Gavin Newsom’s racial pandering knows no bounds



Leaders should seek to unify people. Instead, California governor and likely 2028 presidential candidate Gavin Newsom (D) embraces politics, dividing his constituents into those entitled to privileges and subventions by reason of their melanin, sex, or sexual orientation — and those who are required to fund the largesse.

He opposed race-neutral admissions to the California state university system (overruled by the people of California — twice), imposed gender and racial requirements on corporate boards (held unconstitutional — twice), required ethnic studies and ethnically dumbed-down math in K-12 curricula, and is carefully advancing a potentially multitrillion-dollar reparations plan for California’s black residents.

Whether born of intense self-loathing or kowtowing to the radical left, Newsom’s support for reparations is racist political pandering at its worst.

Newsom’s unconstitutional quest to curry favor with, undermine the confidence of, and potentially spend trillions of dollars on California’s 2.5 million black residents began in 2020 when he signed AB3121 into law, which required the state to study and develop reparation proposals for black Californians, with “special consideration” for descendants of slaves.

Then, in 2022, Newsom established a commission to develop policies that impact racial equity and disparities. The following year, it recommended payments exceeding $1 million for each descendant of slaves, as well as housing assistance, guaranteed wages, racially segregated education, and overturning California’s ban on affirmative action in college admissions, among hundreds of other racially abhorrent policies.

Now, Newsom has established a new bureau nominally to develop programs to implement the commission’s report, but with legislative authority to “expand” its mission to address remedies for the “lasting harms” of disenfranchisement, segregation, discrimination, exclusion, neglect, and violence impacting black Californians. The bureau is also authorized to collect nonpublic personal and genetic information to identify those who should obtain preferential treatment.

Newsom vetoed legislation to give admissions preferences to descendants of slaves, which he said colleges can already do; investigate racist property taxes, which is already within the new bureau’s mandate; and allocate 10% of state loans to slave descendants, which is clearly unconstitutional. An appearance of balance is important for a nascent presidential campaign.

Nonetheless, whether born of intense self-loathing or kowtowing to the radical left, Newsom’s support for reparations is racist political pandering at its worst.

Reparations are particularly inappropriate in California. The state was admitted to the Union in 1850 as a free state, in which slavery was prohibited. Its population today is about 37% non-Hispanic white, 39% Hispanic, 16% Asian, and 6% black. Over a quarter are foreign-born.

There is no doctrine in the United States that holds children liable for the crimes of their parents, much less their distant ancestors; nor do children inherit their ancestors’ debts. In 1860, there were 395,216 slave owners in the 15 states that permitted slavery and none in the other 18 states. In total, about 5%-6% of all U.S. households owned slaves.

Today, most blacks are at least middle class, live in diverse suburbs, and pursue the same careers as whites. They are doctors, lawyers, and chief executives. With about 12.5% of the population, blacks account for a somewhat larger share of U.S. House members and about one-third of the mayors in America’s 100 largest cities. Blacks have held the highest offices in government, from president and vice president to numerous Cabinet positions and 22% of current Supreme Court justices.

RELATED: Gavin Newsom lashes out at Joe Rogan for accusing him of ruining California: ‘He did horrible s**t!’

Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

In a 2002 Gallup poll, 14% of Americans favored the payment of cash reparations to descendants of black slaves. A 2019 Associated Press-NORC poll found 29% approval. In 2024, a Princeton University-Liberations poll found that 36% of Americans supported at least some form of reparations, with 15% strongly supporting cash payments. A 2022 Rasmussen poll and a 2025 YouGov poll had similar results. About a quarter of blacks oppose reparations.

At least 23 cities and states are considering paying reparations, including New York City, San Francisco, and Boston. Under most reparation proposals, the national cost would range from about $12 trillion to $20 trillion.

While polls usually ask about reparations for descendants of slaves, most commissions also consider payments to other black Americans. A Brookings Institution report justifies giving reparations to wealthy blacks and recent immigrants due to the wealth gap between black and white families.

Polls and partisan commissions aside, the 14th Amendment prohibits governments from allocating benefits based on race. The Supreme Court has been clear that our detour into justifying affirmative action and other race-based programs was a “pernicious aberration.” There have been trillions of dollars of transfer payments to black Americans through welfare, food stamps, loan payments, enterprise zones, minority contracting, and affirmative action. These giveaways deprive blacks of agency and create dependency, not a path toward self-actualization.

Chief Justice John Roberts said it well in the Supreme Court’s decision ending racial preferences in college admissions: “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. … [T]he guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.”

