Woke CEOs mocked conservatives. Now the joke’s on them.



Corporate America is bending to conservatives’ market influence. Not out of sudden ideological sympathy, but because conservatives have more economic power than the left — and they’ve stopped pretending not to notice.

For years, corporations ignored conservative concerns. Worse, they often went out of their way to antagonize them, stripping away team mascots like the Redskins and Indians, embracing diversity quotas, and saturating entertainment with left-wing tropes. The squeaky wheel got the grease, and the left made all the noise.

Free markets punish bad bets more effectively than Washington ever could. Let them.

Conservatives, meanwhile, were taken for granted. Corporate leaders assumed they would keep buying no matter how many insults were thrown their way. For a long time, they were right.

That ended when conservatives started fighting back. Bud Light’s Dylan Mulvaney stunt turned into a disaster. Victoria’s Secret collapsed under its “new image” campaign. Cracker Barrel’s woke makeover backfired so badly its chairs stopped rocking. And when employees mocked Charlie Kirk’s assassination, corporations finally began to realize that “the customer is always right” still applies.

Numbers don’t lie

Corporations aren’t embracing conservatives because they’ve had a change of heart. They’re doing it because they need to survive.

The 2024 election was a wake-up call: Conservative voters outnumbered liberals 35% to 23%. Add moderates, and non-liberals outnumbered liberals more than three to one.

Conservatives overwhelmingly vote Republican. Ninety percent cast ballots for Trump. Pew data shows a majority of middle- and upper-middle-income Americans lean Republican — and 51% of Americans identify as middle class. That’s a lot of disposable income.

Family size makes the math even stronger. The Institute for Family Studies reports that counties where Trump won big also have higher birth rates: 1.76 compared to the national average of 1.63. Harris counties, by contrast, averaged just 1.37. Republicans also want bigger families: half want three or more kids, compared to only 31% of Democrats.

Bigger families and higher incomes mean bigger market clout. And the left’s most extreme advocates — the loudest drivers of corporate wokeness — are a small minority inside an already shrinking ideological bloc.

Why the shift happened

So why did corporations bow to the left for so long? Two reasons.

First, executives themselves lean left. Pew Research found upper-income Americans tilt Democrat, and CEOs have marched steadily leftward over the last two decades. Second, conservatives tolerated it. They didn’t punish woke messaging, making it appear costless for companies to indulge their leadership’s politics.

That illusion is gone. Conservative consumers are awake. And companies are finally capitulating to reality.

RELATED: The right message: Justice. The wrong messenger: Pam Bondi.

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Don’t let government ruin it

This is why Republicans should resist the urge to meddle. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr made a mistake threatening ABC over Jimmy Kimmel. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way”? Let’s not.

That kind of government action obscures the real shift — a market correction, not a political one.

Markets speak louder than regulators. If conservatives let economics do the work, corporations will continue adjusting out of necessity. But if government steps in, companies will chalk the change up to political coercion, not consumer demand, and drift back toward the left as soon as administrations change.

Already the left is trying to spin it that way, casting Jimmy Kimmel as a martyr for “free expression” instead of what he is: a bad business decision. The left wants companies to believe government, not consumers, forced the pivot.

Conservatives know better. Free markets punish bad bets more effectively than Washington. Let them.

As DEI collapses, billionaires fund radical woke math



Jim Simons’ mathematical skills helped transform him from a prize-winning academic at Harvard and MIT into a legendary financier whose algorithmic models made Renaissance Technologies one of the most successful hedge funds in history. After his death last year, one of his consequential bequests went to his daughter, Liz, who oversees the Heising-Simons Foundation and its nearly billion-dollar endowment.

What Liz Simons has chosen to do with that inheritance might have surprised her father. Jim Simons devoted much of his charitable giving to basic research in mathematics and science, but his daughter’s foundation is moving in a very different direction. The Heising-Simons Foundation and similar organizations are supercharging a movement to remake K-12 mathematics education according to social justice principles.

