Sheryl Swoopes is a dumb jock. If you doubt me‚ watch this three-minute video of Swoopes attempting to explain away the ridiculous attack she unleashed three weeks ago on record-breaking Iowa basketball star Caitlin Clark. With Clark on the brink of establishing a new scoring standard for women’s basketball‚ Swoopes‚ a Hall of Fame player‚ blasted Clark on Gilbert Arenas' podcast. Swoopes alleged Clark is only setting the new standard because she has played for five years‚ is 25 years old‚ and shoots 40 times per game. Do black people have the power in this country to oppress white people? None of Swoopes’ allegations are true. Clark is 22. She’s completing her fourth season at Iowa. And over the course of her career‚ she’s averaged about 20 shots per game. Clark is white. Swoopes is black. Swoopes’ original critique was so off base that many observers concluded that racial bias and jealousy contributed to Swoopes’ ignorant claims. Earlier this week‚ Swoopes returned to Gilbert Arenas’ podcast to defend herself from charges of racism. Swoopes left little doubt that she is ignorant. “For people to come at me and say I made those comments because I’m a racist‚ like first of all black people can’t be racist‚” Swoopes stated bluntly‚ while waving her hands and bobbing her head. “But that’s like the farthest thing from my mind. Like I grew up in a very small West Texas town that was predominantly white. My best childhood friend is white. I went to a predominantly white college‚ won a national championship‚ pretty much everyone on the team was white. Like we’re sisters to this day. Like that’s not a part of my DNA.” Swoopes then pivoted: “But for me‚ it’s very important though that like I’m a black woman. So it’s important for me that I speak up for people [who] look like me. It’s Black History Month. Like our ancestors fought and died for us to have opportunities that we have today.” Swoopes’ clarification is every bit as dumb and problematic as her original criticism of Caitlin Clark. Swoopes is 52. She thinks and talks like an 18-year-old college freshman. Years ago‚ when Swoopes was an impressionable teenager‚ someone she thought was smart likely told her that “black people can’t be racist because black people have no power to oppress white people.” Swoopes swallowed that lie years ago. She’s never been forced to spit the lie out because corporate media‚ academia‚ and the so-called black church reinforce the lie every chance they get. The media‚ academia‚ and the black church love to talk about the word “racism‚” which is never used in the Bible. In reality‚ Swoopes suffers from “idolatry‚” the root of all sin. She’s made her skin color an idol. That’s why in her most recent Gilbert Arenas podcast interview‚ she wore a T-shirt that stated: “I am black history.” She is not an image-bearer of God‚ a follower of Jesus Christ‚ a vessel seeking the power of the Holy Spirit. Sheryl Swoopes is black history. She proudly proclaims it on the front of a shirt. Race is her idol. No different from white Klan members who have made skin color their idol. People who make race their idol have no problem mistreating people who don’t look like them. It’s silly to argue that black people are incapable of allowing racial idolatry to rule them. Are people with dark skin incapable of idolatry? Are we superior to people of a different hue? And if we think we’re superior‚ wouldn’t that make us racist? Wouldn’t that make us prone to diminish the accomplishments of Caitlin Clark? Of the many lies American blacks have swallowed‚ the most damaging one is the lie that we possess no power and no agency in our own lives. It’s a lie founded in the belief that what happens to us is far more important than what we do. That’s how you convince people to do less and to look to others to do more. At her core‚ Sheryl Swoopes believes that her actions do not matter. Yeah‚ so what? She said a bunch of ridiculous things about Caitlin Clark. It doesn’t matter. Swoopes is a history-making black queen. She’s above accountability. She owes no apologies. She’s free to adopt the attitudes‚ behaviors‚ and excuses of white bigots because her bigotry is inconsequential or justified. Her ancestors were mistreated. She’s earned the privilege of mistreating others. Her skin color makes her above consequential sin.Do black people have the power in this country to oppress white people? Ask Daniel Penny‚ the former Marine who is being prosecuted by Alvin Bragg’s district attorney office for subduing a crazed homeless man in a New York subway. Fear of Black Lives Matter protests and unrest has caused corporate media to portray the crazed homeless man as a harmless Michael Jackson impersonator just moments away from turning his life around. Black power isn’t the reason Derek Chauvin and three other cops are locked away for being at the scene of George Floyd’s fentanyl overdose? Black power isn’t the reason Ashli Babbitt’s murderer is considered a hero? Human beings‚ regardless of skin tone‚ have power. Human beings fall victim to all kinds of idolatry. Black people’s idolatry of choice is racial idolatry. White friends‚ white teammates‚ and small-town upbringings don’t immunize black people from racial idolatry. Obedience to God is the only cure for idolatry. If you notice‚ Sheryl Swoopes did not say: “I’m not racist because my relationship with God makes me view people who don’t look like me as brothers and sisters in Christ.” Nope. She pivoted to talking about black womanhood and what she owed black women. Like a lot of dumb jocks‚ she’s immersed in the worship of the black matriarchy.

