California isn’t just changing — it’s being remade in the image of its southern neighbor. Call it the Tijuanafication of California: the steady bleed of Mexican border-town culture, informal economics, Spanish-dominant signage, and policy priorities moving northward across what used to be a clear cultural line. If Xavier Becerra, the son of Mexican immigrants with deep family roots in Tijuana and Guadalajara, becomes the state’s next governor, this process won’t slow down. It will accelerate.

Becerra’s recent X post gives praise for street carts as the place to find “real” tacos wasn’t a slip. It was a signal. Across Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, and even smaller towns in southwest Riverside County, entire commercial corridors now look and feel like extensions of Tijuana or Mexicali. Street vendors cluster on corners with the same chaotic energy you see south of the border — carts jammed together, music blaring, and little apparent concern for formal permits or health regulations. Business signs are predominantly in Spanish. English often feels like a second language in daily life. What were once quiet American suburbs have taken on the look, sound, and pace of Mexican border cities — carts everywhere, informal hustle normalized, and enforcement of basic rules increasingly optional for some.

The street food explosion highlights the unfairness. Across Los Angeles, San Francisco, Ventura County, and beyond, food carts and pop-up stands proliferate, many out of compliance with basic health and safety rules. They lack proper refrigeration, handwashing stations, grease disposal, or commissary kitchens required of legal operators. Brick-and-mortar restaurants shoulder massive costs: high minimum wages, lawsuit risks, environmental fees, insurance, taxes, and rigorous inspections. Illegal vendors often operate cash-only, evade sales tax, and face minimal consequences thanks to state laws like SB 946 that decriminalized sidewalk vending.

This creates a glaring two-tiered system. Legal businesses “get smashed with red tape” while carts thrive, drawing crowds and undercutting prices. Enforcement is spotty—carts get cited or shut down temporarily, only to reappear. Programs handing out subsidized compliant carts (e.g., LA’s $2.8 million initiative) further empowers the informal sector without equivalent relief for traditional eateries.

This transformation is no accident. It is being driven and protected by the growing political power of Latinos — particularly those of Mexican origin — who now hold immense influence at every level of California government. U.S.-born children of immigrants, frequently labeled “anchor babies” in earlier debates, have grown up to occupy seats in city councils, the state legislature, Congress, and statewide offices. They bring with them cultural assumptions, family priorities, and policy preferences shaped by their heritage. The result is governance that increasingly treats California as a northern extension of Mexico rather than an American state.

A clear example is the law requiring folic acid to be added to corn masa flour and tortillas across the state. Sponsored by Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula, it mandates changes to a staple Mexican food to address health issues prevalent in Latina communities. Whether the health goal is worthy or not, the symbolism is unmistakable: California lawmakers are using statewide power to reshape the food supply around the dietary and cultural patterns of one dominant ethnic group. This is what happens when anchor babies and their descendants reach critical mass in the legislature — public policy bends toward the old country’s needs and habits.

Under a Becerra governorship, expect more of the same, only faster. More lenient treatment of informal street economies. More expansive benefits and protections for immigrant communities. More rhetoric celebrating “vibrancy” while ignoring the quiet frustration of longtime Californians who watch their neighborhoods, schools, and businesses transform around them. The informal vendor culture Becerra openly cheers is just the visible tip. Beneath it lies a deeper shift: Spanish becoming the default language in many public spaces, businesses catering almost exclusively to Mexican tastes and norms, schools adjusting curricula and language programs, and policies that prioritize ethnic solidarity over equal application of American rules.

California is not becoming more “diverse” in the classic melting-pot sense. It is becoming majority Mexican-influenced in its culture, economy, language, and politics. In large parts of the state — particularly Southern California and the Central Valley — the border has effectively moved north. Streets, storefronts, and even local governance increasingly reflect the customs, cuisine, and social patterns of Mexico rather than traditional American norms.

The question Californians must face is whether they want this trajectory locked in under leadership that sees itself as an extension of that heritage rather than a steward of the American California that once existed. Becerra’s candidacy makes the choice stark. His background, rhetoric, and policy instincts suggest he views the ongoing transformation not as a problem to manage, but as something to be embraced and accelerated.

The Tijuanafication is already well advanced. A Becerra victory in the governor’s race would likely remove whatever remaining brakes exist. What we’re watching isn’t gentle evolution — it’s replacement. And the pace is picking up.

Fury as Xavier Becerra praises street vendors over brick-and-mortar restaurants in tone deaf clip

Opinion: “Anchor babies” from the 80’s now run California & draft laws like AB-1840

Families of Compton shooting victims demand action after deadly Fourth of July weekend: “When are we going to stop?”

In the aftermath of yet another bloody Independence Day in Compton, grieving families and community leaders are issuing a desperate plea that cuts through the usual political noise. Two separate shootings during July 4 celebrations claimed three lives: community activist Eric Washington, 19-year-old UNLV nursing student Meah Bordenave-Jenkins, and 38-year-old Thaddeus Clark.

At vigils and press gatherings, voices from the community spoke plainly. Kenneth Clark, uncle of Thaddeus, didn’t mince words: “This community of Compton gotta wake up. Black men gotta wake up.” He pointed directly to the pattern of violence plaguing the neighborhood and, remarkably, called on President Donald Trump to send in the National Guard.

This isn’t abstract statistics or partisan talking points. These are real people— a young woman pursuing a career in healthcare, a dedicated community advocate trying to make things better, and a family man whose life ended at a holiday block party. Their deaths highlight a painful reality that too many urban neighborhoods confront year after year: the overwhelming majority of Black homicide victims in America are killed by other Black perpetrators, often in cities long governed by Democrats.

Data from the FBI and CDC consistently show that in major cities, Black-on-Black crime accounts for the bulk of violent deaths within Black communities. In Los Angeles County, homicides and shootings spike in specific pockets like Compton and South LA, driven by gangs, drugs, retaliation, and the breakdown of family structures. Yet for decades, the conversation has been derailed by accusations of racism whenever anyone highlights these uncomfortable facts or proposes aggressive intervention.

Compton’s leaders calling for the National Guard represent a breaking point. When local authorities and soft-on-crime policies fail to deliver safety, residents turn elsewhere. They want results, not more excuses about “root causes” that never seem to produce safer streets. Deploying the National Guard isn’t a perfect or permanent fix—troops can’t raise responsible fathers, instill discipline in schools, or replace cultural norms that glorify violence. But it can provide immediate deterrence, restore order, and buy time for longer-term reforms.

Critics will cry “militarization” or “racism.” The same voices who cheered protests and bail reform while bodies piled up now recoil at the idea of federal help when Black leaders themselves request it. This reaction reveals the hypocrisy: protecting Black lives only matters when it fits a narrative blaming external forces rather than confronting internal failures—fatherlessness rates above 70% in many urban areas, failing schools, and a street culture that settles disputes with gunfire.

President Trump has previously signaled willingness to support law-and-order measures in high-crime cities. If Black leaders in Compton are explicitly asking for National Guard assistance to halt the bloodshed, that request deserves serious consideration over performative outrage from distant pundits. Local police need backup when gangs and shooters operate with impunity.

True compassion means prioritizing the innocent victims—children growing up in fear, parents burying their kids—over political optics. Meah Bordenave-Jenkins won’t finish nursing school. Eric Washington won’t advocate for more housing or peace. Thaddeus Clark won’t see another family gathering. Their deaths demand more than hashtags and candlelight vigils.

Compton’s call should echo nationwide: Stop the denial. Address the violence tearing apart Black communities with honesty and resolve. Safety is a prerequisite for everything else—economic opportunity, education, and hope. If that requires temporary federal intervention, so be it. Enough with the cycle of mourning and forgetting until the next holiday turns deadly.

The families of Thaddeus, Meah, and Eric are watching. So is the rest of America.

In the high-stakes battle for Maine’s U.S. Senate seat, Democratic nominee Graham Platner’s campaign is in freefall. Fresh allegations of sexual assault have triggered a cascade of withdrawn endorsements, leaving the oyster farmer and combat veteran politically isolated just months before the general election against incumbent Sen. Susan Collins.

On Monday, Politico reported a serious accusation from a woman who dated Platner. She claims that in 2021, while in a casual relationship, he entered her home uninvited while heavily intoxicated and forced her to have sex despite her repeated objections. The account was reportedly corroborated by her therapist and others she confided in at the time. Platner has vehemently denied the allegation, calling it “categorically false” and stating that any claim of non-consensual behavior is untrue. He added that his campaign is “taking the time to reflect on the best path forward” amid the political fallout.

This latest controversy compounds a series of earlier issues that have dogged Platner’s rapid rise from obscurity. Previous reports highlighted a tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol, sexually explicit texts sent to women other than his wife early in his marriage, old Reddit posts with inflammatory content attributed to untreated PTSD, and accounts from former girlfriends describing unsettling or intimidating behavior.

Graham Platner Endorsements Withdrawn

The response from Democratic leaders and allies was swift and decisive. Among those who pulled support or called for Platner to withdraw on Monday:

• Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA): A prominent early supporter who had campaigned with Platner, Khanna stated the allegations were “very serious and credible,” called sexual assault a “red line,” and explicitly urged Platner to drop out while withdrawing his endorsement.

• Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ): Rescinded his endorsement, describing the allegations as “troubling and deeply serious.”

• Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and DSCC Chair Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: Issued strong calls for Platner to step aside.

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): Urged Platner to withdraw and address the allegations outside the race.

• Maine Democratic Party: Leadership called on Platner to drop out.

• VoteVets: The veterans’ advocacy group rescinded its endorsement.

• Other groups including End Citizens United, Our Revolution, and A Fight Worth Having also pulled support.

The withdrawals have thrown Democratic hopes for flipping the seat into chaos. With a tight timeline for any replacement (potentially requiring action by mid-July), party leaders face difficult choices in a race viewed as critical for Senate control.

What makes this collapse particularly damning is that many Democrats enthusiastically endorsed Platner even after the earlier scandals surfaced — including the Nazi-linked tattoo, the sexting revelations, and multiple accounts of disturbing behavior toward women. They were willing to look past it all in their desperate quest for power and a flip of the Senate seat.

Sunny Hostin of The View openly admitted she would “hold her nose” and vote for him if she lived in Maine, while other prominent voices signaled they were prepared to ignore the red flags for the sake of defeating Susan Collins. Now that a far more serious sexual assault allegation has emerged, the same party that rallied behind him is suddenly discovering its principles.

Platner built his campaign on populist, working-class credentials as a Marine veteran and oyster farmer challenging the establishment. His story initially resonated, drawing national attention and significant fundraising. Yet the accumulating personal controversies have overshadowed policy discussions on healthcare, education, and economic inequality. Whether Platner fights on or steps aside, today’s events mark a dramatic turning point.

In politics, as in life, credibility is hard-won and easily lost—especially when serious allegations of sexual assault enter the fray. Democrats now confront the painful reality that their strongest primary contender may have become an insurmountable liability.

The endorsements didn’t just drop; they evaporated in hours, leaving Platner’s once-promising bid on life support.

In a 6-3 decision released today, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s executive order attempting to limit birthright citizenship. The ruling in Trump v. Barbara reaffirms that nearly all children born on American soil are U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

This outcome was expected after oral arguments signaled skepticism toward reinterpreting “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. While the constitutional principle stands, the decision doesn’t tie the administration’s hands on the separate and deeply unpopular issue of birth tourism—the practice where foreign nationals enter on temporary visas primarily to secure a U.S. passport for their child.

Why Birth Tourism Matters

Birth tourism commodifies American citizenship. Agencies in China, Russia, Nigeria, and elsewhere market “birth packages” including visas, housing, delivery, and paperwork. Estimates put these births at up to 26,000 per year—small in raw numbers but symbolic of a broken system that burdens hospitals, incentivizes future chain migration, and erodes public confidence in immigration.

The good news? The Supreme Court ruling leaves powerful tools intact for the Trump administration to make birth tourism extremely difficult, if not impossible, without touching the Constitution.

