James Talarico shamelessly panders on Karmelo Anthony verdict — on New York-based radio show



The Democratic candidate trying to keep the party's hopes alive of flipping one of the two U.S. Senate seats in Texas is doing his pandering best.

In a recent interview on "The Breakfast Club" radio show, Talarico was asked about the controversial guilty verdict against Karmelo Anthony, the black high schooler who stabbed and killed Austin Metcalf, a white student-athlete, in Texas. A clip of his response went viral this week, thanks to a tweet from Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas).

'I know that there were no black members of the jury. And to me, that's the only evidence you need to really prove that the system is not working for black Texans.'

The jury found there was enough evidence to convict Anthony of murder, and he was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

The case has become a national flashpoint, especially regarding anti-white racism. In discussing the Anthony case, Talarico pounced into the deep end of the woke pool.

"I've done a lot of work in the statehouse on justice reform, and right now we got a system that doesn't serve all Americans equally. And we know that black Texans have not gotten the justice they deserve in many cases," he said on the show.

"I'm not an expert on this particular case, but I know that there were no black members of the jury," he added. "And to me, that's the only evidence you need to really prove that the system is not working for black Texans."

In the clip, Talarico appears to have been expounding on his decision to nod along as a white-hating radical at a town hall meeting claimed that "Karmelo Anthony's case is just a f**king tragedy."

"The Breakfast Club" is a New York City-based radio show very popular with members of the black community. The episode featuring Talarico was released August 5.

RELATED: Jasmine Crockett DUMPS on Talarico's chances of winning US Senate — and brings receipts

Talarico had previously signaled his support for the anti-white sentiment in the racial debate over the Karmelo Anthony murder case.

A recent poll found Talarico's race against Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to be in a dead heat, with only 5% of voters undecided. The victor could determine which party controls the U.S. Senate after the midterms.

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

Watch Hasan Piker Use the N-Word on His N-Word-Slinging Uncle’s Far-Left YouTube Show

Hasan Piker energetically used the N-word while appearing on his uncle's show, The Young Turks, a montage of resurfaced video shows.

The post Watch Hasan Piker Use the N-Word on His N-Word-Slinging Uncle’s Far-Left YouTube Show appeared first on .

The truth did not kill Jason Arday



I wanted a reckoning. I did not want Jason Arday dead.

Three days before he was found dead at his London home last week, I published a column entertaining what I admitted was a mischievous theory: Maybe the disgraced Cambridge professor was not merely a fraud but a world-class trickster who understood liberal institutions well enough to play their racial and ideological anxieties for all they were worth.

Maybe the cruelty was not that somebody finally checked. Maybe the cruelty was that almost nobody checked sooner.

I hoped someday he would confess. I even had the title of the book I wanted him to write: “I Thought You’d Believe Me.”

I wanted that book. I did not want an obituary.

Graeme Wood, writing this week in the Atlantic, makes a persuasive case that my trickster theory was a tad too generous. Arday apparently did not respond to exposure with the wink of a con man finally caught. He insisted he was not a liar. Wood reaches for Henrik Ibsen’s “The Wild Duck” and its livsløgn — the “life-lie,” a sustaining self-delusion that eventually becomes impossible to let go.

Maybe that’s closer to what happened. We’ll likely never know.

What we do know is that Arday lied. A lot. His public biography accumulated claims about academic appointments, fundraising, extraordinary athletic feats, and racist attacks that proved false, dubious, or impossible to verify. His scholarship contained extensive passages alleged to have been lifted from the work of less prominent academics. Cambridge ultimately opened investigations into his academic work and qualifications and, after his resignation, agreed to an independent inquiry into his appointment.

Enough of these lies!

That includes the lie now being told about the people who exposed them.

The fraud Ibram X. Kendi titled his response “The Media Lynched Jason Arday.” He says journalists have blood on their hands and treats Cambridge’s decision to investigate Arday as an abandonment of a prominent black scholar under racial attack. Wrong.

A lynching is not a metaphor for journalism you dislike. Reporting true and newsworthy facts does not become murder because the subject later dies.

What, exactly, should reporters have refused to investigate? The dissertation? The nonexistent appointments? The millions supposedly raised for charity? The 30 marathons in 35 days? The stories of racist attacks? The memoir?

RELATED: 5-star reviews for a fabulist memoir

Denise Baker/Getty Images

Precisely which question was forbidden?

Thousands gathered in Trafalgar Square on Monday to mourn Arday. The grief was real. So was the anger at the press and at Nathan Cofnas, the academic whose investigation of Arday’s work helped start the avalanche. Cofnas has controversial views about race. So what? If he found copied work, the relevant question is whether the work was copied. His politics cannot restore originality to somebody else’s prose.

