King Charles III’s trip across the Atlantic came at a difficult time. The Iran campaign marks a low point for the transatlantic alliance, his host country is preparing to celebrate the 250th anniversary of evicting his family’s rule, and the "no kings" protests remind Britain’s royals that many Americans still equate monarchy with tyranny.

The post Charles Not in Charge: King’s Visit Hits All the Right Notes but Doesn’t Reflect Reality appeared first on .

The homicidal empathy of the left’s immigration policies

Fairfax, Virginia, has had four homicides so far in 2026. Three out of the four were committed by illegal immigrants.

One, the case of Abdul Jalloh, underlines everything wrong with the approach the left has taken to illegal immigration. Jalloh, who hails from Sierra Leone, illegally entered the United States in 2012 and proceeded to commit dozens of crimes, including assault, rape, and theft.

Eventually, he was caught by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and locked up for roughly two years while awaiting deportation. But in 2020, a judge ruled he could not be deported to his home country. He was free to go, as ICE could not find someone willing to take him.

It is a recognition that Aztec-style sacrifice of the innocent is not necessary to make the rain fall that has empowered nationalists across the West.

Six years later, he killed Stephanie Minter, a mom waiting at a bus stop.

In the aftermath, Minter’s family and Republicans turned their attention to Fairfax County’s District Attorney Steve Descano for having refused to work with ICE and for his extraordinarily light sentences for illegal immigrants, with many highlighting his statement, “If two people commit the same crime, but only one’s punishment includes deportation, that’s a perversion of justice.”

Descano has been called to testify in front of Congress in mid-May to explain his policies. During his hearing, a particular term may be mentioned: suicidal empathy.

Suicidal empathy is a term, popularized by Dr. Gad Saad, commonly used by the Western right as a catch-all for the liberal idea that the importation of potentially dangerous immigrants is a good thing because not doing so would be cruel.

If you do not support mass immigration, legal or otherwise, the thinking goes, you don’t have a heart.

Politicians have been espousing this sentiment for a long time. In 2014, Jeb Bush famously called illegal immigration “an act of love.”

This way of thinking has also dominated Western establishments for some time, even though concerns were obvious. Right from the start of the migration crisis in 2015, new arrivals were causing trouble. Assaults, rapes, and murders that would never have occurred started happening with frightening regularity. Now 11 years later, migrant rape stories have become a part of life there.

And yet, establishments resist any sort of mass deportation because the countries from which they come are “unsafe,” and it would be inhumane to send them there.

Conservatives do themselves and their societies a disservice by portraying this supposed empathy as “suicidal.” It’s not: It’s homicidal. “Suicidal empathy” invokes self-sacrifice. The people are so empathetic that they are willing to risk their lives — the chance that invading migrants may hurt or kill them — or destroy their society.

But this is not really true, as your average pro-migrant liberal is likely not risking his or her life. While migrants rape and kill at startlingly high rates — as just one example, in 2023, foreigners committed 100% of “serious sexual crimes” in Frankfurt, Germany — the odds of any liberal voter being the person who is targeted is relatively low.

Kendall Warner/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

For example, rape in England and Wales was once consistently low. But right when mass migration happened, it skyrocketed, rising over 300%. In 2024, non-German suspects committed nearly 40% of all rapes, over 4,430 — roughly 12 women a day. But because there are millions of English and German women, the odds of any single person being attacked is small.

However, it is going to happen to someone. Those who oppose mass deportations understand this on some level. But they dismiss its importance, as they believe it is the only way for society to function.

Conservatives often misunderstand where this thinking comes from, chalking it up to a secret plot by a combination of George Soros, his son, and other Antifa funders. To be clear, these networks exist. But they are not why your average liberal is OK with mass rape and murder having arrived on their shores.

To understand why, one must look to history. Specifically, the Aztecs.

The Aztecs sacrificed tens of thousands of people, often cutting the hearts out of still-living individuals. This was done to please the gods and to ensure everything continued as necessary. Children, burned alive, were first tortured so that they would cry, as their tears were believed to satiate the needs of the rain god.

Today’s liberal internationalism — the driving force behind allowing mass migration — is based on the same principles. Mass migration allows for UberEATS and Door Dash. It lets you hire cheap labor. The women of "The View" asking conservatives who will clean their toilets are not representatives of the extreme left-wing: They are in lock-step with the ideology that has ruled the West for the past 30 years.

Blaze Media Illustration

In the minds of liberal internationalists, the UberEATS driver and the lawn mower have a better life because of their minimum wage (or lower) jobs. The Vietnamese child in the shoe factory is making 10 cents a day — five cents more than if he were working another job!

