A real nation knows who is in and who is out



After decades of brutal race and gender politics from the left, conservatives began treating identity itself as toxic. That reaction is understandable after fighting a sinister ideology for years, but ignoring identity is not an option. Human beings need a firm sense of who they are and where they belong. Progressives exploited that impulse in twisted, artificial ways, but the impulse remains natural and healthy.

As the United States confronts mass immigration, the question “What is an American?” has become unavoidable on the right once again. It is a question about identity. For the first time in decades, conservatives must navigate one of the most important parts of human life.

Defining American identity will be difficult, but it begins with friction. Borders must be closed and illegal aliens deported. That part is nonnegotiable.

Identity feels dangerous because it is dangerous. From the beginning of time, identity has been something men kill and die for. People can fight over voluntary commitments, but identity largely consists of things we did not choose. We do not choose where we are born or to whom. We do not choose to be a brother, sister, son, or daughter. Even religion, though it requires voluntary practice, is usually inherited before it is chosen.

Identity is what you cannot leave behind, often because you never chose it in the first place.

That is why identity produces existential conflict. Its involuntary nature means people cannot simply opt out when the pressure rises. If someone wants to kill everyone who likes the movie “Jaws,” you can stop being a fan. If someone wants to kill everyone born English, you cannot stop being English. You have no option but to fight.

This explains why the post-World War II consensus tried to suppress as many thick identities as possible. If people lack strong attachments to heritage, tradition, nation, or religion, they are less likely to treat those attachments as matters of life and death. The impulse is understandable. No sane person wants another war of religion or world war fought over nationalism.

But the shift carries a cost. Without the boundaries of nation and religion, we drift toward open-borders globalism, which is deeply unhealthy.

A nation without identity has no coherent sense of the public good. The man whose family has lived in America since the founding has different priorities from a newly arrived immigrant hoping to move his extended family here. The Christian who wants his faith reflected in his ancestral nation has conflicting interests with the Muslim who wants his new home to implement Sharia law.

The state cannot remain neutral between these visions. It must decide which identity takes priority and which public good it will pursue. Neutrality is a lie. Identity is inescapable.

RELATED: Two-tier Britain finally has its George Floyd moment

Blaze Media Illustration

As America tries to unwind the open-borders disaster liberalism produced, the need for concrete identity becomes obvious. Illegal immigration is a massive problem, but legal immigration has also been destructive. If being American means more than obtaining paperwork, uncomfortable lines must be drawn. Identities are inherently exclusive. Some people are in, and some people are out.

That feels dangerous because it is. But we no longer have the luxury of avoidance. Turning a blind eye to these questions created the mess. We will not escape it by doing the same thing again.

Modern people like rigid categories, but identity has always had strong centers with some flexibility at the margins. A traditional biological family is the best outcome and should be preferred above alternatives, but an adopted child can still become part of a family. People know what a woman is, but progressives exploit overly rigid definitions to destroy the category. If you say a woman is someone who can bear children, they immediately point to a sterile female and ask whether she is still a woman.

The rigid category becomes the tool of deconstruction.

Identity should be understood not merely as a scientific fact or a voluntary choice, but as a situated-ness that draws us toward particular ends. Americans are born with inalienable rights, but also particular duties. Our identities as Americans, Christians, sons, brothers, or fathers should cost us something. They are not merely about rights, choices, and freedoms. They are also about limits.

There are things you cannot be when you are a father, a Christian, or an American. These categories are flexible, but they are not fluid.

Our globalist order hates borders and limits because they create friction for economies of scale. McDonald’s wants to sell the same hamburger to everyone the same way. If it must accommodate Hindus or Catholics, or close Sunday in America and Saturday in Israel, efficiency and profitability suffer. Uniformity maximizes scale. That is why governments, corporations, and NGOs work to homogenize every population on earth.

But identity should create friction. People need borders and limits. Only when we know who we are and who we are not can we chart a beneficial course for our nation.

RELATED: The collapse of conservatism nobody wants to admit

Blaze Media Illustration

Defining American identity will be difficult, but it begins with friction. Borders must be closed and illegal aliens deported. That part is nonnegotiable. Legal immigration should be radically limited, or ended altogether, until we work through this crisis. Every tribe has had a path for outsiders to join, but the cost should be steep. If someone is granted the gracious opportunity to become American, it should require real sacrifice.

