hospital to receive treatment. He was later transported to Parkland Hospital, where he is currently in police custody. We will execute a warrant for capital murder on him today. We also received numerous tips as it related to the killing of Mr. Brown, and in that we executed a search warrant at Mr. Brown's apartment, where we confiscated 12 pounds of marijuana, 143 grams of THC cartridges, and $4,000 in cash. We have also issued capital murder

warrants for the other two suspects, Michael Mitchell and Thaddeus Green. I want to assure the citizens of Dallas that we will continue to be transparent and we will provide updates as they materialize concerning this case. We as the police department need your help in capturing the two fugitives that are not in custody. We've partnered with our federal partners and we're in pursuit of them as I speak. If you know the whereabouts of these two suspects, please contact your local police department or the Dallas Police Department at 214-373-8477 or 214-671-3690.

These suspects are to be considered dangerous because they're armed. Again, I want to thank you for coming out under such short notice. I thank you for trusting us to provide you with true and accurate information. I thank you, our community members, for partnering with us and believing in us as we pursue these fugitives. I'd be remiss if I didn't thank my detectives. I've said it. Come on. A slight issue there.

Let's go to our panel right here. Dr. Jason Nichols, Department of African American Studies, University of Maryland. Also, Caleb Bethel, Communications Strategist. And Malik Abdul, Republican Strategist. The mayor over the weekend, Jason, tweeted out to folks not to engage in wild speculation. Folks were on social media saying this was a plot. He was targeted. They went after him.

And even now, even though they've come out and made this announcement, people say, oh, no, they planted these drugs. They said that to come out and say they found marijuana in this guy's apartment. But also that was a shooting that took place in November involving Joshua Brown. It took place outside of a strip club as well. And he said that he feared they were going to come back and harm him. What do you make of, again, people immediately saying, oh, no, no, the cops, they're the ones who actually were behind, uh, the murder of Joshua Brown. You know, um, I think it shows

the lack of trust that many of our community, uh, have for law enforcement, and that's a reputation that law enforcement has earned. And I think Amber Guyger did law enforcement no favors with her actions, uh, to make people think that they can't trust law enforcement, that they can't believe in law enforcement. Um, as far as what occurred, uh,

right now, it looks like this was the case. I mean, he was selling marijuana, but marijuana, again, will be legal within a couple of years. We have people who are marijuana barons all over the country. This says nothing about his character. He was carrying, he had guns, he carried guns. As you guys, as Southerners know, many people in the South have guns. That doesn't make, you know, say anything negative about his

character. I, you know, the thing that did stand out to me about that press conference was the fact that they felt the need, even with the picture behind them, to say that these were black males. You know, we saw that clearly on the screen that the suspects were black males, but for some reason they had to, you know, emphasize the fact that the suspects were black males. I didn't really understand what the need for that was.

Other than really to take a shot at people who were, you know, maybe had some different ideas about what happened to Joshua Brown. Kelly. I don't believe this story. I'll just say it flat out. Why? Just by way of how the trial went, I don't recall the defense once,

uh, cross-examining, um, Joshua Brown regarding his character and, um, potential criminal activity, potential possession or anything. Because in cross-examination, your job is to discredit that witness as much as you can. And during that time... But if you did not know any of this,

you could not... You can't say the potential. I mean, if he had been convicted of drug dealing, that's the difference. I understand that, but what I'm saying is you're telling me that an entire defense team who's defending a cop didn't have the resources at their disposal

to find out everything they could about their star witness in a high-profile murder trial? What I'm saying, but if you did not know... What I'm saying is I don't think there was anything to not know. This doesn't make any sense to me. Driving a total of 10 hours for a weed re-up?

That doesn't make any sense to me. Having three people... It's actually, it's happened. I mean, it's not... Louisiana has Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Shreveport. You're telling me you can't find any type of marijuana within state lines? You had to cross to Texas to find good weed

for Louisiana customers? That doesn't make any sense to me. Well... I think, to the first question that you asked, Jason, I think this was another case of confirmation bias. People wanted to believe it. And I would go further. Yes, police is a part of it, but I also think it's just, it's race. It's easy to believe that a young black, well, you know, a black man who testified in a case against a white cop, that something, that the thing that

happened to him happened because he was black or that he testified or whatever, you know, so that part didn't surprise me. I was, of course, I was pushing back on the notion, and to me, it actually didn't make sense that he would be killed after he gave testimony. That too. Not before he gave testimony. If the conspiracy was true, that there was something that was, you know, in the police department or whatever. To the point about, you know, and I'm no marijuana aficionado, but, you know, 12 pounds is a lot of weed.

It's a lot of weed. So I can definitely see people driving hours and hours and hours away outside of their state to get 12 pounds. Well, I don't know that they were buying 12 pounds. Well, what they said. And that's risky. If you already know that Louisiana doesn't have it. But people, I mean, people actually drive from, people drive across state lines to get weight.

And Coke? Heroin, man? And marijuana, too. First, look, you had a guy who played for the San Diego Chargers, of course, who got busted for funding where they were transmitting cough syrup from California to Texas. So the idea that people don't drive for drugs is just not true. I'm not saying they don't drive for drugs. But he was a supplier. I mean, if he had 12 pounds of marijuana,

he was a supplier. He wasn't the person who was actually on the corner selling the marijuana. Like, if he's a supplier and the defense didn't know that at trial, that doesn't make any sense. How did he not cross that? But I don't know. If there was no indication

that he was involved in the criminal activity, then what basis would they have? If you're able to get 12 pounds of weed... Let me just say one thing about the drugs. Number one, there's an old saying that I've heard from people who are involved in that business, and that is, you don't poop where you eat.

Right. So in many cases, people try to go, you know, in distance, and who knows if they didn't rob... They weren't intending to rob him. Because Alexandria looked like he was alone with 12 pounds of wheat. Here's what we know. What we know is, based upon people

getting information, tips coming in, one of the guys who was involved in this, allegedly, was one of the people who got shot. Yeah. He was kind of a little pitched off by them. In the chest, I think. He's the one who was in the hospital who told the cops what the hell happened. And so the other two have not, they're still trying to arrest them right now.