Gavin Newsom knows all this. He just doesn’t care.

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

Dems Rejoice as Child Murder Buff Taps Blackface Gov, aka 'Coonman,' to Lead Transition Team

Jay Jones made history this week as the first person to be elected attorney general of Virginia after fantasizing about murdering a political opponent's children and urinating on their graves. So it makes sense that Jones would seek the counsel of another Virginia politician who knows what it takes to overcome a scandal involving moral depravity. (Step 1: Refuse to step down. Step 2: Be a Democrat.)

The post Dems Rejoice as Child Murder Buff Taps Blackface Gov, aka 'Coonman,' to Lead Transition Team appeared first on .

Michelle Obama claims to wield fashion against ‘angry, bitter, black woman’ stereotype



Former first lady Michelle Obama has published a new book called “The Look,” which details her fashion choices throughout Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign, her time in the White House, and today.

“American culture is part of our soft power, and fashion is part of our culture. How did you wield it?” Stephen Colbert asked Obama while promoting her new book on “The Late Show.”

“Carefully, thoughtfully, strategically,” Obama replied.

“When did you realize it was something to wield?” Colbert asked.


“I think right away. I mean, the campaign was beautiful, but you know, I felt the politics of it fast. I learned a lot of lessons about what I had to look out for and how quickly people were willing to take my story and distort it. So I knew very quickly that I had to control every aspect of how I showed up in the world,” she replied.

“It was a race to let the country learn me from me before they learned this other crazy woman that they were talking about, the angry, bitter, black woman that was a terrorist and a danger to her country and didn’t love her country,” she continued.

BlazeTV host Pat Gray isn’t having it, playing an old audio clip of Obama saying, “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.”

“For the first time in her adult life, because her husband was nominated for president of the United States, she was then finally proud of her country,” Gray says, annoyed, before playing another audio clip.

“Stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your ignorance. That’s America,” she said in the old clip.

“We are going to have to make sacrifices. We are going to have to change our conversation. We’re going to have to change our traditions, our history. We’re going to have to move into a different place,” Obama said in another other clip.

“She’s never said one nice thing about this country, nor any kind of self-awareness on her part of anything. She is absolutely — just don’t run for president," executive producer Keith Malinak chimes in.

“She’s not going to,” Gray says, adding, “she hates the country too much.”

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

We Can’t Let Offensive Memes, Edgy Humor, And Nihilism Consume Young Men

There’s room between ceding ground to the left that need not be ceded and pretending like the decades-long campaign to alienate and ostracize conservatives is not pushing some people into dark corners.

Here’s An Inside Look At The Radical Dogma Being Taught At The No. 1 Elementary Teaching School

"Even my teacher at the first day of class, she said, 'everything is political,' and I didn't understand what she meant until I started doing the content."

'Lord of the Rings' demonizes orcs, says college prof



A university professor is attacking classic literature through the guise of academia.

Specifically targeted are the beloved works of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and even William Shakespeare.

'Diverse populations and Africans lived there.'

Onyeka Nubia is a British historian employed as the assistant professor for the faculty of arts at the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom.

Hobbitual racism

In a history module called "Decolonising Tolkien et al," Nubia teaches that "people of colour" are demonized in the "Lord of the Rings" books and targets certain races of creatures and humans for his analysis.

According to the Telegraph, Nubia noted groups called the Easterlings, Southrons, and men from Harad as being particularly deprecated. According to Lord of the Rings Fandom pages, the Harad and Southrons had black skin, while the Easterlings were "sallow or olive."

Fans of the series know that none of these races are noted as being undesirable based solely on the color of their skin, but Nubia claims that these races are depicted as "the natural enemy of the white man."

He makes similar claims about orcs, despite the fact that they are literal monsters bred for war. As well, Nubia reportedly declares that the stories showcase "anti-African antipathy," even though several of the story's most significant evildoers are light-skinned males, like Grima, Saruman, and Gollum.

RELATED: Don't fall for the fake 'banned books' narrative

Ian McKellen (L) as Gandalf with Elijah Wood as Frodo in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring." Photo by New Line/WireImage/Getty Images

Narnia business

The professor reportedly does not stop at Tolkien, though, and goes after classics like "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe."

The fantasy book is reportedly described as providing unbecoming portrayals of oriental stereotypes when describing the Calormenes. These characters are described as "cruel" people with "long beards" and "orange-coloured turbans."

A fan page describes them as "tan-skinned" men who are "mostly bearded," wearing "flowing robes, turbans, and wooden shoes."