The Bible gives us a model in Ruth, who abandons her homeland and pledges, “Your people will be my people, and your God my God.” She does not cling to her former identity. She leaves her former people, her former gods, and marries into the tribe.

Becoming part of the Hebrew people involved friction. It came at great cost. That is how you know it was worth it.

To be American is to be distinct and set apart. If anyone is to have the privilege of joining that identity, it should be difficult. Only through sacrifice can a stranger prove worthy of our great nation.

Damning poll reveals what Democrats ACTUALLY think of America ahead of its 250th birthday



Patriots are just weeks away from celebrating the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, marking America's semiquincentennial.

Many citizens are clearly proud of the globally transformative superpower bequeathed to them and keen to honor the contributions and sacrifices made by generations past. There are, however, a great many who alternatively look back on American history with ingratitude and down at the country as currently constituted.

'Let’s pay for one-way tickets.'

According to a new national Elon University poll conducted by YouGov between April 30 and May 4, 55% of Democratic respondents said that there is another country on Earth that they would rather live in than the United States today. Only 10% of Republicans said the same.

Overall, only 35% of respondents said in the run-up to America's 250th birthday that they would prefer to live elsewhere.

When asked which term best describes how they feel about America turning 250 years old, 68% of Republicans said they felt proud; 19% said they felt grateful; 3% said they felt conflicted; 1% said they felt frustrated; 1% said they felt disappointed; and 9% said they had no strong feelings.

When similarly asked to describe their feelings, only 18% of Democrats said they felt proud; 17% said they felt grateful; 21% said they felt conflicted; 6% said they felt frustrated; 15% said they felt disappointed; and 24% said they had no strong feelings.

Asked specifically about their pride in the country — about the veracity of the statement "I am proud to be an American" to them personally — Democrats again came across as contemptuous. Only 26% of Democratic respondents said that the statement was "very true"; 22% said it was "somewhat true"; 21% said it was neither true nor untrue; 18% said it was somewhat untrue; and 12% said it was very untrue.

RELATED: The Bill of Rights is the antidote to soft despotism

Kevin Carter/Getty Images

The Republican respondents signaled significantly greater pride in their homeland: 83% said the statement was very true; 12% said it was somewhat true; 4% said that it was neither true nor untrue; 1% said it was somewhat untrue; and zero respondents said that it was very untrue.

Whereas 85% of Republicans rated the health of American democracy as either excellent, good, or fair, Democratic respondents overwhelmingly — 64% — rated the overall health of U.S. democracy today as poor.

Democrats evidenced their low regard for the country in other answers, including to the question: "How successfully or unsuccessfully do you believe the United States is currently living up to its founding ideals?"

Fifty-four percent of Republicans said that the U.S. has very successfully or somewhat successfully lived up to its founding ideals; 20% said America has neither been successful nor unsuccessful in this regard; and 26% said it has been somewhat or very unsuccessful.

Democrats disagreed with their friends across the aisle in the extreme: 74% of Democratic respondents said the U.S. has been somewhat or very unsuccessful in living up to its founding ideals; 11% said it has been neither successful nor unsuccessful; and 14% said the country has been either very or somewhat successful in living up to its founding ideals.

"As the United States approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Americans have complex and diverse feelings about America 250," said Jason Husser, director of the Elon University Poll. "Many Americans expressed significant concern about the health of American democracy today, and the country is split on its outlook over the next 50 years."

When conservatives caught wind of this poll, many advocated for helping the Democratic majority realize their dream of living in another country.

Mike Davis, the founder of the Article III Project, wrote, "Let’s pay for one-way tickets, anywhere in the world, for all of them. And 6 months of living expenses. But they must renounce their American citizenship. And never come back."

"Trump should launch a national program to help that 55% achieve their dreams — help them out with flights, the job search, and maybe even a few months of rent in their new home," tweeted Nathan Roberts, the co-founder of Save Heritage Indiana. "Long term, this will save our country LOTS of money."

