The Super Bowl now plays like America’s divorce proceedings



The Seattle Seahawks trampled the New England Patriots in Super Bowl LX, but the postgame chatter barely touched football. Fans and pundits argued about anthems, halftime, commercials, and what the whole spectacle “said” about America.

For better or worse, the Super Bowl serves as the premier civic liturgy of the American empire, a night when strangers share the same screens and offices share the same small talk. When that ritual becomes another front in the culture war, the country loses one more place to breathe.

Americans once used the game to share food, laugh at ads, and pretend for a night that they still belonged to one people. This year, the country used the game to rehearse separation.

Families fight. Politics intrudes. Resentments pile up. Holidays still force a pause. Thanksgiving and Christmas push people back to the same table, reminding them that the argument cannot become the relationship.

When even the ritual itself turns into the argument — when Thanksgiving and Christmas are no longer about gratitude or celebrating the birth of Christ but rather who can win a political debate — the family slides from conflict toward rupture. A nation works the same way. Shared ceremonies do not solve deep disagreements, but they keep disagreement from becoming total separation.

From national pastime to litmus test

Americans rarely stop living their separate lives to watch the same thing at the same time. Streaming splinters audiences. Social media isolates communities. Even big films and best-selling books now fall into ideological silos.

The Super Bowl remains one of the few national events that still compels common attention. People who hate sports tune in for the ads so they can follow the conversation at work the next day. A shared celebration, however frivolous, still binds people who otherwise share little else in common.

This year’s Super Bowl looked like a country at war with itself.

The broadcast opened with two national anthems: the familiar Francis Scott Key standard and the newer “black national anthem” that appears at more NFL events each season. The league has leaned hard into woke activism, from corporate rituals to social campaigns, and it rarely hides the moral it wants viewers to absorb. Two anthems signal two constituencies. Two constituencies begin to behave like two nations.

A cultural sorting mechanism

The halftime show sharpened that divide. The NFL chose Bad Bunny, a Puerto Rican artist who performs almost entirely in Spanish, and the set centered on Hispanic identity. The stage recreated a bodega, complete with an “EBT welcome” neon sign. The performance leaned into sexual provocation, with dancers simulating sex acts and same-sex grinding played for shock and applause. The show ended with performers hoisting foreign flags, a tableau that read less like cultural flair and more like a victory lap.

RELATED: Bad Bunny preached in Spanish. The NFL hides behind tax perks in English.

Photo by Kevin Sabitus/Getty Images

A large portion of the audience did not buy what the league sold. Ratings suggested many viewers tuned out during the set. Some did so out of prudishness, others out of irritation at the message, others out of confusion. Either way, the halftime show did not function as a shared moment. It became a sorting mechanism.

Turning Point USA offered a competing halftime program featuring country artists singing about America and Jesus Christ. The stream broke records and reportedly became YouTube’s largest live broadcast. The accomplishment deserves credit. The need for it should worry anyone who wants a coherent nation. Instead of one shared celebration, Americans built parallel ceremonies, then congratulated themselves for avoiding each other.

Who is the customer here?

The commercials followed the same pattern. One spot from a mortgage lender portrayed a family of color moving into a mostly white neighborhood and encountering casual racism until they instructed the residents on diversity and inclusion. The ad did not wink. It preached.

Another strange commercial, backed by Patriots owner Robert Kraft, aimed to address rising anti-Semitism. It showed a Jewish student harassed in a school hallway as classmates mocked him and stuck a note reading “dirty Jew” to his backpack. The boy reached his locker, where a black student offered solidarity based on shared experience with hatred from whites. The ad then unveiled a “blue square” social media campaign modeled on the "black square" campaign that followed George Floyd’s death in 2020.

NFL owners did not back away from the woke script. They turned the dial higher.

