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.

New England Patriots

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’

Photo by Jane Gershovich/Getty Images

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.

Seattle Seahawks

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

Photo by Samir Hussein/WireImage

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!

​Fearless, Celebrities, Athletes, Super bowl, Football, Fans, Super bowl lx, New england, Seattle, Sports 

When HBO debuted “Euphoria” in 2019, it was hyped as the ne plus ultra of the ever-popular “the shocking and terrible things kids these days are up to” genre.

Accurate or not, viewers responded. By the time season two of “Euphoria” ended three years ago, it was HBO’s second-most-watched show since 2004, right behind “Game of Thrones.”

Hey there, kids! Here are all the worst things you can do. We’ve made a list. And then we built a TV show around it!

And last month, the trailer for season three — which debuts in April — got 100 million views in two days.

I had been wondering what all the fuss is about. In my day, we had “Less Than Zero,” “Kids,” and “River’s Edge.” Teenagers in those movies gave each other AIDS, prostituted themselves for drugs, shoplifted, and even murdered out of boredom.

Did “Euphoria” really try to out-extreme that?

Even if it did, I suspected that “Euphoria” might be the last gasp of the “terrible teens trauma” genre,” as real-life teenagers are apparently moving in the opposite direction.

Gen Z is taking drugs less, is having sex less, and is generally less licentious than previous generations. It appears that the classic forms of teenage defiance and debauchery have become so routine and overdone that the kids have rebelled against the rebellion.

Into the void

With this in mind, I began the first season of “Euphoria.” I can’t say I was impressed. “Euphoria” was not good. But it was shocking.

What I thought was going to be a glimpse into the lives of contemporary teenagers was instead a pornographic recovery story in which the main character — a teenage trans substance abuser — never manages to get clean and sober.

But that’s not the notable part. The notable part is the porn.

Take the early scene where a 50-ish pervert dad matches with the trans teen on a dating app and meets him in a dark, filthy hotel room. The teen shows up, the adult says creepy things to him, and then … well, you get to see it all in graphic detail, from multiple angles.

Is that a glimpse into the lives of contemporary teens? Or is it an assault on the senses, a forced introduction — for me, anyway — into a disturbingly specific genre of smut?

The whole show is like that. Scene after scene of activities, characters, and conversations you really, really, really don’t want to see.

I kept waiting for the appearance of a single semi-sympathetic character in the show. Someone I cared about even a tiny bit. There were no such characters.

Another thing I really didn’t want to see: an overweight, not-so-bright 16-year-old girl, setting up a pay website where she can take half-naked videos of her butt in order to extract money from creepy old men.

One of her first customers is a pathetic fat guy who wants to be humiliated. She mocks him as he squeals like a pig. Nothing is left to the imagination, as if the show wants to debase the viewer as well.

Gen Z to the rescue

This, I assume, is why current teenagers are rebelling against the ritualized degeneracy of our times.

Because this idea that it’s fun and exciting to be a prostitute/drug addict/rapist/psychopath has been crammed down their throats by the creepy, perverted “entertainment” industry for as long as they’ve been alive. And they’re sick of it. And I don’t blame them.

“Euphoria” was one of the most gruesome things I’ve ever seen. Ultimately, it is just an episodic catalogue of every soul-destroying activity a teenager might indulge in.

Hey there, kids! Here are all the worst things you can do. We’ve made a list. And then we built a TV show around it!

That list would include: OnlyFans. Sexual abuse. Psychopaths beating people half to death. Drug dealers. Extortion. All manner of rape. Psych ward imprisonment. Guys with face tattoos force-feeding fentanyl to teenage girls from the edge of their knives.

The show did give me new sympathy for today’s young women, subjected as they are to certain crude digital courtship rituals. Never before have I been induced to look at so many male members, in all their depressing variety.

RELATED: Why does Hollywood have to make everything gay?

John Shearer/Theo Wargo/Rosediana Ciaravolo/Getty Images

All things considered

But enough about my opinions of “Euphoria.” What did that bastion of propriety and moral certitude National Public Radio think? Let’s start with the headline of an article from 2022: “HBO’s ‘Euphoria’ is more than a parent’s worst nightmare. It’s a creative triumph.”

I would be curious in what way it is “a creative triumph.” It’s badly written. None of the characters seems remotely human. It uses all the cinematic techniques of a bad horror film.

NPR continues: “Creator/executive producer Sam Levinson has built a storytelling style that transcends the titillation of its surface-level story, finding new ways to stitch together the tales of characters seemingly trapped in a web of tragedies and missteps.”