This is how the evasion works: Stop talking about the evidence and start talking about the man who found it.

Now comes the possibility of “Arday’s Law.” A petition circulating in Britain actually proposes legislation limiting how many articles may be published about one individual within a given period, on the theory that excessive coverage causes mental anguish. It had garnered more than 3,500 verified signatures as of Wednesday.

The answer to too much journalism, apparently, is a government quota on journalism.

I sometimes fear Britain is lost. Thank God for the First Amendment!

This idea did not appear from nowhere. We have spent years teaching people that speech itself can constitute harm and that institutions therefore have a duty to build ever-safer spaces around anyone who might be harmed by it.

But no space is ever safe enough.

Once speech becomes violence, censorship becomes “care.” Eventually, as we’ve seen, the safe-space logic escapes the campus. A reporter asks too many questions. Too many newspapers publish the answers. Somebody suffers. Therefore, the state must decide when everybody has said enough. No thanks.

RELATED: No, the founders did not ‘tell you so’

Guy Smallman/Getty Images

That is not “liberalism.” Liberalism properly understood demands something harder: accepting that free speech can be intrusive, offensive, unfair, and occasionally cruel while recognizing that giving government power to decide when enough has been said is much worse.

If we want to talk about who failed Jason Arday, look first at the institutions that elevated him.

Graeme Wood’s harshest argument is also his most compelling. Arday was placed in a position for which the evidence increasingly suggests he was nowhere near prepared, while colleagues and institutions such as Cambridge, the BBC, and Simon and Schuster amplified an extraordinary biography instead of bothering to check it. Eventually somebody was going to notice.

Maybe the cruelty was not that somebody finally checked. Maybe the cruelty was that almost nobody checked sooner.

After I learned that Arday had been found dead, I wrote one of my writers: Hubris met Nemesis. And the outcome was invariably the same.

That does not mean Arday got what he deserved. Quite the opposite. Nemesis in tragedy is not proportional justice. It is catastrophe. Recognition comes too late, the machinery is already moving, and the ending is worse than anyone wanted.

Arday’s family and friends deserve compassion. His kids especially. They lost someone they loved.

But compassion does not require one more lie.

Death does not authenticate a false claim. It does not make plagiarism original. And if Arday took his own life, suicide does not retroactively turn reporters into murderers.

The tragedy is terrible enough. Don’t lie about that, too.

In Major Reversal, Talarico Implies That Black Votes Matter

James Talarico's actions throughout the Democratic Senate primary in Texas made clear his lack of respect for black voters and their God-given right to elect a candidate of their choice. In what seemed like a major reversal, the boy-faced candidate insisted that "our black neighbors" should be allowed to "shape [their] own destinies ... through the vote."

The post In Major Reversal, Talarico Implies That Black Votes Matter appeared first on .

Jason Arday Won’t Be The Last Time DEI Gets Someone Killed

It’s not a leap of any kind to say that the left’s DEI devotion is what killed Jason Arday, the Cambridge University professor who was found dead last week after international scrutiny of his professional work (plagiarism) and fantastical personal biography (fraud). But if there was any hope that his apparent suicide would be a […]

‘White privilege’ made her do it



DiJonai Carrington may have committed the most educational flagrant foul in the history of basketball.

I was discussing the episode with a friend who asked, “Do you remember roller derby?” I confessed I did not. “It was a sport where people enjoyed watching women beat each other up,” he said. I saw the connection immediately.

‘White privilege’ did not appear spontaneously in professional sports. It has an intellectual pedigree.

It reminded me of undergraduate classes in which feminists argued that women should run the world because they are more level-headed, calm, and compassionate than men. I had also watched some of those same people treat conservative colleagues with remarkable contempt. The theory and the behavior did not always match.

The WNBA has lately offered a rather vivid reminder that women, being human, are perfectly capable of aggression, rivalry, resentment, and the occasional refusal to accept responsibility.

During Saturday’s game between the Chicago Sky and Indiana Fever, Sophie Cunningham broke toward the basket for a layup. Carrington pursued her from behind and struck Cunningham across the head and neck. Officials reviewed the play, upgraded it to a flagrant 2, and ejected Carrington.

This was WNBA drama. Then higher education entered the game.

After her ejection, Carrington posted on Threads: “WHITE PRIVILEGE @indianafever.”

One has to admire the efficiency. Universities can spend an entire semester teaching students to interpret ordinary human interactions through racial categories. Carrington managed it before the game was over.