Two different worlds

The next day I went to my barber, and he described the shift in real time. Small talk drives that job. For most of his life, the Monday after the Super Bowl brought lively chatter about the best plays and the funniest ads. This year, customers wanted to talk politics. They complained about the anthems, the halftime, the messaging, the moral scolding. The game itself barely came up. Friendly banter about the MVP and next season’s prospects gave way to arguments about what kind of country this still is.

That exchange captured the larger problem. Conservatives and liberals increasingly inhabit different worlds. They share geography, but they do not share premises. They do not share authorities. They do not share the same media diet, the same moral language, or the same sense of what counts as a fact. When they occupy the same room, they talk past each other. When they can avoid the room, they do.

RELATED: Americans aren’t arguing any more — we’re speaking different languages

Photo by Taurat Hossain/Anadolu via Getty Images

The old American civic fracture ran along a map. The new fracture runs through families, workplaces, churches, and neighborhoods. The country did not divide into North and South. It divided into competing moral nations layered on top of the same territory. Each tribe builds its own institutions, its own entertainers, its own narratives, and, increasingly, its own rituals.

No stable regime can endure that kind of division indefinitely. One side will eventually impose cultural dominance on the other, with power used to punish dissent and enforce conformity. Or the country will choose some form of national divorce, formal or informal, with communities separating as much as law and logistics allow.

The Super Bowl did not create this crisis. It revealed it. A shared civic ritual lets people practice unity without requiring uniformity. Americans once used the game as a harmless excuse to share food, laugh at ads, and pretend for a night that they still belonged to one people. This year, the country used the game to rehearse separation.

A nation that cannot share a football game cannot share much else for long.

A one-way national divorce: Anarchy for them, coercion for us



Imagine the Confederates attacking Fort Sumter in April 1861 and Abraham Lincoln negotiating terms of separation instead of mustering troops. We would be two separate countries. In a limited but real sense, we now live in two countries anyway — because Donald Trump has ceded ground to blue-state mobs.

States like Minnesota, working in tandem with local politicians to obstruct a basic federal function — protecting national sovereignty — are latter-day Confederates. Blue states claim the power to nullify federal immigration enforcement inside their borders. That raises a question no one in Washington wants to answer: If blue states can thwart national sovereignty to protect illegal aliens, why can’t red states remove them?

Blue jurisdictions unify behind the proposition of protecting illegal aliens. Red jurisdictions rarely unify behind protecting Americans from political persecution.

This fight doesn’t hinge on Minneapolis or the specific riots that ended with two anti-ICE agitators dead. It reflects a sustained, coordinated campaign across blue cities: street militants, local Democrats, and friendly judges working in concert to shut down immigration enforcement. The activists don’t negotiate over “rules of engagement.” They aim to ban enforcement itself, at least anywhere Democrats hold power. Blue states now run a neo-Confederacy against one of the few legitimate functions of national government.

Now look at what happens on the other side of the divide. Some weak-kneed Republicans — James Comer of Kentucky among them — float the idea that Trump should leave blue cities to stew in their own sanctuary mess, as if the locals will eventually revolt. That fantasy collapses on contact with reality. Worse, ceding sovereignty to blue states hasn’t even produced more deportations in red states.

Courts have enjoined nearly every state statute that tries to treat illegal presence as a state crime. If red states attempted full-spectrum crackdowns under a Democrat president, the same judicial buzz saw would cut them down.

The result: Democrats can block federal law regardless of who sits in the White House, while red states can’t protect themselves when Democrats run the executive branch.

That asymmetry flows from something simple and ugly: Republicans don’t believe their own promises the way Democrats believe theirs. Republicans talk problems to death. Democrats build institutions.

Democrats staff agencies, cultivate prosecutors, and train judges to pursue a shared mission. Republicans often appoint people who treat their “mission” as career management and donor service.

Democrats built parallel systems designed to frustrate immigration enforcement under an opposing president. Conservatives in red states built little beyond press releases and campaign slogans.