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

Nationalism still needs the Declaration of Independence



As we approach our nation’s 250th birthday, Americans will be doing a lot of celebrating. They will honor not only the fact of our independence and nationhood, but also the political thought that shaped America’s founding struggle for freedom. Special attention will be paid, of course, to our Declaration of Independence.

But some may be rather cool to celebrating the Declaration’s doctrine of universal truths, such as the equality of all human beings in their natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration has become a source of controversy among some younger conservatives who came of age during the Trump era.

The New Right’s dissatisfaction with the Declaration’s universalism is an understandable — but mistaken — reaction to various political misuses of America’s founding creed in recent decades.

There is no conflict between the Declaration’s universal principles and the New Right’s America First nationalism.

The older generation of conservatives who grew up admiring Ronald Reagan love to boast about America’s defense of universal truths. The New Right has argued that this rhetorical approach has not served the conservative political movement or the country well.

The Reaganite message, so powerful in the late 20th century, proved unable to keep winning national elections in the 21st. As a result, conservatives ceded political power to a Democratic Party and a left wing increasingly committed to an alarming agenda of social and cultural transformation.

The old-guard conservatives could not beat the Obama coalition. Moreover, their excessive preoccupation with America’s commitment to universal moral principles harmed the nation’s interests — and the interests of many Americans, especially those of the working class — in areas such as immigration, trade, and foreign policy.

In response, the New Right developed its now well-known message of American nationalism in the wake of Trump’s victory in 2016. They have embraced an “America First” agenda that places the social and economic well-being of its citizens at the center of national policy.

This stands in sharp contrast to the older conservatism, which tended to approach immigration, trade, and foreign policy in light of the country’s universal moral commitments as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

The New Right’s recalibration proved politically successful: witness President Trump’s electoral victories in 2016 and 2024. But such success breeds criticism, and many on the left and among the older conservative establishment have condemned the new nationalism as a betrayal of the Declaration’s universal principles. Such criticism has, no doubt, deepened the New Right’s skepticism of the Declaration.

What are we to make of all this?

The New Right is correct to reject superficial and politically unhelpful misappropriations of the Declaration. Its members are justified in repudiating suggestions that America is just a political “idea” with no particular and concrete interests. And they are correct to dismiss claims that the Declaration’s universal principles require us to embrace immigration, trade, and foreign policies at odds with the well-being of our own citizens.

RELATED: Polarization may be the cure — and the clarity — America needs

Elen11/Getty Images

It would be a terrible mistake, however, for the New Right to go farther and reject the Declaration itself.

Such rejection is, in the first place, unnecessary. Contrary to the self-serving hectoring from the left and the old-guard conservatives, there is no conflict between the Declaration’s universal principles and the New Right’s America First nationalism. Those principles do not require the open-borders moralism preached by globalists of all stripes.

The Declaration asserts the great and universal truth that all human beings are equal in their natural rights. However, it nowhere asserts that everyone has a natural right to enter a political community of which he is not already a member, much less a natural right to become a citizen of that community.

The founders and subsequent generations of Americans regulated immigration according to the nation’s needs and interests rather than a fanciful moral obligation to accept all who want to come here.

Nor does the Declaration rule out an America First trade policy. Its philosophical framework was influenced by John Locke, in particular his claim that all human beings have a natural right to “life, liberty, and property.” None of these rights, however, entails a right to engage in trade across national borders.

Indeed, Locke’s Second Treatise makes clear that government, once established by the consent of the governed, would regulate foreign trade in the nation’s interests. The founders reflected this understanding in the Constitution by vesting Congress with the power to regulate foreign commerce.

Finally, nothing in the Declaration requires the U.S. government to promote democracy abroad or undermine tyrannies in foreign lands.

The Declaration famously teaches that a people can appeal to the right of revolution when their government is determined to destroy their individual rights and subject them to despotism. That right, however, must be exercised with “prudence” by the people living under a tyrannical government — not by the people of another nation.

Nothing in the Declaration indicates that America or any nation has a right — much less a duty — to liberate other nations from their tyrannical regimes and to impose on such peoples all the costs of a revolution that cannot be certain of success.

RELATED: The timeless truths behind the Declaration of Independence

Art Images/Getty Images

The Declaration teaches that America’s foreign policy needs to be guided by our reasonable and just interests, the star by which founding-era statesmen such as Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison steered the ship of state.

