Opinion
Bill Maher Destroys NFL’s “End Racism” Message in One Brutal Takedown

“Who is it for? And if you’re a racist and you see ‘End Racism’ in the end zone, you’re gonna stop being a racist?”
Comedian and political commentator Bill Maher just unleashed three brutal truth bombs on the Democratic Party in his latest episode of Real Time.
Despite his frequent bursts of Trump Derangement, Maher didn’t hold back on his party’s flaws.
The first truth bomb dropped when Maher told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes that the Democratic Party’s problem this election cycle wasn’t getting its message out—it was the message itself.
“This Ken Martin guy, he said something I’ve heard Democrats say a lot. ‘We didn’t get our message out.’ Maybe I’m paraphrasing, but that’s it. And I’ve said this before to Democrats. No, you did. That’s the problem. Yeah, you did get your message out, and people don’t like the message,” Maher said.
Join 100K+ Substack readers and 1.5 million 𝕏 users who follow the work of Vigilant Fox. Subscribe to Vigilant News for exclusive stories you won’t find anywhere else.
Maher also conceded that Trump is probably RIGHT about scrapping the Department of Education, taking notice that “It’s not like the kids are getting smarter.”
“Now, I don’t know that much about it, but I’ve never read good things. Rahm Emanuel, who I agree with on almost everything here, had a quote. He said: ‘A third of eighth graders can’t read, and now he wants to close the department?’ And I thought, that’s probably why they can’t read, or at least partly.”
“I mean, the numbers keep getting worse and worse and worse. And I don’t know if the Department of Education… I don’t know what it does except take money. It’s sort of a middleman,” Maher explained.
Congressman Byron Donalds (R-Florida) added, “When the Department of Ed was created in 1977, our reading scores and math scores for kids in 4th and 8th grade were higher than they are today.”
Maher then cited a stunning fact from a Nellie Bowles column, revealing that in Michigan, one teachers’ union contract states a teacher cannot be fired for being caught drunk on the job until it happens a fifth time.
“Yeah, the first four times, you’re good,” Maher responded with disgust.
He added, “Also, if you’re caught selling drugs twice, that’s when we fire you.”
“The first time, you’re good,” Maher quipped, shaking his head. “It is insane.”
The moment of the night dropped when Maher stunned Puck News reporter Tara Palmeri, telling her the “End Racism” messages in NFL end zones, which are being removed for the Super Bowl, do nothing to end racism.
Palmeri, caught off guard, scrambled for a coherent counterargument, but it fell flat when Maher delivered a reality check on what the “End Racism” message actually accomplishes.
MAHER: “I noticed that at the Super Bowl, they’re, for the first time in, I think, four years now, the Trump administration is making them take away ‘End Racism,’ which they had written in the end zone.”
TARA PALMERI: “But why? It just seems silly.”
MAHER: “To do it or not to do it?”
TARA PALMERI: “Why get rid of it?”
MAHER: “Oh, I could tell you why. Because it was stupid to begin with. But let me ask you, who is it for? And if you’re a racist and you see ‘End Racism’ in the end zone, you’re gonna stop being a racist?”
TARA PALMERI: (Stunned) “But the sentiment is basically like, don’t be an asshole.”
MAHER: “But I think it’s an asshole to nag us during a football game about something that doesn’t change anything. If I’m not a racist and I see it, it doesn’t matter. And if I am a racist, it’s gonna make me more of a racist.”
BYRON DONALDS: “Look, I think if you write ‘Don’t be an asshole’ in the end zone, everybody will agree with that.”
(Round of Applause)
This moment shattered the Democratic Party’s playbook of turning everything into a race or gender issue to claim the moral high ground.
But Maher tore it apart, exposing the ugly truth: Virtue signaling doesn’t “end racism.” If anything, it makes things worse.
𝕏 user Jordan M. Thomas said it best: “Virtue signaling doesn’t end racism; it perpetuates it.”
Few statements ring truer than that.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this post, please do me a quick favor and follow me (@VigilantFox) for more reports like this one.