We'll certainly hear more about this and we'll have those details. And so again, two individuals Dallas police are looking for, they have charged them with murder and they're waiting to arrest them and look for them as we speak. And so we'll give you those details as they come available. All right, folks, let's talk about the Supreme Court today. They heard a case that deals with the issue of whether or not folks who are LGBT are covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, of course. Now, there are three cases. The federal court deals with the issue of anti-discrimination, known as Title VII, which protects gay and trans workers

from being fired because of who they are. Now, that law does not mention sexual orientation or gender identity, but LGBTQ advocates argue when someone is fired for being LGBTQ, that is covered under Title VII's ban on discrimination because of sex. Joining us right now is David Johns, Executive Director of the National Black Justice Coalition. David, obviously this is a big case that took place today with the Supreme Court. How significant is this?

Because there are some who are suggesting that if you are gay, if the Supreme Court rules against the plaintiff here, that means that anyone can be fired if they are gay, if the Supreme Court rules against the plaintiff here, that means that anyone can be fired if they are gay or lesbian. All right, so the question for you, David, are you there? Yes, I can hear you now. The question is, some folks are saying that if the Supreme Court rules against the plaintiff here, that it will open the door for anyone being gay or trans to be fired by an employer. Yeah, at its core, to be clear, there are two cases that were argued before the Supreme Court today,

one that was more specific to whether or not it is legal to discriminate, to fire someone, to deny them the entitlement of dignity that comes with employment based on sexual identity. And then the second separate case asks a similar but different question based on gender identity. And that's the one that a lot of people are talking about with regard to what it means to be a trans and legal protection, specifically Title VII protection

around trans identity. In that case, there is a level of nuance, given that we just simply have a lot more that we have to learn, that individuals within the LGBTQ community and trans folks in particular have to teach other people, including the justices, folks in the media, policymakers, about trans identity and all that it encompasses. But again, at its core, the question that was asked today is whether or not one can be fired and legally protected in firing somebody simply because their gender identity does not match the biological sex determination that was made at birth. And when we talk about this case, obviously, many civil rights organizations are looking at this case. And

first of all, were you at the court today for the hearing? No, Amy J. Huston was represented today at the Supreme Court by Ashley Marie Payton, a phenomenal trans advocate who really talked about the importance of ensuring that the needs of black trans women are centered as we have these conversations. It is black trans women that are disproportionately impacted by these types of decisions, the ability for employers in spaces where black people live, where black LGBTQ people are concentrated. Again, we live in the South, in states where it is now legal to do this. And so the ability for employers to deny black trans women, the ability to make a livable wage, would, to be clear, make it more difficult for them to

live. And so she talked about that. And then Nikesha Lewis, who does a lot of labor work, also represented MBJC talking about the impact to the gay, lesbian and bisexual members of the community. We should all be clear, both LGBTQ people, that the attacks on trans people in particular will not, they've continued attack to then come against the right for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to enjoy some of the civil liberties that we now might take for granted. For example, my ability to put a picture of my partner. I'm single, Roland. I know you know a lot of people.

You can help a brother out in that regard at some point. No, I don't hook up nobody. I don't hook up gay people. I don't hook up heterosexual people, because if it goes sideways, y'all ain't looking at me. It's like Sherri Shepherd. She still met that Niecy Nash for introducing her to her ex-husband.

No, I don't do no introductions. Nope. OK, listen. So the point here, however, is that there are states where I could be fired for putting a picture of my partner, the one that I'm going to benefit on my desk. And the court is going to be deciding in ways that might affect that in the future. So I'm thankful for both Ashley Marie Payne and for Nakeisha for representing NBJC today. All right. Well, we certainly will see how the Supreme Court rules based upon people, you know, you really can't guess

how it goes. But I read one of the stories where Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch was seen as, you know, someone on the side of the plaintiff. So we'll certainly see how this court rules. David Johns, we appreciate it.

Thanks a lot. Thank you for making time. Appreciate you making space as well for this conversation. Thanks a lot. Thank you for making time. Appreciate you making space as well for this conversation. Thanks a bunch to our panel. Again, this is one of those things where we talk about civil rights laws going before the Supreme Court.

Folks are watching to see how this conservative court, 5-4, will rule. Yeah, so I actually read the article about Gorsuch. And what people should understand about it, so if you are gay, and even on the federal level, so you can't go before EEOC and claim discrimination

on the basis of your, what is it, sexual orientation, I believe it is. So people may assume that you can, but you can't. And I think that on the federal level, it definitely makes sense. Now, Gorsuch, Gorsuch, Gorsuch. I thought it was Gorsuch. George Gorsuch. What he did say, and actually I agree with, is that this is something that Congress should have actually handled. And I think that Congress should. And I think that there should be protections in federal law to so that you can't fire someone for being gay. It's not something that, you know, I haven't done a lot of research,

and I don't think that it's something as far as being gay happens a lot, but I think now that we're seeing as far as transgenders, I think we're seeing more instances where transgenders are actually discriminated against, but I don't think that as far as just gay and lesbian, that there are many, there are a lot of instances, not that there are not any, but there are a lot of instances where they're being fired for the sexual orientation. But whether it's through Congress or not, there's something that needs to be just enshrined in law. And I think the argument, the Title VII argument, and actually I get that argument because

we did research on this even when I was working at an agency, but the Title VII argument, you know, the question is, well, what do you do about that? Because that has, it has not included sexual orientation in there. And so the question before the court... No, not sexual. No, it has sex.

Yeah, just sex, but not sexual orientation. Sex and, you know, we also have to think about what they, what sex meant when they wrote it in, you know, the 60s. Right, right. And I think that would include, you know, there was a confusion between sex and gender, which would include gender identity, which in my opinion. And this is new stuff for a lot of us, even me.

Yeah, I mean, people didn't necessarily talk about these things the same way at that time, but, you know, people thought gender and sex were the same thing, you know, that they were married to one another, and now we're realizing, of course, that that's not true, but sex also meant your gender identity, so you could certainly

interpret it that way, but I agree with you actually here. I don't know if that's the conservative argument or not, but Congress should handle this. Should have handled this. They should have. You know what I mean? It... You know, boggles my mind that they didn't actually think, hey, let's just be, you know, let's just err on the side...