Practical Workarounds to Stop Birth Tourism Cold

1. Aggressive Visa Denials for Pregnant Travelers
The State Department already has rules in place (strengthened in 2020) declaring that obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child is not a valid purpose for a B-1/B-2 tourist visa. Consular officers should apply maximum scrutiny:

• Deny visas to applicants whose primary intent appears to be giving birth.

• Demand ironclad proof of intent to return home, private payment for all medical costs, and legitimate travel reasons unrelated to childbirth.

• Revoke visas and impose re-entry bans on violators and facilitators.

  attorneydpc.com

Visibly pregnant applicants or those timing trips near delivery should face especially tough questioning at embassies and ports of entry.

2. Fortress Border and Port-of-Entry Enforcement
Maintain strict border security to prevent illegal crossings by pregnant women. At legal ports, Customs and Border Protection officers can—and should—turn away travelers whose visa purpose is invalidated upon arrival. Pregnancy is an obvious red flag; use it.

3. Dismantle the Birth Tourism Industry
Target the networks:

• Prosecute agencies, fixers, and facilitators for fraud and conspiracy.

• Disrupt operations abroad through visa revocations and international cooperation.

• Recent actions have already shut down rings in Africa and Europe—scale this up aggressively.

4. Financial and Regulatory Barriers

• Require proof of comprehensive private health insurance or ability to pay full maternity costs (often $20,000–$50,000+).

• Expand “public charge” rules to consider potential healthcare burdens.

• Issue shorter-duration visas to high-risk applicants and improve data sharing across agencies.

5. Legislative Reinforcement
Congress should codify stronger prohibitions in the Immigration and Nationality Act, explicitly barring birth tourism as a visa purpose and clarifying inadmissibility grounds. These steps are achievable even in a divided environment.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court preserved birthright citizenship as a constitutional bedrock. That debate is settled for now. But Americans overwhelmingly reject the abuse of that right by wealthy foreigners who treat the U.S. like a citizenship ATM before heading home.

President Trump and his team have the executive tools—visa scrutiny, border security, investigations, and enforcement discretion—to make birth tourism a relic of the past. Rigorous implementation will protect the integrity of American citizenship without needing another round of constitutional litigation. The American people deserve an immigration system that serves citizens first. Today’s ruling changes nothing about that fundamental obligation.

Governor Newsom’s new Golden State Start program will hand out 400 free diapers to every newborn through hospitals, but critics say the state should redirect resources to the homeless crisis and restore basic sanitation on California streets.

Governor Gavin Newsom just announced a “first-in-the-nation” program called Golden State Start to provide 400 free diapers to every newborn delivered in participating California hospitals, starting this summer.

The state is partnering with the nonprofit Baby2Baby to distribute the diapers at discharge. In the first year, the program will roll out at roughly 65 to 75 hospitals handling about a quarter of the state’s births, with a focus on facilities serving low-income Medi-Cal patients.

Officials plan to distribute around 40 million diapers initially and expand statewide later. California has already allocated $7.4 million, with another $12.5 million proposed in the budget through June 2027. Newsom highlighted that diaper costs have risen about 45% since the pandemic, with families typically spending around $1,000 in a baby’s first year.

Framed as supporting families and infant health so parents can focus on “love, connection, and joy” rather than costs. Newsom called it an example of real affordability: “Every baby born in California deserves a healthy start in life.”

It’s a nice sentiment—if your biggest problem is the price of Pampers and you ignore the visible collapse of public order in California’s major cities.

California’s homelessness crisis is not abstract. In San Francisco, Los Angeles, and elsewhere, streets, sidewalks, parks, and even business entrances are routinely used as open-air toilets by people who have no diapers, no homes, and often no interest in basic hygiene or shelter rules.

Public defecation has become a normalized feature of life in parts of the state, contributing to disease outbreaks, filth, and a general breakdown in urban livability. Tourists and residents alike step over human waste while city officials issue reports and launch yet another task force.

Yet Governor Newsom’s priority is handing out state-purchased diapers (produced via Baby2Baby’s system at supposedly 80% below retail) to parents of newborns—many of whom could afford them or access private charity—while the sidewalks remain a biohazard.

If Governor Newsom truly wants to show leadership on “the basics,” he might redirect some of this energy and funding toward aggressive street cleaning, mandatory treatment for severe mental illness and addiction, enforcement against open defecation, and shelter conditions that actually encourage people off the streets.

In a city battered by wildfires, plagued by homelessness, struggling with crime and affordability, and weary of entrenched political failures, Spencer Pratt is emerging as a refreshingly authentic voice. The former reality TV star—now a second-generation Angeleno, community advocate, and wildfire survivor—has transformed personal loss into a powerful mission to reclaim Los Angeles. As the June 2, 2026 primary approaches, Pratt’s rapid rise isn’t a fluke; it’s a direct response to voter frustration with the status quo.

A Personal Stake in LA’s Future

Pratt’s candidacy gained urgency after the Pacific Palisades Fire destroyed his home. Rather than retreating, he channeled that devastation into action, highlighting bureaucratic mismanagement, inadequate emergency preparedness, and leadership shortcomings under incumbent Mayor Karen Bass. His viral Mother’s Day video from the ruins struck a chord, symbolizing not just personal tragedy but the broader failures affecting countless Angelenos. It’s lived experience driving a candidate who refuses to accept “that’s just how it is” in LA.

Ideology and Policy Agenda: Practical, Results-Oriented Reform

Pratt runs as a nonpartisan community advocate in this officially nonpartisan race, distancing himself from strict party labels while emphasizing common-sense governance. He rejects being pigeonholed as a “MAGA” candidate, noting his family includes Democrats and focusing on what works for all Los Angelenos.

His platform centers on core priorities:

• Crisis Leadership & Emergency Readiness: Aggressive reforms to wildfire response, infrastructure hardening, and accountability for utility failures and bureaucratic delays.

• Public Safety & the Rule of Law: Stronger enforcement, addressing street crime, and restoring order so residents feel safe again.

• Treatment-First Approach to Homelessness: Moving beyond enabling encampments to prioritize addiction treatment and mental health services, tackling the “zombie” crisis head-on with compassion backed by results.

• Fiscal Integrity & Government Reform: Cutting waste, improving efficiency, and protecting ratepayers from utility hikes.

• Economic Opportunity & Small Business Empowerment: Making LA more affordable and business-friendly to retain residents and talent.

• Infrastructure & Quality of Life: Rebuilding a city that’s “camera-ready” for everyone, not just the elite.

This agenda resonates because it’s straightforward and unburdened by ideology for ideology’s sake. Pratt wants accountability, growth, and a government that serves people rather than perpetuating dysfunction.

Debate Dominance: Substance Over Spin

Pratt’s performance in the recent heated debate against Bass and Nithya Raman silenced skeptics. The reality TV veteran leveraged his media savvy and storytelling ability to deliver passionate, anecdote-driven arguments that cut through policy jargon. He dominated the conversation on public safety, affordability, and fire response—bluntly calling out failures while showing composure and charm.

Even critics acknowledged he exceeded expectations. Post-debate polls showed him surging dramatically (one informal poll gave him 88% among viewers), with livestreams drawing massive audiences. Pratt didn’t just participate—he owned the stage, interrupting strategically and forcing real discussion. His Obama parallel (community advocate to leader) highlighted that fresh perspectives and communication skills matter more than traditional résumés.

Ascension in the Polls: Why Voters Are Responding

Pratt has climbed from long-shot status to a genuine contender, tightening the race and energizing voters disillusioned with establishment options. Polls show him gaining ground amid high undecided numbers, fueled by frustration with Bass’s record on homelessness, crime, and the fires. His outsider status, digital fluency, and unfiltered style connect in a social media era where authenticity wins.

Why the surge? Angelenos are exhausted by chaos—visible decay, unaffordable living, and repeated leadership letdowns. Pratt offers grievance politics rooted in real grievances, paired with a vision of renewal. He’s not polished in the conventional sense, but that’s the point: LA needs disruption, not more of the same. Supporters see him as an “angry Angeleno” channeling collective frustration into actionable change.

Is Spencer Pratt The Right Man for This Moment?

Los Angeles stands at a crossroads. Decades of one-party dominance have delivered visible decline. Spencer Pratt represents a populist reset—imperfect, perhaps, but genuine, battle-tested by personal loss, and laser-focused on fixing what’s broken. His debate strength, policy clarity, and poll momentum prove he’s no joke candidate; he may be the disruptor voters have been waiting for.

Angelenos tired of excuses have a clear choice: more of the same, or a fighter ready to lead from the front. The momentum is real—and growing.

After four years under Mayor Karen Bass, the city’s challenges—homelessness, public safety, housing affordability, and basic governance competence—have not been solved but, in many cases, exposed or exacerbated by leadership failures. With the June 2026 primary approaching, voters should send a clear message: one term is plenty.

Why Karen Bass Deserves to Be a One-Term Mayor

Black Angelenos experience LA’s core problems—homelessness crisis, housing unaffordability, public safety concerns, and slow economic mobility—more acutely due to longstanding disparities. Bass has prioritized equity rhetoric, homelessness initiatives, and police hiring, with some citywide wins in crime and unsheltered counts. However, on disparity-specific metrics (Black homelessness share, poverty spike, elevated unemployment), the record shows stagnation or regression rather than clear progress after 3.5 years.

Polls (e.g., UCLA Luskin, March 2026) show Bass retaining stronger support among Black voters (~53%) compared to her overall low approval ratings. This reflects symbolic importance as the first Black female mayor and her community organizing background, but loyalty does not equal transformative results.

One of the most disappointing aspects of Mayor Karen Bass’s tenure is her failure to deliver meaningful progress for Black Angelenos—the very community that gave her strong support and for whom she has professed deep commitment.

Black residents make up roughly 8-9% of Los Angeles’s population but continue to comprise around 32% of the city and county’s homeless population. This staggering overrepresentation has not meaningfully narrowed under Bass. In fact, one 2025 analysis documented a 16% surge in Black homelessness, adding over 3,000 Black individuals to the streets. Despite the much-touted Inside Safe program and claims of an 17-18% drop in unsheltered homelessness citywide, returns to the street remain high and visible encampments, open drug use, and related chaos still plague neighborhoods with significant Black populations.

Economic conditions tell an even bleaker story. The poverty rate for Black residents in LA County jumped sharply from 29% to 36.2% during Bass’s time in office — a seven-point increase that outpaced other demographic groups. Black unemployment rates remain roughly double those of White and Asian residents, with local figures in South LA frequently reaching 20% or higher. Median household incomes for Black families continue to lag significantly, and housing affordability pressures have hit Black renters and homeowners especially hard.

While overall homicides in Los Angeles have declined from their 2022 peaks — a welcome citywide trend that has undoubtedly saved Black lives given disproportionate victimization rates — broader public safety concerns remain. Street disorder, slow response times in some areas, and quality-of-life breakdowns tied to homelessness continue to erode daily life in Black neighborhoods.

Education outcomes show only modest, incremental gains in areas like graduation rates through targeted programs, but massive achievement gaps in reading and math proficiency persist, alongside high chronic absenteeism.

Despite these sobering realities, recent polls show Bass retaining relatively stronger support among Black voters compared to her dismal overall approval ratings. This reflects the symbolic importance of electing LA’s first Black female mayor and her background in community organizing. However, symbolism and rhetoric have not translated into tangible results. After nearly four years, Black Angelenos are not demonstrably better off on the metrics that matter most: housing stability, economic security, family safety, and upward mobility.

The data reveals continuity of hardship more than breakthrough progress. Deeply rooted challenges existed long before Bass took office, but that does not excuse the lack of decisive improvement on her watch. Billions spent, equity rhetoric delivered daily, and yet the disparities that hurt Black families the most remain stubbornly entrenched — or in key cases, have grown worse. Los Angeles’s Black community deserved better.

Black Angelenos experience LA’s core problems—homelessness crisis, housing unaffordability, public safety concerns, and slow economic mobility—more acutely due to longstanding disparities. Bass has prioritized equity rhetoric, homelessness initiatives, and police hiring, with some citywide wins in crime and unsheltered counts. However, on disparity-specific metrics (Black homelessness share, poverty spike, elevated unemployment), the record shows stagnation or regression rather than clear progress after 3.5 years.

