This NFL player says he doesn’t want WHITE PEOPLE teaching his kids...



Former Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton, who is currently a free agent, apparently has a problem with white people teaching his seven children.

Jason Whitlock plays the video of Newton explaining his issues with the private schools he sends his kids to.

"Something alarming happened when my daughter came home. ... She said, 'Dad, a white person is teaching us about black history,' and I was like, 'Yo, that's not right,'" Newton said.

“If a white person is teaching about black history, can a black person teach about Caucasian history [or] European history?” he asked. “You could, but there's gonna be some things that are left out,” like “slavery [and] how Africans moved to America.”

One of Newton’s interviewers had her own bit to add. “They’re not letting black teachers…” she trailed off, insinuating that black educators are being barred from teaching in schools.

“Black teachers have been banned, and white teachers don't teach about slavery, and Cam Newton has no responsibility to teach his own kids about history,” sighs Whitlock in staunch disagreement with Newton’s perspective.

“Black professors or teachers certainly can teach European history,” adds Delano Squires, who agrees that Newton should assume the responsibility of teaching his children about history.

“I think all of this colorized history is a mistake. ... We just need to teach American history, and that should be universal to everybody,” says Whitlock.

Squires, however, does find value in teaching black history specifically.

“There are certain facts of history — a certain battle took place on this particular day, a certain event took place on another day — but the perspective on those issues is very much different,” he explains. “Consider how different ... the death of George Floyd will be taught in schools 50 years from now, depending on whether you have a teacher who has, let's say, more pro-law enforcement leanings as opposed to one who has more pro-BLM leanings.”

Both types of teachers will convey that “yes, this man died on this particular day, but how he died, how they characterize it, [and] the terms that they use will be very much different, depending on who shapes the narrative,” he tells Whitlock.

To hear their full analysis, watch the clip below.


Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Jason Whitlock and Delano Squires on what makes a black man in America today



What makes a black man in today’s America?

Author Delano Squires has an interesting answer.

Squires noticed on the Transgender Day of Remembrance how many black officials — Wes Moore, Eric Adams, Brandon Scott, Brandon Johnson, and others — were “repeating the same lines about, you know, their trans siblings and violence and a day of remembrance.”

Squires believes “the public image of the black male has been transitioned” because “you have black men in very prominent positions who are repeating all of the same LGBTQIA+ propaganda that their white counterparts in the Democratic Party repeat on a daily basis.”

This he says is a “seismic shift,” as for years black men looked up to hip-hop and hip-hop culture, which has often been described as misogynistic and homophobic.

Now, they’ve done a complete 180.

“All these guys speak in terms of trauma and microaggressions and harms and they walk around in a perpetual state of fear,” he tells Whitlock.

Whitlock is in agreement, noting that so much of “our identity is defined by politics.”

“Everything has become so politicized and people are always trying to protect their political identity, and they’ll sacrifice their masculinity and everything else to make sure they’re in good standing politically with the Democrat Party,” he explains.

“These guys will say with a straight face that they believe that a man can get pregnant,” Squires says in agreement. “Now, they don’t actually believe that, and they don’t actually believe that a man can become a woman.”

“So, yes, this is largely driven by political identity,” he adds.


Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Squires: The left respects black drug dealers, pimps, and murderers more than black conservatives



In one week, Cori Bush proved she is more supportive of trans murderers than of black conservatives.

The congresswoman from Missouri joined fellow Democrat Emanuel Cleaver in an attempt to stop the execution of Amber McLaughlin – formerly Scott McLaughlin – who was convicted of rape and murder in 2006.

Their efforts failed.

Bush’s tweet lamenting that McLaughlin’s execution – the first involving a transgender inmate – was much different in tone from the one she sent regarding a very different historic event.

Bush called Rep. Byron Donalds, a black Republican from Florida, a “prop” and supporter of “white supremacy” in a recent tweet criticizing his bid to become speaker of the House. Donalds would be the first black person to hold that position – the type of milestone that the left openly celebrates. Leftists certainly have celebrated for Hakeem Jeffries, the black Democrat and noted election denier, who will lead his party in the new session of Congress.

Byron Donalds is different. He describes himself as a “Trump-supporting, gun-owning, liberty-loving, pro-life, politically incorrect Black man.” His entire political persona is in complete opposition to that of Cori Bush and the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. This fact should be welcome news to black voters. Our political system is all about debating worldviews, priorities, and policy ideas. The black community would benefit from elected officials from opposite sides of the political spectrum debating the merits of charter schools or education savings accounts.

But instead of engaging ideas, Bush went straight to attacks on what she believes black people value most: our racial identity. Bush is just like President Biden and prominent liberals in media and politics who think they are the gatekeepers of racial authenticity. They think anyone who doesn’t follow the left’s script “ain’t black.” But as is often the case in life, the foot soldiers of “Biden blackness” are engaging in projection.

Cori Bush is an abortion absolutist who thinks black babies are better off being killed in the womb than being born to poor black mothers. She also supports Black Lives Matter, the organization that wants to dismantle the nuclear family and believes black children are better off being raised in “villages” full of women where the only “dad” is the government.

Bush is most infamous for her support of the “defund the police” movement. A woman who represents one of the most violent cities in the country thinks that police are the ones making her city dangerous. She is a more zealous advocate for rapists and murderers on death row than for the law-abiding citizens in her district.