The super PAC backing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s independent presidential bid recently revealed this week that it has gathered enough signatures in Arizona and Georgia to get its man on the ballot. Although great news for Kennedy‚ the prospect of more competition in critical swing states has prompted Biden boosters in the liberal media to fret‚ CNN commentator Van Jones in particular. What's the background? Tony Lyons‚ co-founder of the super PAC American Values 24‚ said in a statement Tuesday‚ "We are pleased to announce that AV24 has met the signature requirements to get Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the ballot in Arizona and Georgia." "The grassroots energy and momentum give us more confidence than ever in our ability to knock out the remaining states on our list of states quickly‚" continued Lyons. "The remaining states are Michigan‚ South Carolina‚ Maryland‚ California‚ West Virginia‚ Indiana‚ Texas‚ Illinois‚ New York‚ and Massachusetts." Lyons told CNN the PAC has not yet submitted the signatures to elections offices in the two states but will do so when appropriate and in compliance with FEC guidelines. This news prompted CNN talking head Erin Burnett to consider past polling data indicating what a three-way matchup between former President Donald Trump‚ President Joe Biden‚ and Kennedy in Arizona and Georgia might look like. Swing state concerns Polls presently show former President Donald Trump leading Biden in both Georgia and Arizona by several points — both states the geriatric Democrat reportedly won in 2020. However‚ the New York Times/Siena College poll cited by Burnett‚ which was published in November‚ found that when presented with the options of Trump‚ Biden‚ and Kennedy‚ 36% of Georgia respondents said they were leaning toward Trump‚ 29% said Biden‚ and 24% said Kennedy. Kennedy apparently had a 12-point lead over Biden among respondents in the 18-19 age group and a 10-point lead among respondents who were neither white nor black. When asked the same question in Arizona‚ 33% of likely voters said Trump‚ 33% said Biden‚ and 26% said Kennedy. Again‚ Kennedy performed far better than Biden with the 18-29 age group‚ leading the president by 15 points. Kennedy also led Biden 33% to 27% among the 30-44 age group. There are some indications Kennedy's success may hurt Biden and help Trump. A recent Emerson College Polling/The Hill survey has Trump leading Biden 46-43 in a head-to-head matchup. However‚ the same survey revealed that in a five-way matchup where Kennedy was in the mix along with Cornel West and Jill Stein‚ Kennedy grabbed eight points and the other two leftists each picked up one point‚ leaving Trump with a 43-37 lead over Biden. Jones' broken heart With such polling data in mind‚ Burnett suggested to Jones that Kennedy might decide which of the two presidents will come out victorious in these critical swing states. Jones‚ the CNN contributor who cried happy tears after Biden was named the victor in the 2020 election‚ told Burnett‚ "If you understand basic math‚ this is a shock wave through the Democratic party because it takes a lot less than the amount of support he's got — especially among young people — to throw this whole thing [for] Biden." "We can lose some states‚ but we can't lose many‚" said Jones. "We're going to have a tough enough time in Georgia‚ we're going to have a tough enough time in Arizona anyway‚ but this is a big deal. This is a very big deal‚ and I think‚ for me‚ my heart breaks." Kennedy‚ who has yet to be granted Secret Service protection‚ may be able to hamstring Kennedy in states besides Arizona and Georgia. CNN indicated that Kennedy is presently on the ballot in Utah and that AV24 also has enough signatures for him to appear on the ballots in New Hampshire and Hawaii. Jones added that if Kennedy does not "have a pathway to win the White House‚ and I don't think that he's going to be on enough ballots to win the White House‚ then you shouldn't be doing this because you can only hurt Joe Biden and hand the country over to Donald Trump." — (@) Responding to Jones' remarks‚ Kennedy wrote on X‚ "They can't ignore us anymore. We're gaining momentum and building a movement to heal America." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Adam Rubenstein penned a lengthy essay for the Atlantic this week titled "I Was a Heretic at the New York Times" — and in it the former opinion editor for the storied newspaper chronicled his pointed struggles as a conservative voice in the face of a tsunami of left-wing opposition on staff. In many ways‚ Rubenstein's opening two paragraphs capture what many in conservative circles have grown to expect from the increasingly galvanized leftist media. But in this case it was all about woke opposition to the author's — believe it or not — sandwich of choice: On one of my first days at The New York Times‚ I went to an orientation with more than a dozen other new hires. We had to do an icebreaker: Pick a Starburst out of a jar and then answer a question. My Starburst was pink‚ I believe‚ and so I had to answer the pink prompt‚ which had me respond with my favorite sandwich. Russ &; Daughters’ Super Heebster came to mind‚ but I figured mentioning a $19 sandwich wasn’t a great way to win new friends. So I blurted out‚ “The spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A‚” and considered the ice broken. The HR representative leading the orientation chided me: “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” People started snapping their fingers in acclamation. I hadn’t been thinking about the fact that Chick-fil-A was transgressive in liberal circles for its chairman’s opposition to gay marriage. “Not the politics‚ the chicken‚” I quickly said‚ but it was too late. I sat down‚ ashamed. Uh-oh Leftists don't like getting called out for their dirty laundry‚ and it was no different once word spread about Rubenstein's opening anecdote. Nikole Hannah-Jones — author of the heavily criticized New York Times magazine series "The 1619 Project" — offered a two-word retort to Rubenstein's Chick-fil-A shaming account: Image source: X Here's another: Image source: X Perhaps spurred on by Hobbes' question‚ journalist Jesse Singal indeed contacted the Atlantic to check on the veracity of Rubenstein's Chick-fil-A claim. Here's how the outlet responded: — (@) Bari Weiss — also a former NYT opinion editor who famously resigned in July 2020 after "constant bullying" from colleagues as she challenged the paper's leftism — backed up Rubenstein's words: — (@) Singal wasn't through‚ and he mocked Rubenstein's naysayers in a subsequent post: — (@) Singal also noted: "I am once again confused as to why journalists are comfortable loudly accusing others of lying rather than doing bare-basic reporting. This took me 10 minutes of work." Statistics expert Nate Silver seemed to enjoy watching things play out: "I didn't weigh in on this based on fact the people who asserted without any pretext of evidence that claim was fabricated are such an All-Star team of professional bulls**tters that it seemed too good to be true‚ but it is nevertheless satisfying to see one's priors confirmed." More fun: Image source: X What's more‚ the X posts by Hobbes and Jones got the infamous "readers added context" treatment: "The Atlantic has confirmed that they successfully verified this incident's occurrence‚ and three people have stepped forward to say that Adam Rubenstein told them the story five years ago‚ exactly as it was written in the Atlantic." The New York Post in its story about Rubenstein's Chick-fil-A claims said Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha offered the following statement: “Our Opinion section’s commitment to publishing diverse views — including those that are unpopular‚ controversial or heterodox — is unwavering." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

House Republicans sent the Justice Department a subpoena on Tuesday for materials from special counsel Robert Hur's investigation into President Joe Biden's classified documents scandal.On Feb. 12‚ three House committees — Judiciary‚ Oversight‚ and Ways and Means — sent Attorney General Merrick Garland a letter requesting the transcript of audio of Hur's interview with Biden‚ in addition to other specific materials related to Hur's investigation. The committees asked the DOJ to produce the records by Feb. 19 — a deadline the DOJ ignored.On Feb. 16‚ the DOJ told the committees it was "working to gather and process" the requested materials. The agency cited confidentiality and classification issues for the delay but declined to say when the agency would produce the materials.The subpoena now compels the DOJ to hand over the relevant materials by 9 a.m. on March 7.Lawmakers require the documents for two important purposes. A new letter sent to Garland about the subpoena explained:Biden impeachment inquiry: "The Committees are concerned that President Biden may have retained sensitive documents related to specific countries involving his family’s foreign business dealings."Oversight of DOJ investigation of Donald Trump: "Additionally‚ the Judiciary Committee requires these materials for its ongoing oversight of the Department's commitment to impartial justice and its handling of the investigation and prosecution of President Biden’s presumptive opponent‚ President Donald J. Trump‚ in the November 2024 presidential election."In a statement‚ House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (D) said that Hur's report "made two things clear: there's a double standard of justice in this country and Joe Biden isn't fit for office." "Now that special counsel Hur's investigation has concluded‚ the American people have a right to know whether President Biden retained classified documents related to his family's overseas business dealings‚" he explained. "While the special counsel may have declined to charge the president citing his memory problems‚ Congress and the American people do not consider 'elderly and well-meaning' a defense for corruption.'Hur's investigation will become a major story again next month when the special counsel visits Capitol Hill on March 12 to testify about his investigation and its conclusions.