Voters should recognize that four more years of the same approach will likely deliver the same disappointing outcomes. Karen Bass had her opportunity to lead transformative change. The results speak for themselves.

The Palisades Fire Catastrophe

The defining failure of Bass’s tenure came on January 7, 2025, when the Palisades Fire erupted under extreme Santa Ana wind conditions. While the National Weather Service had issued clear warnings of “critical fire conditions,” Mayor Bass was in Ghana attending a presidential inauguration. She later called the trip a mistake, but the damage was done: 12 people killed, thousands of homes destroyed, and neighborhoods devastated.

The Bottom Line

Voters in 2022 chose Bass hoping for compassion and competence. What they got was a continuation of decline punctuated by spectacular failures. The city’s tourism slump, ongoing affordability crisis, and visible disorder reflect poorly on four years of her priorities. It’s time for fresh leadership. Karen Bass had her chance. Los Angeles cannot afford four more years of the same. One term is more than enough.

Voters now have a choice in the June 2026 primary between incumbent Karen Bass, progressive City Councilmember Nithya Raman, and outsider Spencer Pratt. Voters should choose wisely!

Los Angeles faces profound challenges: rampant homelessness, street crime, business exodus, and eroding quality of life. In the 2026 mayoral race, voters deserve a leader with proven executive judgment, not another progressive experiment. City Councilmember Nithya Raman—a Democratic Socialists of America-aligned candidate—falls short. Her debate performances, policy flip-flops, and track record reveal she lacks the readiness for prime time as mayor of America’s second-largest city.

Debate Stage Struggles: Nerves, Attacks, and Thin Substance

In the recent televised debate against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass and challenger Spencer Pratt, Raman appeared unprepared and defensive. Observers noted her frequent microphone adjustments, rehearsed lines, and lack of commanding presence. She accused Bass and Pratt of “teaming up” against her, framing legitimate policy scrutiny as a conspiracy rather than addressing tough questions head-on.

Pratt, bringing blunt common-sense critiques, and Bass, leveraging her incumbency, often put Raman on the defensive. Raman struggled to articulate concrete alternatives on homelessness and public safety, falling back on progressive talking points that have defined—and arguably worsened—LA’s struggles. Commentators described her performance as overwhelmed, especially when pressed on her council voting record.

The Defund the Police Stance and Convenient Retraction

Public safety stands as a flashpoint. Raman once openly declared “Defund the police” during her earlier campaigns amid the 2020 movement. As a councilmember, she voted against LAPD hiring increases, pay raises for officers, and measures like banning encampments near schools.

Facing voter backlash in a city plagued by crime and visible disorder, Raman has walked it back. In interviews and on the debate stage, she now claims support for maintaining or even increasing police staffing to respond to calls for service. She touts budgets that preserved LAPD levels—after earlier opposing key contracts.

This flip-flop raises serious questions about consistency and conviction. Voters in Los Angeles, tired of soft-on-crime policies correlating with theft, smash-and-grabs, and declining clearance rates, should view such reversals skeptically. Rhetoric that once energized her DSA base now gets sanitized for a broader electorate. Leadership requires steady principles, not polling-driven pivots.

Other Progressive Policies: High Risk of Further Harm

Raman’s broader agenda—rooted in urban planning ideals from Harvard and MIT—emphasizes expansive affordable housing mandates, rent controls, heavy regulation, and homelessness approaches prioritizing “housing first” with limited enforcement.

Critics argue these policies exacerbate LA’s problems:

• Homelessness: As chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee, Raman has overseen continued encampment proliferation despite billions spent. Her resistance to aggressive clearing (e.g., opposing school buffer zones) contributes to shuffling rather than solving the crisis. Debate exchanges highlighted skepticism toward programs like Inside Safe, yet alternatives remain vague.

  yahoo.com

• Housing and Economy: Aggressive inclusionary zoning and rent controls risk discouraging new construction and driving out businesses and middle-class residents. LA already battles housing shortages partly due to regulatory hurdles.

• Criminal Justice and Quality of Life: Past votes and statements signal reluctance toward proactive policing and encampment enforcement, policies many Angelenos see as essential for safe streets and neighborhoods. Blaming external factors (like car manufacturers for thefts) instead of addressing root enablers shows misplaced priorities.

  nypost.com

District 4 residents and broader LA observers report persistent or worsening conditions under her watch—homelessness, visible decay, and business challenges—undermining claims of progress.

Why LA Needs More Than Progressive Ideology

Los Angeles requires results-oriented leadership that prioritizes enforcement alongside services, streamlines housing without chasing away investment, and rejects one-size-fits-all experiments that have strained budgets and public trust. Raman’s profile—a dedicated activist and councilmember with strong progressive credentials—deserves respect for her commitment. However, her record, debate presence, and policy evolution suggest she is not yet equipped for the multifaceted demands of the mayor’s office.

Voters heading into the June 2026 primary should scrutinize records over rhetoric. LA cannot afford more of the same under new branding. Pragmatism, accountability, and proven effectiveness—not ideological purity—must guide the next mayor.

This opinion piece reflects analysis of public records, debate footage, and policy outcomes. Angelenos deserve a transparent conversation about leadership fitness for one of America’s most important cities.

Anchor Babies, Birth Tourism, and the National Security Loophole the Supreme Court Can Finally Close

The 14th Amendment was never intended to grant automatic U.S. citizenship to the children of people who enter America illegally. Yet a widespread misinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause has turned birth on U.S. soil into an automatic pathway to American citizenship — creating “anchor babies” that incentivize illegal immigration and expose national security vulnerabilities through birth tourism. With the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments on April 1, 2026, in the landmark case Trump v. Barbara, the justices now have the opportunity to correct this constitutional error and restore the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The Constitutional Reality: “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof”

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...”Ratified in 1868 to protect freed slaves after the Civil War, the clause was never meant as a blanket grant of citizenship.

Its drafters explicitly excluded children of diplomats, invading armies, and those not owing full allegiance to the United States. Senator Jacob Howard, a principal sponsor, made clear on the Senate floor that the provision would not cover “foreigners, aliens” or children of foreign ministers. Illegal aliens — by definition present in violation of federal law — are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They remain subject to deportation and owe primary allegiance to their home country.

The same logic applies to temporary visitors on tourist, student, or other non-immigrant visas who lack permanent domicile. The Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark does not contradict this. That decision granted citizenship to a child of legal permanent residents domiciled in the U.S. It never addressed children of illegal entrants or short-term visitors. Extending it to cover “anchor babies” stretches the holding far beyond its scope.

President Trump’s January 2025 Executive Order (No. 14,160) correctly interprets the clause by directing agencies not to recognize automatic citizenship for children born after February 20, 2025, when the mother is unlawfully present or on temporary status and the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor lawful permanent resident. Lower courts blocked it, but the Supreme Court — with arguments now concluded — is poised to rule by late June or early July 2026.

The Perils of “Anchor Babies” and Illegal Immigration Incentives

Granting automatic citizenship to children of two illegal aliens creates powerful perverse incentives:

• The newborn U.S. citizen gains access to welfare benefits, public education, and healthcare.

• At age 21, that citizen can sponsor their illegal-alien parents for legal status — effectively rewarding lawbreaking.

• This “anchor baby” dynamic burdens American taxpayers with billions in annual costs while encouraging further illegal crossings.

• Children born via birth tourism gain full U.S. citizenship rights — including access to sensitive jobs, security clearances, voting, and the ability to sponsor family — without any background checks, loyalty screening, or residency requirements.

• Raised overseas with minimal ties to America, they can be groomed by foreign governments (particularly adversarial ones like China) for espionage, influence operations, or technology theft.

• The practice enables fraud, money laundering, and potential recruitment by hostile intelligence services.

• Unlike naturalized citizens, these “birthright” Americans bypass vetting entirely.

  Hundreds of thousands of such births occur each year to unauthorized immigrants, distorting immigration enforcement and undermining sovereignty. Birth Tourism: A National Security Loophole Even more dangerous is birth tourism — the deliberate practice where wealthy foreigners enter on tourist visas (B-1/B-2), give birth in the U.S., and return home with a new American citizen child. Maternity hotels in states like California cater to clients from China, Russia, and other nations, charging tens of thousands for “birth packages.” Estimates of annual birth tourism births range from 20,000–36,000 in recent years.

The State Department has previously highlighted these vulnerabilities, tightening visa rules for pregnant travelers. Lawmakers continue to warn that birth tourism from high-risk countries creates long-term threats to U.S. security. Other major democracies — including Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom — have already reformed or eliminated unrestricted birthright citizenship to prevent similar abuses. America should not remain an outlier that invites exploitation.

Time for the Supreme Court to Act

Critics claim ending automatic citizenship for children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors is “unconstitutional” or radical. In reality, it restores the 14th Amendment’s text, history, and original public meaning. The Supreme Court in Trump v. Barbara has a historic chance to clarify that birth on U.S. soil alone does not confer citizenship when parents lack full jurisdictional allegiance.

This ruling would apply prospectively, without stripping existing citizens of their status. Congress could also act to codify this understanding, but a clear Supreme Court decision would settle the constitutional question decisively.

Why the Supreme Court Is Unlikely to End Birthright Citizenship Outright

Despite the strong constitutional arguments for limiting automatic citizenship, the Supreme Court is not likely to deliver a sweeping ruling that ends birthright citizenship for all children born on U.S. soil. Oral arguments on April 1, 2026, revealed broad skepticism among the justices — including several conservative members — toward President Trump’s executive order. Many questioned whether the president has unilateral authority to reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause so dramatically, especially given 125 years of precedent interpreting Wong Kim Ark more expansively.

A majority appeared inclined to strike down or sharply narrow the order, preserving the long-standing practice of near-universal birthright citizenship while potentially leaving room for narrower distinctions. This outcome would reflect institutional caution: the Court often hesitates to upend deeply entrenched understandings of constitutional text without clearer congressional action or overwhelming historical consensus.

Two illegal aliens having a baby in the United States should not automatically produce an American citizen. Sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and national security all demand an end to this loophole. The Constitution permits — and prudence requires — the Supreme Court to get it right.

Pramila Jayapal Reparations for Illegal Immigrants

Pramila Jayapal’s statements on reparations for illegal immigrants has ignited fierce backlash among many Black Americans whose families trace their lineage directly to chattel slavery.

On March 27, 2026, during a congressional hearing titled “Kidnapped and Disappeared: Trump’s Attack on Children,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) demanded “some form of reparation” for illegal immigrants and their families allegedly “traumatized” by ICE enforcement under President Donald Trump’s mass deportation operations.

This push for reparations for illegal immigrants represents a profound insult to the unresolved historical debt owed to Black descendants of enslaved Africans. For 246 years of legal slavery, followed by decades of Jim Crow oppression, Black labor built much of America’s early wealth without compensation, while families were shattered, bodies brutalized, and opportunities systematically denied.

Consider the reality: Enslaved people were born into bondage on plantations across the South, including South Carolina, with no legal rights, no choice, and no escape from generational trauma. Their descendants marched, bled, and died for civil rights in places like Selma and Memphis, yet received no national reparations program—no “forty acres and a mule,” no comprehensive wealth transfer to close the gaps created by stolen labor, redlining, and discriminatory policies. The excuses have always been the same: too expensive, too divisive, time to move on.

Yet Rep. Jayapal—an immigrant from India who entered the United States legally and now serves in Congress—now advocates using American taxpayer dollars, including those from Black citizens, to compensate people who entered the country illegally and now face the consequences of law enforcement. Her exact words at the hearing: “We are going to have to have some form of reparation for the kids and the families that have been traumatized through all of this.”

Jayapal, as Ranking Member of the immigration subcommittee, used the hearing to criticize ICE tactics and signal that reparations for affected immigrant families would be pursued aggressively if Democrats regain control of Congress. She also called for outlawing for-profit private immigration detention and holding officials accountable.

Such rhetoric demands accountability for enforcing existing laws while ignoring the far deeper accountability owed for slavery and its aftermath. If government-induced trauma justifies reparations, the starting point must be the multi-generational harm inflicted on Black Americans who had no option to “go back” and whose contributions were extracted under duress.

