'That Ain't My Party': Al Sharpton Says It Would Be 'Crazy' for Black People To Celebrate America's 250th as 2028 Dem Hopefuls Pay Homage to Him

National Action Network founder Al Sharpton said at his group's annual convention this week, which featured several 2028 Democratic presidential hopefuls, that it would be "crazy" for black people to celebrate the United States' 250th birthday later this year.

The post 'That Ain't My Party': Al Sharpton Says It Would Be 'Crazy' for Black People To Celebrate America's 250th as 2028 Dem Hopefuls Pay Homage to Him appeared first on .

She stood up for women’s soccer. Her team called her racist.



Former professional soccer player Elizabeth Eddy made headlines when she wrote an op-ed in the New York Post calling for clear biological sex eligibility standards in the National Women’s Soccer League to protect the fairness of women’s soccer — but it was not received well by her fellow players.

Eddy received intense backlash from her Angel City FC teammates, who publicly accused the piece of being harmful, transphobic, and racially motivated.

Unlike those teammates, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey is grateful to Eddy for sounding the alarm on what’s really going on in women’s sports.

“She did not back down,” Stuckey says, before asking Eddy about the initial response to her article.


“What ended up happening is, the article came out ... and then before every game, our captains get sent out to the press to do media. ... And the two captains shared their thoughts on the article, and they spoke on behalf of the team and the organization,” Eddy tells Stuckey.

“And that was really, really hard to hear because I’d had conversations with both of them in the past, and I was really close with both of them to the point where they were both invited to our wedding. One of them helped my fiancé plan the proposal,” she continues.

And while the article was not “racist” or “transphobic,” her teammates still claimed it was.

“I’ve had a lot of convos with my teammates in the past few days, and they are hurt and they are harmed by the article, and also they are disgusted by some of the things that were said in the article, and it’s really important for me to say that,” one of her teammates said at the press conference.

“And we don’t agree with the things written for a plethora of reasons, but mostly the undertones come across as transphobic and racist as well,” her teammate added.

“I was 100% shocked because ... the words I wrote, there’s no way that could be conceived,” Eddy explains.

“Were you able to have a private conversation with them? ... After they accused you, racist, transphobic, all of these things, were you able to have a reasonable discussion to be able to say, ‘Well, no, this is what I meant, and this is why it’s not racist,’ or was that not able to happen?” Stuckey asks.

While Eddy admits that those teammates who publicly discussed her article were not willing to have a private discussion with her, she did hear from multiple teammates that they didn’t stand by what the captain said.

“Were you disappointed by any people who said, ‘I completely agree with you, I support you, but I could never do that’?” Stuckey asks.

“Yeah, there’s a part of me that’s like, come on, because if you do, it snowballs and this thing actually changes in a shorter time frame than not. But at the same time, I can totally empathize with them because it was so hard for me to do this,” Eddy answers.

“I was waffling for months about it,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Karen Attiah, Radical Beefcake Columnist Fired for 'Endangering' Colleagues, To Receive 'Distinguished Service Award' From Journalism Society

Karen Attiah, the radical beefcake columnist who lost her job at the Washington Post after "endangering" colleagues with her inflammatory posts about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, has repeatedly denounced mainstream journalism as a racist industry in which black voices are "silenced" and progressive black women are "hunted."

The post Karen Attiah, Radical Beefcake Columnist Fired for 'Endangering' Colleagues, To Receive 'Distinguished Service Award' From Journalism Society appeared first on .

Dems Hope To Hide Anti-American Policies Behind ‘Straight, White, Christian Man’ 2028 Nominee

A hilarious article in Axios over the weekend re-upped one of my favorite self-perpetuating problems in the Democrat Party — the party’s refusal to do anything but change its destructive, unpopular policy positions. “Some top Democrats,” read the piece by Holly Otterbein and Alex Thompson, “are quietly debating a fraught question: whether the party’s best bet […]

Nick Cannon labels Democrats 'party of the KKK' — defends Trump against 'racist' claims



Actor, comedian, rapper, and TV host Nick Cannon can now add another title to his resume: unabashed Trump fan.