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Bonnie Jenkins is the United States under secretary of state for arms control and international security‚ and yet she cannot answer one simple question: What would a two-state solution in the Middle East look like? Dave Rubin plays a clip of Ms. Jenkins being questioned by Florida Rep. Brian Mast (R) about the very thing she should be an expert on. “We support a two-state solution‚” she told Mast in the hearing. “Okay‚ have you looked at that objectively?” Mast asked in return. “This is something that we do support‚” Jenkins responded‚ failing to answer the question. “That’s not an answer‚” Mast laughed‚ before asking again‚ “Have you analyzed a second Palestinian state objectively?” “No‚ I have not‚” she answered‚ failing to realize the embarrassment such an admission should cause someone with her job title. Mast assumed she “might not” understand the question‚ so he asked her again‚ but this time‚ she said “yes‚” suggesting that she had analyzed a two-state solution objectively but couldn't expand on what that meant. Their exchange continued‚ but Jenkins never was successful at explaining how she or anyone in her department had analyzed a two-state solution objectively. Dave is shocked that a woman with so little knowledge is in such an important position. “She has no idea what she’s talking about. She doesn’t know what the word objective is; that’s a bit of a problem. She has no idea why she supports a two-state solution or two states‚ which is a complete farce and always has been‚” he says. “But putting all that aside‚” he continues‚ “she has no idea why she supports a certain policy other than she’s supposed to support a certain policy.” Perhaps Ms. Jenkins is yet another example of DEI at work in the government. To see her make a fool of herself‚ watch the clip below. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations‚ free speech‚ and big ideas with Dave Rubin‚ subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America‚ defend the Constitution‚ and live the American dream.

Comedian Shane Gillis explained that the only reason he was allowed to perform his allegedly offensive monologue was a combination of omitting certain words and keeping his content close to his chest.Gillis' 2024 return to "Saturday Night Live" after being fired in 2019 was met by an incredible outpouring of praise and support. The appearance was immediately followed by Netflix picking up his self-funded sitcom.The comedian's monologue was not well received by all‚ however. For example‚ radio host Dean Obeidallah said that Gillis' jokes "ridicule vulnerable communities‚" calling him racist and offensive and claiming that he operates in a "world of bigotry."Gillis made a post-"Saturday Night Live" appearance on the "LOS Podcast‚" hosted by popular comedians Jay Oakerson‚ Luis Gomez‚ and Dave Smith.Gomez asked Gillis about his monologue and whether the NBC powers that be knew that he was going to use words typically forbidden on network TV."Did they know you were going to say 'gay' and 'retarded' in the monologue? They had to‚ right? They knew it [and] said do what you're going to?""No‚ I didn't do it at rehearsal‚" Gillis explained. "There was a lot! There was like 'nobody's ever worn a T-shirt‚ you can't wear a T-shirt‚ you got to wear a jacket‚'" Gillis recalled being told."I was like 'I'll wear a watch with it‚' they like 'fine‚'" he added."They didn't know you were going to say gay and ... did they say anything afterwards?" Gomez continued to ask."Some people knew. I told the right people‚" Gillis revealed.After he was asked if executive producer Lorne Michaels — the man who inspired the character Dr. Evil — knew about the particulars of the jokes‚ Gillis said "no‚" with a coy wink.Gillis further explained‚ however‚ that when he tried to reveal the content of his jokes to Michaels‚ the producer said he didn't want to know."He was very supportive‚ 'cause I kept telling him what I was going to say and he was literally just like 'don't tell me‚ just do it.' 