Students are placed at a disadvantage when mathematical instruction is embedded in critical theory.

The revamp is profound. They reject well-established practices of math instruction while infusing lessons with racial and gender themes. The goal is to motivate disadvantaged students while dispensing with the traditional features of math — like numerical computation, which they struggle with on standardized tests — considered an oppressive feature of white supremacist culture.

Philanthropy-funded ‘anti-racist’ math

In many quarters, including corporations and universities, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are in retreat due to pressure from the Trump administration and the courts. Not so in public education, with curricula that are locally controlled and largely insulated from the dictates of Washington.

That allows progressive foundations and like-minded charitable trusts to continue to pour millions of dollars into reshaping math education for black and Latino kids — including an $800,000 grant this year from the Heising-Simons Foundation — even though no credible research exists showing that the social justice approach improves their performance.

“Politicians and legislatures, even school boards,” are often too “hamstrung” to get things done, Bob Hughes, the director of K-12 education at the Gates Foundation, said at an online symposium on the need for racial equity policies in America's classrooms. Philanthropy, he added, faces fewer barriers in making rapid changes.

The Gates Foundation has been a leader in the promotion of anti-racist math instruction. It supported a project called “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction.” The project discards basic tenets of learning, like asking students to “show their work” and find the “right” answer as vestiges of “white supremacy culture.” The pathway is promoted by EdTrust West, which also receives support from the Spencer Foundation, the Heising-Simons Foundation, and other major donors.

The Gates and Heising-Simons foundations have both supported TODOS Mathematics for All, an Arizona-based organization that calls for elevating diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and anti-racist activism into all math instruction, with over $553,750 in grants in recent years. “We can no longer believe that a focus on curriculum, instruction, and assessment alone will be enough to prepare our children for survival in the world. We need anti-racist conversations for ourselves and for our children,” TODOS President Linda Fulmore announced in 2020.

Last year, the group hosted an hour-long webinar on “2SLGBTQIA+ identity in mathematics education.” During the event, a speaker expounded at length on various queer and indigenous identity groups while spending virtually no time on math-related curriculum or instruction.

At one point, the presenter erroneously claimed that there are “15.3 billion students in U.S. high schools” — a figure that would require the entire global population to be enrolled in American secondary education twice over. The speaker likely meant to say million.

‘Race-centered’ math

The foundations similarly fund practical lessons that put race at the center of math instruction. In Alexandria, Virginia, for example, the Heising-Simons Foundation supported a public-school program that encouraged kindergartners through second-graders to count the characters in picture books by race. At the end of each session, teachers guided students in creating racial scorecards for each book, then voting to select those with the fewest white characters. The exercise was presented as mathematics education.

Jo Boaler, a controversial professor of education at Stanford University who championed the push to remove eighth-grade algebra from San Francisco’s public schools in the name of equity, traces her support to this network of foundations. The Gates Foundation and Valhalla Foundation, which was founded by Scott Cook, the co-founder of tech firm Intuit, have long funded her math education project called YouCubed.

These deep-pocket donors also fund Danny Bernard Martin, a professor of math education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a leading voice of what critics call “woke math.”

Over the past six years, the Racial Justice in Early Mathematics Project, which Martin co-leads at the Erikson Institute in Chicago, has received nearly $2.5 million from the Heising-Simons Foundation. This year, the foundation announced an additional $800,000 grant to help the project develop tool kits for wider implementation among teachers, administrators, and researchers.

Martin’s views extend far beyond typical calls for educational equity. He regards mathematics instruction as fundamentally a “white supremacist construct” that inflicts “epistemological violence” on black students. In his estimation, even DEI programs are too conservative — mere accommodations “rooted in the fictions of white imaginaries” and designed to appease “white logics and sensibilities.”

