The NeoLiberal Round

Renaldo Mckenzie

Life is about people/how people relate. Yet life is what we make it or allow others to make of it for us creating privileges. The Neoliberal Round is a think tank exploring life. We're interdisciplinary and dynamic; concerning ourselves with global issues and problems so as to serve the world today to solve tomorrow's challenges, by making popular what was the monopoly. We will be bold and deliberate in our reflections on truths, lifting up issues of ethics/human values. Visit The Neoliberal, https://theneoliberal.com. Donate here: https://donate.stripe.com/7sYcN48uybAA2OEb9V93y06

  1. 2d ago

    What’s Your Story? Featuring Nate “Mr.” Miller, Former WBA and NABF Cruiserweight Champion

    Nate “Mr.” Miller—Philadelphia native and former WBA and NABF Cruiserweight Champion—sits down with Renaldo McKenzie on The Neoliberal Round Podcast to share his remarkable life story. This episode marks a special milestone: Nate is the first featured guest interviewed in person at the newly established Neoliberal Round Studios and Offices. Nate explains how he earned the nickname “Mr.” and recounts his journey from a difficult childhood—being separated from his family, growing up in foster care, and struggling to make ends meet—to becoming a world boxing champion. He reflects on the experiences that transformed his life and the determination that carried him all the way to the cruiserweight championship belt. But what has Nate been doing since retiring from boxing in 2004? He discusses a recently published booklet, created with the assistance of a publisher, as well as other book projects currently underway. Nate also shares exciting news about the historic Happy Hollow Recreation Center—a Philadelphia boxing facility being renovated and scheduled to reopen in November bearing his name. It was a delightful and inspiring conversation about resilience, courage, triumph, and the life that unfolds after the final bell. This is Season 19 of The Neoliberal Round and Part 27 of What’s Your Story?, a continuing series dedicated to sharing the extraordinary stories found in ordinary lives. We have told many stories—and we are just getting started. If you have an interesting or inspiring story to share, contact us about appearing on the podcast. Listen and subscribe on your favorite streaming platform: Find your stream here: https://anchor.fm/theneoliberal Subscribe to The Neoliberal Round on YouTube: https://youtube.com/@renaldomckenzie Follow Renaldo McKenzie on Spotify: Email: info@theneoliberal.comTelephone: 445-260-9198 This is a production of The Neoliberal Round, a 501 (c) (3) non-profit company owned and operated by The Neoliberal Corporation and Renaldo McKenzie. Visit The Neoliberal at https://theneoliberal.com and https://renaldocmckenzie.com.

    What’s Your Story? Featuring Nate “Mr.” Miller, Former WBA and NABF Cruiserweight Champion
  2. Aug 26

    CALL TO ACTION: Chester Needs Philadelphia’s Help: Who Pays the Price for Philly’s Trash?

    In this episode of The Neoliberal Round Podcast, host Renaldo McKenzie examines the growing environmental justice battle between Philadelphia and neighboring Chester, Pennsylvania, where a significant share of Philadelphia’s municipal waste is sent to be burned at the Reworld/Covanta incinerator. After years of protests, public testimony, and appeals to Philadelphia officials, Chester environmental justice advocates are now taking their message directly to Philadelphia residents, urging them to contact City Council, oppose a new waste contract with Reworld, and support the Stop Trashing Our Air Act. The controversy raises a deeper question: Can Philadelphia call itself “clean and green” while exporting the environmental consequences of its consumption to a predominantly Black neighboring community? Renaldo explores the claims surrounding pollution and public health, Chester’s decades-long environmental justice struggle, Reworld’s response, the politics surrounding Philadelphia’s waste contracts, and the larger questions of race, class, power, and environmental inequality. As Philadelphia City Council prepares to confront the future of the city’s waste disposal, Chester residents are asking Philadelphians to stand with them. The trash may leave Philadelphia—but the consequences do not simply disappear. 🎙️ The Neoliberal Round PodcastHosted by Renaldo McKenzie Read the full article in The Neoliberal Post and The Neoliberal Journals at RenaldoCMcKenzie.com and TheNeoliberal.com. Contact: info@theneoliberal.com Subscribe, share, and join the conversation. The article is available in The Neoliberal Journals at https://theneoliberal.com and The Neoliberal Post https://renaldocmckenzie.com Written and narrated by Renaldo McKenzie, Author of Neoliberalism, Globalization, Income Inequality, Poverty and Resistance.