Predictably, people asked the obvious question: What precisely did Cunningham’s whiteness have to do with Carrington hitting her in the face?

Former NFL player Emmanuel Acho was among those who challenged Carrington’s invocation of white privilege. Carrington later said people had misunderstood her: She was not claiming the ejection itself was caused by white privilege, but pointing to what she regarded as a larger pattern of white players receiving different treatment. She defended her understanding of the subject by citing her education, including Stanford.

And there, buried beneath the WNBA drama, was the genuinely interesting story.

Carrington herself appealed to her education as authority for the framework she was using. That does not prove some Stanford professor taught her how to explain this particular foul. It does show how natural it has become for educated Americans to reach for concepts such as “white privilege” when interpreting conflict and punishment.

RELATED: Magical thinking just made the WNBA Draft

Melissa Tamez/Icon Sportswire/Getty Images

America’s universities have spent decades teaching students to interpret institutions and human behavior through racial categories. “White privilege” did not appear spontaneously in professional sports. It has an intellectual pedigree. Students encounter frameworks in which racial identity becomes a morally significant category through which achievements, punishments, disagreements, and disparities are interpreted.

Carrington apparently regards her education as establishing her authority on the subject. Fine. Then taxpayers and parents should pay attention to what that education teaches people to see.

Stanford is private, of course, but like many American universities, it receives substantial federal funding. Universities receiving federal money are subject to federal antidiscrimination law. That does not mean professors cannot discuss controversial theories of race. They obviously can. The serious question comes when theories move from subjects to be examined into institutional doctrines that classify people morally by race.

Imagine reversing the language. Imagine a university program teaching students to interpret the behavior of black classmates through a theory of “black privilege,” complete with generalizations about what black people characteristically possess, how they characteristically think, and what judgments should attach to them because of their racial identity.

Would anyone seriously maintain that race had nothing to do with it?

The Carrington episode also illustrates something universities rarely advertise about these theories: They can be wonderfully useful for avoiding personal responsibility.

In the classical university, education aimed at forming a good soul: one capable of wisdom, ordered toward what is good, and disciplined against vices such as hatred, envy, and bitterness. This did not mean the good person escaped persecution or injustice. It meant that injustice did not excuse becoming unjust in return. A good soul fears God, not men — or women.

Today’s university is different. It teaches students to locate wrongdoing in systems, structures, identities, and power. Once in a while those explanations are relevant. But they can also become a vocabulary for explaining away one’s own choices. For the philosophy students reading this, the contrast is Socrates versus Thrasymachus: seek the good, or reduce everything to power.

The old-fashioned response to committing a flagrant foul was fairly straightforward: “I went too far.”

The new response requires considerably more vocabulary.

One can discuss systems, privilege, disparities, power structures, historical patterns, and institutional inequities until the original question — “Why did you hit her in the face?” — disappears beneath a small graduate seminar.

That is one of the most corrosive temptations of identity ideology. It can supply an external explanation for almost every unfavorable consequence. If I succeed, I overcame oppression. If you succeed, you benefited from privilege. If I am punished, we investigate the system. If you are punished, justice has finally arrived.

Personal responsibility becomes strangely difficult to locate.

Carrington has also defended her aggressive play on the grounds that she will do everything she can to prevent an opponent from making a layup. Fair enough — except that this rather misses the point of organized sports.

Basketball is not defined as “do everything you can to stop the other person.” It has rules.

That’s what distinguishes basketball from rugby or a parking-lot fight.

RELATED: ‘She didn’t wait until it was easy’: Victim of brutal injury from male athlete praises Sophie Cunningham

Michael Reaves/Getty Images

You may contest the shot. You may block the ball. You may position yourself defensively. You may even commit an ordinary foul to force free throws. What you may not do is simply employ whatever technique seems most likely to prevent the basket.

Otherwise, why stop with a cross-face? Tackle her. Bite her. Kick her. Put her in a rear-naked choke.

Although, given recent WNBA highlights, perhaps I should stop giving anyone ideas.

The rules are not an obstacle to the game. The rules constitute the game. And that is precisely the moral lesson obscured by the ideology Carrington invoked.

Civil society works the same way. We do not get to suspend ordinary standards of conduct because we believe ourselves to be fighting injustice. We do not get to judge people by their skin color because an elaborate theory tells us doing so is enlightened. Anti-racism becomes corrupting when it licenses hatred, envy, or racial blame in the name of correcting hatred, envy, and racial injustice.

Carrington’s foul lasted only a moment.

Her explanation deserves more attention because it inadvertently reminded Americans that when racial ideology shows up on the basketball court, it did not necessarily begin there.