Indeed, the Declaration itself affirms a kind of nationalism. Before turning to the political theory in its famous second paragraph, it teaches that peoples or nations are not mere artificial contrivances but instead exist in contemplation of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

They have a right to a “separate and equal station” among the other “powers of the earth.” In other words, every people has a right to control its own political fate. Read as a whole, the Declaration is as much an affirmation of the sovereignty of nations as of the rights of individuals.

There is, then, no reason for the proponents of America First nationalism to reject the universal principles of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, to do so would be a grave mistake. However abused or misunderstood, those principles are a foundational and vital element of America’s political identity.

It is no part of the duty or interest of any movement of the political right — or of any movement governed by sobriety and caution, not to mention gratitude for what one has inherited — to reconstruct the identity of one’s own nation.

An America indifferent to the universal principles of the Declaration would no longer be the America we have all been blessed to inherit — and that we all have an obligation to preserve.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at the American Mind.

Trump-endorsed 'fighter' Viktor Orbán in deep trouble with Hungarian election just days away



Viktor Orbán has served as Hungarian prime minister for 16 consecutive years, advancing an unapologetically Christian, nationalist, "migrant-free, pro-family" agenda that he told President Donald Trump in November had kept his country "a special island of difference in a liberal ocean in Europe."

Hungary under Orbán's leadership has, for instance, banned LGBT propaganda targeting children; banned homosexual couples from adopting kids; opposed Ukraine's proposed admission to the European Union; refused to implement the EU's radical migration policies; built a barrier to keep out border-jumpers; drove bums out of public spaces; fought political interference by big-pocketed leftists like George Soros; and implemented various pro-natalist measures including tax exemptions for mothers.

'A leader who will fight to preserve those things while also building a better future.'

For the first time in over a decade, Orbán — praised by conservatives and maligned by liberals on both sides of the Atlantic and recently threatened by Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelenskyy — now faces the real possibility of an ouster in a country European parliamentarians like to pretend isn't a democracy.

In Hungary's national election on April 12, voters get to choose who will fill the 199 seats of the National Assembly and, by extension, whether to grant Orbán another term.

RELATED: The collapse of conservatism nobody wants to admit

Jonathan Ernst-Pool/Getty Images

Politico's aggregate of recent polling data shows the prime minister's Fidesz party lagging considerably behind the Tisza party, 49% to 39%. Several polls suggest, however, that there remain a great many undecided voters going into the weekend.

Polymarket presently puts the odds of Tisza winning at 77%.

Peter Magyar, the centrist leader of Tisza, is a former Fidesz member and government official. His party's manifesto reportedly advocates for a more pro-EU, pro-NATO approach and commits to expediting Hungary's embrace of the euro as its official currency.

Trump implored Hungarians on Tuesday to continue supporting Orbán, noting on Truth Social, "Highly Respected Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, is a truly strong and powerful Leader, with a proven track record of delivering phenomenal results. He fights tirelessly for, and loves, his Great Country and People, just like I do for the United States of America."

"Viktor works hard to Protect Hungary, Grow the Economy, Create Jobs, Promote Trade, Stop Illegal Immigration, and Ensure LAW AND ORDER! Relations between Hungary and the United States have reached new heights of cooperation and spectacular achievement under my Administration, thanks largely to Prime Minister Orbán," continued the president.

"He is a true friend, fighter, and WINNER, and has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election as Prime Minister of Hungary — VIKTOR ORBÁN WILL NEVER LET THE GREAT PEOPLE OF HUNGARY DOWN."

Vice President JD Vance similarly threw his weight behind Orbán, characterizing the prime minister during a rally in Budapest on Wednesday as a "leader who feels real pride in this place, in its history, in its culture, and in its way of life; a leader who will fight to preserve those things while also building a better future."

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

Team USA and Team Canada to face off AGAIN — this time at already controversial World Baseball Classic



Team USA is set for another rivalry game against Team Canada, this time on Friday night in the World Baseball Classic, after significant controversy has already rattled American fans.

The matchup comes after the Americans were almost eliminated from the tournament, which would have been under the most embarrassing circumstances.

'This man belongs nowhere near Team USA in the future.'