RELATED: Memo to Trump: Stop negotiating and ramp up deportations

Photo by Sean Bascom/Anadolu via Getty Images

Democrats in Minnesota and elsewhere have effectively executed the state interposition James Madison described in Federalist 46.

“The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices … would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments,” Madison wrote. “And where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

So the first step is to stir public “disquietude.” Then teach “repugnance” toward federal action. Encourage refusal to cooperate with “officers of the Union.” Then use the governor, legislature, and adjacent states “in unison” to create obstacles so severe that the federal government hesitates to enforce the law.

Blue states have followed that script with discipline. They align the branches. They coordinate the message. They deploy local officials to deny cooperation. They rely on judges in blue jurisdictions to shred the Immigration and Nationality Act, even when Congress tried to limit judicial interference, and they order illegal aliens released from custody.

The political class says the quiet part out loud. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) invoked Fort Sumter to describe his interposition against the federal government. Mayor Jacob Frey (D) declared that Minneapolis “does not, and will not, enforce federal immigration law.” Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner threatened to “hunt down” ICE agents he believes violated civil liberties, calling them “wannabe Nazis,” and promised to identify them and pursue them.

RELATED: Civil war chatter rises when Democrats fear losing power for good

Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images

Blue jurisdictions unify behind the proposition of protecting illegal aliens. Red jurisdictions rarely unify behind the proposition of protecting Americans from political persecution. Where did red-state leaders stand when the Biden Justice Department went after pro-lifers for praying outside abortion clinics? Where did they stand when federal authorities treated ordinary citizens like criminals for walking through the Capitol after barriers and rope lines moved?

Democrats now operate by a new rulebook: anarchy for their people, coercion for ours.

Republicans still operate as if the old system can save them. Even when a red-state leader shows spine, he often stands alone — without a legislature willing to act, without an attorney general willing to litigate, without courts willing to defend state interests.

Watching blue states succeed at sabotaging immigration enforcement under Trump should alarm everyone. A darker problem looms: the next Democrat Justice Department won’t limit itself to immigration. When it turns its machinery against Americans again, red states won’t have Madison’s “in unison” design ready to defend their citizens. They will prove as impotent against federal coercion as they have been against the importation of millions of illegal aliens.

Americans now live like second-class citizens while illegal aliens enjoy first-class protection — because the party that claims to represent Americans has failed at the most basic task of representation: fighting to win.

America now looks like a marriage headed for divorce — with no exit



Marriages rarely end over one argument. They fall apart through a long breakdown in communication, a growing inability to resolve disagreements, and the slow realization that two people no longer walk toward the same future.

Healthy marriages don’t require full agreement on every subject. They require compromise on the decisions that shape daily life: money, children, priorities, responsibilities. They also require shared goals.

No tidy divorce court exists for a nation-state. We share one flag, one legal framework, and one public square.

When those goals diverge — and neither side will realign — the relationship becomes unsustainable. The law calls the condition “irreconcilable differences.”

America now lives in that condition.

We remain bound under one nation, one Constitution, and one civic home. But we no longer share a common purpose. We no longer share a common story about what the country is, why it exists, or whether it deserves to endure.

This conflict no longer turns on tax rates or regulatory policy. It turns on the legitimacy and direction of the American experiment itself.

The modern left no longer argues about how to preserve the American system. It treats the system as the problem. Democratic leaders and activists call for “fundamental transformation,” flirt with socialism, and talk about the founding less as a flawed but noble legacy than as a moral failure that demands replacement. In that worldview, America doesn’t need reform. America needs erasure.

The right still believes the country can be repaired and preserved. The left increasingly treats the country as something to dismantle.

This rupture shows up in concrete ways. In 2021, the National Archives placed a “harmful language” warning on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence — the documents that define the nation. That doesn’t signal ordinary partisan dispute. It signals contempt for the country’s moral foundation.