Nubia also provided articles that said medieval England had "diverse populations and Africans lived there," but "ethnic chauvinism" was apparent in the literature in the region.

Bad Bard

This was also allegedly present in Shakespeare's work. Nubia's syllabus reportedly said the author promoted a vision of a "fictional, mono-ethnic English past."

Calling Shakespeare's plays problematic, Nubia claims they are "missing direct references to Africans living in England" which creates the "illusion" of racial homogeneity in the country.

RELATED: Father-Son Movie Bucket List

Director Peter Jackson attending "The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers" world premiere, December 5, 2002. Photo by Evan Agostini/Getty Images

As noted by Geeks and Gamers, prominent voices who cover the medium spoke out against the alleged teachings.

"If you see orcs as black people YOU are the racist," wrote Nerdrotic, an X account with over 260,000 followers.

The Critical Drinker, who has over 2.3 million YouTube subscribers, wrote on X similarly, "If you look at Orcs and see people of colour, that's a 'You' problem."

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

'My Totenkopf': Graham Platner Associates Say He Knew He Had a Nazi Tattoo, Contradicting Maine Senate Candidate

Graham Platner (D.), the Bernie Sanders-endorsed Senate candidate in Maine, revealed that he has a Nazi-linked tattoo on his chest but claimed to be unaware of its symbolism. Associates of Platner refuted that claim, with one calling him a history buff who "knows damn well" the meaning of the tattoo and another saying he referred to the ink as "my Totenkopf," a reference to the Nazi symbol.

The post 'My Totenkopf': Graham Platner Associates Say He Knew He Had a Nazi Tattoo, Contradicting Maine Senate Candidate appeared first on .

Ketanji Brown Jackson exposes her own worldview, compares black people to disabled people



Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is under fire after invoking the Americans with Disabilities Act during oral arguments in defense of ensuring black representation in Congress — however, many are now accusing her of comparing black people to the disabled.

"The fact that remedial action, absent discriminatory intent, is really not a new idea in the civil rights laws. And my kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA.”

"Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities. And so it was discriminatory, in effect, because these folks were not able to access these buildings — and it didn't matter whether the person who built the building, or the person who owned the building, intended for them to be exclusionary. That's irrelevant," she continued.

"Congress said the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities, if readily possible. I guess I don't understand why that's not what's happening here."


“The idea in Section 2 is that we are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system, right?” she asked, adding, “They’re disabled.”

BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock admits that it’s “a tricky conversation” and a “tricky subject.”

“If you go back in history, there was legitimate racial discrimination that harmed black people politically. There are a number of us that think that that time has passed, that that sort of discrimination has passed, and there is no … racial impediment to seeking higher office in Congress, in the House, Senate, whatever,” Whitlock says on “Jason Whitlock Harmony.”

“So in her defense of gerrymandering, she’s saying that we have faced so much discrimination that we’re disabled,” he adds.

“She’s not on solid ground,” BlazeTV contributor Virgil Walker says. “She has a false view of mankind. She has a false view of blacks in particular, mankind in general. What she’s exposing in her response is actually her worldview. Her idea that blacks are handicapped, blacks are disabled, blacks are beholden unto white power structures and submitted to that.”

“She has an unbiblical anthropology. All that means is an unbiblical view of who we are, who man is, an unbiblical view that we are not image-bearers of God, that you can assess who we are on the basis of the level of melanin in our skin and the historic narrative that has been permeated throughout American culture and society,” 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.

Democrats And The Media Turned ‘Racism’ Into A Joke. Now They’re Mad People Privately Mock It

Of all the matters that are urgent to the average person right now, “Young Republicans” making racist jokes in private must rank somewhere between, “What would be good for breakfast two weeks from now?” and, “Does Taylor Swift fart in front of Travis?” And those things are still about 280 notches below “Was the dress […]

Conservative SCOTUS justices appear skeptical about race-based redistricting



The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais.

The outcome of the case, which centers on the creation of a second black-majority congressional district in the Bayou State, may not only impact the Voting Rights Act and states' corresponding ability to undertake race-based gerrymandering, but the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives as well.

Conservative justices on the high court — including Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who voted in 2023 to uphold the relevant VRA provision in a similar case pertaining to Alabama's map but who warned that "the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future" — appear skeptical over the continued use of race in redistricting.

Background

Section 2 of the VRA, which the Supreme Court indicated in 1980 was a restatement of the protections afforded by the 15th Amendment, enables private citizens and the federal government to challenge allegedly discriminatory voting practices, including minority-vote dilution.