The solution Martin proposes is radical: Black students should seek instruction exclusively from black teachers at “independent black institutions.” They should resist the temptation of “advanced coursework and mathematics-related employment” and instead engage in “walkouts and boycotts” to protest against mathematics education as it currently exists.

RELATED: Test scores drop at SF elementary school that spent $250K on 'Woke Kindergarten' program to teach anti-police lessons, 'disrupt whiteness'

Photo by georgeclerk via Getty Images

The very structure of math instruction, Martin contends, has dehumanized black students through low test scores and failing grades.

The ideas of the Racial Justice in Early Mathematics Project and its leaders have reverberated through America’s classrooms. California’s new mathematics curriculum framework, which guides K-12 education statewide, repeatedly cites Martin.

Educators have sharply criticized the framework for leaning heavily on politicized concepts of math. The document suggests, for instance, that teachers “take a justice-oriented perspective” when providing instruction and discourages the use of “tracking” — or the practice of separating students into different classrooms based on their abilities.

Educators push back

Williamson Evers, a former assistant secretary of education and a fellow at the conservative-leaning Independent Institute, has been monitoring what he calls the “woke math” movement for years. “It’s very important to have math skills,” he told RealClearInvestigations.

Evers rejects the identity-based claims made by Martin and others who have called for minority students to abandon math education over alleged racism. “There are mathematicians and scientists on every continent from every background, and this idea of boycotting education would harm black schoolchildren.”

Elizabeth Statmore, a math teacher at the elite Lowell High School in San Francisco and a critic of social justice math, says the way to improve the performance of black and Latino students lies in the nitty-gritty, such as better teaching, holding students accountable, and providing them with more academic and emotional support.

Critics say the emphasis on prose over calculation will exacerbate the very disparities that social justice advocates claim to address.

“But it’s not sexy; they’re not on the keynote circuit like Danny Bernard Martin and Jo Boaler,” Statmore said. “They’re building a brand, not doing the kind of math education research that is helping to improve outcomes for disadvantaged children.”

Representatives of the Heising-Simons Foundation, the Erikson Institute, and Martin did not respond to requests for comment.

The Heising-Simons Foundation’s focus on racializing math education reflects its broader ideological commitments. Like many progressive foundations, it uses its significant funds to advance a range of left-wing policies that might have a hard time establishing themselves without billionaire support.

The foundation has also donated to PolicyLink, the organization behind DefundPolice.org, and to the Anti-Police Terror Project, which advocates for abolishing police departments in high-crime cities like Oakland, California. Liz Simons was also among a small clique of California megadonors behind the push to elect progressive prosecutors such as George Gascón in Los Angeles and Chesa Boudin in San Francisco. They declined to pursue felony charges against a range of violent offenders over concerns about racial equity.

The attempt to reimagine mathematics through the lens of critical race theory isn’t new — scholars have been working along these lines since the 1980s. They argue that historical racial oppression continues to influence everything from geometry curricula to standardized testing. Traditional emphases on objectivity, rigorous standards, and subject-matter mastery should be replaced, the scholars argue, with ideological exercises designed to promote racial and social consciousness.

What is new is the scale and speed of adoption. As America has grappled with questions of racial justice in recent years, billionaire foundations have provided the resources to implement these ideas widely in both public and private schools.

The donors appear motivated by a deep sense of ideological commitment to righting past wrongs related to racial injustice.

At the 2020 education donor symposium, Liz Simons recalled her experience working briefly as a Spanish bilingual teacher in an impoverished community in Oakland. “The much larger systemic problems,” she witnessed, Simons said, guided her to the goal of shaping early childhood education.

Na’ilah Suad Nasir, president of the Spencer Foundation, noted that she previously worked as the vice chancellor of “equity and inclusion” at the University of California, Berkeley. Expanding racial equity in education, she said, has been her “life’s work.”

Widening disparities

When it comes to math instruction, social justice means stripping it of basic features like numbers. In workshops hosted by the Racial Justice in Early Mathematics Project in 2023, the group promoted “numberless word problems” — mathematical exercises stripped of numerical computation. The method, instructors explain, is designed to counter “European ways of knowing and doing.”