2025 Federal Election
Canada’s press tries to turn the gender debate into a non-issue, pretend it’s not happening

From LifeSiteNews
When a conservative reporter asked Mark Carney how many genders there are and the prime minister gave an evasive answer, liberal journalists considered the question inappropriate because they want to control the narrative.
By any traditional journalistic standard, the reconstitution of reality by transgender ideology is one of the biggest stories of our generation. Indeed, in the middle of the Canadian election campaign, the UK Supreme Court ruled that “transwomen” are not women, triggering a massive backlash from the transgender movement and widespread celebration from those still possessed of common sense.
In Canada, however, the press — with the exception of the National Post and several independent outlets — has more or less collectively agreed to ignore the topic and to treat the matter as if it is settled. The mainstream broadsheets simply assume the validity of gender ideology and the social victory of the transgender movement regardless of the debates raging across the Western world.
Thus, when Alex Zoltan of Juno News managed to ask Prime Minister Mark Carney a question after the French debate, he touched a topic the rest of the media was avoiding like the plague: “How many genders are there?”
This is obviously a relevant question, with direct relevance to government policy. Current government guidelines state that gender is distinct from sex, and the Trudeau government introduced a non-binary gender option (“X”) for passports and other federal documents. Government missives have consistently referred to recently invented identities such as “two-spirit,” and last year Justin Trudeau explicitly stated that “transwomen are women” — on International Women’s Day (the UK Supreme Court disagrees).
Zoltan’s question was simple: “How many genders are there?”
In Mark Carney's Canada, stopping men from going into women's rape shelters is only a "general objective." pic.twitter.com/qJNqaBMUpt
— Alex Zoltan (@AmazingZoltan) April 20, 2025
Carney was uncomfortable but obviously prepared for the question. “Uhhhh … in terms of sex, there are two. Thank you.”
Zoltan: “My follow-up question then. Do you believe that women, biological women, have the right to their own spaces, their own sports, their own changerooms, their own prisons, their own homeless shelters?”
Here, Carney vacillated. The policy of the Trudeau government has been to segregate based on “gender” rather than biological sex. “This is Canada,” Carney stated obviously. “Um, and, um, ah, as a general objective, yes, but we work where we value all Canadians for who they are and we’ll continue to do so. Thank you very much.” In short: Carney performed a neat, albeit stumbling, pivot. He affirmed two sexes — as Pierre Poilievre has — but also appeared to affirm the Trudeau government’s transgender policies.
It is safe to assume that Carney, who has an adult daughter who identifies as non-binary, will not roll back any of Trudeau’s transgender policies, although he will likely be less performative about his LGBT activism. But what was as notable as his response to the question was the Canadian establishment’s reaction. Despite the fact that Zoltan’s question was incredibly relevant, they immediately responded as if only a fringe extremist would bother to touch on an issue so miniscule as the radical overhaul of our laws by a radical movement.
From the CBC:
True North dared ask Mark Carney if women deserve sex-based spaces, and the establishment is LIVID.
CBC cries it’s “unrelated to the debate.” 😢
They are desperate to control the narrative AND big cowards for not asking such a basic question already.pic.twitter.com/AhZmbKFlvE
— Cosmin Dzsurdzsa (@cosminDZS) April 17, 2025
The CBC complained that the topic was “unrelated to the debate.” Of course, the mainstream press has appointed itself the gatekeepers of which topics get covered, and transgender ideology has been ruled off-limits — which is why the state broadcaster would not even cover the UK’s Cass Review, which condemned the “gender-affirming care” so enthusiastically defended by the CBC and other outlets.
Journalist Wyatt Sharpe claimed the question was “American,” somehow — as if Canada has not been out front on these issues: “How many Canadians genuinely care about ‘how many genders there are?’… that is the type of American culture war style question that True North, Rebel, etc were hoping to cause Mr. Carney to not be able to answer. He answered it fine, and that’s why True North and Rebel haven’t been posting the question like they usually would across social media.”
The quintessential response came from David Beaudoin: “True North finally makes it on prime time. We’re in a trade war with the U.S. The economy is in peril. Here is a world-renowned economist running for Prime Minister. Time to show Canadians you’re a serious news outlet. ‘How many genders are there?’”