The "Masked Singer" host made his remarks on a recent episode of his podcast "Nick Cannon's Big Drive," which appears to have been removed from YouTube.

'People don't know that the Republicans are the party that freed the slaves.'

Speaking to Amber Rose, a model who spoke at the Republican National Convention in 2024, Cannon asked her if she supported the GOP as a result of her wealth and enterprise.

"Is that because the bag has got so intense and so heavy that you ... up there with the elite now?"

"Not even close," Rose replied. "Democrats don't care about black people, and they don't care about people of color, and the Republicans do. And that's the misconception."

Loose Cannon

Cannon's response was blunt: "You know what? I agree with you 100%. People don't know that the Democrats is the party of the KKK. People don't know that the Republicans are the party that freed the slaves."

While Cannon allowed that he wasn't as "outspoken" about his conservative views as Rose, he did confess to admiring the current president.

"I f**k with Trump," Cannon added after laughing about him "cleaning house" and "charging a $5 million bottle service fee to get in the country."

RELATED: Squires: Nick Cannon, COVID, and CRT prove a biblical approach to family produces superior results than the whims of culture

Paras Griffin/Getty Images

That's Trumpist

Cannon was also quick to defend Trump from any charges of racism, noting that he never faced such accusations before he got involved in politics.

"He would be at all the events with like, Russell Simmons, all the black parties. ... But when he got political, that's when, you know, people start putting the racist jacket on."

Cannon then came up with a word for what Trump actually is:

"I honestly don't think he's racist. I think he's Trumpist."

RELATED: Judges on 'The Masked Singer' walked off the show in protest when a contestant was revealed to be Rudy Giuliani

2009. Michael Desmond/Disney General Entertainment Content/Getty Images

Cali crisis

While the host shared a mutual admiration for California with Rose, he admitted the state has floundered in recent years. Rose pointed out "potholes everywhere" as the two drove through Los Angeles.

"Look at these roads. ... It's disgusting. We pay too much taxes in California to be living like this."

Agreeing, Cannon commented on a "great exodus" of the state, but with both entertainers being parents, they said they did not want to uproot their kids or take them away from their respective spouses.

Hot seat

Cannon is not one to shy away from controversial statements. In 2020, he was fired by ViacomCBS for claiming that Jews have "the bloodlines that control everything, even outside of America" and that black people are the "true Hebrews."

In 2017, Cannon had called Trump a "bully" and said he needed to be a better leader. He also criticized the president for wanting to send the National Guard into Chicago.

"Darkness does not get rid of darkness, you’ve got to bring some light to this community! Bring that to Chicago!"

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

EXCLUSIVE: We Obtained the Syllabus for Claudine Gay’s New Harvard Course on Higher Education

Harvard students will soon be able to take a class about the meaning of Harvard, which is very Harvard—even more so because the new course will be taught by Claudine Gay, the former university president who resigned in disgrace amid plagiarism accusations and criticism of her response to anti-Semitism on campus.

The post EXCLUSIVE: We Obtained the Syllabus for Claudine Gay’s New Harvard Course on Higher Education appeared first on .

Shelby and Eli Steele’s new film goes straight at the white-guilt grifters



Are you guilty? That depends. Are you white? Then yes, you are guilty. But whiteness is no longer the only offense. Believe in God? Believe Christ saves sinners? Believe in objective morality, the rule of law, or marriage between one man and one woman? Then skin color hardly matters. You are guilty anyway.

Guilty of what? Guilty of the sins of history, the inequities of the present, and whatever new offense the racial racketeers invent tomorrow. At least that is what grifters like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo have spent years selling to America, often for staggering sums underwritten by universities eager to flatter the ideology. Arizona State University, where I teach, has offered classes on the problem of whiteness. ASU’s Barrett Honors College teaches the evils of settler colonialism.

You, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, are footing the bill for Struggle Session 101.

That is the backdrop for “White Guilt,” the new documentary from Shelby Steele and his son, Eli Steele, which premieres this week at ASU. Shelby Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and recipient of the National Medal of the Humanities, has spent decades writing about race, multiculturalism, and affirmative action. In his 2006 book “White Guilt,” he argued that racial moralism had become a tool for gaining power over others rather than a path toward justice.

The film appears at a moment when Americans have begun to see more clearly how much of the modern racial industry depends on intimidation, guilt, and fraud.

Steele understands the temptation from the inside. As a young man, he felt drawn to the black power movement. His parents had been active in the civil rights movement, and he wanted to help his community. But he came to see that race blame solves nothing. It degrades everyone it touches. Blame wielded by race remains racism, no matter who aims it or who absorbs it.

The better question, Steele argues, asks what it means to live as a free and responsible person. What happens when an individual takes responsibility for his own choices? What kind of life becomes possible when dignity comes from agency rather than grievance? That moral vision sits much closer to the American ideal than the racial spoils system now preached across much of higher education.

Steele rejects the fashionable claim that slavery was America’s original sin. The deeper sin, he argues, is the use of race to gain power over others. That temptation did not die with Jim Crow. It adapted. It migrated into institutions, party politics, nonprofits, and university bureaucracies. Today it thrives in classrooms where professors insist they do not teach racism while teaching students to judge one another by skin color, ancestry, and inherited guilt.

That fraud has paid well.

Black Lives Matter offered perhaps the clearest recent example. In the wake of Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, BLM became a moral brand for affluent liberals, activist professionals, and corporate America. Shelby and Eli Steele explored the lie at the movement’s foundation in their earlier film, “What Killed Michael Brown?” Their new film picks up a related question: How did the language of anti-racism become such a lucrative racket?

The answer is not hard to find. Much of the left’s social justice industry runs on a simple formula: Manufacture guilt, divide people by race, promise absolution, then collect money, influence, and institutional power. Sell moral panic to well-intentioned Americans, then invoice them for redemption.

RELATED: The campus isn’t ‘misunderstood.’ It’s mismanaged — on purpose.

Artur Widak/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Want to end racism? Write a check. Sign the DEI pledge. Sit through the seminar. Keep your head down while the consultants explain that your skin makes you complicit and your silence proves your guilt.

The strategy stays simple. Divide humanity into categories. Teach each group to resent the others. Tell people that the brokenness of the world is not a permanent feature of fallen life but the fault of their neighbors. Then arrive as the enlightened manager who can fix it all, for a fee. That formula has wrecked poorer countries for generations. Now left-wing elites have imported it into American life, dressed it up in therapeutic language, and sold it as virtue.

Anyone who has spent time around a university classroom knows the script. A professor begins with a banal truth: The world is filled with injustice. The class nods. Then comes the poisonous turn: Would you like to know who is to blame? Look around the room. Identify the oppressor. Assign the guilt. Require ritual silence from some students and ritual confession from others. Repackage humiliation as education.

And you, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, are footing the bill for Struggle Session 101.

Instead of surrendering to this politics of racial hatred, envy, and managed guilt, Americans should recover a better ideal. Freedom means more than license. It means responsibility. It means building a life through choice, discipline, and moral agency rather than through grievance and tribal score-settling. Whether the world crowns that life a success or a failure, it still belongs to you. No race hustler can take that from you.

“White Guilt” premieres March 25 at 6 p.m. at ASU Tempe in Bateman Physical Sciences F Wing, Room 166.

Texas Democrats just gave Republicans a gift-wrapped hypocrisy story



After nominating James Talarico for the Senate in Texas, are Democrats now racists and misogynists?