So it is with those who are sacrificed to migration. Yes, those few who are raped or killed are unfortunates, but they at least get to live in a melting pot after they’ve been sexually assaulted. As Piers Morgan recently argued, he gets to live in a society with tikka masala. (Morgan, of course, has paid security guards and is under no threat.)

It is a recognition that Aztec-style sacrifice of the innocent is not necessary to make the rain fall that has empowered nationalists across the West. Even when they have lost, in places like Poland or Hungary, their successors have mostly kept strict anti-migrant policies intact.

Abdul Jalloh should never have been in the United States, and deportation should have been easy. If Sierra Leone did not want him back, it should not have mattered.

The United States of America is the most powerful nation in the world. If Washington wants to return criminals to their home countries, it has the power to do so.

This homicidal empathy has real victims, and their numbers increase by the day. The right must not let its left-wing opposites get away with viewing themselves as suicidal. They are not risking their own lives. They are arguing for the homicide of others.

Hegseth torches Democrat for doubting Trump's mental fitness: 'Did you ask the same question of Joe Biden?'

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth was on offense Wednesday, sparring with Democrats on Capitol Hill on a variety of topics, the most laughable of which was President Donald Trump's mental fitness.

Billionaire heiress and Democratic Rep. Sara Jacobs of California challenged Hegseth about Trump's abilities to fulfill his role as commander in chief, asking if the secretary believes the president is "stable" enough for the job.

'I won't even engage with the level of disparagement.'

Without missing a beat, Hegseth quickly called out the hypocrisy of Democratic lawmakers like Jacobs who willingly turned a blind eye to the mental acuity of Trump's predecessor.

"Did you ask the same question of Joe Biden for four years?" Hegseth asked. "You did not."

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc/Getty Images

Jacobs tried to deflect Hegseth's reply, arguing that Biden is no longer the president and implying that the question is no longer worth asking, but Hegseth wasn't buying it.

"I won't even engage with the level of disparagement that you're putting on the commander in chief, who ... is the sharpest and most insightful commander in chief we've had in generations," Hegseth said. "You want to ask that question after you and your fellow Democrats defended Joe Biden, who could barely speak and didn't know what day of the week it was?"

"He governed through an autopen," Hegseth added. "We had a secretary of defense who went AWOL for a week. I can't be gone for 10 minutes."

Biden's secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, was actually hospitalized for two weeks.

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

'Trump is racist' arguments seem to fall on deaf ears at SCOTUS TPS hearing about Haiti and Syria

Congress created the temporary protected status program, often abbreviated TPS, in 1990 to bar the removal of foreign nationals who hail from countries roiled by civil unrest, violence, or natural disaster, regardless of their immigration status. Under the program, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can designate a certain country for TPS for periods of up to 18 months.

While supposedly "temporary," these status designations — presently extended to a dozen countries and shielding millions of foreigners — have in many cases been extended for decades.

Recognizing that the conditions previously cited as justification for TPS have materially changed for the better in some countries, the Trump administration has taken steps to revoke numerous TPS designations. This initiative has, of course, enraged liberal activists and beneficiaries of the program, who have mounted various legal challenges.

The U.S. Supreme Court — which cleared the Trump administration last year to strip Venezuelan migrants of TPS — heard oral arguments on Wednesday in the consolidated cases Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot regarding the revocation of TPS for Haitians and Syrians.

Ahead of the hearing, Democratic Reps. Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) joined Democratic Sens. Edward Markey (Mass.) and Lisa Blunt Rochester (Del.) in demanding the high court defend TPS for Syrians and Haitians, stating, "Do your job, uphold the law, save lives, and protect our communities."

Given conservative justices' questions and remarks during the lengthy hearing, these Democrats and the hordes of foreign squatters who've long been shielded from removal may be headed for disappointment.

Quick background

TPS has covered Haitian migrants since January 2010 and covers nearly 350,000 citizens from the Caribbean today. Syria was designated for TPS in March 2012 and has received several extensions over the past 14 years. Roughly 6,000 Syrians presently enjoy protected status.

JACQUELYN MARTIN/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

Having determined that neither country still meets the conditions for special status owing largely to significant improvements in domestic safety and stability, Trump's DHS announced the termination of Haiti's TPS in July and the termination of Syria's status in September.

These revocations, which were supposed to take effect months ago, have been held up in the courts.

In Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — a foreign-born, Biden-appointed, lesbian judge who previously worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration's immigration policy and helped the U.N. secure asylum for so-called refugees — obliged her fellow immigration activists on Feb. 2, blocking the revocation of Haiti's TPS.

'That's what you got?'

Reyes, a Uruguayan native, claimed that former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem not only violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment's due process clause when terminating the TPS designation for Haiti but had likely done so "because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused on March 6 to block Reyes' ruling, thereby keeping the special status for Haitians in place while the litigation moved forward.

