Lawless evil abounds on the planet and must be identified and removed. Bad is now good and good now is bad. Egad! Such insanity prevails!

 

A left-wing outlet says that immigrant sexual assaults are a good thing

AFRU argues that sexual assaults will lead to the end of racism—if they’re against white women who then embrace the romance of the thing.

Andrea Widburg | April 3, 2026 www.americanthinker.com

I thought I was watching a hoax come to life when I saw the tweets show up on my X feed. Conservative commentators were sharing an image. At the top was a large black-and-white photograph of an endless line of African and Middle Eastern men (and one lone woman). The setting, clearly, is Europe. At the bottom left of the photograph, in a little yellow button, is the word “love.” And underneath is this headline: “Why a ‘rise in sexual assaults’ by migrants is a price worth paying to end racism.”

I mean, you can see why I thought it was a hoax. Who in their right mind would advocate for increased sexual assaults by migrants? After all, day in and day out, American and European news outlets (especially European ones) have stories of these migrants sexually assaulting everyone from babies to old women, assaults that often ended in murder. Here are just some recent examples from America, all of which are names you’ll recognize:

• Laken Riley
• Rachel Morin
• Kayla Hamilton
• Jocelyn Nungaray

Europe has the same problem, which is aided and abetted by officials:

• “Foreigners now commit nearly half of all rapes in Austria, Syrians largest foreign group of suspects”
• “Germany: After girl gang raped, Berlin youth center accused of cover-up because they did not want suspects to be labeled as ‘typical Muslims’”
• “Moroccan asylum seeker arrested for brutal assault and attempted rape of 19-year-old Dutch woman in Rotterdam, mayor describes ‘terrible crime’”
• “Italy: Pakistani migrant sentenced to nearly 5 years in prison for attempted rape of 13-year-old boy”
• “France: African migrant arrested after rape of French woman out for a jog in Lille, caught days later while trying to rape second woman”

And of course, England had the child exploitation scandal. In 2013, the British people learned that, starting in the 1980s and continuing for decades, Pakistani gangs were systematically trafficking thousands of British girls in the most brutal ways imaginable, while the authorities looked the other way, for fear of offending the Muslim population.

I don’t know about you, but that’s not making me feel the love for Third World immigrants—especially cultures that don’t think rape is wrong. But that’s not the thinking at AFRU, a site that describes itself this way:

Shalawam! 👋 AFRU is a Black-led and Black-owned startup that combines art and fashion with lifestyle commentary to create a strong social justice brand that is relevant to folks from all walks of life.

We believe in the power of art to spark meaningful conversations, as well as the other way around. We also realize that people don’t want to be preached to all the time. That’s why our imprint magazine stitches together light everyday topics with navigation of more difficult intersectional spaces — all while allowing for the kind of messiness that is part of human nature. Our visual and intellectual branding therefore nurture each other in an perpetual spiral of trendsetting justice.

Well, it’s definitely “nurturing” something when it publishes an essay entitled “Why a ‘rise in sexual assaults’ by migrants is a price worth paying to end racism.”

According to the essay, which the entire AFRU staff came together to write, all these sexual assaults are just an unfortunate combination of “language gaps and cultural misunderstandings” that end up with “the first romantic encounter between a Western woman and a refugee” being perceived (presumably by the refugee) as “quasi-consensual in nature.”

Let me interject here that, for decades, the left, via its feminist branch, has been telling us that consent must be so explicit that the man should ask the woman every step of the way. May I touch your arm? May I hug you? May I kiss you? May I remove your shirt/shoes/pants? May I insert Plug A into Slot A or, if I’m into kink, into Slot B? Anything short of that is rape.

Now, though, we’re being told that if an immigrant from a rape culture decides that grabbing a woman, ripping off her clothes, and doing vile things to her body is “romantic,” it’s also “quasi-consensual” and, therefore all good.

But there’s a bright side to these “quasi-consensual,” perhaps violent encounters: “But increasingly these encounters result in a shared apartment, a mixed-race child, a new surname, and a happy future.” And who do we have to thank for this? White women who aren’t just “engaging in fetishism or exoticism.” Instead, by accepting these assaults, they are trailblazing a path to the end of racism. (Apparently, black women or other minority women have no such obligation.)