Before the American side lost to Italy 8-6 on Tuesday, Team USA manager Mark DeRosa sparked headlines by appearing not to know the rules of the World Baseball Classic.

During an interview with the MLB Network's "Hot Stove," DeRosa said his team's "ticket" was already "punched to the quarterfinals."

However, that was not true. If Mexico had won its next game against Italy while scoring fewer than five runs in nine innings, Team USA would have been eliminated.

While there is no telling if DeRosa's alleged lack of knowledge around tournament rules affected his coaching strategy during the team's loss to the Italians, the team's tournament future was out of their hands when Italy played Mexico on Wednesday.

Luckily for the Americans — and DeRosa — the Italians clubbed their way to a 9-1 win, ensuring that Team USA would advance.

RELATED: NBA turns Atlanta Hawks strip-club night on its head: 'Canceling ... is the right decision'

DeRosa told reporters after the Tuesday loss that he had simply misspoken and was not unaware of the way teams are ranked in the standings.

"Yeah, I misspoke. I was on 'Hot Stove' with a couple buddies today and completely misread the calculations," DeRosa claimed. "We knew that Mexico was going to play Italy and then running all the numbers with, if we lost tonight, with the runs allowed and runs scored and outs. So I just misspoke."

Fans did not exactly believe DeRosa, with one New York Yankees fan saying he couldn't "fathom" how unbelievable it was that the Team USA manager "made the lineup today not knowing how the tournament works."

Another fan on X wrote, "This man belongs nowhere near Team USA in the future."

"This might be the biggest instance of coaching malpractice in the history of international USA sports," another viewer said in reaction to DeRosa's original comments.

RELATED: Charles Barkley defends Team USA White House visit — but says Trump needs to stop doing one thing

Photo by Al Bello/Getty Images

With those hijinks now in the rearview mirror, Team USA will play Team Canada Friday night in the quarterfinals at 8 p.m. ET in Daikin Park in Houston. The game marks the latest in an ongoing and inflamed rivalry between the two nations, which exploded during the Olympics in the men's and women's ice hockey events.

The United States beat Canada for the gold medal in both categories, which subsequently caused rage when the men's hockey team received a phone call from President Trump that contained a joke at the expense of the women's team.

Canadian media melted down and repeatedly questioned American players who play for Canadian teams about the phone call, asking them to apologize.

South Korea will begin the quarterfinals against the Dominican Republic at 6:30 p.m. ET on Friday from LoanDepot Park in Miami. On Saturday, Puerto Rico plays Italy at 3 p.m. ET in Houston, then Venezuela plays Japan at 9 p.m. ET in Miami.

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

'Pure bigotry': CNN fearmongers about 'Christian nationalism' in election-narrative tease



Democrats, the liberal media, and activist outfits have concern-mongered for years about the imagined threat posed by "Christian nationalism," a catchall term used to describe their ideological foes who also happen to be Christian in a nation almost entirely founded by Christians and where today over six in 10 adults are Christian.

CNN appears keen to revive the left's moral panic on-theme ahead of the midterm elections with an hour-long documentary titled "The Rise of Christian Nationalism."

'If you’re worried about Christians radicalizing then maybe you should stop shooting up our schools, churches and now hockey rinks.'

Newly released teaser videos and a corresponding press release hint at the documentary's apparent political purpose: to instill fear in viewers over a supposed movement that host Pamela Brown claims is "working to redefine America as a Christian nation in the home, in a marriage, in schools, and in government" — a movement that Brown reckons is supercharged and unified in the wake of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk's assassination.

The network noted in its overview for the documentary, which airs Sunday, that:

Brown examines the growing influence of Christian nationalism, an ideology rooted in the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that its laws and institutions should reflect Christian values. Through immersive reporting and on-the-ground access, the episode explores how a movement once largely confined to the margins of white evangelical culture has gained new visibility and political power.

Brown apparently believes she gleaned generalizable insights into "Christian nationalism" by chatting with critics and kicking around Christian communities linked to Pastor Doug Wilson, a theologian credited by the Wall Street Journal months ago with leading the rise of "Christian nationalism" under President Donald Trump.