The message is clear. Men in women’s prisons? Men in female spaces? Women getting sexually assaulted by men in women’s shelters? Girls getting double mastectomies? Children getting socially transitioned by public schools without the knowledge of their parents, an issue taken up by several provinces (one of which used the notwithstanding clause to stop it)? The mainstream press has ruled from on high: Not real issues.
So, to all the women and girls and parents concerned about these issues: Shut up, they explained.
Business
Hudson’s Bay Bid Raises Red Flags Over Foreign Influence

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
A billionaire’s retail ambition might also serve Beijing’s global influence strategy. Canada must look beyond the storefront
When B.C. billionaire Weihong Liu publicly declared interest in acquiring Hudson’s Bay stores, it wasn’t just a retail story—it was a signal flare in an era where foreign investment increasingly doubles as geopolitical strategy.
The Hudson’s Bay Company, founded in 1670, remains an enduring symbol of Canadian heritage. While its commercial relevance has waned in recent years, its brand is deeply etched into the national identity. That’s precisely why any potential acquisition, particularly by an investor with strong ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), deserves thoughtful, measured scrutiny.
Liu, a prominent figure in Vancouver’s Chinese-Canadian business community, announced her interest in acquiring several Hudson’s Bay stores on Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (RedNote), expressing a desire to “make the Bay great again.” Though revitalizing a Canadian retail icon may seem commendable, the timing and context of this bid suggest a broader strategic positioning—one that aligns with the People’s Republic of China’s increasingly nuanced approach to economic diplomacy, especially in countries like Canada that sit at the crossroads of American and Chinese spheres of influence.
This fits a familiar pattern. In recent years, we’ve seen examples of Chinese corporate involvement in Canadian cultural and commercial institutions, such as Huawei’s past sponsorship of Hockey Night in Canada. Even as national security concerns were raised by allies and intelligence agencies, Huawei’s logo remained a visible presence during one of the country’s most cherished broadcasts. These engagements, though often framed as commercially justified, serve another purpose: to normalize Chinese brand and state-linked presence within the fabric of Canadian identity and daily life.
What we may be witnessing is part of a broader PRC strategy to deepen economic and cultural ties with Canada at a time when U.S.-China relations remain strained. As American tariffs on Canadian goods—particularly in aluminum, lumber and dairy—have tested cross-border loyalties, Beijing has positioned itself as an alternative economic partner. Investments into cultural and heritage-linked assets like Hudson’s Bay could be seen as a symbolic extension of this effort to draw Canada further into its orbit of influence, subtly decoupling the country from the gravitational pull of its traditional allies.
From my perspective, as a professional with experience in threat finance, economic subversion and political leveraging, this does not necessarily imply nefarious intent in each case. However, it does demand a conscious awareness of how soft power is exercised through commercial influence, particularly by state-aligned actors. As I continue my research in international business law, I see how investment vehicles, trade deals and brand acquisitions can function as instruments of foreign policy—tools for shaping narratives, building alliances and shifting influence over time.
Canada must neither overreact nor overlook these developments. Open markets and cultural exchange are vital to our prosperity and pluralism. But so too is the responsibility to preserve our sovereignty—not only in the physical sense, but in the cultural and institutional dimensions that shape our national identity.
Strategic investment review processes, cultural asset protections and greater transparency around foreign corporate ownership can help strike this balance. We should be cautious not to allow historically Canadian institutions to become conduits, however unintentionally, for geopolitical leverage.
In a world where power is increasingly exercised through influence rather than force, safeguarding our heritage means understanding who is buying—and why.
Scott McGregor is the managing partner and CEO of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting.
-
International2 days ago
JD Vance was one of the last people to meet Pope Francis
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
-
International2 days ago
Pope Francis Dies on Day after Easter
-
COVID-191 day ago
Nearly Half of “COVID-19 Deaths” Were Not Due to COVID-19 – Scientific Reports Journal
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
-
2025 Federal Election23 hours ago
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
-
Media21 hours ago
CBC retracts false claims about residential schools after accusing Rebel News of ‘misinformation’
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Real Homes vs. Modular Shoeboxes: The Housing Battle Between Poilievre and Carney