There is an important lesson to learn here. People who see themselves as oppressed, marginalized slaves will do anything — even kill themselves and their offspring — if they can be convinced that murder is a form of liberation.

The worst part about Bush’s comments is how normal they have become in our political discourse. The left has directed the vitriol it used to reserve for Justice Clarence Thomas to any black person who is right of center.

Winsome Sears, the lieutenant governor of Virginia, was accused of being a “black mouth” justifying white supremacist ideas by Michael Eric Dyson on MSNBC. Larry Elder was called the “black face of white supremacy” in a Los Angeles Times column during his bid to unseat Gavin Newsom as governor. Condoleezza Rice was called a “foot soldier for white supremacy” by culture critic Touré for her rejection of CRT in American classrooms.

This is the new norm in our political and racial discourse. Black children are told they can be anything they desire – as long as they are not out-of-the-closet conservatives.

Black drug dealers, pimps, and shooters are all treated with more respect than black Republicans. Rappers can degrade black women and glorify violence against black men without any fear of having their BET Awards invitation revoked. But if a black politician or artist says he is glad Roe is dead, he can expect to watch the show at home.

When you reward degeneracy and punish unapproved political thoughts, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get more of the former and less of the latter.

This is why one of the most needed developments in American politics today is to break the notion that fealty to the Democratic Party is a litmus test for maintaining good standing in the black community. All black voters should feel free to support candidates based on policy positions that reflect their values.

This is the sad state of race in America today. Liberals like Robin DiAngelo who tell white people they are the key to black social progress are hailed as heroes. Black politicians like Cori Bush who spend more time championing the rights of “pregnant men” than the benefits of the natural family are treated like bold revolutionaries. But black conservatives like Byron Donalds are treated like race traitors online, by corporate media, and in Hollywood. Their motto for social control is simple, yet effective: “When in doubt, pull the race card out.” The problem is that too many black people see the death and destruction being promoted by the left’s agenda and won’t be silenced.

Squires: Men's mission in 2023: 'Protect this house'



The Overton window has been moved right in front of your child’s bedroom, and the year 2023 will be marked by your willingness to kick down the ladder full of people attempting to enter your home.

That is why my personal theme for 2023 and message to fearless men across the country is simple and straightforward: “Protect this house.”

This was the tagline from a series of commercials in 2010 from Under Armour, the disruptive sports apparel company based in Baltimore.

Conservatives are frequently accused of fearmongering and inciting moral outrage about culture war issues. We’re told that drag queens aren’t really in schools and hospitals aren’t really mutilating children. The truth is that there is a war being waged on multiple fronts by a variety of enemies who share the same goal: to infiltrate our homes and capture our most prized possessions.

Radical ideologues want to control our minds because they know that the most efficient way to impact what people do is to control what they think. Corporate media outlets write headlines like “Transgender man gives birth to non-binary partner's baby with female sperm donor” to confuse readers and force a new reality on them. They know that if you can get a man to accept absurdities, you can also get him to commit – or defend – atrocities.

Our enemies don’t just work in the press. The Centers for Disease Control recently released a self-assessment tool to help schools gauge how “inclusive” they are to LGBTQ students. The public health agency that is afraid to affirm the fact that only women can get pregnant wants schools to introduce students to the “Gender Unicorn” so that they leave school more confused about their identities than when they started. The CDC’s guide demonstrates how our governing institutions and schools are working in tandem to corrupt our children.

The people who will suffer are the kids being told that new names, hormones, and surgeries will transform them into the opposite sex. A culture that is confused about the basics of human biology will have a hard time forming stable families. Unfortunately, the decline in morals and values in that area predates the transgender movement by decades.

A hip-hop artist and producer named Akon recently offered his approval of Nick Cannon’s serial impregnation campaign. Akon dismissed the idea that Cannon, who recently welcomed his 12th child, is doing damage to his kids by refusing to marry one of their mothers and raise children together under one roof. Akon also said that attending recitals for your children is a “white man’s thing” during a conversation with British media personality Zeze Millz.

Sleeping with dozens of women and creating children for sport does not make an adult male a man. Celebrities like Cannon and manosphere personalities like Andrew Tate are just as antagonistic toward the natural family as your garden-variety blue-haired radical feminist.

Young men in the West need to hear that a wife and children will give them something to both live and die for. They need to learn about duty and obligation, a stark contrast to the language of personal therapy they encounter at every turn. They need to be encouraged to think multi-generationally in a world that tells them that the god of self is the highest power in their lives.

The forces of media, government, and pop culture are easy enemies to identify. One thing that is certain in 2023 is that the mission to protect our homes and families will also periodically involve fighting back against people who claim to be friends.

Donald Trump remains a popular figure among conservatives. The former president released a statement on Truth Social claiming that missteps by pro-life voters and politicians were behind the 2022 midterm losses. It is true that Democrats used the fall of Roe v. Wade and abortion restrictions on the state level to galvanize their voters. It's also true that pro-life voters, especially evangelical Christians, are some of Trump’s most loyal supporters. They believe that human life has inherent value regardless of age, location (e.g., inside the womb), circumstances of birth, or whether the birth mother wants the child.