Socialism sits at the center of this divide. It contradicts the American system at its roots. America rests on the premise that rights come from God, not government. Socialism elevates the state over the individual and makes rights conditional on political approval. It centralizes power in the name of enforced equality — “equity.”

RELATED: Americans aren’t arguing any more — we’re speaking different languages

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

America protects private property as an extension of liberty. It channels ambition into innovation and prosperity. Socialism treats success as a social offense and demands equality of outcome. When people refuse to surrender the fruits of their labor, socialism turns to coercion. Coercion requires centralized authority. Centralized authority punishes dissent.

The pattern repeats: less freedom, greater dependency, and a governing model incompatible with constitutional self-rule.

The irony remains hard to miss. The left calls Donald Trump “Hitler” while cheering figures like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, an avowed socialist. Yet the Nazi Party sold itself as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — a collectivist project built on centralized power and state control.

The same left often excuses Antifa, a movement built on intimidation, street violence, and political enforcement designed to silence opposition. Those tactics don’t belong to liberal democracy. They belong to regimes that fear debate.

Even basic reality has become contested. The left and right can’t agree on something as elemental as what a man or a woman is. The Supreme Court recently showcased the collapse when ACLU attorneys arguing sex-based discrimination refused to define “woman.” When a society refuses to name biological facts that every civilization once treated as obvious, compromise collapses with it.

This crisis goes deeper than polarization. It reaches the level of knowledge itself. The left increasingly treats biology, history, and moral limits as malleable social constructs. The right still believes objective reality binds us all.

These aren’t normal disagreements. They describe incompatible worldviews. And incompatibility carries consequences.

During the COVID era, polls found majorities of Democrats willing to endorse coercive measures against the unvaccinated, including house arrest. Nearly half supported imprisoning people who questioned vaccine efficacy. Those numbers didn’t represent a fringe. They revealed a growing comfort with state force in service of ideological conformity.

After Trump’s 2016 election, many friendships survived political conflict. By 2020, after years of dehumanization — after constant accusations of “Nazism” aimed at ordinary voters — many of those relationships broke. The political battle stopped sounding like disagreement and started sounding like moral extermination.

RELATED: Washington, DC, has become a hostile city-state

Photo by Astrid Riecken For The Washington Post via Getty Images

In September 2025, someone assassinated Charlie Kirk. Large segments of the left didn’t just rationalize the killing. Many celebrated it.

After Scott Adams died following a long fight with cancer, prominent voices responded with mockery instead of decency. People magazine ran a headline labeling him “disgraced.” Even death became a political verdict.

This is what irreconcilable differences look like at a national scale.

A country cannot endure when one side believes the nation stands as fundamentally good — worthy of preservation and reform — while the other believes it stands as irredeemably evil and must be dismantled. Marriages end when partners stop seeing each other as allies and start treating each other as enemies.

Nations fracture for the same reason.

America cannot solve this the way a couple dissolves a marriage. The Constitution binds us to one civic order. No clean separation awaits. No tidy divorce court exists for a nation-state. We share one flag, one legal framework, and one public square.

When irreconcilable differences exist but separation remains impossible, the danger grows.

Only three paths remain: recommitment to constitutional principles, enforced coexistence through expanding coercion, or escalation into open conflict as dehumanization becomes normal.

Pretending this amounts to another election cycle, another policy dispute, or another cable-news food fight invites catastrophe. A nation cannot survive when its people no longer agree on what it is, why it exists, or whether it deserves to continue.

Unlike a failed marriage, America can’t walk away.

Don’t let rage blind you: A national divorce is a death wish



Over the last few months, Glenn Beck has heard many fed-up conservatives float the idea of a “national divorce.” After the slew of left-wing violence, including the murder of Charlie Kirk and the relentless attacks on ICE officers and facilities, he understands their frustration.

However, a national divorce or, more frankly, a civil war “must never be considered,” he says.

