Singer Billie Eilish used her moment at the Grammys to declare how she really feels about ICE and immigrants in America — which BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” points out was a blatant display of her “white savior complex.”

“No one is illegal on stolen land,” singer Billie Eilish said as she stepped up to accept her Grammy, before adding, “It’s just really hard to know what to say and what to do right now. And I just, I feel really hopeful in this room, and I feel like we just need to keep fighting and speaking up and protesting, and our voices really do matter, and the people matter.”

“If I had a dime for every liberal white woman who has a white savior complex and thinks that it is her duty to save the brown people, I just, you’d never see me again, I’d be so rich. I would move out into the boonies, and no one would ever hear from me again, because they seem to be totally obsessed with protecting illegal criminals with brown skin,” Gonzales comments.

However, one social media user, Drew Pavlou, took to Instagram to post a reel of himself claiming he plans to test out Eilish’s theory.

“Big news, everybody. I’ve decided today to move into Billy Eilish’s $6 million Malibu beachside mansion. She announced today at the Grammys that no human being is illegal on stolen land,” Pavlou said into the camera.

“So, I’m going to be making the trip to America. I’m packing my bags right away, and I’m looking forward to just taking possession of her $6 million Malibu mansion. No human being is illegal, so I want to thank everybody who’s believed in me on the journey. I really can’t wait to move in,” he continued.

“It’s now my house. I want to thank Billy Eilish as well for her generosity. Thank you so much,” he added.

“It’s worth mocking. It’s really worth mocking,” Gonzales says, stifling a laugh. “These people don’t actually believe the drivel that they say. They’re like, ‘Oh, there should be no borders. No human being is illegal.’”

“Like, OK, why do you have armed security? Why do you have a gate that people have to type in a code?” she asks. “That seems oppressive to all of these people, these indigenous people, if no one is illegal on stolen land.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video, Video phone, Camera phone, Upload, Sharing, Free, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Billie eilish, Ice protests, The grammys, No one is illegal on stolen land, Immigration, Illegal immigration 

A confrontation at a Minneapolis gas station involving a U.S. Border Patrol commander has reignited debate over whether private businesses should deny service to federal law enforcement officers based on opposition to immigration enforcement.

Video circulated online by FreedomNTV shows Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino being followed out of a Speedway convenience store by a man believed to be a store employee or manager. In the footage, the man tells Bovino, “We do not support ICE. Get off our property.”

‘It’s shameful conduct to try to penalize men and women who are enforcing federal law.’

Bovino does not respond in the video and exits the store without engaging.

The incident, which occurred in late January, is the latest in a series of encounters in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and Department of Homeland Security officials have been turned away from private businesses, particularly in Minnesota, amid heightened anti-ICE activism.

RELATED: LAPD defies Newsom: Chief refuses to enforce mask ban on ICE

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Similar refusals have been reported at hotels and retail locations, including a Hampton Inn-branded property in Lakeville, Minnesota, where ICE agents were denied accommodations and had reservations canceled. That episode drew national attention after Hilton removed the hotel from its brand. The General Services Administration likewise removed it from its federal lodging programs.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was also denied entry to a building in a Chicago suburb earlier this year while attempting to use a restroom, according to DHS officials.

The Speedway video has fueled renewed scrutiny over the line between private business discretion and refusals of service aimed at federal agents performing official duties.

RELATED: Klobuchar running for Minnesota governor on anti-ICE platform

Photo by Jamie Kelter Davis/Getty Images

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Zack Smith said that while private businesses generally control access to their property, singling out law enforcement officers because of their role raises serious ethical concerns.

“It’s shameful conduct to try to penalize men and women who are enforcing federal law,” Smith said. “Even if a business technically has the authority to refuse service, that doesn’t make it right.”

Smith added that similar incidents emerged during periods of unrest following 2020, when law enforcement officers increasingly became symbolic targets of political activism.

