‘You Exposed Him To Real Danger!’: Father Goes Thermonuclear On School Board After Anti-ICE Walkout
'I was not given notice'
Nothing confuses a sports fan's heart like finding out his favorite TV character supports the other team. Or worse — when it turns that out a lecturing, woke celebrity is on the same side.
For the big game in Santa Clara, California, on Sunday, two big names have already been tapped for the start of the event.
'I have officially declared Super Bowl Sunday as "New England Patriots Appreciation Day."'
Singer Jon Bon Jovi was called on to introduce the New England Patriots before the game. He has supported the team since his favorite coaches went from the New York Giants to New England in the 1990s, according to Yahoo. Meanwhile, actor Chris Pratt ("Guardians of the Galaxy," "Jurassic World") will introduce the Seattle Seahawks. Pratt grew up a Seahawks fan after moving to Seattle around the age of 6.
Here is where the rest of the singers, actors, and politicians stand so that fans know exactly who to embrace and who to disavow.
It should come as no surprise that Boston natives Ben Affleck and Matt Damon are huge Patriots fans, but Mark Wahlberg is too. "Marky" Mark has not only voiced his support for the team but appeared in an episode of HBO's "Entourage" alongside legendary quarterback Tom Brady in 2009.
Celebrity reporter Maria Menounos is well known for wearing Patriots outfits over the years and has even appeared in photos with the team's ownership group.
Noted superhero actor Chris Evans reportedly loves the Patriots, while Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler and iconic English musician Elton John round off the celebrity list, per CBS Sports.
RELATED: Olympic boxer Imane Khelif admits to having male genes, but sends message to Trump: 'I'm not trans'

On the politics side, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey (D) is cheering for the Pats, obviously, but so is Maine Governor Janet Mills (D).
"I have officially declared Super Bowl Sunday as 'New England Patriots Appreciation Day' throughout the State of Maine. Go Pats!" Mills wrote on X.
Democrat Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee has shown plenty of support for the Patriots over the years, while White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, from New Hampshire, recently declared her support for the Patriots too.
According to Yahoo! Sports, actors Rainn Wilson ("The Office") and Will Ferrell ("Old School," "Anchorman") are big Seahawks fans. Wilson was born in Seattle, while Ferrell has dropped in on Seahawks team meetings.
On the musical side, "Baby Got Back" rapper Sir Mix-a-Lot is an avid Seahawks fan, while rapper Macklemore could also be considered a die-hard.
USA Today listed singer Ariana Grande as a fan, too; she sang the national anthem in Seattle in 2014.
All-time "Jeopardy!" champion turned host Ken Jennings also flies a Seahawks flag, claiming that being a fan of the team "made me a better person."
"Walking Dead" fan favorite Jeffrey Dean Morgan has shown that his true colors include fluorescent green, vehemently supporting the team over the years. Morgan was born in Seattle.
FEATURED: Olympic ski jumpers may be injecting their penises with acid to jump farther

Washington Governor Bob Ferguson (D) is a shoe-in for Seahawks support, but few may expect that some Virginia politicians are sneaking around supporting the Seahawks at the same time.
State senator and former NFL player Aaron Rouse and Virginia Speaker of the House Don Scott, both Democrats, admitted to rooting for the Seahawks on Sunday.
Local reporter Tyler Englander seemingly caught the politicians by surprise on Friday morning and acquired both their predictions.
Interestingly enough, Rouse never played for the Seahawks. He was born in Norfolk, Virginia, played college ball at Virginia Tech, and was a pro player for the Green Bay Packers and New York Giants.
For those wondering who President Trump has sided with, he recently told reporters, "I can't say that. But they are really two good teams."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson (D) on Thursday announced several measures to prepare for a potential increase in federal immigration enforcement activities in the city.
'The biggest losers are the people she was elected to serve.'
The mayor's office aims to "protect city residents" from immigration enforcement activities, a press release from the city reads. Wilson's office stated that it had "no information indicating a surge" of Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection agents in the area. However, it claimed there is a "critical" need to prepare, citing the "increased activity over the last year" and the "unpredictable, chaotic, and violent behavior of the federal government."
As part of these efforts, Wilson declared that she is directing the Seattle Police Department to investigate, verify, and document immigration enforcement activity with "in-car and body-worn video." Local police will also be required to verify federal agents' official identification and "secure scenes of potentially unlawful acts to gather evidence for transmittal to prosecutors."
The SPD will share this information for other city departments and "trusted" local organizations "to ensure everyone has the latest and most accurate information."
Additionally, Wilson plans to issue an executive order prohibiting federal immigration agents from using city-owned or controlled property for their law enforcement activities. The mayor has called on other local government bodies to take similar action against ICE.
Residents are encouraged to post signs on their properties indicating that federal agents may not enter without a warrant.
RELATED: Fraud thrived under Democrats’ no-questions-asked rule