Sisa Pon Renie, one presenter, spoke of wanting to challenge the “persistent myth that math is just abstract and without any cultural relevance.” The project champions this numberless approach as essential for “helping children understand how mathematics might be an important tool to understand social issues and promote justice.”

But critics say the emphasis on prose over calculation will exacerbate the very disparities that social justice advocates claim to address.

“Imagine you’re a Cambodian refugee, and you get some math problem that’s loaded with prose,” Evers, of the Independent Institute, said. “Maybe you’re very good at the figures part, the calculating part, the mathematical part.”

Such students, he argued, are placed at a disadvantage when mathematical instruction is embedded in critical-theory frameworks and dense with English text. “They unnecessarily load these things down, make it harder, and it’s not even math. It’s an inadequate mode of teaching.”

The real-world consequences of these approaches have played out most dramatically in San Francisco. A decade ago, officials removed Algebra 1 from middle schools, arguing that the change would give black and Latino students, who were underrepresented in the math class, more time to prepare while avoiding placing them in lower-level tracks.

David Margulies, a parent involved with the San Francisco community, observed that families wanting their children to take Algebra 1 in eighth grade shifted away from public to private schools, online learning, and homeschooling. Students who don’t take the math class in middle school find it more difficult to take calculus in high school.

RELATED: Major university caught in new DEI cover-up

Photo by via Getty Images

“Families figured out how important this is, and they are looking elsewhere,” he noted.

A 2023 Stanford study found that San Francisco’s Algebra 1 experiment did little to close racial achievement gaps. Black enrollment in Advanced Placement math classes remained unchanged, while Latino participation increased by 1%.

Meanwhile, education systems that have increased rather than decreased academic rigor have seen notable improvements in black student performance. In 2019, Dallas public schools began automatically enrolling students who performed well on state exams in middle-school algebra. The program increased black participation in advanced mathematics from 17% in 2018 to 43% in 2023.

Walking it back

Last year, during a Racial Justice in Early Mathematics Project webinar titled “Who Is Labeled Smart?” Martin addressed the backlash against San Francisco’s push for educational equity. He toned down his scathing critique of merit-based advanced education programs that he believes harm black and Latino students and made a surprising statement about his own son’s schooling.

“I’m guilty, I’m guilty,” Martin said, almost sheepishly. “My son is, quote unquote, in one of those tracks.”

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

LGBTQ Pride festivals see corporate funding dry up after conservative boycotts: 'Will we be able to keep the doors open?'



LGBTQ Pride festivals across the United States are facing major shortfalls in corporate funding this year following several successful conservative boycotts in recent years.

According to a new report from Bloomberg, LGBTQ leaders noted that the withdrawal of several corporate sponsors from this year's Pride Month festivities is "unprecedented."

'Conservative scrutiny is really the top driver of change.'

LGBTQ leaders have warned that Pride parades and festivals face severe funding gaps because corporate sponsorships are drying up.

San Francisco Pride Executive Director Suzanne Ford told Bloomberg, "Will we be able to keep the doors open? You know, that's what I'm most concerned about now."

Ford added, "We’ve all seen the culture wars playing out as far as how corporations respond, and I think this is part and parcel of that movement."

The San Francisco Pride celebration, which is scheduled for late June, is facing a $200,000 funding shortfall following the withdrawal of sponsors including Comcast, Anheuser-Busch, Benefit Cosmetics, and liquor giant Diageo.

With about a month before Pride Month, Twin Cities Pride faces an approximate $200,000 shortfall. The LGBTQ organization noted that it would use crowdfunding to try to compensate for Target ceasing its sponsorship of the event.

Pride St. Louis, which lost Anheuser-Busch as a sponsor, is confronted by a $150,000 budget shortfall.