Someone taught the framework. Quite possibly at a university. And taxpayers help support the institutions where it flourishes.

CNN Is Trying To Drum Up Another Race Hoax

“Police investigating after a Black woman was found hanging from a tree in Mississippi,” an X post from The Lead on CNN read, accompanied by a reporter hit that aired Wednesday from Omar Jimenez on the death of 29-year-old Tasia Fortune. Fortune was found hanging from a tree behind an abandoned house earlier this month. […]

Federal judge REJECTS the victim narrative pushed by the criminally charged SPLC



The Southern Poverty Law Center's bad year just got a whole lot worse.

Besides facing congressional scrutiny, the liberal organization whose bread and butter is smearing law-abiding conservatives as "extremists" was federally charged in April with 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.

'The American people deserve to see this hate racket exposed in court.'

The SPLC — now under the leadership of CEO Ryan Haygood — tried to play the victim in hopes of having the case thrown out. The federal judge overseeing the case did not, however, buy what the professional concern-mongers were selling.

Tyler O'Neil, author of "Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center," told Blaze News, "The SPLC just tried to weasel its way out of accountability for allegedly propping up the Ku Klux Klan by complaining about President Trump’s mean social media posts. Judge Marks rightly saw through this charade."

"Abbe Lowell’s legal team must have known it was a stretch to ask a judge to dismiss the case for vindictive prosecution before trial, but to do so without any evidence tying alleged animus directly to prosecutors required real chutzpah," continued O'Neil. "The motion may have been catnip to the legacy media, but it was dead on arrival in court."

How it started

Prosecutors have accused the SPLC of secretly pouring several million dollars in donated funds to individuals linked to various extremist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the National Alliance, Aryan Nations, and National Socialist Party of America — groups the liberal organization was supposedly fighting against.

According to the superseding indictment filed by the Justice Department in June, which charges the SPLC with the same 11 counts, some of the donor funds were dumped into "fictitious accounts" and used ultimately to pay for so-called field sources "who were either leading or affiliated with multiple violent extremist organizations."

Field sources allegedly used SPLC donor money for numerous questionable activities, including creating racist paraphernalia that extremist groups sold at rallies; publishing extremist literature for recruitment purposes; purchasing materials for cross burnings and Ku Klux Klan hoods; and creating new chapters of extremist groups.

RELATED: SPLC director allegedly used donor cash to fund secret romance with neo-Nazi informant: Indictment

SPLC President Ryan Haygood. Elizabeth Frantz/Bloomberg/Getty Images

A former SPLC director is also alleged, among other things, to have used donor cash to fund her secret romance with a neo-Nazi informant.

Blaze Media did not immediately receive a response from the SPLC.

In May, the SPLC, which denies any wrongdoing, filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama to dismiss the federal charges, claiming that it is the victim of "a vindictive prosecution" launched in response to speech protected under the First Amendment — the "latest manifestation of a top-down, retributive campaign."

The SPLC claimed that it has been "falsely accused" by the Trump administration of being anti-Christian, aiding the Biden administration's weaponization of the DOJ, participating in political violence, and helping rig the 2020 election.

The SPLC claimed further that the administration's supposed animus "culminated in the criminal charges against the SPLC — an indictment premised on conclusory accusations but devoid of provable facts or a proper statement of the law."

Should the court refuse to dismiss the charges, the SPLC asked that it at least require discovery into the government's prosecutorial motives.

How it's going

U.S. District Court Judge Emily Marks, a Trump appointee, delivered some bad news to the SPLC on Friday.

"The SPLC is not entitled to discovery or dismissal of the indictment," Marks said in her order. "The SPLC has failed to offer some evidence tending to show animus on the part of the prosecutors involved in bringing this case and that such animus resulted in the prosecution, the showing required for discovery. Because it cannot satisfy that standard, it necessarily fails to satisfy the higher standard that would entitle it to dismissal of the indictment."

In her order, Marks also highlighted the inevitable fallout of presuming vindictiveness on the part of the government just because the SPLC was bashing the Trump administration prior to its indictment.

"It is true that before its indictment, the SPLC extensively criticized the Trump administration," wrote the judge. "But if that were sufficient to warrant a presumption, then the Government's fears would be realized, and an entity could effectively immunize itself from prosecution simply by engaging in protected speech, such as criticizing political figures and their policies."

Marks stressed that the "Court cannot license a fishing expedition based on innuendo or speculation."