Boggles your mind that Congress didn't think? Right. Not me. Kelly, real quick. Um, I'm surprised that you all are saying that EEOC does not include sexual orientation. On their website, it says, quote, discrimination against an individual because of gender identity, including transgender status or because of sexual orientation, is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. So that's on the EEOC site.

And is that new? No. Because when you're talking about EEOC, you actually have to prove that you were discriminated on that particular basis. Absolutely, but that's with any other protected class that you are filing under. So for me, the fact that EEOC already has this policy,

I understand that it's not law and the courts are split. I was in front of Title VII. What Title VII says. The Title VII is actually of the Civil Rights Act. That's where they were arguing against it. But I don't think that sexual orientation is mentioned in Title VII. No, it's been interpreted

that way with the EOC. And I feel like because it's been interpreted that way, it should stay that way. Because at the end of the day, what does it matter who you have sex with, how you identify if you're just working? If Congress had acted and cleared this up,

people wouldn't make the argument that... Absolutely. But that's Congress. But that's why we're here. But that's why you're in the Supreme Court. All right, folks, got to go to a break. When we come back, we'll talk about how the Russians targeted and used black folks to, folks, got to go to a break. When we come back, we'll talk about how the Russians targeted and used black folks to,

yes, they trolled us in the 2016 campaign. The Senate Intelligence Committee, they've now come out and said that's the case. My guess is, I told y'all ass that last year. You should listen to a sister. That's next on Roller Martin Unfiltered. You want to check out Roland Martin Unfiltered? YouTube.com

forward slash Roland S. Martin. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. There's only one daily digital show out here that keeps it black and keep it real. It's Roland Martin Unfiltered. See that name right there? Roland Martin Unfiltered. Like, share, subscribe to our YouTube channel. That's YouTube.com forward slash

Roland S. Martin. And don't forget to turn on your notifications so when we go live, you'll know it. All right, folks, you heard me talk a lot about marijuana stock.org because I want to keep you informed of investment opportunities that make sense. We've all watched the growth of the cannabis industry.

A recent report by New Frontier Data estimates the global cannabis market at more than $340 billion. Now, we know that marijuana legalization is sweeping the country state by state., we know that marijuana legalization is sweeping the country state by state. We also know that marijuana has a good cousin, the hemp plant, with a much higher concentration of CBD. That means hemp gives you all the medical benefits of marijuana without getting you high. Until recently, hemp farming was practically legal

in the U.S. and heavily regulated by the DEA. However, the 2018 Farm Bill changed all of that, making it legal to grow hemp CBD in the U.S., thus creating one of the largest commodities worldwide. Now, this is, of course, very simple. That is the folks at 420 Real Estate, but their plan is very simple. Their business model, they buy land that supports hemp CBD grow operations and lease it to licensed high-paying tenants. That's right. They are hemp CBD landlords, and you can get in on the action. Now, my friends at 420 Real Estate have something special for the Roland Martin unfiltered viewers.

Originally, the minimum investment level was $500, but you can get in and invest in this crowdfunding campaign for as little as $200. That's right, $200 up to $10,000. Again, this is a $340 billion industry that is still growing. You can participate with as little as $200. For more information, go to marijuana stock.org.

That's marijuana stock.org for you to get in the game and get in the game now. Let's talk about the 2016 campaign. Donald Trump has continued to say that the Russians had nothing to do with his win. It was all him. He also swears, of course, that he got more votes than Hillary Clinton, which we know that he's a lying ass. Now, Russian operatives associated with the St. Petersburg-based

Internet Research Agency used social media to conduct an information warfare campaign designed to spread disinformation in the United States. The Senate Intelligence Committee found that no single group of Americans was targeted more than African Americans.

Race and related issues were the preferred target of the information warfare campaign designed to divide the country in 2016. Hmm. Really, they laid that out? Well, my next guest, Shereen Mitchell, the social analyst and diversity strategist, her research last year showed that. And so, Shireen, glad to have you on

Roland Martin Unfiltered. So, um, hmm. So, essentially, the Senate goes, -"Hey, Shireen, you were right." -"Exactly. Exactly." So, um, the challenge is that what happened was, uh, what we did was we took the House Intelligence, uh, release of the 3,500 Russian ads, we dumped it into a database, and then we decided to look at who the targets were based on what

the topics were. That was the House Intelligence Committee did it in May, and we did our report before the 2018 elections. And in that instance, we basically said that the ultimate target was to focus on black identity, to suppress the vote, and to rile up those who had racial tensions against black people. And if you look at the web of our data, you can actually see that black identity

was connected to everything that was listed which is like Second Amendment is Islam we can go down to like connections to Tucker Carlson like everything was literally connected in our web with with the center and the intensity being black identity. Outside the web was other groups, which is why this part is really important, because now the Senate Intelligence Committee is basically saying, yes, we now know that not only race was targeted, but African Americans were targeted. So outside our spectrum of the web is Latino and Chicano issues.

Outside our web is Native American, indigenous issues. And then there's like this really weird, funky, you know, outside part that's like focused on like memes for white boys in college. The intensity of the data shows how fierce and how targeted they were on not only using black identity to suppress the vote, but using black identity to rile up other groups. And what you had is you had folks, you had these Russian trolls, who were encouraging black folks not to vote. Yes. You had individuals who were saying Hillary is the exact same as Donald Trump.

Yes. Don't waste your time. Go on and on and on. And what happened? There was a two point four percent decrease in black turnout. And you really had them targeting 18 and 39 year olds by saying that she was the same as Trump. Same policies. They were really amplifying the whole super predators comment. All of those different things. They also discovered that what? One of the biggest Black Lives Matter Facebook pages was actually

a Russian front? Yes. Yes. Like there was so many. So the thing is the way that we came to this information was that we were tracking how often we were seeing these fake accounts pretending to be black women and we and for us who know how this works black women are like the key to the black vote and so the fact that they were pretending to be black women was on top of the issue but this part about

using the super predator key piece is really important because there was no conversation about Trump and and the way that he treated the exonerated five right but we have her being repeated all over the place saying super predator we we have issues where we were looking at the crime bill but we're not talking about where some of that started so using her as as this prop up on this particular issue about crime was also key to kind of suppressing some of the vote. Let's just be clear, though. I don't want to turn this into it was us that made this happen because we have to understand that overwhelmingly white Americans voted for this guy. Like some people may not have shown up to vote. Some people may have not been able to get to vote

because of information that was being also disseminated falsely by the Russian IRA accounts. So they were basically telling people, oh, don't stay in line, just text your vote. That's voter suppression. So there was a combination of activities that were going on that includes the stuff that was happening on the ground and what we now know as digital voter suppression.