"We embedded with a community under Pastor Wilson’s umbrella and spoke to women who have left the church and are now sounding the alarm," said Brown. "No matter where you live or what you believe, what we learned is especially consequential at this moment."

RELATED: Blue-state city leans into battle against ACLU over archangel Michael statue honoring police

Photo by Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

In one preview, Matthew Taylor — a specialist in "Muslim-Christian dialogue" who wrote a book sounding the alarm about imagined Christian threats to democracy — tells Brown that Kirk's memorial service "was one of the most potent examples of this shift in our culture that we're experiencing right now, where a large segment of American Christians are being activated by these ideas, radicalized by these ideas that say that they are the persecuted ones and that they need to stand up for Christians' rights."

Despite his intimation to the contrary, the ideas Taylor figures for radicalizing are based in fact. Christians, persecuted around the globe, are frequently targeted in the U.S., where radicals have not only sought to legislatively curb religious liberties but attacked churches and the faithful.

Brown, referencing a clip in which Taylor suggests that Christians take Trump for an "anointed figure" because he survived the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, said that "this is just one example of why Christian nationalists are having such a moment right now."

While some viewers might suspect that these alleged "Christian nationalists" are simply followers of Christ who also vigorously support their nation, definitions and criteria vary.

Brown defines "Christian nationalism" as "an ideology rooted in the belief that our country was founded as a Christian nation and that our laws and institutions should reflect Christian values."

The CNN host appears to be casting a big net granted a 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that six in 10 American adults said the founders intended America to be a Christian nation.

The Public Religion Research Institute, a group that has in recent years characterized Christian nationalism as "a major threat to the health of our democracy," has a slightly less vague understanding and can supposedly deduce if someone is a Christian nationalist on their responses to the following five statements:

  • "The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation."
  • "U.S. laws should be based on Christian values."
  • "If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore."
  • "Being Christian is an important part of being truly American."
  • "God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society."

In the wild, "Christian nationalist" appears in many cases to be a term externally applied, not chosen.

Vice President JD Vance, for instance, doesn't check all of the PPRI's boxes, having indicated that Americans don't have to be Christian but that "Christianity is America's creed." Nevertheless, he is frequently branded as a "Christian nationalist."

Despite stating in 2024 that "Christian Nationalism" is "a boogeyman they've invested to silence you," and having made a point of noting months before his murder that he had never described himself as a Christian nationalist, Kirk is branded as such in Brown's CNN documentary.

Patriotic Christians were quick to lambaste Brown and CNN over the documentary and the timing of its release.

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts noted that "it's no accident that Pamela chose the first week of Lent to release this. The world saw one of the most prominent voices on the Right martyred by a radical leftist, with his death celebrated by the Left at large — but it’s conservative Christians you need to worry about."

"This is pure bigotry from an increasingly anti-Christian, anti-American Left that tolerates all kinds of dogmas influencing people’s politics — except those of conservative Christians," added Roberts.

Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, stated, "If you’re worried about Christians radicalizing then maybe you should stop shooting up our schools, churches and now hockey rinks. Killing Charlie and the 'this is what you get' messaging from the media was pretty radicalizing too."

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

Eileen Gu Is The Poster Child For The Post-Nationalist Olympics

The American skier enjoys all the benefits of being an American, born and raised, but competes for the communist dictatorship of China.

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



Bad Bunny — real name Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio — used the Super Bowl LX halftime show to deliver a political message. That’s his right. The part worth discussing is the NFL’s decision to underwrite it, package it as entertainment, and beam it into tens of millions of living rooms as if it were part of the deal fans signed up for.

As Martínez Ocasio demonstrated at halftime, he is an unrepentant Puerto Rican leftist, following a familiar script in the tradition of Griselio Torresola and Oscar Collazo of the 1950s and the Macheteros of the 1970s: grievance, agitation, and a convenient villain.

If the NFL is now acting as an advertising agency for political organizations, shouldn’t the IRS take a fresh look at the tax advantages that help the league operate like a monopoly?