"It is the SPLC’s, not the Court’s, burden to show that the Government’s prosecution was improperly motivated," continued the judge. "The SPLC cannot merely provide the rough outline of a theory — the President is out to get it — and expect the Court to fill in the blanks."

An SPLC spokesperson said in a statement obtained by The Hill, "While the Southern Poverty Law Center is disappointed with the outcome of the motion, we will continue to vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work."

The spokesperson for the group accused of reviving at least one hate group and bankrolling the creation of KKK garb added, "SPLC will continue to fight hate, and we will continue to envision and create a safer and more just world."

"The SPLC can scream to high heaven about FBI Director Kash Patel calling the group a 'partisan smear machine,' but that doesn't make it any less true," Tyler O'Neil told Blaze News. "The SPLC scares donors and demonizes its opponents by putting mainstream conservative and Christian nonprofits on a 'hate map’ with Klan chapters. Now it stands accused of reimbursing cross-burning materials and paying for KKK hoods. The American people deserve to see this hate racket exposed in court — and Marks’ ruling brings this case one step closer to trial."

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

Black WNBA player blames 'white privilege' after getting ejected for flagrant foul on Sophie Cunningham



A black WNBA player blamed "white privilege" after she was tossed out of a very physical match between the Indiana Fever and the Chicago Sky over a flagrant foul.

DiJonai Carrington aggressively took down the Fever's Sophie Cunningham as Cunningham drove to the basket for a layup at the start of Saturday's game, leading to an angry response from Cunningham.

'I’m not going to let anyone just do that to me. I think everyone knows that. I think that’s why she did it because she wants attention.'

Carrington was ejected from the game and then potentially worsened the situation for the league by posting "WHITE PRIVILEGE" on social media afterward.

Cunningham was far less divisive in her response following the game.

"Clearly I think it was unnecessary," she said. "I’ve never really spoken to her, and I have no beef with her, but I guess she has some pent-up stuff."

She also explained why she charged at Carrington after the attack, in which Carrington swiped at Cunningham's head while Cunningham was in the air and knocked the Fever player to the floor.

"I popped up," Cunningham said. "I’m not going to let anyone just do that to me. I think everyone knows that. I think that’s why she did it because she wants attention."

Sports Illustrated writer Grant Young called Carrington's "white privilege" post "dangerous" and "asinine" in an opinion column calling on the league to suspend the Sky player.

"Frankly, it's not only immature but dangerous for Carrington to imply that race played any role on her getting a Flagrant 2 and ejected from Saturday's game," Young wrote.

"Any player in the league would have been ejected for the shot she landed on Cunningham, and players have certainly been ejected for less," he added. "For Carrington to try to turn it into a race thing is asinine, especially because she's trying to make an exchange that she started bigger than basketball in a hostile and polarizing way."

RELATED: WNBA team co-owner FINED and SUSPENDED for cursing out teen fans of Sophie Cunningham at game

Carrington also posted on social media a laughing emoji with the date of the next time her team plays the Fever.

The Fever went on to beat the Sky by a score of 90 to 86.

Both Cunningham and Fever teammate Caitlin Clark have been targeted with harassment and criticism — Cunningham for speaking out against biological men in women's sports, and Clark has been accused by black players and pundits of receiving favoritism.

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

Actor’s pit bull defense takes an INSANE turn: ‘They were bred for violence’



Actor Jon Bernthal is defending pit bulls from what he calls “racism” — but that doesn’t alleviate concerns about the breed potentially being a legitimate safety issue.

During an appearance on “The Howard Stern Show,” Bernthal compared the stigma surrounding pit bulls to human discrimination, arguing that it’s wrong to judge the breed out of fear.

“He said the widespread fear of pit bulls is ‘dog racism,’ and he said it was compared to judging people on their race or sexual orientation,” Stu comments.

Bernthal has pit bulls himself and has called them “honest.”


“So, apparently they’re giving him factual statements and sticking to their beliefs,” Stu laughs.

The actor also claimed that a pit bull is just as likely to bite as any other dog.

“Look, I think it’s wise to be a little bit skeptical of pit bulls, and I like all dogs. Personally, I know a lot of people that have pit bulls, and I like them, but you know, I think that you should discriminate a little bit,” Dave says.

“So, I don’t know what that says about me, but it’s probably a good idea to be wary,” he adds.

“There does seem to be a more likely terrible outcome when it comes to pit bulls. But still, it’s probably a small percentage of the dogs, right?” Stu asks.

“Not all pit bulls, they’re not all going to be the same, but they were bred for violence initially, I believe, for fighting,” Dave says.

“And sometimes the dog will protect itself against you, the owner,” he adds.

Want more from Stu and Dave?

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