Questions? So considering the states that Hillary actually lost, is there data showing that the black vote was affected in those states? Like, is that Michigan, Wisconsin? Like, is there data, actual data that's showing that in these states, the percentage of black voters were fewer than whatever they should have been? What does that data actually look like? Yeah, there's two data points.

The first one I want to talk about is the Brennan Center just put out their report that shows that between 2016 and present, there were over 17 million voters who were suppressed, and they show the states. The states purged, I'm sorry, not suppressed, but actually purged. Wisconsin is like the reddest state of suppression. In other words, the way in which they were purging was up to 18%. The other part that I always love when people ask this question, because they always bring up Michigan. So the troll farm framework about them both being the same in Michigan is where you see that happen, i.e. 90,000 people made it to the polls and decided not to vote top of the ticket. They voted completely down ballot,

but left the top voided. Which is rare as hell. Rare on every... I mean, most people, most... It's the highest at the top of the ticket, and then it just drops as you go down. No. So in this case, we have the evidence. 90K literally left out top of the ticket

and voted all the way down. And also, let's be clear, he won by 77K. So just imagine if that wasn't being pushed out there as a narrative. So did the bots, were the Russian bots responsible for people not voting top of the ticket? No, so there's a conversation about psych ops versus what people actually do. So if they believe that they were both the same, they would not vote top of the ticket. So if the message is sent out multiple times, which is disinformation, that these are the same people,

i.e., by the way, super predator, but not exonerated five, it somehow seems to miss people's thought process. I'm sorry. Oh, so do we know what areas in Michigan, and I know I'm getting really specific, but if we're talking about 90K votes

and we're going to assume, say, 80,000 of them were for Hillary, do we know what areas, like, was it in Detroit? You know, were those votes cast in Dearborn? Areas that you would expect that she would win, or were they all over? We're talking about just the entire state of Michigan.

Right now, we're talking about the entire state of Michigan. So now I can make a comparison, because the new data came out from the Brenner Center about which states that actually didn't vote top of the ticket in comparison to, by the way, those who were purged. Because the part that people still don't understand is, like, it's not just about people who are disenfranchised in a way

that they don't think they should go out and vote or being told wrong places to vote, polling places, text your vote, or all these other messages that they may believe that was being sent, by the way. And some of this messaging is still being repeated by... Just FYI. Some of this messaging is still being repeated by, just FYI, some of this messaging is literally

happening right now. But what's different is now we can now start to look at an overlay between what we now know as the states that were being purged and the overlay of the disinformation campaigns.

So, regarding two parts. There has been talk about and the overlay of the disinformation campaigns. So regarding... So two parts. There has been talk about the potential breaking up of Facebook because of this. One, how do you feel about that? And just in general, what are next steps in terms of preventing this for 2020? So is there?

There should be next steps, but, like, as of today, what the Senate Intelligence Committee just reported out, we're three years late trying to figure out, oh, this happened. And that's thank you to the Republican Party

and Senator Mitch McConnell. That's why. Senator Mitch McConnell has refused and Trump has refused to do anything when it comes to protecting our elections. They have made excuses. And McConnell's not only very late to the game by saying, oh, I'll go ahead and allow the bill to go forward, which the House overwhelmingly passed.

Yes. Republicans voted for it to properly protect our elections. But Republicans in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, haven't done a damn thing. So the onus is on them. That's just fact. Fact. However, we still have to do something.

Like, something has to happen. Right. Just acknowledging it, of course, is not enough. Like, we're at the stage where I think more and more people, from my perspective, when my report first came out, acknowledging it, of course, is not enough. Like, we are... we're at the stage where I think more and more people would... From my perspective, when my report first came out, nobody wanted to believe it even existed. Mm-hmm.

Now we're at three years later saying, okay, this thing happened. And now we actually know who was specifically targeted. Now it's three years later, and of course the game has changed. Like, they have morphed and figured out new ways... come at us. We not know they access election centers. Yes. I mean, so we know that.

Yes. And what we don't know is if they install a malware that's sitting there and it will wait to spring up come October and November. Yes. Yeah, so I just wanted to mention very quickly about just the whole disinformation part that you mentioned about super predators. Well, like, for me, and these aren't people,

these weren't Russian bots, but super predators was a real conversation that people were having in the black community. That's not the point. That's not the point. If you looked at... Don't dismiss it. It's true. I'm not dismissing it, but what I'm saying is

if you look... The point is, when she talked about cyber ops, when you look at the documentary The Great Hack, and when you look at how information,

how information is being fed, and how you're being deluged with the information, and the whole point is how can I impact someone psychologically that then changes their perception when it

comes to voting? That documentary, The Great Hack, just laid it out how Cambridge Analytica understood it, how they used it in other countries, and how they were very clear on how they were targeting white rural voters, and how they were very clear on how they were targeting white rural voters

and just... and how specific they were with certain phrases and how it was used. So the point was not that... The point was not that that wasn't an issue. The point that Shereen is saying is, how is it that you had this super-elevated conversation with Hillary Clinton and super predators... And nothing.

But you had, way down here, Donald Trump saying, taking the full-page ad out, and they should, uh, uh, uh, get the death penalty. So, so... And so if there's... Because... No, no, no. Not full-page ad, just to...

Like, a full-page ad to lynch these innocent boys in Central Park. That was not repeated. And I don't understand how we can have this conversation without... No, no, no. What she's saying is if you have, like, this much conversation here, and

this little amount of conversation, what is actually driving this much conversation? When really what it should have been is sort of like, if there was a lot of conversation about black people, about super predators. And if it was both. Those aren't the same thing to me.

I'm actually going to agree with Malik here in the sense that I heard both, but that actually adds to what Shireen is saying, because it made many African-Americans feel like they're the same, that they're not different. That's what drove voter participation down. And so I heard the same conversation about super predators and you know, I heard a whole lot.

