Hank Berrien

When an interviewer asked an elderly couple vacationing in Spain if they'd open their doors to an illegal immigrant, the husband didn't hesitate. “Why not?” he declared, beaming with virtue.

When an interviewer asked an elderly couple vacationing in Spain if they’d open their doors to an illegal immigrant, the husband didn’t hesitate. “Why not?” he declared, beaming with virtue.But the moment the interviewer called his bluff and brought out a Nigerian musician earning pennies on the street, the warm welcome instantly turned into a cold shoulder. The husband suddenly stammered about having no room on vacation, while his wife flatly cut in with a firm “No, no, no.”That viral confrontation captures a dynamic researchers call the “abstract versus proximate” gap. It’s the ultimate “Not In My Backyard” syndrome: people love playing the humanitarian on paper, but panic when reality suddenly lands on their doorstep.The translated exchange went like this:Interviewer: We’re asking people if they would take in an illegal immigrant.Husband: Well, that would be a good system, sure, why not?Interviewer: Could you see yourself, for example, taking in…?Husband: Why not?Interviewer: But, since the system can no longer absorb that level of immigration…Husband: Well, I wouldn’t mind.Interviewer: You wouldn’t mind?Husband: I wouldn’t mind.Interviewer: Look, I’m going to introduce you to a friend, okay? Sony. … Where are you from?Sony: Nigeria.Interviewer: From Nigeria. Okay, look, Sony here from Nigeria has been here for a very short time and is playing the guitar. … He earns in five minutes, five cents, ten cents — and with that, you can’t live. How much can you make a day with the guitar?Sony: Well, from 20… It depends on the people; since it’s Christmas. You can make 30, 25 … enough to eat and live — that’s it; that’s what you have to do.Interviewer: The problem is that Sony doesn’t have housing, so we’re asking people if they could take him into their home right now for a month.Husband: In Andalusia?Wife: With 30 euros, he’d have plenty to cover a place to sleep.Interviewer: Since you so kindly said you’d be capable taking him in, you can do it, no?Husband: Of course.Interviewer: Would you take him now?Husband: Where would I put him? We’re here on vacation.Interviewer: It doesn’t have to be here. The important thing is that he has a roof over his head.Wife: No, no, no,Husband: I can’t.Funniest thing I've watched this week. Boomers in Spain get asked if they'd accept a migrant into their home. They say yes. Chad offers them one. And instantly, they change their mind. pic.twitter/2ruX39i0Mh— Casey Krol (@CaseyKrol) August 26, 2026A landmark Science Advances study found this exact pattern, demonstrating that citizens overwhelmingly back refugee resettlement in principle, right up until the placement hits their own zip code. It stated:Our findings highlight a collective action problem: Participants are consistently less supportive of resettlement within their own communities than resettlement elsewhere in the country. This pattern holds across all measured demographic, political, and geographic subsamples within our data.In Spain, that tension has already boiled over into real-world chaos, from the anti-migrant riots in Torre-Pacheco to furious protests outside reception centers in Alcalá de Henares.Whether it’s taking an illegal immigrant into your spare room or sending millions to a terror-tainted agency, virtue signaling always crumbles when faced with the hard truth.

Michigan's leftist Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed flatly stated he would refuse to condemn his incendiary, vile supporter Hasan Piker for any remarks he has made.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who is Muslim, said he would not support a Hindu event in Manhattan where the leader of the group that is the ideological parent of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will speak.

In a blow to election integrity, a federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing its proper new requirements for mail-in voting for the November midterm elections.

In a blow to election integrity, a federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing its proper new requirements for mail-in voting for the November midterm elections.Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, blocked the Postal Service’s fresh rules just days after they were announced, issuing a 14-day temporary restraining order that halts mandatory compliance for the upcoming November 3 elections. Days before Talwani’s ruling, the Supreme Court had handed the Trump administration a major procedural victory, lifting a previous injunction against the president’s executive order because the states had sued before final rules were issued.The Department of Justice is expected to appeal Talwani’s ruling immediately, setting up yet another potential showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court.The court battle stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump at the end of March aimed at tightening ballot integrity and preventing illegal noncitizen voting. The Postal Service published a rule mandating that states submit specific ballot envelope designs for federal approval, print unique trackable barcodes on envelopes, and upload sensitive voter information directly to a brand-new electronic clearinghouse portal.Under the agency’s plan, the postal system would cross-reference state submissions to build official participation lists designed to help law enforcement spot suspicious activity.A coalition of 24 state attorneys general led by blue-state prosecutors joined Left-leaning voting rights groups to take the issue to court. They claimed the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to oversee election procedures, saying that election administration belongs strictly to state legislatures and Congress.Judge Talwani sided with the plaintiffs, writing, “Based on the record presently before the court, Plaintiff States face irreparable harm where they are required to comply with a likely unconstitutional regulation for which compliance is practically impossible.”Solicitor General D. John Sauer had told the Supreme Court, “The Executive Order functions only to direct the President’s subordinates to take appropriate and lawful action to implement the President’s policy objectives. By stopping the relevant agencies and officials from implementing that Order with respect to the November 2026 federal election, the injunction operates as ‘an improper intrusion by a federal court into the workings of a coordinate branch of the Government.'”

Archaeologists digging beneath Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulchre — which Christians have venerated for nearly 1,700 years as the site of

In a bombshell announcement on Thursday, the X Safety team revealed that it had uncovered and dismantled a sprawling Chinese influence operation running a staggering 200,000 inauthentic accounts.

In a blow to election integrity, a federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing its proper new requirements for mail-in voting for the November midterm elections.Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, blocked the Postal Service’s fresh rules just days after they were announced, issuing a 14-day temporary restraining order that halts mandatory compliance for the upcoming November 3 elections. Days before Talwani’s ruling, the Supreme Court had handed the Trump administration a major procedural victory, lifting a previous injunction against the president’s executive order because the states had sued before final rules were issued.The Department of Justice is expected to appeal Talwani’s ruling immediately, setting up yet another potential showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court.The court battle stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump at the end of March aimed at tightening ballot integrity and preventing illegal noncitizen voting. The Postal Service published a rule mandating that states submit specific ballot envelope designs for federal approval, print unique trackable barcodes on envelopes, and upload sensitive voter information directly to a brand-new electronic clearinghouse portal.Under the agency’s plan, the postal system would cross-reference state submissions to build official participation lists designed to help law enforcement spot suspicious activity.A coalition of 24 state attorneys general led by blue-state prosecutors joined Left-leaning voting rights groups to take the issue to court. They claimed the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to oversee election procedures, saying that election administration belongs strictly to state legislatures and Congress.Judge Talwani sided with the plaintiffs, writing, “Based on the record presently before the court, Plaintiff States face irreparable harm where they are required to comply with a likely unconstitutional regulation for which compliance is practically impossible.”Solicitor General D. John Sauer had told the Supreme Court, “The Executive Order functions only to direct the President’s subordinates to take appropriate and lawful action to implement the President’s policy objectives. By stopping the relevant agencies and officials from implementing that Order with respect to the November 2026 federal election, the injunction operates as ‘an improper intrusion by a federal court into the workings of a coordinate branch of the Government.'”