Black communities built railroads, harvested crops, constructed infrastructure, and defended the nation in wars, all while facing legal subjugation. Any serious conversation about reparations must resolve the debt to descendants of American slaves first.

Reparations for Illegal Immigrants Represent a Grave Injustice to Black Americans

Black descendants of American slavery followed no voluntary “line” to enter this nation. Their ancestors were forcibly brought here in chains, treated as property, and forced to generate wealth for others while enduring unimaginable suffering. That unpaid labor and systemic denial of rights created lasting disparities that persist today.

In contrast, the individuals Jayapal seeks to compensate chose to cross U.S. borders without authorization. When immigration laws are enforced through ICE operations, the resulting “trauma” stems directly from those choices—not from centuries of institutionalized bondage.

Prioritizing payouts or benefits for such cases while the descendants of slaves continue to wait for meaningful restitution is a betrayal of historical justice. This stance highlights a troubling priority shift. Progressive voices frequently emphasize “systemic racism” and the lingering impacts of slavery on Black communities. Yet the same voices often elevate illegal immigrants as the more urgent victims deserving of resources, job competition, housing, and now potential reparations—resources that could otherwise address long-standing claims rooted in America’s original sin.

The Bottom Line: America Owes Its Debt to Black Descendants of Slaves First

Until every last Black descendant of American slavery sees real reparations—cash, land, opportunity—there should be no reparations for anyone else. Not for illegal immigrants. Not for their “trauma.” Not on our watch.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s call for reparations for immigrants traumatized by deportation efforts should be rejected outright. It disrespects the memory of enslaved ancestors who endured real, inescapable chains and forced labor with no hearings, no apologies with substance, and no compensation.

In an industry built on trust and timely protection, Aspire General Insurance has drawn widespread criticism from customers facing prolonged claims battles, poor communication, and apparent barriers to resolution. Specializing in coverage for high-risk drivers who struggle to find insurance elsewhere, the company operates primarily out of Rancho Cucamonga, California, with contact limited to PO Boxes (such as PO Box 2426 for general correspondence and PO Box 870 for claims) and phone lines that many describe as labyrinthine and unhelpful. Numerous policyholders and third-party claimants report similar patterns of dissatisfaction. Common grievances include:

Key Customer Complaints About Aspire General Insurance

Customers frequently cite dozens of unanswered calls, full voicemail inboxes, ignored emails, and long hold times. Adjusters often fail to return messages, leaving people in limbo for weeks or months. Extended delays in claims handling: Even after approval, payments to repair shops can lag significantly, stranding vehicles in collision centers and forcing owners to go without transportation. Some describe vehicles “held hostage” due to missing proof of payment or final approvals.

Inconsistent or questionable practices: Reports include adjusters suggesting claimants use their own insurance first (even in clear not-at-fault scenarios), conflicting statements about contacting involved parties, and difficulties escalating issues.

Lack of physical accessibility: The company provides no walk-in office for in-person follow-up or supervisor meetings. Inquiries are redirected to PO Boxes, and while an administrative address exists at 8885 Haven Avenue, Suite 250, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, it appears to function more as a corporate or mailing location than a customer-facing office. This setup contributes to a sense of detachment and limited accountability.

Regulatory and Review Data on Aspire General Insurance

These issues appear far from isolated. The Better Business Bureau (BBB) profile for Aspire General Insurance Services, LLC shows the company is not accredited, with 167 total complaints in the last three years alone. Many involve service delays, unreturned calls, and billing/claims disputes. Customer reviews on platforms like WalletHub, Trustpilot, and others echo these sentiments, with accusations of deceit, stonewalling, lowball settlements, and outright frustration over months-long waits for resolutions.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) complaint index has also reflected higher-than-average filings, signaling broader customer service challenges. While Aspire General markets itself as offering “innovative, personal, affordable, flexible” coverage with easy online tools and support, real-world experiences often tell a different story—especially for those filing claims. High-risk drivers may have fewer options, but these patterns raise red flags about reliability when it matters most.

According to Bankrate.com

Aspire General has shown a concerning trend regarding customer complaints over the last few years. The complaint index has been steadily increasing, indicating a growing number of dissatisfied customers. For the years 2023 and 2024, the company had a complaint index of over 6, meaning the company has six times the complaints that would be expected given its market share of policies. This pattern suggests ongoing issues, potentially relating to customer service, claims handling or overall policy satisfaction. Prospective policyholders should carefully consider this trend when deciding whether Aspire General insurance is the right fit for them.

Considering or Dealing with Aspire General Insurance?

What should consumers do? Document every interaction (dates, times, names, reference numbers).

Escalate unresolved issues to your state’s Department of Insurance (e.g., California Department of Insurance for many policyholders).Check independent review sites and regulatory filings before purchasing or renewing. Consider alternatives if possible, and always read policy fine print carefully.

Aspire General may serve a niche market, but the volume of similar complaints suggests caution. If you’re considering this insurer or already dealing with them, proceed with eyes wide open—and be prepared for potential hurdles.

Note: This article summarizes publicly reported patterns as of February 2026. Individual experiences vary, and companies can improve over time.

In February of 1926, Historian Dr. Carter G. Woodson started Negro History Week to celebrate the accomplishments of Black American Negroes when no one else would acknowledge the heroic ingenuity of the ethnic group. This month, February 2026, marks the 100th anniversary of the celebration of Black American History Month in the United States.

The 1920s, the Roaring Twenties, was an important decade in music, fashion, art, and literature in the United States, not to mention the Harlem Renaissance on the East coast. In one decade Jazz blossomed, the flapper look redefined the times, and the world famous “Whites-only” nightspot, The Cotton Club (1923 to 1935) provided a platform for upcoming musicians and artists of the times.

1926 was an pivotal time in history. The year 1926 was after the Emancipation Proclamation, after Black American Negroes enlisted in the Civil War and won, after Black American Negroes walked off plantations in Galveston on Juneteenth, after Europeans bankrupted the Freedmen’s Bank, after the Bloody Summer of 1919, and after European immigrants bombed Tulsa families at night with no regret.

Woodson coordinated the observation of Black American Negroes and Negro History Week to coincide with the birth of two critically important historical figures Frederick Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. But, despite constant nonstop pushback from Europeans, Black American Negroes continued to celebrate their accomplishments, inventions, and ingenuity for nearly 40 years before the Immigration & Naturalization Act was passed in 1964.

NATION OF IMMIGRANTS

From the perspective of the Black American Negro, trying to celebrate Negro History Week in 1926 was a challenge. After emancipation, it was Irish, Italian, and other European immigrants who used the federal government to orchestrate policies to control the labor, the financial security, and inventions of the emancipated slaves. From 1892 to 1954, over 12 million Europeans arrived in the United States through Ellis Island, and they successfully ruined everything Black American Negroes could not protect.

Then, in 1958, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) asked a young Irish senator on the rise to write a pamphlet that put a positive spin on the colonization and destructive immigration of Europeans. John F. Kennedy wrote the pamphlet as a senator in 1958, and then the book A Nation of Immigrants was published in 1964 after he was assassinated. JFK was assassinated thirty-eight years after Negro History Week was already being celebrated. Long before the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act was passed.

BACKGROUND HISTORY

Twelve years after the 1964 Immigration & Naturalization Act, the observation of Black American Negroes expanded to a full month in 1976. There were not many melanated immigrants in the US after 1921 because of the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. The “1921 ER Quota Law” was the first federal law in the U.S. to impose numerical limits on immigration. During that time, immigration primarily flowed into the United States through Ellis Island.

Back then, the Ellis Island European was the stereotypical immigrant. Immigrants were European (whites). British, English, Italians, and Irish. Before 1965 from the Black American Negro perspective, immigrants were Europeans. Europeans from countries on the opposite side of the world, as far as Norway, Denmark, and Germany, left their homelands, abandoned their families, and bombed the Greenwood District of Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921.

The identities of those who bombed Tulsa was never a secret, it was immigrants. Immigrants bombed Tulsa. European immigrants bombed Tulsa. It is with pleasure that Black American Negroes credit immigrants with the destruction of Tulsa. The same European immigrants who said they “built the nation” in 1964, those are the same Ellis Island cowards who bombed thousands of innocent, unsuspecting, law-abiding Tulsa citizens as they slept in their beds at night in 1921. Congratulations.

From the perspective of natives, pre-colonials, and the formerly enslaved, immigrants and immigration are directly associated with 400 years of colonial invasion, waves of and destruction and hostility, and an endless blob of massacres, murder, and mayhem. From the Black American Negro perspective, it was immigrants who massacred blameless families of their non-immigrant relatives. Relatives just trying to “live a better life” after slavery.

THE LAND OF MILK AND HONEY

To summarize, after World War II, the Ellis Island Europeans wrote a bedtime story to convince others that colonization, disguised as immigration, was fundamental to America’s success. It was the Spaniards, British, English, Italians, and Irish who entered through Ellis Island who manufactured the idea that the United States was a melting pot of cultural pluralism. Not the Black American Negroes. It was the Ellis Islanders who promoted the inclusive approach to immigration, not the Black American Negroes.

It was the Europeans who arrived at Ellis Island that convinced the world that the United States was a mythological, bottomless pit of resources—the land of milk and honey. It was the Ellis Island Europeans who trapped the 1965 immigrants in the crystal methamphetamine addictive pursuit of chasing the “American Dream.” The ethos that anyone, regardless of their background or birth circumstances, can achieve success, prosperity, and upward mobility through hard work and determination was a fable. The fictitious story that immigrants can move to the United States and live out their wildest dreams was started by the same Spaniards, British, English, Italians, and Irish immigrants.

By the time the Irish, Italian, and Spanish European immigrants entered Ellis Island in 1892, Black American Negroes had already emancipated themselves from slavery. When Ellis Island opened those European immigrants arrived 27 years after the colored soldiers of the Union defeat the “Mayflower” Irish, Italian, and Spanish Confederate immigrants in the Civil War. The same war-torn Black American Negroes, trying to peacefully celebrate the accomplishments of the Negroes in 1926, were the same Negroes who defeated Europeans, reidentified as Confederates in the Civil War.

To be absolutely clear, the same Europeans who tell musicians like Shaboozey and Olivia Dean to promote “immigrants building the United States” are the same Spaniards, Italians, or Irish immigrants from Europe who joined the Klan when they arrived in the United States in the early 1900s. Individuals like Kevin Sorbo scream, “My family didn’t own slaves,” or have grandparents who “arrived at the Statue of Liberty,” those are the same Irish, Italian, or Spanish European immigrants who used state-sanctioned terrorism to bomb Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921.

WAS IT BUILT AFTER 1965? BLAME THE IMMIGRANTS.

The year 2026 marks 100 years of Black American Negroes having to explain why celebrating Black History separately from European or white American history was not racist. Fast forward to 2026, and now 1965 immigrants want recognition during February too. Already the shortest month of the year, now others want to be included in a holiday that did not pertain to them. Black History Month did not pertain to immigrants before 2026, but this year, Black American Negroes found a way to include the 1965 immigrants.

Sixty years after the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act was passed, Black American Negroes are excited to finally welcome the 1965 immigrants like Shaboozey into the story of the United States. Shaboozey was right; immigrants are to blame for most things built in America after 1965. If it doesn’t work correctly, if it doesn’t make sense, then it is probably run or operated by immigrants. If it’s destructive, expensive, or inconvenient, then it was probably created by immigrants. Everything built by the Black American Negroes (State Capitol buildings, White House, Harvard University, etc.) is still standing in 2026.

Are you yelling “speak to a representative” into the phone? Immigrants built that. Immigrants are the reason you cannot talk to a real person in customer service anymore. In 2021 Silicon Valley investments in Black founders peaked at approximately 1.3% of all US venture capital, but it declined again to 0.48% in 2024. European institutions such as Harvard University train the next generation of immigrants to see Black American Negroes as risky investments. In January of 2023, Harvard graduate and author Caitlin Rosenthal and Equity Consulting Manager Malcom Glenn told equity investors that Black American Negroes were riskier investments than white women or immigrants. In an virtual fireside chat hosted by the 501c-3 nonprofit iDAC Foundation, Rosenthal’s expert opinion to institutional investors with a global impact of $18 trillion was to avoid investing in tech startups founded by Black American Negroes. Nowadays, the average trendy, up and coming, tech startup coming from Silicon Valley is founded by, invested in, and operated by immigrants. That’s why it doesn’t work.