In New York, U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, granted an injunction in November against the government's termination of TPS for Syrians. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the government's motion for a stay pending appeal on Feb. 17, prompting the Trump administration to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in.

Divided court

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who defended the administration's revocation of the special statuses, sparred at the outset with liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor over whether a TPS termination is open to judicial review, especially when the relevant statute makes expressly clear that there is to be no judicial review of any determination with respect to the TPS designation or termination or extension of a designation.

When asked by Justice Brett Kavanaugh why Congress would have barred judicial review as broadly as the administration now contends, Sauer pointed to the possible foresight that protracted legal review would inevitably undermine the temporary nature of the program and hinder the executive's ability to conduct foreign policy in a timely and confident manner.

Sotomayor and Brown proceeded to dwell on the suggestion advanced by the plaintiffs in the Haiti case and by Judge Reyes in February that "discriminatory intent" played a role in the termination of that nation's TPS designation, alluding to President Donald Trump's derisive remarks about third-world nations such as Somalia, which he characterized last year as "filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime."

While Sauer made clear that the government defended its decisions on non-discriminatory grounds, the liberal justices nevertheless appeared keen to read into extraneous comments by members of the administration, which were the primary focus of Geoffrey Pipoly, the attorney who argued on behalf of Haitian TPS beneficiaries.

Alex WROBLEWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Neither Justice Samuel Alito nor Justice Neil Gorsuch posed questions during Sauer's arguments, perhaps signaling understanding of or even agreement with them, but spent considerable time poking holes in those posed by the challengers.

Ahilan Arulanantham, a lawyer for Syrian TPS beneficiaries, emphasized that the issue is whether the DHS secretary adequately followed procedure when arriving at her decision to revoke TPS status, not whether her assessment was correct that the conditions previously justifying TPS had in fact changed.

Justice Alito did not appear to be buying what Arulanantham was selling. Instead, Alito echoed Sauer's concern that if the challengers' argument regarding the government's supposedly insufficient level of consultation with agencies was accepted, "it will create a hole in the judicial review bar that you could drive a convoy of trucks through," and that it will always be possible to second-guess the DHS secretary's decisions and process.

Pipoly, who piped up after Arulanantham's time elapsed, desperately tried to make the case that the Haitian TPS designation was based on a "sham" of a review, not grounded by empirical support but by President Donald Trump's "racial animus towards nonwhite immigrants."

Justice Alito countered, however, that "TPS was terminated for quite a list of countries," many of which are home to individuals who are or could be construed as white.

"If you put Syrians, Turks, Greeks, and other people who live around the Mediterranean in a lineup, you think you could say those people are, all of them, are they all nonwhite?" Alito said, prompting an acknowledgment from Pipoly that Syrians "may be classified as white."

After Alito nuked the notion that TPS revocation is solely bound up with race, Justice Gorsuch pressed Pipoly to disentangle the DHS secretary's determination — which is not subject to judicial review — from the DHS' ultimate termination of the TPS status.

"How can it not be judicial review of the determination if you're postponing the determination?" Gorsuch asked.

"The final agency action here that was postponed is ... the termination, not the determination, which is not subject to judicial review," Pipoly responded.

Pipoly does not appear to have won over Gorsuch with his tortured attempt to strike a distinction between the two since Gorsuch replied, "That's what you got?"

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

King Charles III hypes NATO, UK's enduring partnership with 'imaginative rebels' in US

For the first time in nearly 35 years, a British monarch has addressed a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress.

King Charles III, no doubt sensitive to the recent political friction between the U.S. and Britain over the matter of the war in Iran, noted at the outset Tuesday night that these are "times of great uncertainty, in times of conflict, from Europe to the Middle East, which pose immense challenges for the international community and whose impact is felt in communities the length and breadth of our own countries."

Charles emphasized, however, that even in such times, it remains clear that America's and Britain's destinies are entangled and that the two countries share a special "bond of kinship and identity" that is "irreplaceable and unbreakable."

After reassuring lawmakers that his presence stateside was not "part of some cunning rearguard action" and lauding the American founding fathers both as "bold and imaginative rebels with a cause" and inheritors "of the British Enlightenment," Charles hyped the need to build upon and renew the Anglo-American partnership, particularly in the military space.

On the theme of renewal and in an apparent nod to President Donald Trump's repeated insistence that North Atlantic Treaty Organization members boost their defense spending, Charles noted that the U.K. "has committed to the biggest sustained increase in defense spending since the Cold War."

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer committed last year to spending 2.5% of GDP on core defense by April 2027. The U.K., which spent an estimated 2.3% of GDP on defense in 2024, has since entertained the possibility of increasing spending to 3% in the next Parliament — an increase that Starmer said would be made possible by reductions to aid spending.