Denver Pride revealed that returning sponsors have cut contributions by an average of 62%, leaving a $230,000 funding deficit.

According to Bloomberg, Dollar General Corp. and Nissan Motor Co. decided not to sponsor the June Pride event in Nashville, Tennessee.

“We are currently reviewing allmarketing and sales spending,” a Nissan spokesperson told Bloomberg.

CNBC reported that Seattle Pride and New York City Pride both face $350,000 deficits.

Ryan Bos, Capital Pride Alliance’s executive director, told CNBC, "The sad thing is corporations have long been the first to step into our corner. The fact that some are questioning their commitment now during this uncertain time is very disheartening, hurtful, and frustrating for many.”

Home improvement retailer Lowe's reportedly stopped sponsoring the Charlotte Pride festival after providing funding the previous nine years.

St. Pete Pride in Florida noted that it would focus more on community donations instead of corporate sponsors after only hitting 55% of its fundraising goal as of late March, compared with the typical 80% to 90% at this time of year.

“We are the people. This is about people power and being able to use your dollar to advocate,” said Byron Green-Calisch, president of St. Pete Pride.

Nearly two-fifths of corporations plan on rolling back engagement for LGBTQ Pride Month this June.

Some LGBTQ activists are insisting that corporations continue to funnel money to Pride festivities.

“We spend our money as a community in these corporations, and I want them to give back,” demanded Andi Otto, executive director of Twin Cities Pride. “They should give back.”

According to a recent survey of 49 executives from Fortune 1000 companies by Gravity Research, nearly two-fifths of corporations plan on rolling back engagement for LGBTQ Pride Month this June. In last year's survey, only 9% of companies told Gravity Research they would alter their Pride Month engagement plans.

Forbes reported, "Of the 39% of companies who said they would reduce Pride Month engagement this year, 43% said they would reduce external shows of support, which includes having a visual presence at or financially sponsoring Pride marches, offering a Pride merchandise line, updating social media branding, and partnering with influencers for Pride-themed sponsorships."

Many of the executives who said they were scaling back Pride sponsorships noted they were retreating because of possible conservative boycotts, pressure from President Donald Trump's administration, and the backlash against DEI initiatives.

“Conservative scrutiny is really the top driver of change,” said Luke Hartig, president of Gravity Research.

Hartig noted that some of the companies had already begun pulling back in LGBTQ support as early as 2023.

In April 2023, conservatives started to wage a successful brand boycott after Bud Light partnered with transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney. Bud Light's parent company, Anheuser-Busch, lost millions in market share due to the conservative boycott.

In May 2023, Target lost billions in market value after conservatives boycotted the retail behemoth for rolling out eyebrow-raising LGBTQ Pride products.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up!

Donor backlash devastates Ivy League as Harvard, Columbia seek bailouts



Ivy League universities, particularly Harvard and Columbia, have faced a crisis since October 2023, when both institutions revealed themselves as places where blatant anti-Semitism openly flourishes. Amid the anti-Semitic uprisings on campus, the presidents of both schools also faced academic plagiarism charges. Alumni and donors, who expected more from the schools’ leaders and did not share the apparent tolerance for Jew-hatred, have stopped contributing financially.

As reputational and financial damage mounted, Harvard President Claudine Gay resigned in disgrace last January, and Columbia President Minouche Shafik followed in August.

Despite an endowment exceeding $50 billion, Harvard had to expedite bond offerings earlier this year to quickly raise $1.6 billion in cash.

But with those poison Ivies still trying to find a way to balance a hollow commitment to “tolerance” with appeasement of the widespread anti-Semitism demanded by much of their faculty and student body, donors remain repelled, and fundraising continues to struggle.

In early October, Harvard’s new president, Alan Garber, teased that some very bad financial news was about to be revealed for the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2024. The Harvard Crimson reported Garber as stating, "Some of the new commitments have been disappointing compared to past years.” In discussing the passion of alumni who are concerned about the current culture and events at Harvard, Garber added, “They’ve been quite vocal.”