If being pro-MAGA means abandoning those convictions for the sake of political pragmatism, conservative Christians will have to decide what they truly hold dear. The battle is raging, and millions of Americans feel like they are being attacked on all sides. How should we respond to these attacks?

Under Armour made the “Protect this house” campaign. As a Christian, I know that protecting my house will require putting on the full armor of God.

The Apostle Paul lays out everything the believer needs to do battle in the book of Ephesians,

13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Christians should be leading the culture into battle because we have the weapons that are required for spiritual warfare. We are called to stand firm in the face of evil, gird ourselves with the truth, pursue righteousness, and use both a sword and shield when we’re engaged in combat. Unfortunately, many have defected to the other side even though they claim to fight for Jesus.

They refuse to stand firm on any issue that would earn them scorn from the culture. They run from biblical truth related to issues of sex, sexuality, marriage, and family to avoid being lumped in with all the “hateful” Christians who refuse to use personal pronouns or celebrate drag shows in public libraries. That type of cowardice must stay in 2022. The year is 2023, and every man is going to have to decide whether he will protect his house. The only acceptable answer is “I will!”

Squires: President Biden has taken the ‘Trans King’ throne from Obama and Clinton



Years from now, historians will ponder the forces that transformed “Middle-Class” Joe Biden into America’s first trans president.

Just 16 years ago, during a television interview with Tim Russert, Biden declared that marriage was between a man and a woman with as much confidence and vigor as an evangelical reading from the book of Genesis. This past Tuesday, as the 46th president of the United States, Biden signed the so-called Respect for Marriage Act into law and lit the White House in rainbow colors to mark the queer-affirming celebration.

"We need to challenge,” Biden said, “the hundreds of callous, cynical laws introduced in the states targeting transgender children, terrifying families, and criminalizing doctors who get children to care they need. We have to protect these children."

So what happened? How did a devout Delaware Catholic become the LGBTQ’s most powerful and loudest ally? It’s actually not that hard to understand Biden’s transition.

Democrats love experimenting with identity and bending reality through the creative use of language. Bill Clinton was called the “first black president” by author Toni Morrison. Newsweek declared Barack Obama the “first gay president.”

Biden is keeping with Democrat identity-bending tradition, a fitting end for a president who has done more to legitimize the idea that men can become women than any previous occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW.

Joe Biden pushed President Obama into supporting same-sex marriage in 2012, and the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court case changed the federal definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. Now Biden is overseeing the current attempts to redefine “man” and “woman” in American law and social custom.

Joe Biden has courted the “Trans King” title for at least the last decade and has used the first two years of his administration to unseat Obama and Clinton from the trans throne.

Biden appointed Dr. Rachel Levine as assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Levine is a man who formerly went by the name “Richard” and had two children with his ex-wife before identifying as a woman in 2011. It is unlikely that Levine would have been appointed to one of the most important positions in America’s public health establishment if he thought he was King Tut and dressed like a pharaoh. But in America today, some mental disorders are celebrated while others are not.

The Biden administration also hired Sam Brinton, noted “puppy play” enthusiast. Brinton, who identifies as “non-binary,” was recently fired from his position at the Department of Energy after allegedly stealing luggage from an airport for the second time in the last month. But much like Levine, kleptomania is seen as more disqualifying than the sordid sex life he insisted on making public.

Biden’s trans bona fides extend beyond hiring. One of his first acts as president was to sign an executive order that required federal agencies tasked with enforcing non-discrimination protections based on sex to extend them to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He also urged Congress to pass the Equality Act earlier this year at his State of the Union address. If that bill becomes law, men like Penn swimmer Will Thomas (aka Lia Thomas) will have federal law in their corner as they dominate women’s sports and take college scholarships meant for girls.

Joe Biden’s administration rejects biological sex in favor of gender identity with regard to law, public policy, and social custom. This seemingly minor change has turned the delusion of a small number of people with gender dysphoria into mass confusion for the rest of the country.

This is why Dylan Mulvaney was invited to the White House in October for a summit on “transgender rights.” Mulvaney is an adult male who has built a large online following by claiming he is “transitioning” to a girl. He posted a short video announcing his invitation to meet President Biden and was given an opportunity to ask him several questions.

This is the Biden presidency in a nutshell. It is much easier to get a sit-down with the leader of the free world and a job in his administration if you are a man pretending to be a girl than it would be if you publicly espoused traditional views on marriage.

President Biden’s age has been a topic of discussion ever since he decided to run for president. Now he must be told where to go and which journalists to engage at press conferences. This reality should prompt every American to ponder a simple question: How did a man who was born in the middle of World War II and eulogized a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan develop the same perspective on gender as a queer studies major at Brown University?

The answer is that Joe Biden has become a vessel for the worldview, rhetoric, and policy priorities of gender ideologues. His name recognition, fealty to the first gay president, and privileged identity (i.e., straight, white, and male) made him the perfect nominee for Democrats in 2020. But so did his cognitive decline.

The fact that he is undermining the most fundamental building block of human civilization is bad enough. What makes it worse is that he will be long gone when the genderqueer chickens he’s unleashed on America come home to roost.

This is textbook modern liberalism – push subversive policies to make yourself look virtuous while also ensuring you don’t personally have to deal with the consequences. Hospitals across the country are castrating and mutilating teenagers who express discomfort with their bodies. Other children are taking Lupron, the same drug used to chemically castrate sex offenders, as a puberty blocker.