'Cause he doesn't want to have‚ I'm sure he didn't want to have any —" "He wants no accountability?" Gomez interjected as he laughed."He was like 'you're here‚ I trust you‚'" Gillis concluded.Gillis told jokes on the NBC sketch-comedy show about how he has many people with Down syndrome in his family. He then used the word "retarded" in a joke about how it would be a great moment for the country if three black children defended his young niece (who has Down syndrome) after she was insulted by a white child.Despite apparent offense being taken by some media critics‚ actor Chris Burke came out in defense of Gillis.Burke appeared on the TV show "Life Goes On" from 1989 to 1993 as the first actor with Down syndrome to star in a TV series.TMZ reported that Burke said it would be more offensive for comedians to exclude people with Down syndrome from jokes. He also noted that it didn't seem like Gillis was making jokes out of ignorance.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

First Liberty Institute released a press release Monday claiming that video-streaming platform Hulu rejected a church's advertisement for promoting "religious indoctrination."The nonprofit public interest legal firm sent a demand letter to Hulu this week‚ requesting that the platform approve an advertisement from Hulen Street Church in Fort Worth‚ Texas.The church created a 22-second video ad to encourage viewers to attend its new Thursday service. In the video‚ Pastor Wes Hamilton with Hulen Street Church asked‚ "Does your work schedule or busy family calendar not allow you to attend church on a Sunday morning?""We created Thursday nights at Hulen Street because we know that even though Sunday may not be an option for you‚ that doesn't mean your faith isn't important to you‚" Hamilton added.According to First Liberty Institute‚ the video ad was rejected by Hulu twice. When Hamilton requested an explanation‚ Hulu told him the ad violated the streaming service's policy against "Religious Indoctrination due to asking viewer[s] to attend Thursday services."The legal firm accused the platform of implementing "arbitrary‚ inconsistent" policies and failing to be transparent. First Liberty Institute noted that Hulu's policies neither mention nor prohibit so-called "Religious Indoctrination."Jeremy Dys‚ senior counsel at First Liberty Institute‚ told Fox News Digital that implementing arbitrary guidance is "almost worse" than an outright ban."It's not‚ but it's almost worse because that leaves people‚ especially religious individuals‚ going 'am I going to be next or I going to be welcome?'" Dys said. "There's no way for someone who is trying to make an advertisement that is religious or otherwise to really know if their speech is up to snuff or not. But the First Amendment has settled this issue for the country. I think Disney and Hulu would do well to adopt it for themselves." He noted that since Hulu is a private company‚ it can choose to ban religious content. Dys urged the streaming service to clearly outline its policies for advertisers instead of rejecting and approving ads on a "nebulous case-by-case basis.""We ask that Hulu clarify its policy concerning 'Religious Indoctrination' to make clear that religious speech‚ like that contemplated by the advertisement in question‚ is welcome on its platform‚" the law firm wrote to the streaming service. "Further‚ we request that [Hulu] immediately allow Hulen Street Church's Thursday night services ad to run on Hulu's local ad platform. Hulu has reversed course on its advertising decisions before‚ and it should do so again here."First Liberty Institute's demand letter to Hulu appeared to work. On Thursday‚ the legal firm issued another press release announcing that the streaming service had decided to approve the church's advertisement.Dys stated‚ "We are grateful to Hulu for its quick response to our demand letter and for accepting Hulen Street Church's ad.""In the future‚ Hulu — and others in Big Tech — could avoid these kinds of conflicts by adopting advertising policies that do not discriminate against religious organizations‚ being transparent about its advertising policy‚ and applying it fairly‚" he noted.Hulu did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A California judge dismissed a case against two alleged white supremacists after agreeing that the pair had been "selectively prosecuted" under a "once-rarely-used" federal statute that was not similarly applied to "far-left" groups like Antifa and By Any Means Necessary.The statute at the center of the case is the Anti-Riot Act of 1968. According to federal prosecutors‚ two members of the "far-right" group the Rise Above Movement — Robert Boman and Robert Rundo — violated the act in 2017 by coordinating to bring like-minded agitators from across the country to engage in violence during right-wing and/or MAGA rallies in Huntington Beach‚ Berkeley‚ and San Bernardino‚ California.In 2019‚ Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the case against the two RAM members‚ concluding that the Anti-Riot Act violated the First