Yeah, I heard a whole lot about Central Park Five. That was, no, no, no, no, no, No, it wasn't. If you look at the data... No, no, no. Shereen, Shereen, if you look at the data... Go ahead. The data, the Central Park Five conversation was not in it. Right. Is this mainstream?

Like, is there a difference between black media and, like, mainstream media? I think you have to take it... I vote for mainstream. Hold on one second, one second. Shereen, go ahead. So, so, just so that we're clear about this, like, yes, our community has debates

about this particular issue. But let's just also be clear. Hillary Clinton said super predator. She was the first lady. She did not write the bill. She did not vote for the bill. She did not have anything to do with the bill out of her saying super predator,

but none of that was talked about. By the way, the person who wrote the thing is running for office right now. The person who voted for it is running for office right now. But Hillary Clinton was the only... But Clinton, who is the president who signed off on it, was not punished for that, and you're punishing Hillary Clinton... Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton? because the president who signs off on it was not punished for that,

and you're punishing Hillary Clinton... Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton? No, no, no. One second. Hold on. Hold on one second. One second. Because, again, I want Shireen to explain this to people, because this is the difference. What Shireen is saying, correct me if I'm wrong,

what you're saying is if you look at the data, you had so much conversation, and you then ask yourself... And then when you start breaking at the data, you had so much conversation. And you then ask yourself, and then when you start breaking apart the data, it's what actually is being reported. And so again, if you take that, you take in the documentary The Great Hack and how it was, how certain phrases were used,

what she's saying is that, wait a minute, if you had this super high number of mentions of Super Predator on these social media platforms and tweets, on Facebook, so if you had Super Predator here and you had Central Park here, that would say, wait, but hold up, hold up. How could you have that level of disparity? Central Park here... Yes. That would say, wait, but hold up, hold up. How is... How could you have that level of disparity? That's what I think she's saying when it comes to the data. But that... I get that part, but I don't compare Super Predator

and Trump's comments about Central Park 5. Because for me, Super Predators was something that actually fueled what we're now trying to undo in our criminal justice system. And that full-page ad fueled the potential issue of five innocent... The one full-page ad in a one... Hold up, hold up, hold up.

Hold up, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Hold up, hold up. We are not going... First of all, we're going to say actual facts. It was not just a single full-page ad. OK. No, no, one second, one second, one second. One second, one second. It was a full-page ad in multiple papers and Interviews.

And multiple interviews. Yep. But again, but again, I think, see, you're getting caught up in the wrong thing. No, that's not what I'm saying. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, listen. No, listen.

No, listen. One with the law, one with the comments. First of all, I'm not comparing the law and the ad. What Shereen is laying out... The level. No. I get it. No. Not the level. What she's laying out is the intensity of

a discussion on social media, which now causes you to say, okay, what was fueling it? Because if it was a natural, organic conversation, you would have similar numbers in terms of folks talking about it. What she's saying is, no, no, because you would.

What you had is... Super... Okay, okay. We're talking about an actual law. Malik, Malik. Superparity was a mythical term that Hillary Clinton used to describe... If you don't understand

if you don't understand data, if you don't understand a clear, concerted communication strategy that drives a conversation, and so, what she's saying is if you actually study the data and see where it was coming from,

what you had is, you had this... A deluge. No, no, no, no. You had a rocket ship fueled by jet fuel. I get it. That was driving this thing. Right.

That was throwing out so much stuff. Right. And you virtually had a small amount over here. So the issue here is, who was driving it, and why were they driving it? And to her point, it was all designed to purposely turn African Americans against Hillary Clinton.

Shereen, is that correct? That is correct. Also, also, please be clear as I'm sitting here. I have to understand. I grew up in Harlem. I was there in 1989. I will tell you what happened to my community when this whole thing went down. I will never in 1989. I will tell you what happened to my community when this whole thing went down.

I will never forget it. I will also say that the fact that what I watched happen in comparison to that dude and Hillary Clinton is night and freakin' day from my experience living through the rest of that. Well, from my experience living in the United States of America, who actually heard Hillary Clinton make those comments about black... She made the comments.

It was a mythical term that she decided to use and she was out there advocating. Whether she didn't sign, whether she signed... Malik, Malik, Malik, Malik, Malik, Malik. We're still trying to undo it. No, Malik. She did. Melick, Melick, Melick. We're still trying to undo the law. No, Melick. She did. Melick, you're hung up.

Why were we in a conversation comparing the two? Here's why. I didn't bring that up. That's why. She had nothing to do with the law. Because your argument is that they should be here. But she had nothing to do with the law. And they shouldn't be here.

Super Predators was much bigger. No, no, no. Than what Trump said. No, no, no, no, no. There was a law that gave out Super Predators. That was a bigger. No, no, no. What Trump said. No, no, no. There was a law that was a law. That was a law. No, you're wrong.

Malik, you're wrong. Yes, it did. So when she was talking about super predators, what was she referring to? Shireen, go ahead. 1989-90 conversations. 1989 is when he pushed that whole agenda. No, no, I'm talking about Super Priest.

Excuse me, Shireen finish. Let's not do this. Shireen finish. Okay, but let's not do this. Don't interrupt then. Don't interrupt. Let's not do this. Don't interrupt then.

She won't do that. Okay, well, let's not do this then. If you don't interrupt, she's not holding her hand up. This is what we do on the show. Excuse me, no, no, no. I am the host of this show. Excuse me. But we don't hold hands up. Excuse me. If you don't interrupt, she doesn't have to hold her hand up. But we don't have to do that at all. But don't hold her hand up. This is what we feel on the show. Excuse me. No, no, no. I am the host of this show. Excuse me. But we don't hold hands up.

Excuse me. If you don't interrupt, she doesn't have to hold her hand up. But we don't have to do that at all. But don't hold your hand up. Go ahead and finish your point. Shireen, hey, Mimela, I got this. Shireen, finish your point. In 1990, there was a whole history of, like, these Harvard execs or researchers who basically

came up with broken windows. This is not Super Predator, but this is the lead to Super Predator conversation. And then we got to 1994. By the way, 1989 was Mayor Dinkins. 1994 was Rudy Giuliani. And he is the one that changed the policy to institute what is now in policy called stop and frisk.