Following the Speedway incident, criticism of the convenience store chain spread rapidly online, with calls for consumer boycotts aimed at Speedway and its parent company, 7-Eleven.

7-Eleven and the DHS did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

The Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement have not announced whether further action will be taken.

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

​Ice, Anti-ice, Anti-ice protests, Anti-christian, Police, Ice agents, Politics 

Democrats have worked overtime to demonize and delegitimize the men and women of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — those whom Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz branded as “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo,” Sen. Tina Smith (Minn.) called a “clear and present threat,” Rep. Eric Swalwell (Calif.) dubbed “terrorizing bandits,” and Democrat anchor-baby Rep. Delia Ramirez (Ill.) called a “terror force.”

In addition to Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, and other Democrats threatening lawfare against ICE officers, some radical officials have turned up the heat by suggesting that it may be reasonable to shoot masked federal immigration agents.

‘He is openly calling for people to shoot federal law enforcement.’

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) claimed this week that it would be “justified” to shoot those he characterized as “masked hoodlums.”

“What is really the major problem in this country today is the fascism in our streets, the attacks on American citizens by masked hoodlums,” said Nadler, going off-topic during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday. “If you were attacked by a masked person, you might think you were being kidnapped. You’d be justified in shooting the person to protect yourself.”

“We see people being shot, for what? For driving a car?” he added, possibly referring to Renee Good, an anti-ICE radical who was fatally shot while driving her SUV into an ICE agent. “We see the ICE goons break into people’s homes without a warrant.”

Vice President JD Vance was among the many critics who blasted Nadler over his incendiary remarks, noting, “Jerry Nadler is one of the highest ranking Democrats in the House of Representatives and he is openly calling for people to shoot federal law enforcement.”

“This is despicable behavior from an elected official and I’m sure the leftwing media will cover it extensively,” added Vance.

RELATED: ‘He is no victim’: Sister of man shot by Border Patrol in Arizona tells anti-ICE protesters to stop defending him

Photo by Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images

Stephen Coughlin, an American lawyer and former Joint Chiefs of Staff intelligence analyst, wrote that from a “Counter-State POV, could this be considered ‘open communications’, sanctioning targeted violence against federal officers when conducting their statutory mission? It should be taken as a given that when the far left (Marxist) designates a group as ‘fascist,’ it is the same as putting them on a target list.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton noted, “The Left is murderous.”

According to the Department of Homeland Security, ICE agents faced 68 vehicular attacks, representing a 3,300% increase in such attacks against ICE law enforcement. During the same stretch, Customs and Border Patrol officers faced 114 vehicular attacks.

“Sanctuary politicians with their rhetoric comparing ICE to the Nazi Gestapo, slave patrols, and the secret police and encouraging illegal aliens to evade arrest have incited violence against law enforcement,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement on Tuesday.

“We have seen more than 180 vehicle attacks against law enforcement since President Trump took office,” continued McLaughlin. “In addition to these vehicle attacks, our officers are also facing a more than 1,300% increase in assaults against them and an 8,000% increase in death threats as they risk their lives to arrest murderers, pedophiles, rapists, gang members, and terrorists.”

In an attempt at damage control Tuesday evening, Nadler claimed that he was “not calling on citizens to shoot ICE” but rather “calling on ICE to stop shooting citizens.”

‘It’s kind of a recipe for disaster.’

“ICE is a rogue agency hellbent on terrorizing our neighbors and instilling fear in immigrant communities,” Nadler continued in his non-apology. “They should stop wearing masks, put on a uniform, and start wearing body cameras. Get a judicial warrant, too.”

Nadler’s rationalization of shooting ICE agents greatly resembles that provided by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) in her interview last month with KPNX-TV’s Brahm Resnik.

After alleging that ICE officers are engaged in “thuggish, brutish behavior” and claiming that “real cops don’t wear masks,” Mayes told Resnik with a smile both that Arizona is a “stand-your-ground state” and that “we also have a lot of guns in Arizona.”