From there, the essay slips into saying it’s a good thing when white European women bring refugees home to mommy. And while they can help these refugees navigate their new land, they, too, learn wonderful things:

These women often introduce their partners to informal but essential codes: how to navigate bureaucracy, what behaviors signal trustworthiness, how to perform integration in a society obsessed with appearances. At the same time, they absorb the refugee’s worldview, witnessing firsthand how Western institutions often fail the very people they claim to welcome.

The essay continues in this blah-blah vein, arguing that all these brave white women are a rebuttal to evil right-wingers who keep harping on the immigrants’ propensity to rape women.

And that’s pretty much where the essay ends. What’s so weird about it is the framing. If you want to say that women civilize men, as they always have, and that white women are doing this for refugees with whom they fall in love, say it. But for AFRU to insist that sexual assault against white women is the pathway to love and social integration is, quite simply, obscene. It’s a whole new level of racism and misogyny that deserves to be called out.

"The spirit and intent of Trump’s order are, frankly, common sense: only U.S. citizens have a right to vote, and ensuring that only U.S. citizens cast votes means identifying who those Americans are".

 

Trump Orders Citizenship Verification for Elections

Thomas Gallatin patriotpost.us 4-4-26

With the SAVE Act tied up in the Senate, President Trump is using everything at his disposal to keep pressing for commonsense election protections.

In response to Congress’s failure to pass the election integrity-focused SAVE Act, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.”

“The right to vote in Federal elections is reserved exclusively for citizens of the United States under the Constitution and Federal law,” the order reads. “Federal statutes explicitly prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote or voting in Federal elections and impose criminal penalties for violations.”

Focusing on protecting American citizens’ votes from disenfranchisement by illegal voting by noncitizens, Trump’s order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile a list of U.S. citizens from every state using Social Security data.

These lists will help identify whether noncitizen-based voter fraud is occurring by comparing the overall number of eligible American citizens to the voting totals.

The order also directs the U.S. Postal Service to send mail-in ballots only to U.S. citizens approved by each state’s list. As Trump asserted when signing the order, “The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary.”

As the 2005 Jimmy Carter and James Baker-led Commission on Federal Election Reform concluded, mail-in ballots “remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” Indeed, this is why few countries worldwide permit mass mail-in voting. They know it is a massive recipe for election fraud — ask one-fifth of 2020 mail-in voters. And if the citizenry can’t trust the election results, then whatever government comes to power will automatically be viewed with distrust, suspicion, and a sense of illegitimacy.

Protecting election integrity should be an absolute nonpartisan issue. And yet there are Democrats, the party that created the original Jim Crow laws, ridiculously and falsely smearing the SAVE Act as “Jim Crow 2.0.”

As noted above, the Senate Republicans’ inability to pass the SAVE Act has motivated Trump’s action. The question is, how much of this order will actually be accomplished?

The order threatens to withhold federal funding if state governments fail to get on board with the program, though Democrats are confident that little will come of this. Democrat election lawyer Marc Elias opined on X, “If Trump signs an unconstitutional Executive Order to take over voting, we will sue. I don’t bluff and I usually win.”

Arizona Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes dubiously framed Trump’s order as “nothing more than a push to weaponize the sensitive personal information of voters in this country,” and he promised to “not let this order stand without a fight and will meet the federal government in court.”

But Democrat opposition was to be expected, and from Trump’s perspective, his order is entirely within constitutional bounds. “You may find a rogue judge, you have a lot of rogue judges — very bad, bad, people, very bad judges,” he stated. “But that’s the only way that can be changed, and hopefully we’ll win on appeal if it is. I don’t see how anybody can challenge it.”

The spirit and intent of Trump’s order are, frankly, common sense: only U.S. citizens have a right to vote, and ensuring that only U.S. citizens cast votes means identifying who those Americans are.

With the SAVE Act bogged down by the Senate, Trump is taking action to keep the issue of protecting federal elections front and center for the American people. He’s pressing Democrats over their ridiculous and nonsensical excuses for opposing the safeguarding of the nation’s elections, and at a time in American history when nefarious foreign influence in our elections has never been higher.

Trump is also pushing to make these commonsense election protections, like voter ID and citizenship verification, a campaign issue that Republicans can wield against their Democrat opponents in the midterms. In fact, the tagline should be: “Republicans are trying to safeguard and protect America’s elections from abuse and fraud; why are Democrats stopping them?”

 

"Constitutional law should not be settled by the misinterpretation of others". That is why the current mis-interpretation of the 14th Amendment has caused this national crisis!