That's where the law came from, not Hillary Clinton and super predators. And here's the piece. This conversation has nothing to do with her comment in terms of what was higher. What we're talking about here, with what Shereen's report laid out, now the Senate Intelligence Committee,

is how Russian troll farms took keywords and phrases and used it to purposely drive the anxiety and targeting of black voters, and how they also use Black Lives Matter

to drive it towards white voters and that's how they did it and the problem is we have a government that refuses to still address this issue and that's what's up. Shrena, if folks want the report you put together, where can folks go check it out?

Yeah, Stop is called, you can find it at StopOnlinevawa.com. So stoponlinevaw.com. Stoponlinevaw.com. And I'm actually in the final phase of our second report. So there's more to come. All right, Shereen Mitchell, we sure appreciate it. Thanks a bunch.

All right, folks, we come back from this break. We'll chat with Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr. Turn 78 today. Next to Roland Martin Unfiltered. You want to support Roland Martin Unfiltered? Be sure to join our Bring the Funk fan club. Every dollar that you give to us supports our daily digital show. There's only one

daily digital show out here that keeps it black and keep it real. As Roland Martin Unfiltered support the Roland Martin Unfiltered daily digital show by going to RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. Our goal is to get 20,000 of our fans contributing 50 bucks each for the whole year. You can make this possible. RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. A second annual Life, Luck, Jazz experience

taking place in Cabo, November 7th through the 11th. You're hearing, of course, that's Gerald Albright. It is an upscale destination with luxury accommodations, fine cuisine, top-shelf libations, golf, spa, health, and wellness. So if you want to attend, you can go to lifeluxjazz.com to sign up. But those of you who don't want to go,

you can still participate by going to gfntv.com, gfntv.com to watch the live stream. Get your live stream pass. It's 14 acts over three days. You'll be able to watch every single one of those concerts. I'll be broadcasting my show from there Thursday and Friday. But if you can't make it to Cabo, you can still participate by watching the livestream.

So sign up at gfntv.com. It's 1099-GFN-TV.com. Three fantastic days of concerts, including folks Mark Curry. As I said, Joe Albright, Alex Bunyan, Raul Madon, Incognito, Pieces of a Dream, Kirk Whalum, Average White Band, Donna McClurkin, Shalaya, Roy Ayers, Tom Brown, Ronnie Laws, and Ernest Quarles. It's going to be fantastic.

Again, get your live streaming pass at gfntv.com. All right, folks, today is the 78th birthday of Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr. Of course, he has been in the civil rights fight for more than 60 years. And so it is all over the weekend. He was in, of course, Beverly Hills, where they have a birthday party. It's a fundraiser for Rainbow Push, where they honor several people, including Jemele Hill. He joins us right now.

Reverend, how you doing? Very well, well, Roland. Thanks for allowing me to talk with you today. We tried to make the most of this landmark day. We went to the homeless shelter at 9 o'clock today. There are 16,000 children in Chicago who don't have an address. They're homeless.

Obviously, they're doing their homework. They have no home. And there are thousands of parents here who work every day, maybe $8 to $10 an hour. And though they work, they're homeless shelters. That's the big feature. With the Cook County Jail, they have lots with the inmates today, 7,000 inmates in Cook County Jail, most are black, 25 months on ankle braces in the streets. They're all eligible to register and vote.

My brother's been in jail five years waiting for trial. No, seven years waiting for trial. So I want to put some focus there on the plight of the heart of the Chicago. You can register and vote and have appreciation in the jail. More than that happened all across the country, Roland. Reverend, you're 78. You were diagnosed with Parkinson's. Why do you still do this?

Why not just... You've done a hell of a whole lot in your career. Why not just relax, stay at home with your grandkids, and be with your family? Why do you still keep going? Well, my work is determined by my energy, not just my age, on the one hand. On the other hand, purpose drives me.

To be able to get up this morning and go to the homeless shelter, to have those who are without a place to stay at night, is a source of inspiration and challenge to me. They go to Quick Country out there and have lunch with the inmates there and look at their condition. Some of them on a $5,000 bond can make a $500 bill. So purpose drives me, and I'm excited about my work there as I was 40 years ago.

When you talk about that particular purpose, there are folks who say, you know what? Hey, it's time for you just to move on. What do you say to those who say that you should be passing the baton and you should be stepping aside and allowing another generation to lead? Well, I think they're right. I think that the bat time is a symbol. People who can serve and will serve,

and we open our organization to several age groups, I might add. And so I think that there's more content in that content and more service to be done in that service. So I don't think we should process the elimination. We should have a process for expansion and inclusion. Well, bottom line is, I've always said, look, as long as there's breath in a person's body,

if they have some good to do, they should keep doing it. And so, Reverend, we certainly appreciate you being on the front lines all of these years, all the great work that you have done. It is with great appreciation from so many, not just African Americans, but Americans, for what you've been able to do. And so glad to see you see another birthday. You only made that one mistake, Ben Omega,

but I will not hold that against you. Well, I understand your situation. Reverend Jackson, I appreciate it. Thanks a lot. All right. All right, take care. All right, folks, Oprah Winfrey now has the largest endowment ever at Morehouse College in Atlanta after donating $13 million.

She visited the HBCU on Monday for the 30th anniversary of the Oprah Winfrey Scholars Program. It started in 1989, and the fund stands at $12 million. Here she is making the announcement. Seeing you young Oprah Winfrey scholars here today has moved me deeply. I am so proud of you. I'm proud of everybody in attendance at this school who is seeking to know more clearly who you are,

the value you hold, and how you will share that value with the rest of the world. I was really surprised to learn that it's been 30 years since I made that $12 million donation to Morehouse. And so today, I would like to add $13 million to that. Of course, that now pushes her donation to $25 million. Now, you remember when Robert Smith, the billionaire, promised to pay off the student loan debt of 2019 Morehouse class. All these people were sitting here saying, what is Oprah going to do? And she had to remind them of that Morehouse Scholars Program. And so now folks actually see what she

has done. So certainly congratulations to Oprah Winfrey and Morehouse for that donation. All right, folks, 21-year-old DeAndre Somerville, who spent 10 days in jail after he overslept in misdue duty, has had his record cleared. Palm Beach County Circuit Judge John Kashrinakis rescinded his contempt finding, writing that Somerville has been apologetic, totally rehabilitated, and no longer needs to be on probation. He had initially also sentenced him to 12 months of probation in order to perform 150 hours of community service.