The Supreme Court has previously held that under certain circumstances, Section 2 may require the creation of one or more majority-minority districts in a redistricting map.

The Congressional Research Service noted that in its 1986 Thornburg v. Gingles decision, SCOTUS established a three-prong test for proving vote dilution under Section 2:

  1. "The minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district";
  2. "The minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive"; and
  3. The minority group must be able to prove that the majority group "votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it ... usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate."

In 2022, a group of black voters took Louisiana to court, complaining that the state legislature adopted a congressional map where, despite the state being one-third black, only one of six districts was majority black. The plaintiffs, who alleged that the map violated Section 2, won the day.

RELATED: North Carolina Republicans will 'follow Trump's call' to redistrict the state

Photo by Chip Somodevilla / POOL / AFP) (Photo by CHIP SOMODEVILLA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

A federal court agreed that the map was likely violative, prohibited its use in future elections, and told Louisiana to draft a new map, this time with two majority-black districts.

'Explicit race-based districting embarks us on a most dangerous course.'

Obliging an order from an Obama U.S. district judge, Shelly Dick, the Louisiana legislature drew a new map last year that boasted a second race-based district that stretches roughly 250 miles from Shreveport in the northwest to Baton Rouge in the southeast, and cuts strategically through black metropolitan areas.

This proved intolerable to another group. This time, the plaintiffs were one dozen non-black voters who contended the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violated both the 14th and 15th Amendments.

"The State has engaged in explicit, racial segregation of voters and intentional discrimination against voters based on race," the lawsuit said. "The State has drawn lines between neighbors and divided communities. In most cases, the lines separate African American and non-African American voters from their communities and assign them to Districts with dominating populations far away."

The case was kicked up to SCOTUS after a three-judge district court agreed with the plaintiffs and blocked the state from using the second map.

The high court issued an unsigned order in May 2024 putting the lesser court's ruling on hold, thereby setting the stage for the election of Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields in the newly drawn district.

The high court first heard oral arguments in the case in March, but in June, it rescheduled the case for reargument.

Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissenting opinion at the time of the order for reargument that the case should have been decided then, particularly when the court's approach to Section 2 is "broken beyond repair," and the conflict the high court's Section 2 "jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore."

Growing skepticism

The court heard oral arguments on Wednesday regarding the constitutionality of drawing majority-black districts to comply with the VRA.

While Louisiana previously supported the new map, it is now singing a different tune, suggesting that race-based redistricting is unconstitutional. The Trump administration has also weighed in, stating in a brief opposing the second map that "as Louisiana now concedes, Section 2 cannot justify the racially gerrymandered majority-minority district created to appease the Robinson court."

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the other liberal justices appeared largely convinced during oral arguments that race-based redistricting was not only lawful but a social good. Conservative justices, on the other hand, expressed deep skepticism over the practice.

In his colloquy with Janai Nelson, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund who was arguing on behalf of a group of black voters supportive of the second map, Justice Kavanaugh invoked former Justice Anthony Kennedy, noting:

He said the sorting of persons with an intent to divide by reason of race raises the most serious constitutional questions. And he added that explicit race-based districting embarks us on a most dangerous course. It is necessary to bear in mind that redistricting must comply with the overriding demands of Equal Protection clause.

Kavanaugh did not appear entirely convinced by Nelson's subsequent argument that "Section 2 is addressing a pre-existing problem. It is not producing it, and in fact, it reduces it more broadly across society."

'It would be a seismic development both legally and politically.'

While Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed the matter of whether Section 2 was itself constitutional but improperly interpreted and unlawfully applied, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito questioned whether the redrawn maps satisfied the three-prong Section 2 test previously established by SCOTUS, specifically asking whether the new black-majority district was sufficiently compact.

Alito also insinuated that contrary to the purportedly noble cause guiding the creation of the black-majority district, the real objective appeared ultimately to be "seeking a partisan advantage."

Meanwhile, Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed concern that states are effectively given license under the current interpretation of Section 2 to "intentionally discriminate on the basis of race" — a hard sell, especially on an indefinite basis.

Justices Coney Barrett and John Roberts played their cards closer to their chests.

It's clear by the left's pearl-clutching over the case that the stakes are high.

Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams' nonprofit Fair Fight Action claimed in a recent report that a ruling defanging the VRA provision at issue "could help secure an additional 27 safe Republican U.S. House seats when compared to the 2024 House maps" and "cement one-party control of the U.S. House for at least a generation."

Law professor Jonathan Turley noted that "if the Court were to reject such districts or declare a sunsetting of the provision, it would be a seismic development both legally and politically."

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