Wilson has also announced that the city will invest $4 million in taxpayer funds to support organizations providing community services and legal defense assistance to immigrants.
"Whoever you are, and wherever you come from: If Seattle is your home, then this is your city," Wilson stated. "And it's our responsibility as city leaders to move quickly and get organized so we can keep people safe. That is why I am taking immediate steps today to bar federal agents from using city property for federal civil immigration enforcement activity, update SPD protocols, and support trusted community partners to aid the community response, which is our most powerful tool."
Seattle Police Chief Shon Barnes declared that local law enforcement agents are "here to keep you safe, regardless of your immigration status."
"The City of Seattle is a welcoming city, and my officers will continue to abide by all laws and regulations that prohibit our participation in immigration enforcement. While we have no authority over federal agents or federal policies, we will document incidents if and when notified. The Seattle Police Department's primary responsibility is the life safety of ALL people," Barnes said.

The Seattle Police Officers Guild president, Mike Solan, pushed back on Wilson's directive, stating that the union would not force its members to comply, calling the mayor's announcement "toothless virtue signaling rhetoric."
"The concept of pitting two armed law enforcement agencies against each other is ludicrous, and will not happen," Solan said. "I will not allow SPOG members to be used as political pawns."
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told MyNorthwest that Wilson's actions were "legally illiterate."
"Enforcing federal immigration laws is a clear federal responsibility under Article I, Article II, and the Supremacy Clause," the spokesperson stated. "While this Seattle sanctuary politician continues to release pedophiles, rapists, gang members, and murderers onto the streets, our brave law enforcement will continue to risk their lives to arrest these heinous criminals and make Seattle safe again."
"How does this serve the people of Seattle? The biggest losers are the people she was elected to serve," the spokesperson added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
A 12-year-old boy struck a woman in her face with a screwdriver in a robbery over the weekend, Seattle police said.
Just before 7 p.m. Saturday, officers responded to a robbery near 23rd Avenue South and South Jackson Street and found an injured 43-year-old woman, police said.
'Are they going to release him again so he can kill someone next time? Just curious.'
Police determined that a juvenile suspect wearing a “hot pink ski mask” had just robbed the woman at the Amazon Fresh store, police said.
The suspect “attacked the victim, hitting her multiple times in the face with his hands," police said, after which he struck the woman in the face with a screwdriver.
The suspect rifled through the victim's handbag in a parking garage — and then returned to the victim and assaulted her again before running off, police said.
While police located the suspect, he fled from them on foot, police said.
However police recognized the suspect based on previous interactions — as well as his age and unique clothing description — and went to his family’s house and got a search warrant for his arrest, police said.
Officers took the suspect into custody without incident and recovered the screwdriver, police said.
The suspect was booked into juvenile detention at the Judge Patricia H. Clark Children & Family Justice Center.
Commenters under KCPQ's video report about the incident were livid:
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
A professor at the University of Washington was punished for having the audacity to poke fun at the school's moral exhibitionism. Stuart Reges, a professor at UW's Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, fought back and, on Friday, secured a decisive victory.
Reges ruffled feathers at the university where he has worked for decades by including a parodic land acknowledgment in his 2022 course syllabus.
'The Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land.'
According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the outfit that represented Reges, the university recommended in its "best practices" guide that instructors incorporate an "Indigenous Land Acknowledgment" in their course syllabi, providing the following as an example statement: "The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip, and Muckleshoot nations."
In a December 2021 faculty email thread, one of Reges' colleagues referred to an article that characterized land acknowledgments as "moral onanism." Reges said in response that he was uncertain about the value of making such statements and noted that he might include a mock statement in his syllabus.
Sure enough, the professor included the following land acknowledgment on the syllabus of his winter 2022 computer science course: "I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington."
Administrators at UW's Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering punished Stuart Reges over his failure to conform, which they claimed had caused a "disruption to instruction" but had in reality enraged only ideologically delicate members of the faculty and the school's DEI student committee.