On Friday, he reduced it to three months of probation and 30 hours of community service. Jason, it's still bullshit. Total bullshit. Unbelievable. I can't. I'm not going to congratulate you because you reduced it to no probate, to three months probation,

and 30 hours of community service. No, it's full of it. No, it's completely full of it. It's, you know, that judge, someone needs to look at that judge because that's ridiculous. You know, I feel like he's bullying and picking on some young kid who overslept. It's the fact that he...

As a matter of fact, the judge should have to give him something for having, you know, 10 days of his life taken away. Right. You know, I mean, I think the court and the judge owe him some sort of restitution for that. But I do want to make one point, and that is that we as African Americans need to

serve on juries. Right. But here's the deal, though. The brother was serving on a jury, Kelly. He was serving on the jury. He overslept. Yeah, nothing about him. And what he did, he didn't call the bailout. He went ahead and went to work. I'm sorry. That's not 10 days in jail. It's not worth anything,

really. And frankly, if this judge doesn't do the same type of treatment to every juror who does that, then, like Jason said, we definitely have a problem here that needs to be investigated. No, he shouldn't do it at all. But what I'm saying is it does look like he's bullying a young black man and trying to teach him a lesson and stuff of that nature.

If he's not doing that for anybody who's overslept for a jury trial, that shouldn't be happening at all. But even though his record got vacated, he's still beholden to community service hours. I read that on Friday the judge reduced the terms of his probation from 12 months and 150 hours of community service to only three months probation and 30 hours of community service to only three months probation and 30 hours of community service.

So, either way... Yeah, that's what I just said. I know, but it's just... I know. I'm just messing with you. It's stupid. It's stupid. It's stupid. Okay, fine. Look, you have to wait 45 minutes because it was like, call in front of the court, admonish them, cuss them out, do whatever. You don't put them in jail for 10 days.

That's just dumb. Yeah, and we often talk about, you know, America's incarceration problem, over-incarceration problem, and this is just another example of that. That's a waste of resources. And if I read correctly, he was the only black juror on the actual jury.

So that makes it even more egregious than he would actually do it in that case. But that jail time should not be, whether they were serving five days and didn't come to six day, jail time should not be the penalty for missing. We know what the hell that was about. We know what that was about. All right, folks. Y'all know what time it is.

No charcoal grills are allowed. I'm white. I got you, Carl. Illegally selling water without a permit? On my property. Whoa! I'm uncomfortable. All right, y'all.

St. Petersburg, Florida. It's where we find this crazy-ass white woman. She was angry about a candy. About a candy wrapper. Brother y'all dropped a candy wrapper, and this white woman lost her mind. Correctly, but, no, don't even act like that. Pick it up, find it, get down on your knees and find it. Get down on your knees and find it. Wow. Really? Really? Hopefully she's going to be located and fired real soon,

creating another job opportunity for an African American. Not just a job opportunity, not just fired. And I guess it wasn't a woman or anything was around, because I know it's a little different with a man, but she deserved to actually be slapped and knocked to the damn ground. That's what she deserved

to have been. Pick up a rapper, pick up a white woman. Absolutely. Kelly? what she deserved to have been. Pick up a rapper, pick up a white woman. Absolutely. Kelly, should have knocked her ass out. I'm sorry, go ahead. I thought just left. Um... Crazy-ass white woman.

You know what I mean? Like, it's just, for what? For what? And, like... And then all y'all. Like, how little of a life do you have to be that invested in somebody else's to the point of a candy wrapper taking you off to that point? Now, look, I hate litter.

I hate litter. But not only that, call me n-word, and then that's how y'all are. Right. No, absolutely. And, you know, I'll just say, in other countries, that's a crime. Yeah.

You literally can't talk to people that way. You literally cannot say racist epithets of people in Brazil and in many other countries. So, you know, we have this thing. But if he did knock her ass out, he would have been in the right. I want her to come to Southeast. But if he knocked her out, he's charged with assault. And that's actually what happened.

That's what happened. Not a good look. All right, y'all, not a good look. A Penn State athlete received a letter sent by a graduate, David Peterson, criticizing the player's hair, saying, quote, the athletes of today are certainly superior to those in my days. We miss the clean-cut young men and women from those days. Watching the Idaho game on TV, we couldn't help but notice your, well, awful hair.

Surely there must be mirrors in the locker room. Don't you have parents or a girlfriend who have told you those shoulder-length dreadlocks look disgusting and are certainly not attractive? Letter was presumably sent to Penn State safety Jonathan Sutherland and posted by his teammate Antonio Shelton on social media. Now, here's the deal. A local

newspaper tracked this dude down. He apparently has written other letters to the newspaper. They reached out to this guy, tracked him down. He said, yeah, he sent it. He said, look, I just don't want our players looking like Florida State Miami players. I'm saying. He said, folks with these tattoos and their hair,

and he claims that him and his family, they don't watch the NFL anymore, you know, because of how these guys are looking with their hair and tattoos. I'm sure they have. And he's a 1966 graduate of Penn State. Oh, God. I just want to say, and I know people are going to say,

of course Malik would say that. As someone who had locks at some point and knowing how it was received by black people and white people, this is, you know, I think that there is an insensitivity to us and our hair.

I don't know. I don't, I won't go as far as say that this is racist, but around the time that I actually had locks is when Hampton University implemented their policy where in their school of business, where you could not be in their school of business if you had braids or boxers. And that was stupid as well. And what that was, that was black folks operating in white supremacy by all, because again, and not just Hampton, Black Enterprise, same thing, Earl Graves talked about it, where you couldn't actually have locks as well because, hey, it's not accepted in the business world, so therefore we're training you for that. So that ignorance is what I'm talking about.

So it's, for me, and I understand it's a white person because it's, you know, a little different dynamic, but it's-it's-it's-it's born out of that same ignorance that had Hampton University making those... It's called white supremacy. Well, Hampton's response was based upon white supremacy. This white guy here is simply stating white supremacy. That's what it is.