    CALL TO ACTION: Chester Needs Philadelphia’s Help: Who Pays the Price for Philly’s Trash?
  3. Aug 18

    Breaking News Update: Fifth Circuit Withdraws Opinion in John Anthony Castro Case, Then Issues a New Ruling

    Renaldo McKenzie, Content Chief at The Neoliberal, reports on his interview with John Anthony Castro, a 2024 US GOP Presidential Candidate who is now a political prisoner after suing Donald Trump for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. His lawsuit and candidacy were upended due to the indictment and subsequent imprisonment. Renaldo spoke with John Monday afternoon, which was published as an article in The Neoliberal Journals at theneoliberal.com and The Neoliberal Post at renaldocmckenzie.com. There is also the actual interview available on the podcast and YouTube Channel entitled: BREAKING NEWS: JOHN A CASTRO SPEAKS FROM FEDERAL PRISON ABOUT HIS LATEST LEGAL BATTLE FOR FREEDOMHere is an excerpt of the commentary: There has been a significant new development in John Anthony Castro's fight for freedom. On Friday, the U.S. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its previous opinion. It granted rehearing in John Castro's federal case. Castro argues the move validates serious legal deficiencies he identified in the appellate court's original reasoning. But by Monday, August 17, 2026, the situation had shifted again. Rather than granting John Castro the relief he believes should follow from problems with the original opinion, the panel issued a revised opinion that attempts to preserve the result while changing portions of its reasoning. In our latest conversation with John Castro, the former Republican presidential candidate described the extraordinary sequence of events and explained why he believes the substituted opinion creates new legal problems rather than resolving the old ones. The central dispute concerns a sentencing enhancement imposed on Castro for allegedly exercising a leadership role in criminal activity. According to Castro, the Fifth Circuit's original opinion reasoned that the leadership enhancement could stand without a finding that another person was criminally responsible. John Castro attacked that reasoning in his petition for rehearing. His argument was strikingly simple: How can someone legally be considered the leader of criminal activity if the government and the district court never established that another criminally responsible participant whom he led existed? As Castro summarized the problem during our interview, the original reasoning effectively made him: “a leader of no one.” Then came Friday's dramatic development. The panel withdrew its opinion and granted rehearing. For Castro, the withdrawal was an important acknowledgment that something was seriously wrong with the original decision. It is important, however, to distinguish withdrawing or replacing an opinion from a judicial admission that the court was legally “wrong” on every disputed issue. The precise meaning of Friday's order must ultimately be determined from the language of the court's order itself. What happened next is where the controversy deepened. By Monday, August 17, the Fifth Circuit had issued a substituted opinion. Castro argues that instead of correcting the underlying problem, the panel attempted to strengthen—or, in his words, “beef up”—its reasoning by adding a new rationale. According to Castro's description of the substituted opinion, the panel now reasons that, based upon the record as a whole, it was plausible that at least one other person was involved or criminally responsible. But Castro says that creates an entirely different constitutional and appellate problem: Where did that factual finding come from? Castro argues that the district court never expressly made the finding upon which the appellate panel now relies. From Withdrawal to a Substituted Opinion: By Monday, the Court Had Changed Its Reasoning Subscribe on any stream. Find your stream at https://anchor.fm/theneoliberal Renaldo is author of Neoliberalism, Globalization, Income Inequality, Poverty and Resusrance

    Breaking News Update: Fifth Circuit Withdraws Opinion in John Anthony Castro Case, Then Issues a New Ruling
  4. Aug 18