The Biden administration uses the term “gender-affirming care” to describe the social, chemical, and surgical “transition” of children who experience any discomfort with their bodies.

The destruction of the human body in the name of diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE) is evil. But to the first trans president of the United States, it’s the culmination of a legacy that will place him on the right side of history written by Democrats.

Squires: Relationship gurus like Derrick Jaxn have millions of followers because preachers like Jamal Bryant promote abortion with more passion than marriage



Derrick Jaxn, the anti-Kevin Samuels, built a popular YouTube channel dishing out black women-friendly relationship advice.

Jaxn recently announced his divorce on Instagram.

Jaxn and his soon-to-be ex-wife, Da’Naia, became fodder for online content creators last year after he admitted to several affairs in an apology video. He acknowledged that his conduct fell short of a biblical standard and the reputation he created as a healthy relationship advocate. Da’Naia also made a video several months ago declaring curses on anyone who criticized the couple online.

Jaxn’s rise and fall, as well as Samuels’ popularity even in death, point to something much bigger than social media controversy.

The popularity of these types of relationship podcasts is a direct result of dwindling religious affiliation among black Millennials and Gen Zers and the failure of “progressive” black preachers to teach and model biblical sexual ethics.

In an ideal world, someone like Jamal Bryant, pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta, would be leading the movement to mend relationships between black men and women and strengthen the black family. Bryant is a charismatic and dynamic communicator who leads one of the most influential churches in Atlanta. But instead of using public appearances to extol the benefits of marriage and encourage the formation of strong families, he advocates for more abortion in his church and perverts scripture to argue that Jesus was “pro-choice."

Bryant is not an anomaly. Senator Raphael Warnock – who leads the same church (Ebenezer Baptist Church) previously led by Martin Luther King Jr. – is similarly devoted to fewer black children being born in America. He goes even farther than Bryant by also affirming views on sex and marriage that are completely unbiblical.

When some of the most popular preachers in the black community fail to offer an affirmative vision of relationships that is built on the creation order and biblical duties based on sex, secular relationship gurus will fill the void.

Men like Samuels and Jaxn periodically uncover nuggets of truth, but pastors who actually believe the Bible would be in an even stronger position to teach men and women about what it means to be husbands and wives. Unfortunately, it’s hard for a pastor to promote biblical sexual ethics when he is having sex outside marriage or pressuring women to get abortions.

If black men and women are to restore proper relationships with each other – a prerequisite for healthy and whole families – everyone involved is going to have to digest some hard truths that are most effectively digested when they are grounded in distinctively Christian teaching.

Men and women are different. Testosterone is not a social construct. And while every type of sin is available to every person, our temptations, generally speaking, are different. For men, the major battles are with loyalty and fidelity. Jaxn posted a picture of himself in a shirt that said “Black Men Don’t Cheat,” but his low-values behavior quickly turned him into a hypocrite. The relationship challenge for many women – especially the “strong” ones who claim they don’t need a man – is submission. Their instinct is to dominate men, which leaves them frustrated for one of two reasons: constantly battling over control in the relationship or frustration with a weak, passive man.

When addressing these issues is divorced from the scriptures, relationship advice can quickly devolve into tips on how to manipulate the opposite sex into getting what you want.

Kevin Samuels told women that they should accept being cheated on as long as a man does so within certain parameters, including no babies or diseases. That is completely unbiblical. So is the notion that “self-love” is the highest form of human affection and a feeling so important that a woman should destroy her marriage and family to pursue it.

Pastors are uniquely situated to address these issues in biblical terms. They can express how God created men and women equal in dignity and worth but different in form and function. They can point to passages in Proverbs that warn men about the dangers of adultery. They can also point to the text in Ephesians that compares a wife’s submission to her husband to the church’s submission to Christ. Many women claim to hate the “S-word," but a good pastor could explain why a woman will yield to the will of her boss at work but fight against the leadership of her husband at home.

This is why Christian women also have an important role to play in this ecosystem. Titus 2 gives clear instructions on how women in different generations should relate to one another.

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

This advice is the complete opposite of what you get in a culture that encourages women to be as unrestrained as stallions and bullies men into watching passively like geldings. Even some Christian women would rather be known publicly as part saint, part City Girl than as modest and self-controlled.

The black church should be a life factory that affirms God’s design for marriage and family, not a den of death that hosts more funerals than weddings and puts unmarried pregnant women on a conveyor belt to Planned Parenthood.

Chris Rock famously said that a man is only as faithful as his options. The truth is character can sustain a man even when options are plentiful. We shouldn’t be surprised that Derrick Jaxn cheated on his wife after spending years deifying women.

What should be cause for concern is the fact that prominent preachers like Jamal Bryant and Raphael Warnock are either unable or unwilling to offer a more biblical approach to relationships than the average YouTube personality.

Black pastors like them should be the most vocal proponents in their communities for the importance of biblical sexual ethics. It’s unfortunate that their personal and political views make them advocate with more passion for destroying our children than build strong families.