The bad news came out a week later. The Harvard Crimson reported:

Harvard’s fundraising crisis now has a price tag: $151 million. Total philanthropic contributions fell by 14 percent in fiscal year 2024 as several billionaire donors publicly severed ties with Harvard over its response to campus antisemitism. The $151 million decline marks one of the most significant year-over-year drops in donations in the past decade.

The donor crisis at Columbia has worsened. The university held its annual Giving Day event this fall, but donations dropped 29% from the previous Giving Day in 2022. (Due to campus turmoil over the university community’s support of Hamas' October 2023 terror attack, there was no Giving Day in 2023.)

The Columbia Spectator laid out the bad news:

Columbia held its 12th annual Giving Day on Tuesday, raising a total of $21,362,592 after a one-year hiatus, a 28.8 percent decline in funds compared to 2022’s record-breaking year.

As the University grapples with a donor crisis—born out of concerns regarding campus protests—this year saw a 27.9 percent drop in the number of gifts, falling from 19,229 in 2022 to 13,870, the lowest since 2015. This year is the first that the total monetary amount of donations has declined from the previous Giving Day since the event’s inception in 2012.

Viewed over a two-year span, the situation at Columbia is simply catastrophic. The university raised $58 million combined in 2021 and 2022. But over 2023 and 2024, the combined total plummeted to just $21 million. The $38 million decrease in biennial giving represents a 64% decline.

Amid declining contributions, it seems both schools are facing a liquidity squeeze.

Despite an endowment exceeding $50 billion, Harvard had to expedite bond offerings earlier this year to quickly raise $1.6 billion in cash. The university raised $750 million in taxable bonds through Goldman Sachs and received approval from Massachusetts to issue up to $2 billion in state tax-exempt bonds. However, investor demand only supported $735 million of those state bonds, leaving Harvard more than $100 million short of its $1.6 billion goal.

Having contributions fall off further in the meantime can’t be helping Harvard’s cash crunch.

Published reports indicate that Harvard’s endowment is only about 20% in liquid assets (cash, stocks, bonds) with about 40% invested in private equity, about 30% in hedge funds, and 10% in real estate and other illiquid assets.

Several months ago, billionaire Bill Ackman noted that Harvard’s budgeting and endowment management rely on certain assumptions about alumni donations. These assumptions didn’t account for the possibility of a donor revolt and the steep decline in current-year cash gifts. Ackman speculated that Harvard’s need for quick cash to make up for lost donations led to the recent bond offerings, especially given the current high-interest rate environment.

Journalist Ira Stoll revealed that much of the cash Harvard raised was used to pay off maturing debt issued at lower interest rates and to roll over some short-term debt.

I don’t know enough to question the legitimacy of Harvard’s illiquid investments, but it is reasonable to question the “investment strategy” of Harvard’s famous endowment if it is so illiquid that even with several years lead time to prepare for bond maturity, its other investment assets cannot get converted into cash to pay off maturing bonds, thus requiring new, higher-interest debt. If an investment cannot ultimately be converted to cash, how does it have a value?

Columbia University also announced a few weeks ago that it too was hitting the bond market for a cash infusion. Columbia is seeking to raise about $500 million with this new debt, despite having an endowment valued at around $15 billion.

The Ivy League schools, especially Harvard and Columbia, have exhausted their reputational capital, and now they are exhausting their working capital. They have shown themselves to be morally and ethically bankrupt. If their liquidity problems can’t be rectified, and if donors have permanently slashed their recurring cash lifelines, perhaps financial bankruptcy is also in the offing for Harvard and Columbia. It would be a long time coming.

Glenn Beck: Here's why Tractor Supply said goodbye to woke DEI



Tractor Supply Co. is a farming supplies retailer headquartered in Tennessee, and it's just gone where no large modern company has gone before.