Charles, speaking weeks after the Trump administration signaled an interest in pulling the U.S. out of NATO, said the military alliance is as relevant now as it was during the Cold War and "in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when NATO invoked Article Five for the first time."

The king — who acknowledged that "the commitment and expertise of the United States Armed Forces and its allies lie at the heart of NATO" — suggested further that the alliance was imperative to keep "North Americans and Europeans safe from our common adversaries," singling out Ukraine as a nation now in need of defense.

Charles closed his speech with an apparent knock at isolationism, stating, "I pray with all my heart that our alliance will continue to defend our shared values with our partners in Europe and the Commonwealth and across the world and that we ignore the clarion calls to become ever more inward-looking."

The last royal address to Congress was given by Charles' late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, in the wake of the Gulf War. Elizabeth similarly spoke with interest about nurturing Britain's "long-standing friendship with the people of the United States."

"We want to build on that foundation and to do better," said the queen. "And if the going gets rough, I hope you can still agree with your poet Emerson, who wrote in 1847, 'I feel, in regard to this aged England, with a kind of instinct, that she sees a little better on a cloudy day, and that, in storm of battle and calamity, she has a secret vigor and a pulse like a cannon.' You will find us worthy partners, and we are proud to have you as our friends."

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

Red states are not waiting for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act

President Donald Trump continues to prioritize the passage of the SAVE America Act, keeping election integrity at the forefront in Washington. However, states are not waiting for Congress to act. Across the country, this shift has been building for years, and it is becoming harder to ignore.

The SAVE America Act should be passed because it aligns federal elections with the direction states are already taking.

Florida offers one of the clearest examples. Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed a state-level measure requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote and directing officials to verify applicants using existing data systems. The approach mirrors what the SAVE America Act would do at the federal level. DeSantis said the law would “strengthen the security, transparency, and reliability of Florida’s election system.”

Florida is not alone. In Mississippi, Governor Tate Reeves signed the SHIELD Act, which requires officials to verify citizenship when individuals register to vote, including checks against federal databases and regular audits of voter rolls. Reeves called it “another win for election integrity” and made clear that the state intends to keep strengthening its system.

South Dakota has already enacted similar requirements this year, requiring proof of citizenship for new voter registrations and putting those rules into effect immediately. Governor Larry Rhoden said the law “ensures only citizens vote in state elections, keeping our elections safe and secure.”

These bills didn’t happen overnight. States have been moving in this direction for years. Arizona, for example, required proof of citizenship for voter registration following the passage of Arizona Proposition 200, creating a system that distinguishes between voters who provide documentation and those who do not.

That history matters. It shows that the idea of verifying citizenship at the point of registration is nothing new. What is changing now is how widely and directly states are applying it to their election systems.

Under current federal law, voter registration generally relies on applicants affirming their eligibility under penalty of perjury rather than providing documentary proof. The federal voter registration form requires applicants to attest that they are United States citizens under penalty of perjury. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 relies heavily on self-attestation rather than documentary proof, leaving states to determine how verification is carried out. As some states move toward more structured verification, those differences become harder to ignore.

States that have moved toward documentation and data verification are operating alongside systems that still rely primarily on sworn statements.

History/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

The contrast is becoming more visible as more states update their processes, raising a straightforward question about whether federal elections should operate under a consistent standard.

The SAVE America Act answers that problem directly. It would require documentary proof of United States citizenship in order to vote in federal elections, using documents such as a passport or birth certificate.

As Senator Mike Lee has argued, the SAVE America Act would secure federal elections by requiring proof of citizenship and voter identification nationwide.

Citizenship is already required to vote. A federal standard would ensure that requirement is applied the same way in every state.

Without that standard, states will continue moving in different directions, leaving federal elections governed by a patchwork of verification practices. With it, the system becomes consistent.

The SAVE America Act should be passed because it aligns federal elections with the direction states are already taking and applies a clear, uniform standard to voter registration.

States are setting the standard for verifying voter eligibility.

It is time for Congress to do its part and pass the SAVE America Act.

Charles Not in Charge: King’s Visit Hits All the Right Notes but Doesn’t Reflect Reality

Pardons Aren’t Enough. The FACE Act Must Go

The homicidal empathy of the left’s immigration policies

Hegseth torches Democrat for doubting Trump's mental fitness: 'Did you ask the same question of Joe Biden?'

'Trump is racist' arguments seem to fall on deaf ears at SCOTUS TPS hearing about Haiti and Syria

Quick background

Divided court

King Charles III hypes NATO, UK's enduring partnership with 'imaginative rebels' in US

Red states are not waiting for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act

Cincinnati councilwoman suggests mob attack on white victims was justified: ‘They begged for that beatdown!’

Democrat melts down after Secretary Doug Burgum drops bombshell about NGOs during committee hearing

Quick background

Divided court

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.