The storytelling is perfunctory. The characters are paper-thin. And as usual, the most evil people on earth are white male high school athletes.

More from NPR: “That daring, creative vision only deepens now, as the show’s long-delayed second season takes flight on HBO.”

The only thing that deepens when you watch “Euphoria” is your gag reflex.

And finally:

That “Euphoria” somehow manages to make you keep caring about often-unlikeable folks on such brutal and dark journeys, is a testament to the uniquely creative voice distilled in each episode. It is thrilling, daring, disquieting and compelling — a triumph at a time when truly unique storytelling remains unsettlingly rare.

Wait, wait, don’t tell me

It’s amazing that we’ve reached a point in our society where NPR is promoting and advocating for what once would have been universally understood as the sexual exploitation of minors.

That’s really what “Euphoria” is. It even tells on itself during a scene in which a 10-year-old boy sneaks into his father’s office and watches a video from his father’s porn collection.

We get a shot from behind the boy, so that we’re effectively invited to watch the video with him.

In this way, we get to participate in the destruction of the child’s innocence. Which, I guess, is the whole point of this show.

NPR’s praise and support for this television show are utterly damning. Thank God NPR has been defunded. Now put them all in jail for being part of this wicked demoralization project. “Euphoria” is an assault on our senses, our morals, and the innocence of our children.

​Culture, Entertainment, Euphoria, Hbo, Movies, Exploitation, Blake’s progress 

On Sept. 30, 2023, shots rang out after a football game in Georgia, WSB-TV reported.

Emmanuel Dorsey — just 14 years old — was killed outside the Griffin-Spalding game, the station said.

‘Jurors are just fed up.’

The suspect was 17-year-old Kaomarion Kendrick.

Arrest warrants stated that Kendrick had a gun with him at the game, WXIA-TV reported, adding that when the game was over, a fight broke out between “two rival cliques.”

During that fight, officers said Kendrick pulled out the gun, after which Dorsey and others fled, WXIA said, adding that warrants indicate Dorsey was shot in the neck and face.

The documents also note that while both teens were not gang members, the two groups they were hanging around were rival gangs, WXIA noted.

RELATED: ‘Hellhounds coming for you’: Loved ones of grandmother murdered in carjacking blast her ‘demon’ teen killer at his sentencing

Kaomarion KendrickImage source: Spalding County (Ga.) Sheriff’s Office

WSB said Kendrick spent eight days on the run before being captured in Henry County.

Officials said at the time of his arrest that Kendrick was armed with a Glock handgun modified with a full-auto switch, WXIA said.

WSB reported that a Spalding County jury last week convicted Kendrick of a long list of charges, including felony murder and three counts of violation of the RICO Act.

With that, Kendrick was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole — followed by another 85 years, WSB said.

RELATED: Teen Islam convert, an ISIS backer, carried out deadly stabbing after kid mocked his faith: Police

A WAGA-TV video report about Kendrick’s sentence indicated that prosecutors depicted him as a “stone-cold killer,” “unrepentant,” and “unremorseful, even at trial.”

David Studdard, acting district attorney, told WAGA that “jurors are just fed up” with the deadly violence and “hear this over and over and over, and they’ve just had it with this kind of thing.”

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

​Murder conviction, Teen, Georgia, Life sentence, Fatal shooting, Boy killed, Kaomarion kendrick, Crime 

Fake constitutionalism is increasingly becoming a problem in America. There is a marked tendency among public officials, political commentators, and media figures to invoke bogus constitutional principles or bogus interpretations of genuine constitutional principles. They do this mainly to shift blame to their political opponents or to shield the otherwise unacceptable behavior of their political allies.

Fake constitutionalism undermines constitutional government by spreading misconceptions about what our Constitution means.

The First Amendment certainly protects a reporter’s right to publish information. But it does not protect unlawful activity in pursuit of information.

Regrettably the First Amendment has become one of the most fruitful areas in which fake constitutionalism thrives. It is now commonplace for Americans — even constitutional lawyers — to make inflated claims about the protections afforded by the First Amendment, extending its scope far beyond the safeguards America’s founders had in mind when they debated and wrote this essential provision of our Constitution.

The most recent case in point is the misplaced outrage over the supposed violations of the First Amendment involved in the arrest of Don Lemon.

Lemon, formerly of CNN, was taken into custody on Jan. 30 for his part in disrupting a service at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Lemon accompanied and filmed protesters who stormed the service to express their disapproval of Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Minneapolis. (An elder of the church is reportedly an ICE agent.) The Department of Justice has charged a number of the disruptors, including Lemon, with violating the FACE Act and conspiracy to deprive others of their civil rights — in this case, their right to gather and worship God in peace in their own church.