Squires: Richard Snipp perfectly explains the misguided priorities of LeBron James and the Afristocracy's 'a la carte revolutionaries'



On Wednesday, LeBron James chastised the media for not asking him about a picture of Jerry Jones that was taken as black teens were attempting to desegregate the Arkansas high school Jones attended in 1957. The black-and-white photo shows Jones observing the scene that unfolded a few rows behind the young men who are taking a more aggressive stand against the black students.

This was just the evidence James needed to repair the damage he did to his image by joining the chorus of black athletes and journalists who publicly denounced Kyrie Irving after the Brooklyn Nets guard shared a link to a documentary on Amazon called "Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America."

James said he doesn’t condone hate in a statement that specifically listed Jewish, black, and Asian communities. He wasn’t alone. Shannon Sharpe, Jemele Hill, Jalen Rose, and several other media personalities made similar statements condemning “harmful” language.

They likely felt comfortable condemning Irving for sharing the link with no commentary because there was safety in numbers. What they didn’t anticipate was the backlash they would receive from black people who felt Irving was being treated unfairly by the NBA and saw them as foot soldiers in the witch hunt against him.

The same people who are quick to label black people with conservative political views “sellouts” felt the sting of being on the receiving end of those insults. There was no better way to regain some of the cultural capital they lost than finding a way to show they are down with the cause. And there isn’t a single person in professional sports who is a better foil for LeBron and the a la carte revolutionaries than an old, white, Southern man who opposed Colin Kaepernick’s protests and happens to own the most valuable sports franchise in the world.

James grilled media members on their silence and elicited a Pavlovian response from the keepers of “the culture.”

Jay Williams said he needed Jerry Jones to “denounce racism”; Kendrick Perkins wondered when Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, and Bill Belichick are going to be “held accountable” for not speaking on Jones and other issues related to race. Emmanuel Acho claimed there is a link between the Jones photo and the fact he has never hired a black coach.

These athletes and media personalities are swarming because Jerry Jones is the perfect man to help them bolster their social media reputations, but there is a bigger issue at play here that also involves the face of the NBA.

In 2018, LeBron James tweeted, “We been getting that Jewish Money, Everything is Kosher,” which was a line in a rap song by 21 Savage called “ASMR.”

LeBron was made aware some people considered those lyrics anti-Semitic and quickly apologized.

"Apologies, for sure, if I offended anyone. That's not why I chose to share that lyric. I always [post lyrics]. That's what I do. I ride in my car, I listen to great music, and that was the byproduct of it. So, I actually thought it was a compliment, and obviously it wasn't through the lens of a lot of people. My apologies. It definitely was not the intent, obviously, to hurt anybody."

Even 21 Savage himself apologized for the words he wrote and rapped, but neither man had any issue with the multiple references in the song to guns and street violence.

Young black men are victims of homicide at a rate more than eight times higher than their white peers, yet the NBA has no problem allowing 21 Savage to perform at games and the NFL was lauded for having Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg perform at halftime of the Super Bowl.

This hearkens back to a line in the infamous “Richard Snipp” letter that was published last year:

Make them think someone else's opinions of them are more important than how they see themselves. Condition them to see race-hate, regardless of how infrequent it is, as a much more urgent concern than self-hate, regardless of how common it is.

They are starting to murder each other at alarming rates. Good. That's part of the plan. We didn't expect it to start so soon, since they constantly talk about being black and proud. Don't believe it. Make them think cold stares from us are more harmful than hot lead from their own.

The Snipp letter explains why, generally speaking, today’s black athletes, entertainers, and journalists are not real leaders.

Speaking positively about the financial success of Jewish people should never be more controversial than bragging about killing black men, but somehow one of these things makes athletes weak-kneed and the other makes rappers wealthy.

Why?

Because to men like LeBron, 21 Savage, Jay Williams, and Shannon Sharpe, a white man’s words are always important, regardless of who he is addressing. In contrast, a black man’s words have limited value. They are critically important when they are directed to more “marginalized” and “oppressed” groups, but utterly worthless when directed to the people in his own community. This is why no amount of violence in hip-hop is considered hate speech, even when rap beefs that start in songs end in the streets.

The belief that the thoughts, words, and actions of white people are the primary barrier to black uplift is the most pernicious form of white supremacy afflicting the black community today. It makes men who claim to be kings sound like children desperate for validation and powerless to affect change in their own lives.

This is the reason ESPN will chase down every fake hate crime story and air glowing profiles of Bubba Wallace and Rachel Richardson, but go mute when a former NFL star allegedly instigates a fight that ends with his brother being charged for killing a youth football coach on the field after a game.

It is the reason ESPN personalities joined NBA players and coaches to lament the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, even though everyone involved in his self-defense case was white.

It is why the NBA promoted Black Lives Matter – an organization that listed the destruction of the nuclear family as one of its principles – and some players wore “Love Us” on the backs of their jerseys.

This is a problem that goes well beyond sports.

It is also the reason the NAACP can partner with white B-list actors to create an ad about “taking responsibility” for racism but stay completely silent as Baltimore, home to the organization’s headquarters, surpasses 300 homicides for the eighth consecutive year.

It is why black professors dismiss the importance of black fathers on MSNBC and beg white people for individual reparations accounts on Fox.

Black politicians, pundits, performers, preachers, and professors with the biggest platforms have grown accustomed to stepping over lifeless bodies in their own neighborhoods to address high-profile incidents in cities they have never visited as long as there is a race angle that can be exploited.