Why are property taxes sky high in Chicago? Well, in 1965, Ellis Island Europeans started replacing Black American Negroes with third-world immigrants. Instead of hiring a Black American Negro with generations of experience in understanding how tax money should be distributed into a community, Ellis Island Europeans replaced qualified Black American Negroes with immigrants from third-world nations (Somali, Nigeria, etc.) and that’s why Chicago taxes are so high. For the past 60 years, as more and more immigrants were hired to run tax offices then property taxes continued to rise. If the Somalis stole $18 billion in twenty years, how much did the Ellis Islanders steal over sixty years?

Why were North Carolina neighborhoods built on a flood plain? Immigrants. Immigrants decided to build houses on the floodplains of North Carolina. Was it on purpose? Was it ignorance? There’s no way to know, but the decision to build neighborhoods of family homes in North Carolina floodplains was probably made by a third-world immigrant. What do third-world immigrants know about the floodplains of North Carolina? No clean water in Flint, Michigan? Sounds like the work of immigrants. Is the economy of New York City about to collapse? Well, Mamdani is an immigrant from…

Now, lets be clear. For clarification sake: The same Irishmen who published the book A Nation of Immigrants, in 1964, those are the same Irishmen who bought and sold slaves once they arrived in the United States. The same Irishmen who watched others die with grass in their mouth and cowardly fled a seven year potato famine in the 1840s, those Irishmen, are the same people who bombed Tulsa, Oklahoma, without consequences in 1921. Irishmen like the ancestors of former President Joseph Biden.

Before now, the Black American Negro community held their tongue because, “If you don’t have anything nice to say then don’t say anything at all.” Now in 2026, after 100 years of silence, Black American Negroes are overjoyed to finally say the quiet part out loud: You are right!!! Immigrants built everything shitty in the United States.

The Declaration of Independence, State capitols constructed before the 1900s, the Civil Rights Acts, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Everything that is good, positive, or helpful made in the United States was most likely made by Black American Negroes. Made by, designed by, built by, invented by, or created by Black American Negroes. If you like it, that’s Black American Negroes. If you don’t like it, immigrants.

SLAVE OWNERS WERE IMMIGRANTS

From the Black American Negro perspective, all slave owners were foreigners. According to history, the most notorious and ruthless slave owners immigrated to the United States from Portugal, Spain, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, other European nations, or Spanish territories.

However, surviving chattel slavery was not impressive enough for the Ellis Island Europeans. The Ellis Islanders and Mayflower Europeans (“the colonizers”) joined forces and together they took great pride in destroying anything and everything created, built, designed, or touched by Black American Negroes.

Now, before the mass immigration of 1965, Black American Negroes had already been fighting scores and scores of immigrants from all over Europe. Irish, Italian, or German, it didn’t matter - they all had the same delusions of grandeur that destroying anything positive was how to “build a nation.” Not very bright to begin with and fueled by jealousy, Ellis Island Europeans did not understand that demolition is only the first phase of construction.

Before the mass immigration of 1965, Europeans demolished infrastructure built during slavery, and withheld constitutional protections from Black American Negroes. Without constitutional protections European immigrants used the federal government to massacre, lynch, and rob Black American Negroes all over the nation.

For a full century, Black American Negroes invented businesses, consumer goods, and services in an effort to get as far away from the destructive Europeans. The Slave Catchers, or law enforcement officers, permitted Europeans to commit acts of colonization (rape, murder, and pillage) without consequences. Stereotypically, Black American Negroes, like Walter McMillian, were imprisoned for crimes apparently committed by Europeans.

FORTY ACRES AND A MULE

Historian Dr. Carter G. Woodson started Negro History Week in February of 1926. 1926 was about sixty years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, after Black American Negroes won the Civil War, after Black American Negroes left Galveston plantation on Juneteenth, after Europeans bankrupted the Freedmen’s Bank, after the Bloody Summer of 1919, and after European immigrants bombed Rosewood and Tulsa with no regrets.

Woodson launched Negro History Week to counter the erasure of Black contributions in education. Together, the Ellis Island and Mayflower Europeans were insufferable in 1926. The unbearable arrogance and conceitedness of Europeans was too extreme to bear. At first, Black American Negroes just simply wanted peace. The agreement was if Black American Negroes fought for the Union then they would receive 40-acre plots of confiscated Confederate land and army mules for the men and their families. Special Field Order No. 15 issued by General Sherman promised Black American Negroes Forty Acres and a Mule in exchange for serving in the Civil War. Sherman issued the order on January 16, 1865, but then Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865, and before the end of the year Irish President Andrew Johnson had overturned Sherman’s order. The few Black American Negroes that received land saw their land returned to Confederate slaveowners.

It was bad enough that the Mayflower Europeans took credit for Black American Negro inventions during slavery, but by 1926 Woodson felt Black American Negroes deserved recognition for their accomplishments. Black American Negroes were heroes and school age children needed to learn the truth of accomplishments such as Black American inventor and abolitionist Thomas Elkins (1818 - 1819 February - August 10, 1900) is the real inventor of toilet paper but European historians credit Joseph Gayetty with the invention of modern commercial toilet paper in 1857.

SHARING THE SPOTLIGHT

Despite systemic discrimination from the Mayflower and Ellis Island Europeans, by 1926 Black American Negroes held hundreds of U.S. patents. Thomas L. Jennings’ secured the patent for dry cleaning in 1821, Elijah McCoy held 57 patents including steam engine lubricators and Garrett Morgan held the patents for the gas mask and the traffic signal. By 1913, Black American Negroes were notable, prolific inventors with an estimated 800+ verified patents and many more likely hidden due to bias.

But this is a special year. 2026 is the year Black American Negroes highlight and recognize the contributions of the immigrants throughout United States history. Bearing firsthand witness to the work of immigrants, Black American Negroes are thrilled to agree with promotions and mainstream narrative. Immigrants DID build and invent things in the United States, everything shitty in America. Everything dysfunctional and shitty about America — that was built by immigrants.

By the mid 1960s, European immigrants had the majority control of the construction industry and Black American Negroes were rarely hired as day workers. As a result, houses built in the early 1970s featured hazardous materials like asbestos, lead paint, aluminum wiring, outdated plumbing (galvanized/cast iron), and poor insulation. Houses built in the 70s were usually full of structural issues. Foundation cracks, dry rot, weak structural integrity, and outdated, inefficient designs. In short, houses, buildings, statues, and monuments built in the United States during slavery and up until the mid 1960s, might have been handcrafted by Black American Negroes. Any houses built after 1965, blame immigrants.

After the 1964 Immigration & Naturalization Act was passed massive waves of foreigners immigrated to the United States from everywhere around the world. The Mayflower and Ellis Island Europeans tricked foreigners into believing in the bedtime story of the “American Dream.” As 1965 immigrants arrived searching for a false reality Black American Negroes became less and less apparent in every industry.

Now today in 2026 the absence of Black American Negroes has changed everything. What happened to good customer service? Those were Black American Negroes who offered customers great service. Immigrants built today’s version of automated customer service. Why are you answering a thousand prompts before speaking to a real person? Because immigrants built that.

THRILLING CONCLUSION: INTERNATIONAL COURT

Before 1965 European immigrants were extremely proud of the destruction and chaos they forced on Black American Negroes. Never ashamed to be hateful, for years Black American Negroes watched Mayflower and Ellis Island Europeans burn, eat, and collect pieces of flesh cut off from Black American fathers, husbands, and brothers. No Epstein file needed. Black Americans watched in horror as European immigrants kept pieces of their community leaders as souvenirs and knickknacks.

Before 1965 European immigrants usually took credit for destroying towns, bombing churches, and lynching Black American Negroes. Terrorizing Black American Negroes was a time honored tradition tragically passed down generation-to-generation. For Black American Negroes phrases like “a nation of immigrants” and “immigrants built this nation” are haunting reminders that Europeans came to North America and enslaved, victimized, murdered, and ATE thousands of their Black American family members. For years European immigrants destroyed anything they touched — then they wrote a book about. At least that’s what Black American Negroes told the International Crimes Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in January 2025.

An homage to the 1921 Emergency Quota Act and the Immigration Act of 1921, in January 2025, Black American Negroes formally charged the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO) with genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression in International Crimes Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). According to the 2025 Emergency Quota Law, the evidence submitted to the ICC & ICJ, the 193 members of the United Nations were guilty of violating Article XII of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Whole governments, private corporations, and individuals are guilty of participating in the genocide of Black American Negroes.

Shaboozey was right. For years, foreigners like him literally moved to the United States and destroyed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness while acting as de facto citizens of a foreign nation. Those foreigners left the old world and built a historical legacy of noncompliance to laws and regulations. Black American Negroes submitted evidence to the international courts that proved since 2002, members of the United Nations have sent colonizers (persons sent to live in country that is not their own and persons who take control of a country that is not their own, especially with force) to exploit, financially enslave, and mass murder Black American Negroes.

People like Shaboozey, acting as de facto citizens of a foreign nation, have built a global force of destruction and death. Billions of citizens from nations that participate in the United Nations (Ireland, Italy, Nigeria, etc) or are subject to the jurisdiction of the International Crimes Court (ICC) and/or International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICC does not use a specific, singular term to define “colonizer” but based on the Rome Statute and policies of the Geneva Convention, the ICC defines and prosecutes the actions associated with colonialism as war crimes or crimes against humanity committed by an “Occupying Power.”

In February of 2026, Black American Negroes Commemorated the 100th Anniversary of Black American History Month with a critically important announcement for the world = If immigrants built the United States then those are the most defective, and dysfunctional parts of America. Take a bow.

Watch Highlights & Accomplishments for 100th Anniversary of Black History Month

Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl 2026 halftime show

Millions tuned in to Levi’s Stadium on February 8, 2026, for what was billed as a celebration of Latin culture. Bad Bunny, the Puerto Rican reggaeton superstar, delivered an energetic set of hits like “Tití Me Preguntó” and “Yo Perreo Sola,” featuring surprise guests and Puerto Rican pride.

Performing entirely (or primarily) in Spanish during the Super Bowl LX halftime show, broadcast to millions of viewers, sends a powerful message: This cultural moment isn’t fully for everyone. English, the common language that has helped unify diverse American experiences—including Black contributions to music, sports, and civil rights—took a backseat.

For Black Americans who’ve spent generations fighting for visibility and respect in mainstream English-speaking spaces, Bad Bunny’s refusal to incorporate meaningful English feels like a snub. It’s insulting to watch a global platform sidelined for one linguistic group while claiming broad representation.

Worse still is seeing segments of the Black community applaud this as “solidarity” or a win for people of color. That’s about as loco as it gets. Let’s not sugarcoat it: The history of anti-Black racism within Hispanic and Latino communities runs deep.

The Deep History of Anti-Black Racism in Latino and Hispanic Communities

From the Spanish colonizers who stratified societies by skin color in Latin America, placing lighter-skinned folks at the top and Black and Indigenous people at the bottom, to modern-day colorism that favors “whiter” Latinos over their darker kin, this isn’t ancient history—it’s alive and well.

Scholars like Tanya Katerí Hernández have documented how this “racial innocence” allows Latinos to deny their own anti-Black biases, even as they perpetuate discrimination in families, workplaces, and politics.

Remember the 2022 L.A. City Council scandal, where Latino leaders were caught on tape spewing anti-Black and anti-Indigenous slurs while scheming to consolidate power? That’s not an outlier; it’s a symptom of a broader pattern where Latinos have historically adopted anti-Black attitudes to climb the American racial hierarchy, often at the expense of Black communities.

Competition for Resources: Black Americans as Foundational Citizens

Black Americans are foundational to this country—descendants of those who built it through enslaved labor, fought in its wars, and powered its civil rights movements. We’re not immigrants vying for a piece of the pie; we’re the ones who helped bake it. Yet, in cities like Los Angeles and beyond, we’ve seen Latinos leverage their growing numbers to edge out Black representation in politics, jobs, and education.