The company is dropping the diversity, equity, and inclusion goals that it had previously set for itself. In addition, DEI roles will be eliminated, carbon emissions goals will be withdrawn, and the company will stop sending data to the Human Rights Campaign.

Tractor Supply made the move after information began circulating that the company was deeply involved in DEI and ESG initiatives, and its stock price took a nosedive.

“We work hard living up to our mission and our values every day, and represent the values of the communities and customers we serve,” the company wrote in a statement. “We’ve heard from our customers that we have disappointed them. We have taken this feedback to heart.”

The backlash began when conservative Robby Starbuck highlighted the company's actions on X, which included DEI hiring practices, in-office Pride Month decorations, climate change activism, and “funding sex changes.”

“He decimated them,” Glenn Beck says. “Just took them apart with everything that they have.”

Stu Burguiere is impressed by the company's response.

“It’s very rare,” Burguiere tells Glenn. “Even Bud Light, who seemingly overtly changed directions, right? Like you could tell by their actions. They never came out and said, ‘And just so you know, we’re totally off the bandwagon.’ They just kind of did it and hoped you noticed.”

Glenn, however, remains skeptical.

“I’d like to see if this is just, you know, another customer service kind of thing and a campaign ad,” he says.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Tractor Supply Co. DUMPS its Woke DEI Policies | What You Should Know
play icon

Tractor Supply Co. DUMPS its Woke DEI Policies | What You Should Know

Dave & Buster's blasted for reportedly sponsoring 'youth entertainers drag show'



Dave & Buster's – the entertainment bar restaurant chain – is reportedly sponsoring an LGBTQ pride event that includes a "youth entertainers drag show." The controversial event has been criticized by many.

Dave & Buster's is known for entertainment, arcade games, and alcohol, but it is under fire for allegedly sponsoring a drag show event for children in Wisconsin.

The Libs of TikTok account noted: "Dave & Busters is sponsoring a pride event in Wisconsin where children will dress up in drag and perform a sexual-themed show as adults clap along and encourage them."

— (@)

Social media posts from the N.E.W. Pride organization appear to confirm the LGBT event featuring "youth entertainers drag show."

Friday's schedule for the N.E.W. Pride events is expected to be restricted to ages "21+," but there does not appear to be any age restriction for Saturday's LGBTQ events.

The website for N.E.W. Pride – previously known as "Rainbow Over Wisconsin" – states: "Rainbow Over Wisconsin was founded in 1996 with the goal to improve the lives of LGBTQ+ Wisconsinites. Rainbow Over Wisconsin (ROW) produced many community events including Pride Alive, the ROW Gala, Pride Prom, and many others. Now, with a refreshed strategic direction that better serves Northeastern Wisconsin, ROW is becoming N.E.W. Pride."

According to social media posts from last year's N.E.W. Pride Alive event, small children engaged with drag queen performers.

The Dave & Buster's Twitter account had been blasted by commentators questioning the alleged sponsorship of the "youth entertainers drag show," but the arcade bar company had yet to respond to overwhelming criticism. A few have suggested a boycott of Dave & Buster's.

TheBlaze reached out for comment from Dave & Buster's regarding the "youth entertainers drag show," but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Bud Light could be permanently losing shelf space to rivals, Anheuser-Busch sees revenue plummet by a whopping $395 million



The Bud Light boycott is still causing economic harm to the beer brand's parent company, Anheuser-Busch InBev.

Since the boycott of Bud Light after the brand partnered with transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney in April, sales of the beer brand plummeted.

Anheuser-Busch's revenue declined 10.5% year-over-year in North America, according to the second-quarter corporate earnings data. Compared to the same time a year ago, AB InBev revealed revenue plummeted a whopping $395 million.

Anheuser-Busch InBev admitted the significant decline was "primarily due to the volume decline of Bud Light."