This is the opposite of leadership.

My wife and children would rightfully question my love for them if I dedicated attention and resources to another family across town. How could I credibly call myself the leader of my home if I never chart a vision of what we need to do as family to reach our goals?

The same principles apply to the Afristocracy.

Professional athletes should not be forced to answer for every social or political movement going on in the world, the conduct of ex-teammates, or the actions of people in other leagues. But if they do, they need to be clear about why they choose to focus on certain issues and not others.

And they need to be as vocal about the violence and destruction plaguing poor black communities today as they want octogenarian billionaires to be about things that happened 65 years ago. Black children, from toddlers to teenagers, are being killed every day in big cities across the country, but somehow the biggest personalities in sports and media who claim to represent “the culture” never use their platforms to address this reality.

Their silence demands an explanation.

People notice the outrage inequity and are beginning to wonder whether black athletes and journalists genuinely desire accountability for the past misdeeds of all people or affirmation from the one group they see as both the cause of their oppression and the source of their liberation.

Squires: David French shows Christians that anti-Trumpism can become an idol just as easily as Trump worship



David French is at it again. The conservative commentator whose screeds against white evangelical voters have become as commonplace on Sundays as hymns and communion has been busy lately doing what he does best: chastising Christians and blaming Donald Trump for America’s woes.

Within the past five days, French, the father of what I call “drag queen conservatism,” came out in favor of the deceptively titled “Respect for Marriage Act,” urged the pro-life movement to break from “Trumpism,” and characterized the evangelical “far right” on Twitter as being a “broken” mishmash of insurrectionists and sex abuse apologists.

As is often the case, his critics – many of whom I know and respect – pushed back on his new policy positions and old cultural critiques. I agree with many of their core arguments, but the trajectory of David French’s public profile provides a much more important lesson for Christians.

French is probably the only person who thinks about Donald Trump more than the former president himself. The result is that he has made an idol – adorned in a cloak of self-righteousness – out of anti-Trumpism. This obsession has transformed his distinct “salt and light” Christian commentary in the public square into a dim, bland version of cultural engagement marginally distinguishable from the secular writers in corporate media.

His belief that drag queens in public libraries are a “blessing of liberty” is the most infamous example of his tendency to defend the indefensible in the name of morally neutral constitutional protections. I have yet to hear him offer a hypothetical defense of “blackface story hour” on similar First Amendment grounds and highly doubt he would ever make such an argument.

French sees differing opinions on drag queens in libraries and schools, the redefinition of marriage, and the castration of confused children as normal in a functioning democracy. But somehow he believes refusing the COVID shot and believing there was a “shadow campaign” to influence the 2020 election – the official position of Time magazine – each constitutes a mortal threat to our neighbors and an attack on our democracy.

Like many conservatives who are preoccupied with being respected by the left, French focuses on secondary legal issues as opposed to first-order fights about defining reality when it comes to our most contentious political battles.

Is religious freedom a concern for Christians who don’t want to codify Obergefell? Absolutely. But the bigger issue for these believers is Congress' attempt to redefine an institution that predates civil government.

The same principle holds in other areas as well. The main issue with making "gender identity" synonymous with sex is not the threat to girls' sports or the violation of parental rights in schools. It’s understanding that a country that can’t define the words “man” and “woman” won’t be a country for long.

It is impossible to communicate, reason, and create laws without clearly defined terms. Christians who cede ground on “Genesis issues” related to sex, sexuality, life, and marriage for the sake of political convenience or reputation management delude themselves into thinking they are more just, loving, and kind than God.

French is a virtuoso when it comes to the conservative slander two-step. He starts by tying mainstream conservatives to fringe elements on the right who actually have made an idol out of Trump. Then he deftly sidesteps legitimate criticism by ignoring people who challenge the substance of his arguments and amplifying the personal attacks he receives online. This allows him to simultaneously paint himself as a victim and avoid defending his ideas.

He has also become quite skilled in the art of triangulation. He articulates the types of views on sexual ethics and abortion that grant him legitimacy as a conservative commentator while using his access to regime liberal platforms like the New York Times and the Atlantic to flog conservatives for their ignorance and incivility. French’s default position is always the same: tickle to the left and throw haymakers to the right, all while lecturing the hoi polloi about their tone.

Donald Trump (aka “the Orange Menace”) had the same effect on David French as he did on Ta-Nehisi Coates. Both men used to be insightful social commentators who challenged convention and made readers think. Now both are shells of their former selves.

For Coates, the election of Trump was a “whitelash” from “deplorables” in direct response to eight years of black power embodied by Barack Obama. Now he has a far less prominent place in public discourse, evidenced by attempts to equate Jordan Peterson’s appeals to young men about ordering their lives with Nazis.

For French, evangelicals who voted for Trump betrayed their religious convictions and discredited the faith in front of a watching world. It appears he sees his ministry as putting those people in their place for as long as it takes for them to repent of that sin.

Everyone can see what is going on now, and many believers are tired of being attacked in public. They realize that a man who accuses Christians with different political beliefs of sowing seeds of political violence is the last person who should be giving lectures on winsomeness and gentle speech.

Squires: 'Wakanda Forever' shows that you can sell any worldview to fans who think 'representation' is life's highest virtue



I am not a film critic, so my take on "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" won’t include a detailed exposition on cinematography or the musical score.