 

Supreme Court Skeptical of Undoing Birthright Citizenship

Nate Jackson patriotpost.us 4-3-26

The justices could surprise everyone, but there wasn’t a lot of sympathy for President Trump’s effort to deny automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

President Donald Trump is absolutely right on the policy and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment — the children of illegal aliens should not automatically become U.S. citizens merely by virtue of the place of their birth. Maybe that’s why he became the first president to sit in on arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday. However, the president is almost certainly not going to prevail in Trump v. Barbara.

On his first day back in office last year, Trump issued Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” to set a new determination — or, rather, correct the wrong interpretation and practice — regarding citizenship and the 14th Amendment. We’ve written extensively about this interpretation and policy, going as far back as 2010.

The framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention to pave the way for a woman to illegally cross our border and give birth to an automatic citizen. Such a policy is insane.

Yet the legal practice of the last 128 years has gradually devolved into exactly that scenario. Even Solicitor General John Sauer admitted in his brief that this “misreading took hold by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Administration.” Time doesn’t make all things right, but it won’t be easy to undo that long history of practice either.

The question is one of emphasis. The 14th Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Proponents of birthright citizenship for illegals point to “all persons born.” Opponents note that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is critical for context. Illegal aliens are, by definition, not “subject” to U.S. jurisdiction because they are not here legally in the first place.

Georgetown constitutional scholar Randy Barnett expertly explains in The Wall Street Journal that the framers of the 14th Amendment told us what they meant by “jurisdiction” — “not owing allegiance to anybody else” and “not owing allegiance to any foreign power.”

That seems pretty cut-and-dried from a legal standpoint. Constitutional law should not be settled by the misinterpretation of others. We would not enjoy many rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights if that were the case.

All that said, it doesn’t matter what I think. It only matters what five Supreme Court justices think.

Unfortunately, they seemed skeptical of Team Trump’s legal case. Even Justice Samuel Alito didn’t seem persuaded by the jurisdiction argument, saying, “‘Subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ is the puzzle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a mystery.” Still, he noted that a person cannot be legally domiciled in America when they are not legally in America.

Chief Justice John Roberts called some of the historical examples cited by the administration “very quirky.” He looked at the wording for exclusions and wondered about where Team Trump ended up: “You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships, and then you expand it to the whole class of illegal aliens who are here in the country. I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”

He also specifically rejected one of Sauer’s points: “It’s a new world where eight billion people are a plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.” Roberts countered, “It’s a new world; it’s the same Constitution.”

That’s correct — and interpretation still matters.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh cited federal statutes passed by Congress in 1940 and 1952 that codified the language of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. He seemed to think that Congress’s misinterpretation then should guide the Court now.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who, along with the other two left-wing justices, is a sure “no” vote, pointed to the obviously relevant precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. That 1898 Supreme Court ruling determined that Wong, the child of Chinese immigrants legally domiciled in the U.S., was a citizen by birth. “You are asking us to overrule Wong Kim Ark?” Sotomayor asked Sauer. No, immigration law was entirely different then.

Bringing her usual stellar wit to bear, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked, “Are we bringing pregnant women for depositions?” Um, no.

“Your view of birthright citizenship turns on what the status of the parents is, not the child,” she said to Sauer. “Help us understand why we wouldn’t see a mention of parents in the text of this Amendment.”

Sauer responded, “I think it’s well understood that children — newborns cannot form domiciles.”

Justice Clarence Thomas was the only one who seemed to fully grasp the post-Civil War context of the 14th Amendment. “How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?” Thomas asked. The purpose of the amendment, he noted, was to grant citizenship to blacks, including freed slaves.

Overall, the Trump administration faced a lot of skepticism. The ruling likely won’t come until June. The conventional wisdom is foolish. It’s time for the justices to correct the record.

 

A 'divided nation' cannot stand. This article verifies that statement.

 

For Dems, illegal aliens are more valuable than you are

Once, immigration was intended to benefit America and Americans. Today, for Democrats, the only benefit allowed is for the immigrants, especially the illegal ones. 

Andrea Widburg | March 29, 2026 www.americanthinker.com

One of the most useful aspects of the Trump presidency is that Democrats are no longer hiding their cards. Whether because Trump has driven them mad or because they truly believe Trump is the last gasp of Americanism and that they are on the verge of total control (there’s a scary thought), they’re being very open about their goals.