The director of UW's computer science department, Magdalena Balazinska, ordered Reges to remove the statement because it was supposedly "offensive" and generated a "toxic environment."
According to court documents, when Reges refused to remove his dissenting statement, Balazinska unilaterally removed it, then apologized to Reges' students, detailing ways that they could file complaints against their professor.
'Land acknowledgments are performative acts of conformity that should be resisted.'
In addition to inviting students to switch out of Reges' computer programming course and into a "shadow" class section taught by a different professor, university administrators launched a years-long disciplinary investigation into Reges.
In July 2022, Reges sued Balazinska, then-UW President Ana Mari Cauce, and other school officials, accusing them of violating his First Amendment rights.
"University administrators turned me into a pariah on campus because I included a land acknowledgment that wasn’t sufficiently progressive for them," Reges said at the time. "Land acknowledgments are performative acts of conformity that should be resisted, even if it lands you in court."
U.S. District Court Judge John Chun, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, dismissed Reges' lawsuit last year, claiming that "the disruption caused by Plaintiff's speech rendered it unprotected."
Reges appealed and found a court that viewed his case differently.
In a 2-1 decision on Friday, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel disagreed with and reversed the Biden judge's ruling, remanding the case for further proceedings.
Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, writing for the majority, noted, "Debate and disagreement are hallmarks of higher education. Student discomfort with a professor's views can prompt discussion and disapproval. But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor. We hold that the university's actions toward the professor violated his First Amendment rights."
Bress, an appointee of President Donald Trump, highlighted the long-standing debate over the value, factual basis, and political nature of land acknowledgments as well as Reges' sense that they are part of "an agenda of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' that treats some groups of students as more deserving of recognition and welcome than others on account of their race or other immutable characteristic."
While acknowledging the right of members of the UW community to speak out against Reges and his views, Bress stressed that "Reges has rights too. And here, we conclude that UW violated the First Amendment in taking adverse action against Reges based on his views on a matter of public concern."
Will Creeley, the legal director of FIRE, said that the ruling "recognizes that sometimes, 'exposure to views that distress and offend is a form of education unto itself.'"
"If you graduate from college without once being offended, you should ask for your money back," added Creeley.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
A 42-year-old male violently attacked an elderly woman in downtown Seattle last week, Seattle Police said.
Just before noon Friday, a number of citizens reported witnessing a male swinging a wooden stick with a metal screw at the end of it along 3rd Avenue and James Street, officials said.
'He'll be out in no time to strike again thanks to the Lunatic Leftists running Seattle and Washington State.'
Moments later, the male approached a woman waiting at the crosswalk at 3rd and James and swung the stick like a baseball bat, intentionally striking the woman in the face from behind, officials said.
With that, the victim fell backward to the ground with "a laceration that was bleeding heavily," officials said, citing the police report.
Numerous bystanders came to the victim's aid and called 911, officials said.
The Seattle Fire Department treated the 75-year-old woman for serious facial injuries, and paramedics transported her to Harborview Medical Center, where she underwent emergency surgery, officials said.
Even though the suspect walked away from the scene, an analyst with the Real Time Crime Center located the suspect and told officers where he was, officials said.
Within five minutes of the assault, nearby deputies with the King County Sheriff's Office found the suspect and detained him without incident, officials said.
Deputies transferred the suspect to Seattle police custody, officials said, adding that the suspect was arrested after Real Time Crime Center video of the attack was reviewed.
Officers booked him into the King County Jail for assault in the first degree, officials said, adding that police recovered the weapon as evidence.
Officials added that the suspect had been given a "Violent Person" caution and is a felon previously convicted for assault.
Commenters under KIRO-TV's video report about the incident don't appear to be holding out much hope that justice will prevail:
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The city of Seattle's progressive ideology is set to clash with Islam during the FIFA World Cup next June.
Lumen Field in Seattle is scheduled to host six World Cup games in 2026, and the city's organizing committee is planning a special gay-pride game for June 26.
'The match-up of two countries where it is illegal to be gay is actually a "good thing" for the Pride Match.'
Announced in October, the committee is dubbing the game the "Seattle Pride Match" and has even procured gay art from fans through a contest meant to be used in Seattle's "citywide celebration."
However, after the World Cup draw finally happened on Friday to determine the tournament groups, the gay game is likely to run into ethical problems after it was decided who the two combatants will be.
The June 26 game will showcase a Group G matchup between two Muslim nations where homosexuality is prosecuted: The Islamic Republic of Iran and Egypt.
RELATED: 'Equality' in pay and 'everything' bar for women's sports opens in Seattle

In Iran, same-sex relations are criminalized, with punishments ranging from flogging to the death penalty, according to Amnesty International.
Egypt is known to use its "debauchery" laws to prosecute gay acts, and while homosexuality is not explicitly illegal, the country used anti-prostitution laws to convict a man for sending nude photos to another man on the gay-dating app Grindr in 2017, according to the Guardian.
The Seattle organizers, who are not affiliated with FIFA, said they are already preparing the area's gay businesses to prepare for the influx of fans.
"We're working with small businesses so the region's LGBTQ+-owned enterprises are ready to benefit from the tournament's unprecedented visitor surge," said Hedda McLendon, the committee's senior vice president of legacy, according to Newsweek.
Seattle also organized a committee specifically for the Pride match, calling it the Seattle Pride Match Advisory Committee. A member of that of that group, Eric Wahl, reportedly stated on social media that "the match-up of two countries where it is illegal to be gay is actually a 'good thing' for the Pride Match."
RELATED: Major League Soccer lifts ban, allows fans to display Antifa-adopted 'Iron Front' flag during games