No different when the black woman who applied for a job at the VA in Virginia, impeccable credentials, goes in, applies for the job. I mean, hands down, she get it. She leaves the room, white guy on the panel says, I don't like her cornrows. I don't like her hair.

Doesn't get the job. She sues. She wins. Got more than 70 grand plus back pay and got the job, so it cost taxpayers because this white guy didn't like her cornrows, Kelly. It doesn't make any sense because my hair did not get me a degree,

my hair didn't get me a job, my hair didn't get me anything except a really nice hairstyle, you know, and for a... For white standards. You know, and it is. You know, to Malik's point about you used to having locks and talking about how it wasn't necessarily received well

in the corporate world, thankfully that is changing because, you know, our generation is one of, you know, what respectability politics for why, you know? And I like that type of movement because, again, we are not our hair. And if a white person comes in with curly hair one day and straight hair the next day and split ends and all that, if they can do all of that, I can come in with a fro.

I can come in with faux locs or real locs or sister locs or any other type of loc or any other type of braid or any other type of twist because I'm here to do a job, and it has nothing to do with my hair. And that's why California has a law that was signed dealing with hair discrimination saying that's against that. And guess what? They should call this dude out, should put him on blast,

and he should be presented non grata when it comes to Penn State because, yeah, you don't like his hair, but you don't mind him when it's going to a damn touchdown. Yeah, and I just want to Penn State because, yeah, you don't like his hair, but you don't mind him scoring him a damn touchdown. Yeah, and I just want to just add quickly, you know, we also perpetuate this. So, I know black women who, under no circumstance,

would date anyone who has locks in their hair, who has cornrows in their hair, who has braids in their hair. Even name discrimination. We perpetuate it because of white supremacy. In fact, Jackie just sent me this. Amisha Cross, who's on our show a lot, she posted this on social media.

I attended way too many events last night, but one particular instance struck me, and I'm kicking myself for not saying anything. Post-event, a woman commented on a young black guy saying she was going to make sure he was never invited again, not because he was inappropriate in any way, but because he had braids. She said she was disgusted by it, and it made her uncomfortable.

Braids are thuggish, and he looked like a hood guy in a suit. At that moment, I should have said something. I didn't know what to say. I was shocked. At that moment, I failed a black man. The comment came from a black woman. Her target is a budding 24-year-old tech giant. Discrimination is real, and it's not

always from outside of our community. That, though, that is based upon, though, white supremacy. The issue that we're dealing with is white standards in terms of how they view how we should dress. Same thing. Oh, don't you dare wear African

garb on television because white male executives? No, no. Wear the blue jacket, wear the suit, wear the tie. Look, I had white executives at CNN like, no, no. Wear the blue jacket, wear the suit, wear the tie. Look, I had white executives at CNN, like, ooh, his dress, because I wore bold pinstripes. Like, you damn right. Because I wasn't looking, and then he had Joel Klein

sitting next to me, who looked just raggedy. And I told him, I was like, damn, Joel, dress like iron your shit, please. But no, no, no, I had to go there. Because again, they don't mind that rumpled, frumpy look, but that's fine because that's acceptable but we're not going to have that. These are white standards. And what I keep saying

to people, that what you're dealing with right now in America, when I keep talking about white fear, it's because of what is determined to be acceptable. White standards have determined everything in America for centuries. The whole deal in corporate America,

it was the IBM look. It was a blue suit. It was a white or light blue shirt. And it was a red tie or blue tie. That was a look. Come to Capitol Hill, what's the Capitol Hill look? Khaki pants. Khakis and blazers. You will

never see me wear khaki pants and a blue shirt and a blue jacket because of that look. Okay? And that's what it is. It's because the white standard, not the corporate standard. You can call it the white corporate standard. It is the white standard. It is why you're

seeing an increasing number of black women on television, finally, wear natural hair. But some of them are going to their new... Y'all, there was a sister who was in Houston, went to her news director to get permission to wear her hair natural on

the air. You've had other sisters where white news directors have said, no, they wanted to be pressed, they wanted to be permed, because they want to look a certain way for white viewers. We have to recognize that when black folks do stuff,

it just didn't happen that way. It is what has been placed on us, and we've been told, now look, to be accepted, you must do this here because you don't have no good white folks, don't want you looking like that. That's where all of this is born out of.

And so hopefully, with the law in California and others, that will change, and I'm glad to see Coach Franklin stand up for this young man and put this graduate on blast. That is a good thing. But again, we, and I keep saying this, why black people must go through a retraining process, because we have been victimized by white supremacy. We have taken on in many ways, the view and perspective of the oppressor, because they have said, you can't walk through this door unless you conform to our

standards, our vision of beauty. And that's why when I talk about how white fear was going on here because they have said this is the acceptable standard. Remember the dress code in the NBA? Remember all of that? We don't want the players wearing tattoos and everything along those

lines? Yeah, they're still making billions of dollars with players wearing tattoos because everything along those lines? Yeah, they're still making billions of dollars with players wearing tattoos because what was the whole point? We don't want to upset the white corporate sponsors and they say we don't like the look of those players. But you like how they ball.

That's the real deal there. Alright folks, again, over the weekend Tyler Perry opened his Tyler Perry Studios. We could not, we could only take pictures on the red carpet, over the weekend, Tyler Perry opened his Tyler Perry Studios. We could not. We could only take pictures on the red carpet just outside the venue. But Tyler, since yesterday, has been posting a plethora of photos on his Facebook page and his Instagram page. And so we're going to end the show showing you some of that. Don't forget, we want you to support Roller Martin Unfiltered by going to RollerMartinUnfiltered.com, joining our Bring the Funk fan club where every dollar goes to support this show.

And so we want you to do that. We want to thank Jason Kelly-M Malik for being on the show. Thank all of our guests as well. So we'll end the show also with this, of course, a video montage from the Tyler Perry Studio opening this weekend. And oh yeah, my Astros are going to beat Tampa Bay tonight. So we're going to advance to play the Yankees.

That's why I'm rocking the Astros on the show. All right, I'll see you guys tomorrow. Holler! Thank you. this is an iHeart podcast