Bad Bunny uses hip-hop instead of bullets or bombs, but he is still selling the same posture — righteous rage, revolutionary cosplay, and a political edge aimed squarely at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

What irritates even more is the sponsor of this performance: the National Football League, allegedly as American as an institution can be — and certainly as profitable. It rakes in enormous revenue under a legal regime that has long treated the league like a protected creature of Congress. Then it rakes in more when corporations pay obscene sums for skyboxes and “experiences” and promptly write much of it off as a business expense. Nothing says “shared sacrifice” like a luxury suite tax deduction.

All of that would be tolerable if the league stuck to what it does best: organize a children’s game for adults, staffed by small groups of millionaire “college graduates” sprinting around a 100-yard patch of turf while the rest of us yell at referees and pretend we understand the salary cap.

Instead, the NFL now wants to be your civic tutor. The league has decided that the score isn’t enough; it also needs slogans — mostly in Spanish — delivered to a mostly non-Spanish-speaking audience that paid for tickets, cable packages, streaming subscriptions, and, in many cities, the stadium itself.

In recent years, the NFL has plastered the experience with political catechisms: “Black Lives Matter,” “Say Their Names,” “I Can’t Breathe,” “Justice,” “Equality,” “Freedom,” “Power to the People,” “Justice Now,” and “Sí se puede.” Now, thanks to Bad Bunny, the league has added:

  • “Quieren quitarme el río y también la playa / Quieren el barrio mío y que abuelita se vaya.” (“They want to take away my river and my beach / They want my neighborhood, and they want grandma to leave.”)
  • “Aquí mataron gente por sacar la bandera / Por eso es que ahora yo la llevo donde quiera.” (“They killed people here for flying the flag / That’s why I carry it wherever I go.”)
  • “De aquí nadie me saca, de aquí yo no me muevo / Dile que esta es mi casa, donde nació mi abuelo.” (“No one’s going to run me out of here — I’m not going anywhere / Tell them this is my home, where my grandfather was born.”)
  • “Fueron 5,000 que dejaron morir y eso nunca e nos va a olvidar.” (“They let 5,000 people die, and we will never forget that.”)

Those lines don’t function as “art in the abstract.” The NFL presented them as civic messaging — without bothering to ask the audience.

RELATED: Bad Bunny delivers just 1 line in English during Super Bowl LX halftime show

Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images

Why am I being subjected to a deluge of unpaid political commercials when all I wanted to do was watch millionaire athletes dramatically move an oblong ball around? Maybe enjoy a few big hits, a few bad calls, and, yes, perhaps place a wager without getting a sermon at halftime? Is that really too much to ask?

And once the NFL decides one side gets free political advertising, why stop there? Why shouldn’t every cause group get a slot? At least we’d have clarity. “Tonight’s halftime: The Coalition for Whatever.” Next year: “The League of Extremely Loud People.” Keep going until the entire broadcast becomes a charity auction for ideologies.

Then there’s the implicit holier-than-thou attitude of the players and performers who shill on cue for “the right side of history.”

Nothing screams ‘liberation’ like outsourced production under an authoritarian regime.

If the NFL wants to present its stars as moral authorities, maybe the league should be required to release the supporting documentation. Police reports. Court records. Paternity suits. The pharmaceutical list required to keep a battered body functioning after one too many concussions. Divorce filings that reveal what the slogans never will.

After all, a convicted dogfight organizer or a wife-beater looks ridiculous wearing “Say Her Name!” or “Justice Now!” on his back — and the league has fielded enough of those case studies to fill a warehouse.

RELATED: Bad Bunny, Green Day, and ICE: ‘The most political Super Bowl ever’

Photo by Jaydee Lee SERRANO/AFP via Getty Images

Add another layer of absurdity: Many of the league’s millionaire geniuses take a knee against “oppression” and “slavery,” with stern faces and closed-fist salutes, while remaining blissfully indifferent to the fact that their uniforms, sneakers, and promotional trinkets come from supply chains tied to modern forced labor. Yes, geniuses. Nothing screams “liberation” like outsourced production under an authoritarian regime.

At that point, the old Marxist-Leninist label becomes less a slogan and more a job description.

Lenin is often credited with the phrase “useful idiots.” Whether he coined it or not, the category exists for a reason: privileged Westerners eagerly carrying propaganda for movements that despise the civilization that makes their privilege possible. The NFL has decided that this is not merely acceptable, but brand-enhancing.