    BREAKING NEWS: JOHN A CASTRO SPEAKS FROM FEDERAL PRISON ABOUT HIS LATEST LEGAL BATTLE FOR FREEDOM

    In a recent telephone conversation on The Neoliberal Round Podcast, I spoke again with John Anthony Castro, the former Republican presidential candidate who gained national attention through litigation seeking to disqualify Donald Trump from the presidential ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Castro is currently incarcerated following his federal tax conviction, which he continues to challenge through the federal appellate process.Castro describes himself as a political prisoner and argues that his prosecution, conviction, sentencing, and subsequent appellate proceedings contain serious constitutional and procedural irregularities. Those allegations remain contested legal claims, not established findings. Nevertheless, the questions he raises deserve careful examination because the legitimacy of American justice ultimately depends not merely on securing convictions, but on ensuring that constitutional protections apply equally—even to unpopular defendants and those who challenge powerful political figures.A Withdrawn Appellate OpinionA central development discussed during our conversation concerned the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.According to Castro, the appellate panel initially issued an opinion affirming his case but subsequently withdrew that opinion and substituted another after he petitioned for rehearing. Castro sees the withdrawal as significant because he believes his petition exposed fundamental defects in the panel's reasoning.One issue concerns the sentencing enhancement imposed on him for allegedly serving as a leader or organizer of criminal activity.Castro argues that the original appellate reasoning effectively permitted the enhancement without identifying another criminally responsible participant.As Castro put it during our conversation, the result would essentially make him:“a leader of no one.”He maintains that the substituted opinion attempts to repair this problem by reasoning that, based upon the record as a whole, it was plausible that at least one other person was criminally responsible.But Castro challenges the appellate court's authority to reach that conclusion.His argument is straightforward: appellate courts review factual findings; they ordinarily are not supposed to manufacture factual findings that the trial court itself never made.Castro therefore characterizes the substituted reasoning as impermissible “appellate fact-finding.”Whether the Fifth Circuit's reasoning legally constitutes improper appellate fact-finding is ultimately a question for the courts. But Castro believes the distinction could become central to his request for rehearing and, potentially, Supreme Court review.Linda Rivera, Brady Evidence, Motive, and BiasAnother major issue involves government witness Linda Rivera.Castro argues that information concerning Rivera's potential criminal exposure and any immunity or favorable treatment she may have received was not merely ordinary impeachment material.Instead, he argues that such information could demonstrate motive and bias.That distinction matters.Evidence that merely attacks a witness's general credibility is not necessarily identical to evidence suggesting that a witness had a personal incentive to cooperate with prosecutors, avoid prosecution, receive immunity, or otherwise provide testimony favorable to the government.Castro contends that the Fifth Circuit improperly blurred those categories.His position is that evidence demonstrating a witness's potential motive to testify favorably for prosecutors should have been evaluated differently from ordinary credibility evidence—and that failure to disclose constitutionally material evidence could implicate the government's obligations under Brady v. Maryland and related precedent Listen to the Interview or read it in The Neoliberal Journals at https://theneoliberal.com or via The Neoliberal Post at https://renaldocmckenzie.comEmail us at info@theneoliberal.com.

    BREAKING NEWS: JOHN A CASTRO SPEAKS FROM FEDERAL PRISON ABOUT HIS LATEST LEGAL BATTLE FOR FREEDOM

Trailers

5
out of 5
5 Ratings

About

Life is about people/how people relate. Yet life is what we make it or allow others to make of it for us creating privileges. The Neoliberal Round is a think tank exploring life. We're interdisciplinary and dynamic; concerning ourselves with global issues and problems so as to serve the world today to solve tomorrow's challenges, by making popular what was the monopoly. We will be bold and deliberate in our reflections on truths, lifting up issues of ethics/human values. Visit The Neoliberal, https://theneoliberal.com. Donate here: https://donate.stripe.com/7sYcN48uybAA2OEb9V93y06