The activism does not stop at gay pride for the Seattle group. It will also celebrate Juneteenth for one of the games. Juneteenth was first recognized by President Biden to celebrate the end of slavery annually on June 19.
A Group D match between the United States and Australia will take place in Seattle that day.
"Having the U.S. Team playing in Seattle on Juneteenth creates a high-visibility, high-responsibility moment to introduce hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide to Juneteenth and to create benefit for local Black-owned businesses and arts and cultural organizations," the organizers said on their website.
For that match, the group created another committee called the Juneteenth Advisory Committee.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
If Democrats seem extreme now, wait until they adopt ranked-choice voting. Some activists inside the party want exactly that — a reform that would push presidential nominations even further left and force establishment figures to navigate an ideological gauntlet to win.
Multiple reports indicate that Democratic Party activists and elected officials are pressuring the party to adopt ranked-choice voting for its 2028 presidential primaries. Axios notes that the push has grown serious enough that top party officials met in late October with advocates including Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), pollster Celinda Lake, and representatives from FairVote Action.
Ranked-choice voting would pour accelerant on a process already pulling Democrats further left.
Such an effort fits a long pattern: For decades, Democrats have shifted presidential nominations away from party leadership. On ranked-choice voting specifically, several states already use it — Maine and Alaska among them — along with deep-blue cities such as New York, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Seattle.
Ranked-choice voting takes multiple forms, but New York City’s model illustrates the dynamic. Voters rank up to five candidates. If no candidate wins an initial majority, the last-place candidate drops out, and those voters’ second-choice votes are redistributed. This “loser leaves” process continues until a candidate secures a majority.
Assuming rational behavior, Democratic voters would likely rank candidates from more extreme to less extreme. That pattern would advantage the leftmost candidates again and again as lower-preference votes transfer upward.
This structural boost would encourage both supply and demand for extreme candidacies. Candidates on the ideological edge would have more incentive to run. Voters who prefer them would have more influence. Ranked-choice voting’s supporters tout this expanded participation as a virtue.
Offering voters multiple choices would foster coalition-building. Knowing the race may go to multiple rounds, candidates would angle for second- and third-choice votes. The horse-trading once done in old convention “smoke-filled rooms” would unfold publicly through a series of ranked ballots.
But the key question is simple: Why would ranked-choice voting necessarily supercharge extremism inside the Democratic Party? Because the system rewards voters for casting marginal votes — and among today’s Democrats, “marginal” means “further left.”
The party’s ideological shift is measurable. In Gallup’s 2023 polling, 54% of Democrats identified as liberal — an all-time high. Support for democratic socialists in major-city mayoral primaries shows how rapidly the party’s activist base has moved left. In 1995, the liberal share of the party was 25%, roughly equal to conservatives. Three decades later, conservatives make up just 10% of Democrats.
Exit polling confirms the trend: In 2024, 91% of self-identified liberals voted for Kamala Harris; only 9% of conservatives did.
Extrapolate from this trajectory, and the danger becomes even clearer. Extreme candidates increasingly win Democratic primaries in major cities. Those cities dominate statewide Democratic politics. And in closed primaries, only Democrats vote — meaning the hyper-engaged activist left already sets the terms of competition. Ranked-choice voting would amplify that influence. The same voters who nominated democratic socialists in New York and Seattle would wield disproportionate power in a presidential contest.
RELATED: Democrats are just noticing a long, deep-running problem

Consider how the 2020 Democratic primary might have played out under ranked-choice voting. Joe Biden — an establishment candidate favored by moderates — would have faced a field dominated by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Tom Steyer, and others to his left. Ranked-choice voting would have forced him through a gauntlet designed by the party’s most ideological voters.
This trend is not new. In 1972, George McGovern reshaped Democratic nominating rules and then benefited from the changes. Since then, the party has repeatedly weakened its establishment’s role (with key exceptions). Ranked-choice voting would accelerate that shift dramatically.
With moderates now only 36% of the party, according to Gallup, how could they resist a move toward ranked-choice voting? More importantly, which remaining moderate or establishment Democrat could survive a ranked-choice system dominated by the party’s left wing?
Ranked-choice voting would pour accelerant on a process already pulling Democrats further left. The only question is how long it takes for the party to adopt it — and how long the party can remain viable nationally if it does.