What I am is someone who understands that movies are built on stories and that those stories are framed in specific ways to deliver a message. Some of those messages touch on universal themes like love, loss, and overcoming adversity. Others reflect the cultural zeitgeist, especially today when art and culture are explicitly used to groom unsuspecting children by normalizing gender confusion, drag queens, and pregnant “men.”

The Black Panther franchise is significant because the films are much more than movies. They are cultural events. Black moviegoers come adorned in dashikis, sporting more kente cloth than Democrats in Congress kneeling for George Floyd. They post images to social media of themselves with their arms crossed in the familiar “Wakanda forever” pose.

To many Black Panther fans, Wakanda is a futuristic black utopia — technologically advanced, rich in resources, and protected from the rapacious greed of white colonizers. The films are a vehicle to express what life would look like in a world free from anti-black racism.

The world created in "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" is a Black Lives Matter paradise pulled straight from the mind of Patrisse Cullors and Alicia Garza.

To its credit, the film opens and closes by giving honor to the late Chadwick Boseman, who played T’Challa in the original "Black Panther." Boseman died in 2020 of complications from colon cancer. His death was a major part of the storyline in "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever."

Unfortunately, he was the only man treated with any reverence in the film. Every other man in the film was made to submit. CIA agent Everett Ross was eventually arrested by his ex-wife, who is now the CIA director.

M’Baku, the leader of the Jabari tribe, eventually yielded to Shuri, T’Challa’s younger sister and the new Black Panther, when she demanded his support in a potential battle against the kingdom of Talokan.

Even Namor, the king of Talokan, yielded to Shuri in battle.

The image of dominant females and submissive males is quite an inversion of the social norms you would expect in the most powerful and prosperous African nation. I assume that choice was deliberate. To paraphrase a theme in the film, the relevant question is not how that decision was made, but why it was made.

The men in Wakanda don’t even have love interests on screen. The only expression of romantic affection was between two women – the new general of the Dora Milaje and one of her underlings. When sexual norms are at stake, the typical issues around power dynamics and consent suddenly become much less relevant.

This disconnect between the film’s plot and subtext is not new.

The original "Black Panther" film was full of vibrant colors, pageantry, and talk of black liberation.

But W'Kabi, one of T’Challa’s closest friends, responded to the king’s musings on potential pro-immigration policies with an unashamed “Wakanda First” rejoinder – “You let the refugees in … they bring their problems with them, and then Wakanda is like everywhere else.”

The militancy levels shot up significantly when Killmonger, an American-born trained assassin and cousin of T’Challa, comes to Wakanda to challenge the king for his throne.

Killmonger’s decisive victory against T’Challa – which he completed by tossing him off a cliff – was reminiscent of Bane’s back-breaking fight against Batman in "The Dark Knight Rises." In that film, the audience got to see what life in Gotham City was like under supervillain rule. Wealthy Gothamites were attacked by people who thought their wealth should be forcibly redistributed.

Bane instituted show trials and public executions. He trapped the police underground and freed all the prisoners. He killed the mayor and blew up a football stadium. He executed cops and federal agents. He armed a nuclear bomb that would have destroyed the city if not for Batman’s heroic return to defend Gotham.

Like Bane, Killmonger was an ideologue bent on imposing his vision of justice on those who were never held to account for oppressing the weak and vulnerable. He waxed poetic about using Wakanda’s resources and advanced weaponry to “liberate” black people across the globe.

But he couldn’t get a single plane, missile, or spear out of Wakandan airspace.

In fact, one of the people who prevented him from exacting revenge on the oppressors across the globe was a white CIA agent who was brought to Wakanda for emergency medical treatment. Even after T’Challa regained his throne by the end of "Black Panther," he still didn’t invite kids from America’s inner cities to travel to Wakanda for a cultural exchange program. For all of the film’s Afrocentric rhetoric and visuals, the only person to be brought into Wakanda from the outside world in that movie was a man referred to as a “colonizer.”

I guess fans should think of that as Wakandan white privilege.

"Wakanda Forever" is no different. Queen Ramonda and Namor were both very critical of the industrialized countries they believed would destroy their lands – and people – for access to vibranium. But ultimately, it was all talk, because the only war in the film was fought between the two “kingdoms of color,” largely because Shuri, the new Black Panther, refused to join Namor in waging war against the imperial West.

The Black Panther franchise gives audiences just enough revolutionary dialogue to make them think they are watching actual Black Panthers, but ultimately the real product being promoted is something far different.

"Wakanda Forever" spends more time tearing down the patriarchy and traditional gender norms than it does uprooting the forces of settler colonialism.

The film will likely do great at the box office and lead to additional calls for representation by ethnic and sexual minorities. But when the people who control the culture know that “representation” is a specific group’s highest priority, they also know they can sell any worldview if the packaging has the right color. For instance, "The Woman King" lied about the Dahomey kingdom’s insistence on participating in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, but the “we need to teach true history” crowd didn’t care because they got to see a middle-aged black woman kick butt and rule over a nation.

In a post-credits scene for "Wakanda Forever," the audience learns that T’Challa fathered a son with his girlfriend before his death. Given Marvel’s trajectory and the heavy-handedness of cultural messaging, I wouldn’t be surprised if the child came out as non-binary in a future film, used personal pronouns, and legalized “gender-affirming” surgeries for Wakandan teens.