Before such talk gets picked up and circulated by the algorithmic powers that create trends by fueling rage, Glenn wants to ensure that his audience has it straight: A national divorce isn’t some new “season of television.” This is about “your life — your ordinary, miraculous, taken-for-granted life — ending.”

“Everything you grew up knowing, believing in, having, having the opportunity to have, be, do — over. It won’t change; it ends. That’s what civil war means,” Glenn warns.


Birthday parties, backyard barbecues, little league, school plays — all “gone,” he says.

“And it doesn’t come back with an election or a speech or a victory parade. It doesn’t come back at all,” he adds.

Our government is special, Glenn reminds: “A government of, for, and by the people has never been done before.”

The people carelessly throwing around the idea of civil war need to understand the reality of what they’re suggesting, he says. “It’s neighbors. It’s cul-de-sacs. It’s the grocery store and the gas station and the pharmacy. It’s the lights you never think about until they don’t turn on, the water you never worry about until it comes out brown, if it comes out at all.”

It means banks shut down, gas stations run dry, 911 call centers don’t answer, pharmacies board up, and grocery store shelves empty and aren’t restocked.

Too many people think their “side” will protect them, but “here’s the truth,” Glenn says: “Sides protect themselves, and both sides will ask you to prove your loyalty with things you promised yourself you would never, ever do. Good people, just like you, will do them because fear is a sculptor, and it carves away at conscience first.”

And then there are “the guests who arrive when a great house is on fire — the cartels, the opportunists, the foreign intelligence services, the war tourists with passports and GoPros.”

“They don’t choose sides. They just choose opportunities and openings,” Glenn warns. “And they open the opportunities you didn’t even know you had — your grid, your water plants, your data center, your port. And they don’t fly flags. They fly yours and then let you blame one another to fuel the fire.”

While “it is reasonable to ask, ‘What do we have in common anymore?’” our next questions should always be: “How can we find common ground? How can we understand each other?”

“Before you retweet bravado, count the cost of where we could be headed — and not in abstract numbers, but in faces: the old man on your street who needs oxygen, the single mom who works at night, the kid who just made the team, the clerk at the corner store,” Glenn urges.

“These are the times that try men’s souls. ... Those who stand today and do the hard work — God’s work of love and peacemaking and uniting and speaking the truth — they will be owed a thanks for generations to come. Turn down the algorithm, and turn up the conversation.”

To hear more of Glenn’s passionate monologue, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Universities are 'indoctrination mills,' so how do we reverse course? Former professor of Portland State has brilliant answer



College used to be a place where students discovered their passions and talents, obtained a degree that would open doors of opportunity for them post-graduation, and found groups of like-minded people to belong to. Unfortunately, that’s rarely the case these days, as many colleges and universities, especially those considered most elite, have become woke indoctrination centers where students are brainwashed into believing harmful ideologies that they then carry into the adult world.

Pay attention to what’s going on at college campuses all across the nation, and you’ll quickly see what we’re talking about.

Ex-Professor Peter Boghossian, who used to teach at Portland State, joins Dave Rubin to discuss this glaring issue.

After leaving the world of academia, Boghossian now dedicates his effort to visiting college campuses and “trying to show people that maybe they don't necessarily know why they believe what they believe” — specifically the things they’ve been conditioned to accept as truth while in college.

“Our institutions are so corrupt right now,” says Boghossian. “College campuses are echo chambers; students not only don't hear the other side of the issue, but they think they're better people because they don't, so it's an indoctrination mill — a social justice factory.”

One result of the toxic environment academia has become is that these students are “looking for reasons to be offended” and can rarely, if ever, engage in a two-way discourse over sensitive issues, Boghossian tells Dave.

“I think that we have strayed so far from thinking about what's worth defending and what's worth valuing that we are reverting to kind of this pre-Medieval tribalism,” he laments.

But because “Western values are worth defending, [and] freedom is worth defending,” what do we do about the poison coursing through our universities?