Housing opportunities and even union jobs have become battlegrounds in many cities where anti-Black sentiment in some Latino communities tips the scales unfairly against Black Americans.

For instance, in workplaces with growing Latino majorities, reports of discrimination—including colorism and exclusion—have surfaced in high-profile cases and scholarly analyses, fueling tensions over low-wage roles and union access. Studies further show that when Latinos feel their American identity is threatened or “downgraded” (such as through perceived marginalization or direct comparison to Black Americans), they’re more likely to express racial resentment toward Blacks and oppose policies addressing systemic inequities—like affirmative action or federal aid benefiting Black communities.

Research from the American National Election Studies and experimental work demonstrates that stronger identification as “American” among Latinos correlates with higher anti-Black prejudice, which in turn weakens support for Black-centered policies. In one set of studies, inducing a sense of threatened or lowered American status dramatically increased racial resentment among Latinos (particularly liberals in some cases) and slashed backing for pro-Black initiatives.

These dynamics highlight real intergroup frictions—not zero-sum inevitability, but patterns rooted in historical hierarchies, colorism, and competition for scarce resources in urban settings. Black Americans, as foundational citizens who’ve built this nation through centuries of struggle, deserve priority in addressing these inequities rather than being sidelined in the name of broader “POC” solidarity.

Bad Bunny’s Superbowl 2026 halftime performance without English, underscores this divide—it’s a cultural flex that ignores the shared struggles but amplifies the competition. Black Americans should feel insulted, not inspired.

Don Lemon Arrested in Minnesota Church Protest

Former CNN anchor Don Lemon found himself in handcuffs this past week, for allegedly crossing the line from journalism to activism during a protest at a Minnesota church. Lemon, along with other activists and a fellow journalist, were arrested on federal civil rights charges for disrupting a service at a church claiming an ICE agent was serving as pastor. Prosecutors accuse them of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and even invoking the Ku Klux Klan Act, claiming the group interfered with worshippers’ rights.

Don Lemon on White Supremacy in the Cities Church

Don Lemon references to white supremacy came shortly after, in response to criticism of the protest and his involvement. In a podcast appearance (reported by multiple outlets, including Fox News), Lemon stated:

“I think people who are, you know, in the religious groups like that, it’s not the type of Christianity that I practice, but I think that they’re entitled, and that entitlement comes from a supremacy, a White supremacy.”-DON LEMON

He framed this as explaining perceived “entitlement” among certain religious groups reacting to the disruption, contrasting it with his own practice of Christianity. He also tied broader context to racism in immigration enforcement, noting that ICE actions target people “because of accents and the color of their skin” and affect “people of color and Black people, as well as Brown people,” adding “there is a certain degree of racism there.

Following his release, Lemon addressed the arrest, framing it as an attack on his, and others’, efforts to report on injustice and as part of a pattern of targeting Black and LGBTQ+ voices.

• Lemon’s Statements: In a video posted after his release, Lemon stated, “I will not be silenced. I have spent my entire career covering the news. I will not stop now,” while maintaining he was acting as a journalist, not a protester.

• Accusations of Racial Targeting: Commentators, media analysts, and Lemon’s supporters argued that the arrest was racially and politically motivated, notes that it was a “racist, homophobic, and frightening arrest”.

• The Context: Lemon himself highlighted that he was being targeted by “racist, bigoted homophobes”.

Lemon and his supporters wasted no time playing the race card. Advocates have labeled the arrest “racist, homophobic, and frightening,” suggesting it’s no coincidence that Black journalists like Lemon and Georgia Fort were targeted by the Trump administration’s Justice Department.

Even former CNN colleague Jim Acosta chimed in, claiming Trump has a history of racially loaded attacks on Lemon, calling him “stupid” and worse. And let’s not forget the chorus from progressive corners: This is “retribution” against critics, a chilling assault on press freedom, and proof of systemic bias under Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Journalism vs. Activism

Fair enough—arresting journalists for “covering protests” does raise eyebrows. But let’s pump the brakes on the victim narrative. Lemon didn’t appear to be just “chronicling” the event, as he claimed in footage; he entered the church and recorded the chaos, blurring the line between observer and participant. Protests are protected speech, but barging into a place of worship and halting services? That’s not journalism; that’s agitation. If conservatives pulled the same stunt at a progressive gathering, the left would be screaming about “domestic terrorism.”

The Sarcastic Question: Why Is Don Lemon Married to a White Man?

Which brings us to the elephant in the room—or should I say, the hypocrisy? Lemon has long positioned himself as a fierce critic of systemic racism, often painting “the white man” as the root of America’s ills. He’s railed against white privilege, police brutality targeting Black communities, and the lingering shadows of white supremacy.

Yet, in his personal life, Lemon is happily married to Tim Malone, a white man. So, one has to ask—sarcastically, of course—why is Don Lemon married to a white man if the white man is so bad? Is Malone the exception to the rule, or does Lemon’s rhetoric only apply when it’s convenient for his brand?

Don’t get me wrong: Interracial marriages are a testament to progress, and Lemon’s relationship is none of our business. But when you build a public persona on decrying racism while enjoying the perks of a life intertwined with the very demographic you critique, it invites scrutiny.

It’s like a vegan activist caught chowing down on a steak—tasty, but inconsistent. If racism is the boogeyman behind every setback, including this arrest, why cozy up to it at home? Perhaps it’s because real life is more nuanced than cable news soundbites, where not every white person is a villain, and not every arrest is a lynching in disguise.

At the end of the day, Lemon’s predicament is not about race and more about accountability. Disrupting a church service—regardless of the cause—has consequences. If Lemon wants to fight the power, great. But claiming racism as a shield while living a life that contradicts the narrative weakens his credibility. Maybe it’s time for Lemon to reflect from a prison cell: Actions have repercussions, and hypocrisy has a way of catching up.

The shooting of Alex Pretti—probably legally justified given the immediate threat posed by an armed and resisting individual with a documented history of prior aggression toward federal agents—remains nevertheless tragic, a needless loss of life that could have been avoided entirely.

In the wake of the January 24, 2026, shooting of Alex Jeffrey Pretti by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in Minneapolis, the left-leaning media has predictably rushed to paint a picture of an innocent victim gunned down by overzealous federal officers. But let’s cut through the noise and examine the facts. Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse and legal gun owner, wasn’t just a bystander caught in the crossfire of immigration enforcement—he was an active participant in confrontations that escalated dangerously.

Pretti wasn’t a random civilian; he had a history of aggressive encounters with federal agents. Just 11 days prior, on January 13, videos surfaced showing him kicking out the taillight of a federal vehicle during a protest against immigration enforcement. In footage from that incident, Pretti is seen shouting expletives and physically struggling with officers as they take him to the ground.

Video reveals what appears to be a gun in his waistband during the scuffle. This wasn’t peaceful protest—this was vandalism and assault on agents tasked with upholding the law.

Fast-forward to the fatal encounter. According to a government report to Congress, Pretti approached CBP agents during an operation, leading to a physical struggle. Agents yelled “He’s got a gun!” multiple times as they attempted to subdue him. In less than five seconds, two officers fired a total of 10 shots.

Eyewitness videos confirm the chaos: Pretti was recording the agents with his phone, directing traffic, and then resisting when confronted. A CNN analysis of cellphone footage shows an officer removing Pretti’s gun from his holster just before the shots were fired—proving he was armed and the threat was real. In a split-second decision, agents can’t afford to wait for a suspect to draw first. Pretti’s prior aggression only heightens the justification. Videos collectively demonstrate that Pretti’s actions contributed to the escalation. He wasn’t “gunned down in the street despite posing no threat,” as some claim. He was armed, resistant, and had a recent track record of clashing with authorities.

The shooting of Alex Pretti, while probably legally justified given the immediate threat posed by an armed and resisting individual with a documented history of prior aggression toward federal agents, remains nevertheless tragic—a needless loss of life that could have been avoided.

Pretti, like Renee Good before him, chose to insert himself into a volatile confrontation during active federal immigration enforcement operations amid heated protests. Both should have stayed home or, if they felt compelled to voice opposition, engaged in actual peaceful protest without obstructing law enforcement, directing traffic in restricted areas, or physically resisting officers.

Renee Good’s earlier incident on January 7 sparked widespread unrest, yet Pretti—having already clashed with agents just 11 days prior—returned to the scene armed and combative on January 24.

These choices escalated situations where agents, facing potential threats in chaotic environments, had split seconds to decide. The videos clearly show resistance and the presence of a firearm, supporting the agents’ actions under use-of-force guidelines. But tragedy strikes when passion overrides prudence: two American citizens dead in weeks, fueling division instead of dialogue.

The lesson is stark—respect the rule of law, even in disagreement. Obstruction and confrontation don’t advance causes; they invite danger.

In 1986, McMillian, a Black pulpwood worker in Alabama, was convicted of the murder of an 18-year-old white woman, even though McMillian had a background of being a respected local worker with no prior felonies or convictions and an airtight alibi of being at a fish fry with numerous witnesses.

McMillian lost nearly six years of his life on death row based on the coerced testimony from a white career criminal, Ralph Myers, who later recanted (to publicly withdraw a previous statement or declare that a particular opinion or belief is no longer held. To lie or perjure oneself).

To recap, a white woman was murdered in 1986, and despite an airtight alibi or being innocent until proven guilty, Water McMillian was sentenced to death in 1988. To overturn that wrongful conviction, Bryan Stevenson and the Equal Justice Initiative had to expose the evidence suppressed in the case, but it wasn’t until after several appeals in 1993 that the truth of the police misconduct and flawed trial process was finally revealed, and McMillian was freed from incarceration.

Later, the story of McMillian’s false incarceration became a New York Times bestselling book, Just Mercy. The book won numerous awards, and was released as a major motion picture starring Michael B Jordan in 2019.

But McMillian’s story was not unique. This wasn’t the first or only time that European whites falsely imprisoned an innocent assumed descendant of US chattel slaves regardless of evidence that proved innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only was an innocent man incarcerated but the real murderer went free.

The Key Aspects of Rhetoric vs. Reality

Unfortunately, McMillian’s case was not the first or only case of the Ellis Island Europeans ignoring obvious clues, credible witnesses, or airtight alibis. McMillian’s case was not the first or the only case of “European Hypocrisy.” European Hypocrisy describes the gap between a European’s stated humanitarian values (like human rights, openness, rule of law) and their actual values.

“Hypocrisy kills hope because hypocrisy does not allow us to face reality. A hypocrite presents himself as something he is not. Because of this now widespread hypocrisy, we are not able to understand well who are the good and who are the bad. Sometimes we think that there are really good people based on their appearance, their attitude, their presumed seriousness, and competence. But often even the one we consider good is actually a bad guy like the other bad guys, thanks to his hypocrisy, lies, and fake news,“ Giorgio Spagnol wrote in a 2025 article about Europe’s Hypocrisy published for the IERI (Institut Européen des Relations Internationales).

Under the reign and terror of hypocritical Europeans, millions of assumed descendants of US chattel slaves, like Walter McMillian, became worldwide global phenomena by navigating a legal system created by immigrants confused about their identity. Around the turn of the 20th century, immigrants from about 27 independent countries or European sovereign states entered the United States through Ellis Island and assumed political, social, and economic control.

Known for their famous line, “My family never owned slaves,” immigrants from Europe landed in the United States and took political control by the same violent force we saw running amok in 2025. Since 1892, Ellis Island Europeans have been masquerading as Mayflower colonists (the real White Americans), who assumed control over all government and law enforcement in the United States by intentionally ignoring all constitutional protections for people like Walter McMillian.

The Mayflowers created a hierarchy based on skin color (race), and the Ellis Island immigrants took advantage of it, but both sets of immigrants lacked the compassion to follow the rule of law. Historically, the United States “legal justice system or slave catchers” was always based on skin color. Before immigration, the war between opposing sides was undeniable. The war over control of the United States was simple. It was whites vs blacks. And whites were hypocrites.