In his statement to the media, Lemon’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, characterized his client’s arrest and the filing of federal charges against Lemon as an “unprecedented attack on the First Amendment.”

“Don has been a journalist for 30 years,” Lowell continued, “and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done. The First Amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable.” Arguments to this effect have also been made by countless journalists and commentators incensed by the idea that a journalist might be held to account for his unlawful behavior.

Contrary to Lowell, the First Amendment does not afford any protection to journalism as an activity or to journalists as a class. Instead it protects certain more narrowly defined activities, namely speech and publication. This is evident from the language the framers of the amendment chose to express their meaning: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

RELATED: Unsealed indictment against Don Lemon cites his own comments on livestream from ‘takeover’ at church

Photo by Arturo Holmes/Getty Images

The scope of the First Amendment’s protection is also indicated by the early controversies over its meaning, most notably the debates over the Sedition Act of 1798. Celebrated American statesmen and jurists like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison condemned the act, while others of equal stature, such as Alexander Hamilton and Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, defended it.

The argument concerned the extent to which the government could punish certain kinds of publications. No one at the time, however, suggested that the First Amendment protected otherwise unlawful acts done in the pursuit of publishing information.

The narrow — and reasonable — original understanding of the First Amendment is also evident in the works of the great early American legal commentators such as Justice Joseph Story. In his celebrated “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” Story wrote:

It is plain … that the language of [the First Amendment] imports no more, than that every man shall have a right to speak, write, and print his opinions upon any subject whatever, without any prior restraint, so always, that he does not injure any other person in his rights, person, or property, or reputation; and so always, that he does not thereby disturb the public peace.

As Story’s remarks make clear, even the right to speak and publish is limited by certain principles necessary to a just public order and the protection of other essential rights. Even more to the present purpose is Story’s argument that the First Amendment protects only the right to speak and publish — that is, rights that belong to every man, not just to journalists.

Rejecting this traditional understanding of the First Amendment and accepting the Abbe Lowell version would lead to ridiculous and unacceptable consequences. It would mean that professional journalists must be treated as a privileged class and must be allowed to break the law in the pursuit of a story.

But practically nobody thinks this should be the case, and it is certainly not how the law operates in its ordinary course.

If a reporter is speeding at 100 miles per hour through a town to get to the scene of an important story, he will be stopped by the police and charged with violating the speed limit and reckless driving. If this reporter were to cause an accident and kill someone, he would be charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter — and the fact that he committed the crime in connection with his desire to engage in activities that the First Amendment protects would be totally irrelevant to his defense.

The First Amendment certainly protects a reporter’s right to publish information. It does not, however, protect unlawful activity undertaken in pursuit of information, which is often protected by principles of privacy and ownership recognized in law.

Lemon and the protesters are guilty of the same misconduct, and the First Amendment is of no help to either.

It is undoubtedly a news event when a potential candidate for public office meets with advisers at his home to decide whether to launch a campaign. But this would not give someone like Don Lemon the right to barge into the home over the objections of those who live there and “cover” the event. He would be guilty of trespassing or home invasion and liable to legal punishment.

This example points to the inadequacy of the arguments made by those who have condemned the disruption of the church service but claimed that Lemon, as a journalist, should not be among those charged.

Such defenders seem to think that the other disruptors did something unlawful but that Lemon was merely there to report on the event. But his relevant actions were the same as those of the others involved. They came into the church uninvited during a service at which the worshipers had been peacefully conducting their own business — and in fact exercising a constitutional right clearly stated in the First Amendment. This disruption, of which Lemon was a part, prevented the congregants from carrying on the activities they had a right to pursue.

Charging the other protesters but not Lemon would treat him as a member of a privileged class that has a right to break the law.

This would introduce an unacceptable incoherence into our constitutional law. To the extent that the protesters wanted to make a political point, they also held views protected by the First Amendment. They erred, however, in choosing an unlawful method by which to make their complaints heard — just as Lemon erred in the method by which he tried to get his story.

Lemon and the protesters are guilty of the same misconduct, and the First Amendment is of no help to either.

Suppose a case in which the legal and constitutional issues are the same, but the actors’ political identities are different. Suppose, for example, a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, outraged by federal civil rights enforcement, decides to disrupt the service at a predominantly African-American church, of which a federal civil rights lawyer is a member.