It’s a reasonable question. Democrats chose James Talarico, a white man, over Jasmine Crockett, a black woman. That choice also collides head-on with what Democrats told the country after Kamala Harris lost the presidency: that racism and misogyny decided the outcome.

Democrats can’t keep changing the rules depending on who wins.

In Texas’ recent Democratic Senate primary, Talarico, a member of the Texas House since 2018, faced Crockett, a two-term member of Congress from Texas’ 30th District. On paper, Crockett looked like the stronger Democrat brand: a young, outspoken black woman with far left-wing views and national visibility.

Yet Talarico won handily, 53% to 45%, after a primary season marked by intraparty drama — including fights that centered on race.

If identity politics commands the party, the result looks odd. Even sympathetic Democratic observers described the two candidates as ideologically similar. MSNBC analyst John Heilemann said Talarico is “not a moderate” and that he and Crockett held “basically the same positions on almost every issue.” In other words, voters didn’t choose a centrist over a firebrand. They chose one firebrand over another — and they chose the white male.

Democrats will reply that the answer is “electability.” They’ll say Talarico gives them a better shot in November. Maybe that’s what many primary voters believed. But Democrats have spent years insisting that “electability” talk is often a cover for bias, a way to push women and minorities aside while keeping the old hierarchies intact.

That’s why the question won’t go away.

Democrats routinely portray themselves as the party most attuned to race and sex. The 2024 numbers underline that self-image: Exit polls showed Harris won overwhelming support from black voters and strong support from women, including black women. Democrats treat those blocs as moral proof of the party’s mission.

They also treated Harris’ loss as moral proof of the country’s failure.

Former President Joe Biden blamed the 2024 defeat on sexism and racism, saying voters “went the sexist route” and wouldn’t accept “a woman of mixed race.” When candidates for DNC chairman were asked whether racism and misogyny played a role in Harris’ defeat, all eight raised their hands. David Axelrod said bluntly that the campaign included appeals to racism and that “anybody” who thinks bias didn’t affect the outcome is wrong.

Rank-and-file Democrats echoed the claim. NBC News’ post-election interviews featured Democrat voters attributing Harris’ loss to the country’s unwillingness to elect a woman, with race layered on top. “Regardless of race,” one black Democrat from Pittsburgh said, “they didn’t want her to win.”

RELATED: James Talarico found a verse — and twisted the meaning

Mark Felix/Bloomberg/Getty Images

So Democrats have made this argument, loudly and repeatedly: When a woman loses at the top of the ticket, the country’s sexism and racism bear much of the blame.

Then Texas Democrats faced their own test. They could nominate the black woman — especially in a race where ideology wasn’t the separating line — and they didn’t.

Democrats might point out that Harris flamed out early in the crowded 2020 presidential primary and that the party still elevated her to vice president and then the 2024 nomination. That’s true. But that history cuts both ways. It suggests Democrats will showcase race and sex when it serves the coalition — and set it aside when it doesn’t.

And this time, they aren’t even pretending they didn’t set it aside.

Talarico’s profile rose fast, aided by a national media moment. Stephen Colbert posted an interview online after CBS declined to air it over “equal time” concerns, and the clip drew millions of views. The controversy boosted Talarico’s visibility and fundraising — and helped turn a state primary into a national narrative.

Democrats are now framing their choice as pragmatic. They’re saying: We picked the candidate who can win.

Fine. But Democrats don’t get to treat “electability” as an illegitimate dog whistle when Republicans use it — then invoke it as a clean, neutral justification when Democrats do.

Here’s the bottom line: When America chose Trump over Harris in 2024 — in a race with major policy contrasts — Democrats blamed racism and misogyny. When Texas Democrats chose a white male over a black woman in 2026 — in a race Democrats say offered little substantive contrast — the party expects everyone to treat it as smart strategy.

That double standard is the point.

Either identity is decisive and bias explains outcomes — or voters, including Democrat voters, sometimes make other calculations and deserve to be treated like adults.

Democrats can’t keep changing the rules depending on who wins.