“If a stream is being polluted,” Boghossian explains, “you have to stop the pollution at the source.”

According to Boghossian, the way we do that is to first “stop donating to [our] alma mater” because when we donate, “[we’re] supporting an indoctrination mill, supporting an institution whose very values are antithetical to Western, liberal democracy.”

The second step is to “show up ... physically walk into school board meetings” and be “a voice on the other side.”

Further, we need to be intimately familiar with candidates’ policies and vote.

These things, among others, will spark positive change in the world of academia, according to Boghossian.

But not everyone is as optimistic about the potential for improvement in universities as he is. Many think the political divide is too great and call for “a national divorce.”

To hear Boghossian’s thoughts on the potential of dissolving the United States as we know it, watch the video 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.

Ex-Professor Exposes Why Universities Can't Be Saved | Peter Boghossian
play icon

Ex-Professor Exposes Why Universities Can't Be Saved | Peter Boghossian

1 in 5 Americans support a national divorce, majority not optimistic about the country's democracy



Approximately 20% of U.S. citizens – which would represent roughly 66 million people — support the idea of a national divorce, according to a new poll.

A "Two Americas" survey by Ipsos found that 1 in 5 Americans support breaking up the United States into two countries based on political beliefs.

Republicans were more in favor of a national divorce, with 25% of GOP voters wanting to separate, according to the poll of 1,018 American adults. Meanwhile, 20% of independents and 16% of Democrats embrace the national divorce idea.

Men, individuals making $50,000 or less per year, and those living in the South and West were more likely to support a national divorce.

Only 16% of Americans support their state seceding from the U.S. to form or join a new country. There were 47% of poll takers who said they would move out of their state if there was an effort to secede.

There were 64% of Americans who said there is more that divides us than unites us. There were 61% who blamed "political and social elites" for the nation's polarization, and only 15% who faulted "how ordinary Americans think and behave."

The survey found that 57% of respondents were not confident at all that Americans would reconcile our difference in the next five years.

The poll revealed that 54% of Americans were not optimistic about the state of our country's democracy.

Cliff Young, president of Ipsos U.S. Public Affairs, told Axios, "Americans’ deep political fault lines are clear and engrained in our psyche and politics. Talk of national divorce or secession leaves us with a divided nation with little hope of reconciliation."

Last month, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia caused a stir when she declared that the United States needed a national divorce.

"We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government. Everyone I talk to says this. From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s traitorous America Last policies, we are done," Greene proclaimed.

A poll taken in June 2022 found that 44% of Americans believe the "U.S. seems headed toward a civil war in the near future," including 53% of Republicans and 39% of Democrats.

Another survey from July 2021 revealed that two-thirds of Republicans in the South and nearly half of Democrats on the West Coast want to secede from the union and form new nations composed of regional states.

A February 2021 poll said that nearly a third of Americans want to break up the United States and create smaller, like-minded countries.

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

A ‘National Divorce’ Is An Understandable Desire But A Recipe For Disaster

National divorce is an understandable impulse, but our knowledge of better ways to live should give us hope we can win without separating.

Republican Utah governor condemns Greene's call for 'national divorce' as 'evil' rhetoric



Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has suggested that the U.S. should undergo a "national divorce," but Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who is also a Republican, has decried Green's suggestion as "evil."

"We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government. Everyone I talk to says this. From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s traitorous America Last policies, we are done," Greene tweeted.

Cox denounced the congresswoman's words and continued on with the metaphor by suggesting that the country needs "marriage counseling."

"This rhetoric is destructive and wrong and—honestly—evil. We don't need a divorce, we need marriage counseling. And we need elected leaders that don't profit by tearing us apart. We can disagree without hate. Healthy conflict was critical to our nation's founding and survival," Cox wrote.