Before The 1965 Immigrants Arrived

Even before the brown immigrants arrived, the Ellis Island and Mayflower Europeans (“White Americans”) were always steadfast hypocrites. Notorious liars, cheaters, and treaty breakers. Europeans famously brought their diseases and issues from the Old World and infected the Americas.

First, Europeans were sent to North America on behalf of European nations. England, France, Spain, Germany, etc. But, due to a disagreement about taxes and allegiances between Europeans, those settlers/scouts disowned their home nations. Those immigrants willingly renounced their European citizenships and ethnic identities (English, Irish, Italian, etc) then chose to identity as a “White American.” That is how Europeans lost their ethnic identities and willingly chose to take on the identity of, or be referred to as, a color: white. Nobody forced them.

Originally, “American“ referred to the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere, but the term evolved to describe European colonists and then, post-revolutionary war the term came to refer to all citizens of the United States. Bastard leaders like George Washington encouraged newly arrived Europeans to shift to the American identity ass a means to foster a national identity amongst the Europeans who renounced or lost their citizenships, inheritances, bloodlines, aristocratic titles, or offices of power. That means, contrary to Tucker Carlson’s statements Europeans have a homeland, “It makes no sense that White people can’t have a homeland to themselves. Every other group in the world has the right to its own homeland.”

For sixty years after the Civil War, waves and waves of Europeans left their homelands and immigrated to the United States through Ellis Island. As each new wave of European invaders increased in North America, so did the number of incidents of violence, insurrection, and riots. But before mass immigration, identifying the opposing side of the war between good and bad was easy. The enemy was easy to identify. Depending on one’s skin color or viewpoint the enemy was either black or white.

“Justice Jackson wrote in her dissent that the betrayal of the Supreme Court had concrete effects. Enslaved Black people had built great wealth, but only for enslavers. Freedmen leapt at the chance to control their own labor and to build their own financial security, yet White southerners often “simply refused to sell land to blacks,” even when not selling was economically foolish.” - Students For Fair Admissions

Fast forward to 2026 and the families of the former slaves are wondering if they are the largest non-immigrant class, ethnic group, or voting bloc in the United States. Constitutionally recognized as the wives and children of colored soldiers (Chapter 4 of the U.S. code, Section 65, R.S. §2037), Freedmen might be the only non-immigrant class of law-abiding citizens in the nation.

Until recently, the former slaves assumed most whites in America were Mayflowers (former slave owners, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, WASPs) but after Biden announced he was an immigrant in his State of the Union address (treason), but that was when the identity of the Ellis Island European became visible. Now in 2026, the families of the former slaves are asking themselves: Why Are Europeans & Immigrants Rewarded for Breaking the Law?

“The inability to build wealth forced some Black people into sharecropping roles, where they often found themselves in debt to the landowner by the end of the growing season, with no recourse against the landowner’s manipulation of the books.” - Students For Fair Admissions

The United States Code, Permanent Laws of the United States.

Why do assumed former slaves, such as Walter McMillian, go to prison for crimes they did not commit? In McMillian’s case, his entire family was his alibi. Walter was on the opposite side of town when a white woman was murdered. But European hypocrisy isn’t new for Freedmen; that’s why FBA families are constantly reminding one another about the permanent laws of the United States Code.

The United States Code is the codification of general and permanent laws of the United States by subject matter. Prepared by the United States House of Representatives, the United States Code is prepared and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel (“OLRC”) of the U.S. House of Representatives pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 285b.

As the families of Civil War heroes, Freedmen understand the legitimacy of permanent laws in the United States. Freedmen remember ICE officers are sworn federal law enforcement officers that operate within the confines of the law. Pursuant to federal law, ICE officers have the authority to arrest undocumented immigrants without a judicial warrant.

Contrary to popular belief, Title 18 (18 USC Ch. 73: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE) clearly states penalties, fines, and prison sentences for knowingly and willfully obstructing, resisting, or opposing any officer of the United States. Especially when attempting to serve the court. §1501 identifies officers of the United States as process servers. Then everything from §1502 (Resistance to the extradition agent) to §1521 (Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement officers) directly addresses how to punish offenders.

Under federal law, obstructing an officer in the performance of their official duties is a serious offense. Federal law also prohibits harboring undocumented immigrants (Title 8: Bringing in and harboring certain aliens), a criminal offense commonly referred to as aiding and abetting fugitives. Under this law, individuals who shield undocumented immigrants from detection, or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield undocumented immigrants, are supposed to face felony charges.

Advocating to overthrow the Government is addressed in § 2385 of Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure (18 U.S.C. § 2385 - U.S. Code). According to federal law, “Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States [or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein], by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer...” Those persons shall be fined or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years following the conviction.”

The Big Joker In the Deck

As descendants of those emancipated by the proclamation of 1863, as the children of Revolutionary War soldiers, the War of 1812, and lastly, the Civil War, there is a great comfort in understanding the founding documents of this nation. Citizens with Freedmen status remember that the United States was founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence first and foremost.

As persons with the bloodline of pre-colonial North American ancestors, present before the formation of the United States, in 2026, descendants with Freedmen status remember that the Declaration of Independence was written first. In chronological order, the Declaration of Independence was written first. The constitution was written later and this is the second edition.

Yes, the original U.S. Constitution protected slavery. It prohibited Congress from regulating the transoceanic slave trade. Originally, the Constitution protected slavery by increasing political representation for slave owners and slave states. It included key provisions like the Three-Fifths Clause (counting enslaved people for representation), the Fugitive Slave Clause (requiring return of escaped slaves), and the Importation Clause (delaying a ban on the slave trade until 1808), all without using the word “slave,” making it a “pro-slavery” document that granted political power to slave states.

After the Civil War, the Confederate states had to agree to unite under a new constitution. A constitution that did not include slavery. The agreement was:

The second constitution consolidated Union and Confederate states under one set of national laws and policies, and thus was created the United States of America.

However, one things for sure, and two things are for certain: If one was written, then so can two. And if two were written, then so can three. In 2026, citizens with Freedmen status remember that United States was founded by the Declaration of Independence. It is the nation’s founding document and the Big Joker in the deck.

The Declaration of Independence outlined specific complaints that gave the colonies the legitimacy for independence. Specific complaints and grievances, presented as “injuries and usurpations,” were the core justification for the European colonizing settlers’ right to self-governance and declaring independence from the King’s tyrannical intent.

King George III repeatedly imposed unjust laws like taxation without representation, obstructed justice, and interfered with legislation. King George committed a famous list of abuses and usurpations (abuses of power with no right to do so). He wrongfully seized power and infringed on people’s rights. Thus, the Declaration of Independence specifies the duty citizens have to respond after a government denies certain unalienable rights, life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness:

“That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

The Declaration of Independence holds such truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator. That means, in 2026, if your 9th & 10th great-grandfathers fought in the Revolutionary War of 1776, then you remember that this government is supposed to secure its rights from the men who instituted it.

That means the United States federal and state government derives its powers from the consent of the citizens governed. The consent of the grandchildren of Revolutionary War soldiers such as Captain Joseph Johnson SAR 14106, 42551 (1702 - 1768) and Captain Joseph Johnson (1726 - 1787). Illegal immigrants are definitely not governed citizens, but do legal immigrants count as governed citizens?

European “whites” have always had a history of only following laws that were convenient to them, but in 2026, why is it okay for Europeans AND immigrants obstruct justice? Why do brown immigrant politicians get to commit treason, too?

Is the European idea of a “free country“ a place where no one follows rules?

Dr. Rashad Richey, is the host of Indisputable on The Young Turks (TYT), a network long positioned as the left’s answer to conservative cable news. Richey routinely appears as a multi-doctorate scholar, boasting up to five PhDs, an EdD, a JD, multiple master’s degrees, and mastery across disciplines from quantum physics to federal policy. TYT promotes him as an unimpeachable authority, lending his voice weight on issues of race, politics, and science. Yet, as of early January 2026, this carefully constructed image faces serious scrutiny.

The Explosive Exposé by Independent Investigator Cam James

Independent YouTuber Cam James released a bombshell investigative series, starting with “Exposing Rashad Richey (Part 1): The GOAT of Fake Degrees” on December 30, 2025, followed by Part 2 shortly after. James alleges that most of Richey’s advanced degrees stem from unaccredited “diploma mills,” low-rigor foreign institutions, or nonexistent programs—entities with non-functional websites, stock photos, and minimal academic requirements. Highlighted examples include:

• Business University of Costa Rica (UNEM)

• Euro-American University

• Azteca University

• Asia-Pacific School of Business

• IIC University of Technology

• Université de la Renaissance d’Haïti

• Paris Graduate School (for a claimed PhD in quantum physics, despite inconsistencies in program naming and existence)

James also points to earlier claims tied to Scofield Graduate School, described as a church-affiliated operation with questionable legitimacy. The video frames Richey as a “FUBU scammer”—a term for exploiting identity for gain—arguing these credentials inflate his authority to grift credibility in media spaces.

Richey’s Defense: Emphasis on One Legitimate Degree

Richey responded swiftly with his own video, “Dr. Richey’s University Degrees Are Accredited, Validated & Confirmed,” released December 31, 2025. He emphasized his legitimate EdD from Clark Atlanta University (CAU), a well-regarded HBCU, where his dissertation on federal policy reform is documented and accepted. He cited foreign credential evaluations, additional enrollments, and validations for some degrees, dismissing many criticisms as false or misleading. The CAU EdD stands as verifiable achievement, and credit where due—it’s a solid accomplishment. However, Richey’s defense largely pivots to this one degree while sidestepping the core accusations about the others.

Nate The Lawyer’s Legal Breakdown: “Fake Degrees, Fake Lawyer, Real Scam”

Nate The Lawyer, a YouTube creator and legal commentator known for breaking down pop culture, true crime, and controversies through a legal lens, has weighed in heavily on the Rashad Richey credential controversy in early January 2026. His primary video on the topic, titled “TYT’s Rashad Richey: Fake Degrees, Fake Lawyer, Real Scam” (uploaded around January 8, 2026), builds directly on the investigative work by Cam James and concludes that Richey has engaged in significant misrepresentation of his academic and professional credentials.

Key points from Nate’s analysis and surmises (based on his video content, descriptions, and related social media posts):

• Most Degrees Are Bogus or Misleading: Nate asserts that out of the 18+ degrees Richey has claimed (including multiple PhDs, JDs, LLMs, master’s, and even fields like quantum physics and neuroscience), only about 3 are verifiable — with the legitimate one being his EdD from Clark Atlanta University standing out as solid. The rest come from institutions that:

  • Don’t offer the claimed programs.

  • Don’t exist in any meaningful academic form.

  • Are unaccredited diploma mills or low-rigor foreign entities (e.g., from Haiti, Nigeria, Costa Rica, and others).

  • Show inconsistencies like mismatched seals, non-functional websites, or programs that never issued the type of degree claimed.

• “Fake Lawyer” Angle: Nate specifically calls out Richey’s JD claims as fraudulent, noting that one supposed JD-granting school doesn’t issue JDs at all, and Richey’s legal credentials don’t hold up under scrutiny (e.g., no bar admission, shifting stories about online vs. in-person completion). He frames Richey as not a legitimate lawyer despite presenting himself as one in media and bios.

• Overall Conclusion: A “Real Scam”: Nate surmises this is not innocent overstatement but a deliberate scam — inflating credentials to gain authority as a progressive commentator on The Young Turks (Indisputable), policy expert, and public figure. He highlights how Richey’s own statements shift depending on the audience, and he accuses Richey of trying to silence critics with lawsuit threats (Nate publicly dared him to sue, saying “Send paperwork, not threats”).

• Broader Implications: In follow-up content (like threads and a potential upcoming video reading Richey’s “quantum dissertation”), Nate mocks the substance of Richey’s claimed advanced work, implying it’s nonsensical or fabricated. He ties it to a pattern of misrepresentation that undermines Richey’s role as a political and social commentator, where authority is built on expertise he doesn’t possess.

Nate’s overall surmise is clear: This is a case of credential fraud that rises to the level of grift, enabled by a lack of accountability in progressive media circles. Nate positions his coverage as fact-based legal-style analysis (using school catalogs, accreditation rules, and public records), not political bias, though his tone is highly critical and calls Richey a “fraud” outright.