While revenue dropped in North America, AB InBev's global revenue increased by 7.2%

"EBITDA declined by 28.2%, with approximately two-thirds of this decrease attributable to market share performance and the remainder from productivity loss, increased sales and marketing investments and support measures for our wholesaler partners," Anheuser-Busch InBev said in the second-quarter earnings report.

The Belgium-based owner of Bud Light noted that its global beer brands of Modelo in Mexico and Spaten in Brazil saw revenue grow by more than 10% in the second quarter of 2023.

"Our global brands grew revenue by 18.4% outside of their home markets, led by Corona, which was recently recognized by Kantar BrandZ as the #1 fastest growing global beer brand by value, which grew by 23.7%," Anheuser-Busch InBev stated.

Anheuser-Busch InBev CEO Michel Doukeris said on an earnings call, "Regardless of favorability, our consumers across all sentiment groups have three points of feedback in common. One, they want to enjoy their beer without a debate. Two, they want Bud Light to focus on beer. Three, they want Bud Light to concentrate on the platforms that all consumers love, such as NFL, (veteran charity) Folds of Honor and music."

Bud Light could be permanently losing shelf space to competitors, according to a main Anheuser-Busch InBev rival.

The Wall Street Journal reported this week, "There are reasons to believe that Bud Light sales might be permanently impaired. Molson Coors Chief Executive Gavin Hattersley said on a conference call with analysts that retailers are already reallocating space to other brands during shelf resets that take place in the spring, with more resets to come in the fall. In bars and other on-premise channels, the company gained more than 12,000 tap handles in the quarter, he added."

Hattersley declared that Molson Coors is planning on spending an additional $100 million on marketing to keep the sales momentum going.

"Our job is to maintain those gains that we’ve got," Hattersley said.

An anonymous beer distributor told the New York Post, "Consumers have made a choice. They have left [Bud Light] and that’s how it’s going to be. I don’t envision a big percentage of them coming back."

Last week, Anheuser-Busch InBev announced it was laying off about 350 employees.

Last month, a survey found that Bud Light is no longer one of the top 10 beers in the United States.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

(Ready)Woke culture unmasked: Dylan Mulvaney's role in corporate wokeness



No matter how woke a company goes, it will never be woke enough.

And in light of recent events, this includes Bud Light.

“You never arrive,” Stu Burguiere comments. “All of these threats that stay out there against you remain there and, in fact, even get worse after you engage.”

“This is a lesson that all companies should be learning, and Dylan Mulvaney spelled it out perfectly,” he adds.

Mulvaney recently posted a video to social media in which the transgender activist claimed that he has been targeted after the Bud Light campaign — and said Bud Light has not reached out to him at all after the controversy.

“I was scared of more backlash and I felt personally guilty for what transpired, so I patiently waited for things to get better, but surprise, they haven’t really,” Mulvaney said, continuing, “and I was waiting for the brand to reach out to me, but they never did.”

Mulvaney claims that he’s been afraid to leave his house for months, as he’s been ridiculed in public and followed.

“I have felt a loneliness that I wouldn’t wish on anyone,” he added.

Stu notes that while he feels sorry for Mulvaney, and while Bud Light tried to appease LGBTQ+ activists by being “woke,” the backlash has the company backing away from Mulvaney. This now gives the activist the perfect opportunity to play victim — because Bud Light didn’t do enough.

“The desired position in our society now is to be the victim. It’s always been the opposite,” Stu says.

“Bud Light, a brand targeting frat boys, has a giant business. They step out of this for a second to honor the LGBTQIA2+ community,” Stu says, continuing, “they go out there and they destroy their business over this effort.”

“And what do they get from Dylan Mulvaney?” Stu asks.

They get burned.

“For a company to hire a trans person and then not publicly stand by them is worse, in my opinion, than not hiring a trans person at all,” Mulvaney said.


Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Data Shows Americans Want Businesses To Shelve The Virtue Signaling And Remain Politically Neutral

Data indicates that Americans generally want cultural neutrality from businesses and think LGBT themes harm children.