Currently, their overriding goal is to replace the American population, which is too white and too independent for their tastes. This project started in the 1960s, with Teddy Kennedy’s bill ending immigration based on quotas that favored immigrants from countries with values similar to America’s and who could vouch (or have someone vouch on their behalf) that they would not become a burden to the American taxpayer.

Instead, the new goals were family reunification and workers with needed skills. The former goal quickly outstripped the latter.

That change to the law reshaped America’s demographics. Suddenly, immigrants poured in from Latin America, Asia, Africa, India, and other regions. In the early days, most of these immigrants assimilated because assimilation was still part of the American educational and institutional ethos.

However, as Democrats reclassified assimilation as racism, and our education systems from kindergarten to graduate school taught that America is an evil nation, subsequent generations of illegal immigrants and their children not only did not assimilate but became actively hostile to their new home. You could say that Ilhan Omar is Exhibit A for this mindset.

Moreover, while many immigrant parents may still have been alive to the wonders of America compared to the third world, often totalitarian nations they fled, their children, products of leftist education, had nothing but disdain for this country. This was the case for the people I grew up with. The parents appreciated America. Their children (my former classmates), all of whom graduated from college, do not. As many proudly post on Facebook, they’ve been out on the streets screaming about “No Kings,” “Abolish ICE,” and “Reparations.”

The shift was about more than numbers and demographics. It was also about the answer to that famous Latin question: “Cui bono?” (Who benefits?) Is it America or the immigrants?

After the Civil War, as America was becoming an industrial powerhouse, Congress began passing immigration laws. Some were openly racist in nature, with the most obvious example being the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which explicitly targeted Chinese immigrants. Others, as noted, were intended to benefit European immigrants over others. Most importantly, though, the immigration laws were intended to keep America safe. That is why they used places like Ellis Island to try to keep out people with dangerous infectious diseases. 

The laws’ goals were also to benefit America, not just by keeping out what were then believed to be bad apples, but by bringing in something America, with its exploding industrial base, desperately needed: Labor. It didn’t have to be skilled labor. It just needed muscle to run the factories and build the infrastructure for a country growing both internally and through immigration. Congress also needed more farmers, because more people made more food a necessity.

The whole system was highly symbiotic: economic growth required labor, which in turn spurred further growth, etc. One thing, though, was always clear: This wasn’t meant to benefit the immigrants, no matter what was written on the Statue of Liberty. It was meant to benefit America.

Up until the 1960s, everyone understood that assimilation benefited America. The Melting Pot was the thing. Embrace American values, and you will be an American. You can be proud of your heritage, but the melting pot is what counts. (Even Hollywood got in on the act.) And it really was a melting pot when you had Jimmy Cagney showing off his Yiddish (which he spoke fluently).

It’s different now. Democrats are done with Americans—and, more than that, they’re not bothering to hide it anymore. As far as they’re concerned, immigration isn’t about making our country better, stronger, wealthier, and safer.

And we certainly don’t need the muscle, thanks to Democrat and Chamber of Commerce policies that saw so much of our industrial base go to the same countries from which the illegal immigrants now come. Instead, for Democrats, immigration is solely about making life better for illegal aliens, and ensuring that as many come as possible, regardless of their ability to work and stay off of welfare. The salt in the wound is that those who do work, by accepting much lower wages, take jobs from Americans.

Nor is the new immigrants’ criminal or disease status a matter of concern. The man accused of killing Sheridan Gorman is here illegally, was a criminal, has tuberculosis, might have killed her as a gang initiation, and is either completely illiterate or, arguably, mentally retarded—but Loyola University, Gorman’s school, apologized for calling him an illegal immigrant.

Please note, too, that this is no longer about helping people escape from genocide. It’s just about getting them out of their economically backward, often crime-ridden countries, so they can bring those values here.

And again, Democrats are not apologetic; they’re proud. A couple of years ago, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CN) explained that the people whom Democrats care most about are illegal aliens:

(X Link)

A couple of days ago, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), herself an immigrant from India, stated plainly that she wants illegal aliens given reparations for the trauma of ICE enforcement:

(X-Link)

And of course, the Democrats have been blowing apart American security in a time of war, and making air travel a nightmare, for one purpose only: to make it impossible for ICE to deport illegal aliens.

The useful idiots are all on board with this. They hate America and dream of a nation that has the distinct vibe of the worst parts of the third world (maybe Haiti) combined with downtown San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Chicago. But the rest of America had better wise up and vote Republican, or else the Democrats’ dream will become all of our nightmares.