Suppose further that the Klan brings along a sympathetic reporter and storms the church, shouting insults, while the reporter films the whole shameful episode. Would any decent American think this action was a legitimate form of First Amendment-protected “protest”? Or that the reporter who tagged along should be immune to the charges that would properly be filed against the other participants?

Of course not.

RELATED: When worship is interrupted, neutrality is no longer an option

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Recall further Justice Story’s observation that the First Amendment’s protection of the right to speak and publish belongs to “every man.” This is a key principle affirmed by the Supreme Court in modern times. The great liberal Justice William Brennan, on more than one occasion, remarked that the First Amendment protects all Americans equally, not just the members of the professional, credentialed press. A blogger or a concerned citizen who circulates a newsletter has all the same First Amendment rights as someone who works for the New York Times or CNN.

This point is essential to further clarifying the unacceptable consequences that would result if we accepted the First Amendment defense of Don Lemon’s role in the Minnesota church disruption.

Because the amendment protects all Americans, and not only professional journalists, defending Lemon’s conduct as an activity protected by the First Amendment would mean that everybody could break the law and then claim to be engaged in “reporting.” Any concerned citizen with a recording device or a pad of paper could walk into a neighbor’s home, a local church, or, for that matter, the offices of CNN and then claim First Amendment immunity for disrupting the lives of other Americans pursuing legitimate activities.

No sensible person would embrace such a chaotic standard, which is certainly not required by the First Amendment.

Justice Story observed in his account of the First Amendment that “the exercise of a right is essentially different from an abuse of it. The one is no legitimate inference from the other.”

Story continued, “Common sense here promulgates the broad doctrine: so exercise your freedom, as not to infringe the rights of others, or the public peace and safety.” This is the way the founders thought about the rights they enshrined in the Constitution, and it is the only way to think about them that is consistent with a decent public order in which the rights of all are safe.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

​Don lemon, First amendment, Cities church, Constitution, Journalism, Face act, Opinion & analysis, Reporting, Freedom of speech, Free exercise, Religion, Leftism, Arrested 

The Pentagon’s recent decision to downgrade China as America’s primary threat arrives at a strange moment. As officials refine their rhetoric in Washington, Chinese operatives continue to map the nation’s nervous system: power grids, water plants, phone networks, hospitals, and railways.

It’s a sustained and serious threat, and it receives far less attention than it should.

Over the past decade, Chinese hackers have siphoned off personal data from tens of millions of Americans. Medical files, financial records, home addresses — all collected, catalogued, and stored. That alone should have forced a national reckoning. Instead, it passed through the news cycle and was quickly forgotten.

Attribution takes months, while damage compounds each day.

Yet data theft is only the tip of the iceberg. The deeper issue is placement. These intrusions bypass the marketplace for secrets to exploit their military application, learning how our systems work and where they fail. Which switches feed electricity to entire cities. Which valves deliver clean water to millions of homes. Which servers keep emergency rooms alive. Which signals move trains and manage traffic. China has built a strategic database that confers massive leverage.

And lest we think only our machines and infrastructure are at risk, there’s also a biological dimension, one that could eclipse every national security threat since Pearl Harbor. Chinese-linked research laboratories operating on American soil pose a risk that few have fully assessed. Cyberattacks leave traces. Biological threats move differently. A lab accident or deliberate release could devastate crops, overwhelm health care facilities, and unleash panic long before a cause is identified. For those who think this is exaggerated, 2025 alone saw multiple cases of Chinese nationals caught attempting to bring dangerous biological materials into America.

Disease can be even harder to trace, track, and cordon off than viruses online. A fungus in Iowa cornfields looks like blight. A respiratory illness appears to be a bad flu season. Ambiguity chews up precious time. Attribution takes months, while damage compounds each day. Farmers lose harvests without knowing they are under attack. Hospitals overflow with what only seems natural. Supply chains creak. Prices rise. And the central question — was this intentional? — remains an unsolved puzzle, delaying or paralyzing any coordinated response.

RELATED: Another secret Chinese biolab found on US soil?

Aaron Hawkins/Getty Images

This is a conflict without uniforms or airstrikes. No invasions, nor any other moment when peace visibly becomes war, give us the tipoff. In its place, a steady erosion, deniable and extremely effective.

The timing could hardly be worse. America is more divided than it has been in generations. The left despises the right, and the right returns the favor. Such division is fertile ground for hostile actors. Disorder takes hold where common ground has disappeared.