That would be completely on brand. The Black Panther franchise enjoys an exalted status among black Marvel fans. This makes it the perfect vehicle to subtly shape the worldview of its most vocal supporters, especially the men who either miss or dismiss the cultural programming.

I wonder if any would object if the final installment was entitled "Black Panther: The Man Queen."

Squires: America's (free) speech impediment is being caused by a bad case of 'oppression obsession'



What do a group of teenage girls in Derry, New Hampshire, have to do with professional athletes and the sports journalists who cover them? All of these groups embody a concerning trend related to political rhetoric in America today.

The girls in Derry were contestants in the Miss Greater Derry Scholarship Pageant, and they became a national news story this week because the winner is a biological male who “identifies” as a woman and goes by the name Brían Nguyen. The story went viral because of a picture of the girls smiling as they surrounded Nguyen as he stood with the winner’s bouquet in hand.

The girls looked genuinely happy that a man won a scholarship that should have gone to one of them. The reason is simple: they have either been fully indoctrinated into radical gender ideology or they are too scared to speak up for themselves because they don’t want to offend someone from a “marginalized” group.

These girls silence themselves because of a cultural condition I call “oppression obsession.”

One symptom of oppression obsession is linking the threat of violence against members of “marginalized” groups to comments made about individuals in that group or the entire group itself. People outside the group recognize this connection and adjust their speech and behavior accordingly.

The result of our culture’s battle with oppression obsession is a (free) speech impediment that makes teenage girls terrified to publicly question why boys are beating them in sports, winning pageants, and collecting scholarships meant for females. They believe people who “identify” as the opposite sex when they claim that failure to affirm their delusion puts them at higher risk of suicide.

Oppression obsession is also how a voting law Democrats don’t like turns into “Jim Crow 2.0” or how “misgendering” a man dressed as a woman becomes a crime that carries a fine up to $250,000 in New York City.

This condition is why people covering the Kyrie Irving saga over the last week have tried to connect his words to actual violence, whether in the distant past or in the future. One ESPN contributor tied Irving’s tweet, which included the link to "Hebrew to Negroes: Wake Up Black America," to the 2018 mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh.

He is not the only one.

The managing editor here at TheBlaze wrote a response to a recent column in which Jason Whitlock was critical of Ben Shapiro’s responses to Ye, Kyrie, and Candace Owens. His perspective on Kyrie should look familiar by now:

“We are not talking about being overly sensitive about hurt feelings here: Real, actual Jewish people have been killed en masse, displaced from their homes, and removed from their jobs on the basis of this rhetoric.”

The only thing oppression obsession kills is the opportunity for constructive dialogue on difficult topics. We are a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation. Everyone acknowledges that violence is wrong, especially violence committed to further a political cause, but words people don’t like are not violence. Trying to link every distasteful opinion to slavery, Jim Crow, the Holocaust, mass trans suicide, or the women who died having back-alley abortions is not conducive to healthy political discourse.

Overusing terms like “racist,” “sexist,” “transphobic,” “homophobic,” and “anti-Semitic” drains the terms of their power, but emotional extortion works because one of the quickest ways to accrue political capital in America today is to claim to be the victim of oppression. Even Irving’s early response to the controversy was based on this premise.

“I oppose all forms of hatred and oppression and stand strong with communities that are marginalized and impacted every day. I am aware of the negative impact of my post towards the Jewish community and I take responsibility.”

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver recently met with Kyrie Irving and said he doesn’t believe he is anti-Semitic. This revelation may ease some of the tensions surrounding this incident, which could quickly turn into a public relations nightmare now that Min. Louis Farrakhan has voiced his support for Irving. This is in addition to LeBron James, the NBA Players Association, and Stephen A. Smith expressing concerns about the six-step process Irving must complete to be reinstated by the Nets.

Somehow the same NBA teams, executives, and players who claim to hate “harmful” words and images have no problem playing rap songs from artists who rhyme about doing bodily harm to black men or revel in their disregard for black women.

We live in a country where headlines like “There’s nothing more frightening in America today than an angry White man” and “You Damn Karens Are Killing America” run in major publications on a regular basis. MSNBC’s Joy Reid once stated that conservative states like Texas wanted to get black and Hispanic workers back to work during COVID so they could make steaks for the wealthy and privileged. She also claimed that white people would trade tax cuts for the ability to say the “N-word.”

The ruling class doesn’t have an equitable aversion to ethnic stereotypes or religious generalizations. It just wants to be able to control which groups are in the crosshairs. Holding to such an arbitrary standard is a guarantee that this won’t be the last time we’re faced with this type of controversy.

As a Christian, I detest every form of hatred because I believe every single human being is made in the image of God. Hating fellow image-bearers because of their skin color or beliefs shows contempt for their Maker. I also believe attributing the behavior of individuals to something inherent about the nature of their tribe is a misunderstanding of human nature.

None of us are righteous, and there is no type or category of sin that is unique to any specific group. The Bible makes that crystal clear in Romans 1:28-31:

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

The inability to “save” ourselves is one of the things that unites us as humans. Thankfully, the same Savior who can free mankind from the bondage of sin can also free us from our oppression obsession.