One more thing: If the NFL is now acting as an advertising agency for political organizations, shouldn’t the IRS — along with state and local tax authorities — take a fresh look at the tax and regulatory advantages that help the league operate like a monopoly?

Now would be an excellent time.

Woke UK video game backfires: 'Extremist' Amelia becomes viral symbol of British pride



Hull City Council in Yorkshire, England — an area overwhelmed by third-world asylum seekers in recent years — wasted no time setting a high bar for self-owns this year.

The local authority teamed up with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council and the woke media literacy outfit Shout Out UK to create an online choose-your-own adventure video game targeting young Britons titled "Pathways: Navigating the Internet and Extremism."

'The government is betraying white British people.'

To the chagrin of the re-education tool's makers, one of its supposed villains, a purple-haired patriotic character named Amelia, has been appropriated and used to great effect in counter-messaging campaigns by the right and other critics of the woke British establishment.

The game

Hull City Council announced last year that the game would be "made available to schools, education settings, and community and youth organizations throughout the city" and used to teach youths "about the dangers of extremism and radicalization."

One of the stated objectives of the propaganda tool was to "demonstrate the local threat picture of Extreme Right Wing activities specifically."

The game offers six scenarios in which users decide the path the protagonist, Charlie, will take.

In the third scenario, Charlie — who is referred to as "they" — watches a video that claims both that "Muslim men are stealing the places of British war veterans in emergency accommodation" and that "the government is betraying white British people."

RELATED: 'Enemy of Europe': Liberal globalists attack Trump over recognizing 'civilizational erasure' in Europe

Screenshots from Pathways: Navigating the Internet and Extremism.

If the player decides that "this seems unfair" and has Charlie engage with the post, Charlie ends up inadvertently sharing the content with online bad actors, sending the player's radicalization risk score through the roof.

Charlie avoids arrest long enough to attend class with Amelia in the third scenario, where she suggests that "immigrants are coming to the U.K. and taking our jobs."

Amelia features prominently in the fourth scenario, where she is introduced as a close friend of Charlie who has "made a video encouraging young people in Birdlington to join a political group that seeks to defend English rights."

After Amelia — who is depicted holding the Union Jack and a sign that says, "No entry" — asks Charlie to join a group called Action for Britain and shares a video on-theme, the player is given the option of having Charlie: ignore the video, like the video but not join the group, or share the video and join the group.

If the player chooses the third option, their radicalization risk score increases just as it will increase if they agree in the final scenario to go in Amelia's place to protest "the erosion of British values."

Screenshot from Pathways: Navigating the Internet and Extremism.

Regardless of inputs, the game inevitably suggests that exposure to supposedly extremist views such as love for nation, concern over wage suppression by immigrants, and cultural erasure warrant Charlie's referral to an anti-terrorism expert and re-education on "how to engage positively with ideology and the difference between right and wrong in expressing political beliefs."

The Telegraph, citing official documents, revealed last year that the British government listed "cultural nationalism," defined as the belief that Western culture is "under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups," as a terrorist ideology.

The game concludes with the suggestion that only after receiving counseling on "harmful ideology" from a hijab-wearing counselor is Charlie able to "rebuild their confidence, find their identity, and continue their college course successfully."

New pathway for Amelia

Amelia has recently featured in numerous viral online videos and memes where she warns of the Islamification of Britain, champions national pride, promotes normalcy, and criticizes leftist policies.

In a popular Amelia meme shared by Elon Musk, the character underscores that the English people aren't "immigrants" and "didn't 'arrive' in England. They became England — over more than a millennium."

In another popular meme, Amelia is shown bonding with Charlie over their common love of country, getting married, then starting a family.

Amelia has also been depicted as the Lady of the Lake of Arthurian legend, handing an armored knight the sword Aerondight; in photo-realistic images mocking political figures; and in a multitude of other images making a wide range of political commentary.

British journalist Mary Harrington writing for UnHerd noted that "Amelia stands as a potent illustration of how desperately an officialdom accustomed to comparatively comprehensive public message control is struggling to adapt to the recursive online environment."

When pressed for comment, Hull City Council referred Blaze News to the U.K. Home Office, which did not respond. Shout Out UK for comment similarly did not respond.

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