The scandal remains hot as of January 10, 2026, with ongoing discussions across YouTube, Reddit, and forums.

In the wake of the shooting of Renee Nicole Goo in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026, protests have erupted. The incident has reignited national debates over immigration enforcement, with Black Lives Matter (BLM) Minnesota issuing calls for protests and demanding ICE’s expulsion from the state.

Renee Good was fresh off dropping her six-year-old at school, cruising through a snowy Minneapolis street in her Honda Pilot, when she just happened to stop diagonally, blocking federal agents mid-raid, blowing whistles like it was a community block party, and turning her vehicle into an impromptu protest prop for several long minutes. Calmly telling the officer “I’m not mad at you” seconds before the bullets fly, as if fate scripted the perfect viral tragedy to fuel the outrage machine.

BLM Minnesota’s response to Good’s death is rooted in a long history of advocating against systemic violence, particularly when it affects Black lives. The organization’s founder publicly condemned ICE agents as “demons” and called for widespread action, framing the shooting as part of a broader pattern of overreach. Yet, amid the outcry, there doesn’t appear to be broader enthusiasm within Black communities nationwide for anti-ICE mobilizations.

Protests in Minneapolis have drawn crowds, with demonstrators blocking streets, chanting for justice, and even confronting hotels believed to house ICE agents. Similar vigils have popped up across the country as the protest industrial complex has been activated.

Scan the crowds at these anti-ICE protests sparked by Renee Good’s death, and one thing jumps out immediately: the sea of faces is overwhelmingly white. Nationwide the response from the Black community writ large has been muted compared to past movements like those following George Floyd’s murder in 2020. Why the relative quiet?

One key factor is the nuanced impact of immigration—particularly undocumented immigration—on Black Americans. While solidarity with immigrants is a core tenet of many racial justice groups, including BLM’s policy platform which calls for ending the “war on Black migrants” and supporting pathways to legalization, economic realities tell a more complicated story.

Studies and expert testimonies have long highlighted how unauthorized immigration can disproportionately affect Black workers, who often compete in the same low-wage sectors like construction, service, and agriculture. A 2010 report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found evidence that illegal immigration contributes to wage depression and reduced job opportunities for Black Americans, with some economists estimating significant economic losses. Vanderbilt University’s Carol Swain, a political scientist, has argued that this dynamic exacerbates unemployment and underemployment in Black communities, stifling progress.

More recent analyses, including a 2024 Center for Immigration Studies report, echo this, suggesting that mass immigration has been used to displace U.S.-born workers, with Black Americans bearing a heavy burden. Even as overall job growth occurs, critics point out that the “growing jobs pie” doesn’t always translate to equitable gains for U.S.-born Black workers.

In the end, the muted national response from Black communities to Renee Good’s death isn’t indifference or callousness—it’s a quiet, pragmatic prioritization. While there’s genuine sympathy for a mother’s tragic loss, many Black Americans see little direct connection between this incident and the systemic threats they face daily: economic displacement from unchecked immigration, persistent job competition in low-wage sectors, and the ongoing toll of violent crime in their neighborhoods.

In the frigid streets of Minneapolis on January 7, 2026, a tragic confrontation unfolded that has once again exposed the chasm between reality and the narratives spun by mainstream media. Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three and self-described poet and activist, was fatally shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent during a routine operation. Initial reports painted a harrowing picture of an innocent U.S. citizen gunned down in cold blood, sparking nationwide protests and accusations of federal overreach. But as new footage from the agent’s own cellphone camera has emerged, a far different story comes into focus—one where Good’s actions, fueled by her fervent leftist activism, put lives at risk and escalated a tense situation into deadly violence.

Good was no stranger to political activism. Known in local circles for her outspoken criticism of immigration policies, she had participated in anti-ICE demonstrations and used her platform as a poet to rail against what she called “systemic oppression” under the Trump administration’s renewed enforcement crackdowns.

Her social media feeds were replete with calls to “abolish ICE” and dismantle borders, aligning her with far-left groups that view federal immigration agents as symbols of tyranny. On that fateful day, Good and her companion reportedly trailed ICE agents in their vehicles, harassing them and impeding their work. What began as verbal taunts—”Don’t make a bad decision today,” one agent warned—quickly turned physical. The newly released cellphone video from the agent’s perspective, obtained by outlets like Alpha News and analyzed by multiple sources, provides a raw, unfiltered view of the incident.

In the footage, Good is seen laughing and exchanging words with the agent, Jonathan Ross, just seconds before accelerating her SUV toward him. The video captures the moment of impact: the agent is struck, his body jolted as the vehicle clips him. In self-defense, he fires three shots—first through the windshield as the car bears down, then from the side as it veers away.

Contrary to early claims that Good posed no threat and was simply trying to leave the scene, the agent’s camera shows her wheels turning not away, but initially in his direction, with the gas pedal engaged. This isn’t speculation; it’s documented evidence that Good did a bad thing—she endangered a federal officer’s life in a reckless act of defiance.This revelation shatters the media’s initial spin, which portrayed Good as “some innocent woman” mowed down by trigger-happy ICE enforcers.

Outlets like CNN and The New York Times rushed to highlight the protests, framing the shooting as yet another example of law enforcement brutality against marginalized voices.

Pundits on MSNBC and elsewhere amplified calls for investigations, with some even suggesting the agent be charged with murder before all facts were in. Vice President JD Vance, in a fiery briefing, called out this “media dishonesty,” reposting the video to underscore how the far-left narrative ignored the agent’s peril.

Yet again, the spin has proven false, much like past debacles where hasty reporting fueled division. Remember the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” mantra from Ferguson, which turned out to be a myth debunked by forensic evidence and witness testimonies? Or the relentless coverage of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, peddled for years despite lacking substantiation, only to collapse under scrutiny? The pattern is clear: a left-leaning media ecosystem jumps to conclusions that fit their ideological priors, demonizing law enforcement and conservatives while canonizing those who oppose them.

In Good’s case, the rush to martyr her overlooked her own agency—her choice to confront armed agents, taunt them, and drive aggressively—because it didn’t align with the preferred story of victimhood. Why does the media persist in this leftward tilt? It’s not mere coincidence; it’s institutional capture. Decades of progressive dominance in journalism schools, newsrooms, and editorial boards have created an echo chamber where objectivity is secondary to advocacy, a disparity that breeds groupthink. This bias isn’t just about slanted headlines; it’s about selective omission. In the Good shooting, early reports downplayed the taunts and the agent’s injury, focusing instead on her poetry awards and motherhood to evoke sympathy.

Such framing isn’t journalism—it’s activism masquerading as news. And here’s the most damning part: this biased coverage doesn’t just mislead; it creates political violence. By consistently portraying law enforcement as villains and activists like Good as heroes, the media stokes outrage that spills into the streets. Following the shooting, protests in Minneapolis turned chaotic, with demonstrators chanting “ICE out now” and clashing with police—some even firing gas canisters into crowds, escalating tensions further.

We’ve seen this playbook before: the 2020 riots after George Floyd’s death, fueled by media hype, resulted in billions in damages, dozens of deaths, and widespread destruction. False narratives about “systemic racism” in every police encounter embolden radicals to attack officers, as seen in ambushes on cops across the country. In Good’s case, the media’s rush to judgment has vilified the ICE Agent, who now faces death threats and doxxing from online mobs.

Protesters, inflamed by headlines, have marched in freezing rain, demanding “justice” based on incomplete facts. When the new footage emerged, showing the agent’s split-second decision to protect himself, did the media correct course with apologies? Hardly. Instead, some doubled down, parsing freeze-frames to argue the car “wasn’t really a threat,” ignoring the chaos of the moment.

This isn’t truth-seeking; it’s incitement. The consequences extend beyond one city. A polarized nation, where half the population distrusts institutions because of perceived bias, breeds instability. When media outlets like The Washington Post or NPR frame every enforcement action as “Trump’s crackdown,” they radicalize viewers, making routine operations targets for interference.

Good’s activism, amplified by such coverage, didn’t just lead to her tragic end—it endangers agents nationwide, who now must contend with copycat confrontations. Political violence thrives in this environment: assassination attempts, pipe bombs, and riots all trace back to overheated rhetoric from trusted sources.It’s time to hold the media accountable.

Regulators should enforce fairness doctrines, donors pull funding from biased outlets, and consumers demand better. Until then, incidents like the Good shooting will repeat, with real lives lost to fictional narratives. Renee Good did a bad thing by escalating a confrontation, but the media’s sin is far greater—they fan the flames that burn us all.

Opinion:

In the heart of America, once-familiar landscapes are transforming into something unrecognizable. Take Minnesota, a state long celebrated for its Midwestern values. Today, parts of it feel like they’ve been overtaken by foreign influences, where massive fraud scandals involving immigrant communities have exposed the perils of unchecked borders and our immigration system.

As someone living in California, I see the same erosion daily—my home state increasingly resembles Mexico, with Spanish dominating conversations in stores, schools, and streets. This isn’t just anecdotal; it’s the direct result of unfettered illegal immigration that prioritized volume over vetting, leaving our cultural fabric in tatters as illegal alien migrants refuse to assimilate.

Let’s start with Minnesota’s cautionary tale. The Feeding Our Future scandal, one of the largest COVID-19 fraud schemes in U.S. history, saw dozens of individuals—many from the Somali immigrant community—charged with siphoning off billions in federal funds meant for child nutrition programs.

Prosecutors have described it as brazen, with funds diverted to luxury cars, real estate, and overseas wire transfers instead of feeding hungry kids. Recent charges in late 2025, including a $14 million autism fraud scheme, highlight how these abuses have persisted. Now, under the Trump administration, federal immigration agents are flooding into Minneapolis, with over 2,000 deployed to crack down on fraud and immigration violations tied to these cases.

Senior officials have zeroed in on the Somali community, where allegations of widespread abuse in social services have intensified debates over denaturalization for those who game the system. Critics say this is about xenophobia; it isn’t. It’s about accountability. When immigrants exploit programs without integrating into American norms of honesty and self-reliance, it breeds resentment and division.

California is a mirror image, amplified. Here, illegal immigration has surged for decades, turning neighborhoods into enclaves where assimilation seems optional. Drive through Los Angeles or the Central Valley, and you’ll hear more Spanish than English, see Mexican flags waving proudly, and witness a cultural shift that sidelines traditional American values.

This isn’t integration; it’s colonization by default. With an estimated 2 million undocumented immigrants, California is a sanctuary state, shielding those who cross illegally while straining resources. Schools overflow with non-English speakers, hospitals treat uninsured migrants at taxpayer expense, and crime tied to cartels spills over from the border. The result? A state that feels more like an extension of Mexico than the Golden State of opportunity.

At the root is unfettered illegal immigration—a policy failure that flooded the country with millions who bypassed legal channels. Under previous administrations, border enforcement was lax, allowing cartels to traffic people and drugs with impunity. These illegal alien migrants often cluster in ethnic pockets, resisting assimilation by maintaining separate languages, customs, and even loyalties. Without requirements to learn English, adopt American civics, or contribute positively, we risk a balkanized nation. History shows successful immigration waves—like the Irish or Italians—thrived through assimilation. Today’s model? It invites chaos, as seen in Minnesota’s fraud epidemic.

And now, California is next in line for scrutiny. The Trump administration has already frozen billions in social services funding to five Democratic-led states, including California, over fraud concerns—echoing Minnesota’s woes. President Trump has publicly called out California as “more corrupt than Minnesota,” launching investigations into alleged abuses in welfare and childcare programs.

Governor Newsom’s defiant response aside, this audit-like freeze is a wake-up call. If Minnesota’s scandal taught us anything, it’s that ignoring red flags in immigrant-heavy programs leads to billions lost and trust eroded.

America’s strength lies in its melting pot, but only if everyone melts in. Without borders, vetting, and assimilation mandates, we’ll wake up to a nation that’s culturally unrecognizable—fragmented, indebted, and divided. It’s time for real reform: secure the border, enforce laws, English only, and demand integration. Otherwise, America will slip away, one enclave at a time.