In a divided country, mixed messaging carries real risks. Yet America’s approach to China has become strangely contradictory. Officials warn allies about the risks of economic dependence on Beijing. Those warnings are sensible; strategic reliance carries costs. But downgrading China’s threat at home while cautioning others abroad creates confusion. Are the warnings sincere or symbolic? This is a vital question that requires a clear, concrete answer. Without it, fatalism and a false sense of security quickly set in.

America may no longer rank China as its top threat, but the country’s Communist Party would gladly see its chief rival brought to its knees. And in the modern age, that doesn’t require armies. A blackout can plunge millions into darkness without a single soldier crossing a border. A telecommunications failure can paralyze emergency services. A poisoned water system can force evacuations and put tens of thousands of lives at risk. A hospital network crash can replace treatment with trauma. A pathogen released in farm country can wipe out an entire season’s yield, kill livestock, and leave farmers on the edge of ruin.

Each episode chips away at government capacity without crossing the line that would trigger traditional retaliation.

To be clear, a steady stream of individually minor incidents have already accumulated, testing the edges, building the dataset. The Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack in 2021 showed how a single breach could ignite fuel shortages and consumer panic. Now imagine disruptions across several sectors at once. Not criminal mischief, but coordinated pressure from a sophisticated state actor with cyber reach and biological presence inside American borders.

The answer is neither despair nor denial but preparation. America must develop critical infrastructure through sustained investment, tighter cooperation between public and private sectors, a trained workforce, and systems designed to absorb shocks. It must also establish firm oversight of biological research, especially when foreign entities are involved, and build early-warning networks for agricultural and health threats.

It’s a question of priorities. Civilian life shouldn’t be our weakest link. Power grids, water systems, hospitals, food supply, and transportation deserve the same strategic focus as aircraft carriers and missile shields. Infrastructure security, including biosecurity, shouldn’t be a political football or a budget afterthought. It should be the base that supports everything else.

The issue isn’t whether China poses a serious threat. The answer couldn’t be clearer. The issue is whether America will act before vague vulnerabilities become lurid disasters. There is still time to secure essential systems and reduce exposure across all domains. But the clock is ticking, and Beijing is plotting. America remains a superpower. It still stands tall, but China is working toward a moment when only one giant casts a shadow.

​Tech 

Christians are being told by anti-ICE pastors like Ben Cremer that putting America first is unbiblical, that enforcing borders violates Scripture, and that letting Christian beliefs inform public policy is “Christian nationalism.”

And according to BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey, none of that is true.

“We hear a lot from people like Ben Cremer that putting your country first is wrong, or allowing your Christian conservative views to inform how you vote, that that’s wrong,” Stuckey explains.

And eight months ago, Cremer posted, “Myth #1: Immigrants are a drain on our country.”

“What I’m most interested in is not that he’s saying that that’s a myth, but his response to that,” she comments, before reading Cremer’s response.

“The Bible never defines a person’s worth by their economic output. In fact, it warns us not to favor the rich over the poor (James 2:1-7). God’s kingdom is built not on cost-benefit analysis but on belovedness. The call to welcome the stranger (Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 10:19) is rooted in who God is — not in what the stranger can offer us,” Cremer wrote.

“He is conflating the kingdom of God with America. … We’re not talking about God’s kingdom. We’re talking about the United States. So, actually, in him saying that Christian nationalists are trying to enforce some theocracy by allowing the law to be informed by what we believe, he is actually the one that is conflating our spiritual obligation to the poor in the spiritual kingdom of heaven with America here today,” Stuckey responds.

Stuckey also points out that the government was instituted by God, pointing to Romans 13:2-4, which explains that “rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad,” and that the authority figure is “God’s servant for your good.”

“It was his idea. Law and law enforcement were God’s idea. Now, this right here is why it is so important to elect politicians that define good and evil how God defines them,” Stuckey says.

Cremer has also written in a post on his Instagram that “Christian Nationalism looks like hearing God say ‘I will pour out my spirit on all people’ in Acts 2 where all nations, languages, and tribes were present then protesting by saying ‘America first!’”

“There’s an irony in this accusation. Progressives, as I noted earlier, consistently conflate America and the church, which is the very thing they accuse Christian nationalists of doing,” Stuckey says.

“The truth is, hot take, we do not see the importance of ethnic diversity within nations or local churches anywhere in Scripture,” she continues. “Nowhere.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Sharing, Upload, Video phone, Video, Camera phone, Free, Youtube.com, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Anti-ice, Pastor, Pastor ben cremer, Open borders, Immigration, Christian nationalism, Christian nationalism claim