\u201cThis rhetoric is destructive and wrong and\u2014honestly\u2014evil. We don\u2019t need a divorce, we need marriage counseling. And we need elected leaders that don\u2019t profit by tearing us apart. We can disagree without hate. Healthy conflict was critical to our nation\u2019s founding and survival.\u201d
— Spencer Cox (@Spencer Cox) 1676911740

Greene also advocated the notion of a "national divorce" in tweets on her @RepMTG Twitter account.

"People are absolutely fed up and disgusted with left wing insanity and disaster America Last policies. National divorce is not civil war, but Biden and the neocons are leading us into WW3, while forcing corporate ESG and gender confusion on our kids. Enough!" Greene tweeted.

\u201cPeople are absolutely fed up and disgusted with left wing insanity and disaster America Last policies.\n\nNational divorce is not civil war, but Biden and the neocons are leading us into WW3, while forcing corporate ESG and gender confusion on our kids.\n\nEnough!\u201d
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8) 1676914455

In another post, she retweeted a tweet from the @POTUS Twitter account that featured photos of President Joe Biden with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

"Impeach Biden or give us a national divorce. We don't pay taxes to fund foreign country’s wars who aren't even NATO ally's. We aren't sending our sons & daughters to dies for foreign borders & foreign 'democracy.' America is BROKE. Criminals & Cartels reign. And you’re a fool," Greene declared.

\u201cImpeach Biden or give us a national divorce.\n\nWe don\u2019t pay taxes to fund foreign country\u2019s wars who aren\u2019t even NATO ally\u2019s.\n\nWe aren\u2019t sending our sons & daughters to dies for foreign borders & foreign \u201cdemocracy.\u201d\n\nAmerica is BROKE.\nCriminals & Cartels reign.\nAnd you\u2019re a fool.\u201d
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8) 1676915155

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

Malcolm Nance claims Republicans are the party of insurgency, declares that Americans may have to 'fight' their neighbors who want to kill them



Terrorism analyst Malcolm Nance proclaimed that Republicans have become the party of insurgency, and Americans may have to "fight" their neighbors. Nance made the comments during a Wednesday appearance on the "Zerlina" online show that is broadcast on the Peacock streaming service.

"But here in the United States – to characterize that to understand what just kind of terrorism we might be dealing with," Nance told host Zerlina Maxwell, "you have to label it as white extremism because we have 30% of the population of the United States who no longer believe in the democratic norms that we established in the founding of the country. Let’s just be honest about that."

"The January 6 uprising was an attempt to overthrow American democracy," Nance asserted.

Nance claimed that former President Donald Trump expected to be "crowned as a king" on Jan. 6, 2020.

Nance maintained, "American democracy is not just fragile, American democracy is under direct and immediate attack by people who would see 245 years of democratic governance destroyed."

He believed that Trump supporters want to "transform" the United States back into a monarchy or totalitarian government.

Lance lashed out at 60% of Americans "are not listening or paying attention at all" to the Jan. 6 hearings.

Nance said that he was "reading their forums" of domestic terrorists, and alleged that Trump supporters "were going to try to either overthrow the government or they were going to settle in for a long-term series of destabilizing actions using a political party – the Republican party – as their political base and then use violence, and threats of violent extremism as a way to manifest change in the street."

"This is called an insurgency," he continued. "The insurrection that happened on Jan. 6, that was one event. An insurgency is a chain of events."

The cable news pundit argued that the United States is much like toppled governments in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

He felt that the current-day U.S. Republicans are "closer to the beginnings of the Irish Republican Army."

"You know Irish Republicanism – where now the Republican Party is Sinn Fein – and it’s just a matter of seeing who comes up as the original Irish Republicans in this story, and starts carrying out acts of violence to affect change," he avowed.

Nance proclaimed that Americans may need to fight their neighbors.

"We may have to fight them," he emphasized. "They who want to kill Americans are your neighbors."

Malcolm Nance On Trump’s Threat To Democracy | Zerlina. www.youtube.com