Amendment. But an appeals court overruled his decision‚ allowing prosecutors to re-charge Boman and Rundo.As in the 2019 case‚ the defendants motioned to dismiss the charges‚ this time on the grounds that they had been selectively prosecuted. And once again‚ Judge Carney agreed."There is no doubt that the government did not prosecute similarly situated individuals‚" Carney wrote in a decision released February 21."Despite the involvement of both the far left and far right‚ the federal government never charged far-left activists under the Anti-Riot Act for their violence at these political rallies‚" the decision continued‚ despite the fact that members of Antifa and BAMN "engaged in worse conduct and in fact instigated much of the violence that broke out at these otherwise constitutionally protected rallies."While Carney admitted that the defendants harbor "reprehensible" views and likely "committed violence for which they deserve to be prosecuted‚" he likewise cautioned that "all‚" regardless of ideology‚ are entitled to the same freedom and protections under the Constitution.As a result‚ Rundo was allowed to walk out of court a free man — temporarily. After the decision‚ federal prosecutors quickly filed an emergency motion with a panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals‚ requesting that Rundo be rearrested and detained without bail since he allegedly posed a flight risk. Rundo did flee to Romania after the first case against him and had to be extradited to the U.S. last August.That request was granted. Rundo will now "remain in custody pending resolution of appellant’s motion to stay release pending appeal‚" the appeals court ruled. "No lower court may order his release absent further order of this Court."Boman‚ on the other hand‚ had already bonded out by the time Carney rendered his decision. He also expressed remorse for his "old antics."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In an unusual merging of politics and fashion‚ last week Donald Trump debuted limited-edition sneakers – gleaming gold high-tops embossed with the American flag and a large capital T that cost a cool $400. Facepalm moment or genius marketing strategy? Given that the shoes sold out in a matter of hours after launching‚ it looks like Trump’s lustrous kicks were a successful campaign endeavor – especially when it comes to black voters‚ according to Fox News. Jason Whitlock plays a clip of one Fox News pundit explaining why Trump’s tennis shoes were a smart business venture. “As you see black support eroding from Joe Biden‚ [Trump’s sneakers are] connecting with black America because they love sneakers; they're into sneakers … so when you have Trump roll out his sneaker line‚ they're like‚ ‘Wait a minute‚ this is cool.’ He's reaching them on a level that defies and is above politics‚” the host explained‚ adding that “anybody willing to put 400 bucks down for a pair of sneakers” will likely vote for Trump come election day. While Jason and Shameka Michelle don’t think something as trivial as sneakers “is going to make people go to the polls and vote‚” they do agree the shoes serve a purpose. It’s “a way of coming out of the closet that you don't hate Donald Trump‚” says Jason‚ adding that the shoes are likely to become a “protest symbol or rejection of the Democratic Party.” And while the left immediately threw the race card at the suggestion that an affinity for cool sneakers could be connected to black America‚ Jason thinks it’s “ridiculous” to “pretend like black people don't have … some kind of obsession with gym shoes.” He cites popular artist and record producer DJ Khaled as an example. Although he’s technically Palestinian‚ DJ Khaled is “another person that‚ like Trump‚ is always trying to increase his appeal to the urban community.” And there’s video proof of this. Jason plays a recent clip of the artist being “carried by two black men” from his car to the stage so that he doesn’t dirty up his Jordan sneakers. “Can’t mess up the Js!” Khaled told the camera. “This makes me laugh‚ this makes me cry‚” says Jason. To hear more of the conversation‚ 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.

Ubisoft‚ the developer and publisher most recently responsible for putting out sprawling games like Assassin's Creed Mirage‚ Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora‚ and Skull and Bones‚ has just announced that its lending its support to something very different from the games listed above. Its latest foray sees the company providing extra funds to an indie Metroidvania called Biomorph that's about to launch in early April from a two-person studio called Lucid Dream. Continue reading Assassin’s Creed publisher funds new indie Metroidvania‚ out soon MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best indie games‚ Best games like Dark Souls‚ Upcoming PC games