“You know, it’s kind of a recipe for disaster, because you have these masked federal officers with very little identification, sometimes no identification, wearing plain clothes and masks, and we have a stand-your-ground law that says that if you reasonably believe that your life is in danger and you are in your house or your car or on your property that you can defend yourself with lethal force.”

Despite the interviewer providing Mayes with ample opportunity to clarify her meaning, the Democrat proceeded to give what appeared to be a retroactive excuse for would-be killers, stating, “How do you know they’re a peace officer?”

“If there’s a situation where somebody pulls out their gun because they know Arizona is a stand-your-ground state, then it becomes ‘did they reasonably know that they were a peace officer?'” said Arizona’s top law enforcement officer.

When Resnik once more pressed her for clarification that she was not “telling folks you have license if you are threatened,” Mayes said, “Well,” and smirked.

“No,” she continued, “but again, if you’re being attacked by someone who is not identified as a peace officer, how do you know?”

Like Nadler, Mayes faced widespread criticism for her comments. Republican Arizona Rep. David Schweikert, for instance, characterized them as “freelancing a scenario where bullets start flying and then shrugging it off as ‘just the law.'”

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

​Immigration and customs enforcement, Ice, Department of homeland security, Dhs, Jerry nadler, Nadler, Congress, Incitement, Violence, Immigration, Ice agent, Illegal aliens, Assassins, Politics 

A white Texas student’s life was turned upside down by a hate hoax perpetrated by a black acquaintance’s mother, Summer Smith, and her lawyer, Kim Cole.

Smith and Cole were at last visited by consequence on Jan. 22, when a Texas judge awarded the student, Asher Vann, $3.2 million in attorneys fees and damages from the duo.

A mother’s hate hoax

Smith, of Plano, Texas, came forward in March 2021 with allegations about her black son’s supposed bullying by a white acquaintance and other classmates.

‘They knowingly and intentionally launched a crusade of false facts, allegations, and narratives to create a social media and public outrage.’

After lobbing various accusations and sharing images of minors from the Plano Independent School District online, Smith held a press conference where she alleged that her then-13-year-old son, SeMarion Humphrey, was subjected to racially charged abuse, forced to drink urine from a plastic cup, shot with BB guns at a sleepover, and threatened so that he would not speak out.

“This is not a prank. This is beyond bullying. You are evil. They are evil,” Smith said at the press conference.

Cole — a lawyer who briefly represented Karmelo Anthony, the man accused of murdering 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a track meet last year — claimed that the supposed abuse at the sleepover was “pre-calculated” and “racially motivated” and alleged further that Humphrey’s peers used racial and “homophobic” slurs against him.

RELATED: ANOTHER Black Lives Matter scam exposed: Oklahoma leader accused of blowing funds on trips, real estate, shopping sprees

Photographer: Angel Garcia/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The duo’s claims were not only gobbled up by Dominique Alexander, the founder of Next Generation Action Network, and other leftist activists who demanded “justice” and marched with the supposed victim but amplified by the liberal media and in a viral petition that secured over 182,000 signatures.

The school district, faced with intense scrutiny after Smith’s press conference, launched an investigation into the matter. The Plano Police Department similarly indicated that it was looking into the matter.

Facing similar pressure, then-Plano Mayor Harry LaRosiliere joined other officials in condemning the alleged “abhorrent behavior” and spoke of the need to “end bullying and racial abuse in our school and certainly in our community.”

The false victim narrative that prompted all this hand-wringing initially proved lucrative for Smith.

With Cole’s help, Smith was able to raise nearly $120,000 on GoFundMe in the name of therapy, private schooling, and “justice for SeMarion.”

The Washington Free Beacon, citing court records, reported that less than $1,000 of the money raised went toward Humphrey’s schooling. The rest was blown on luxuries including dining, travel, beauty products, liquor, cell phones, car payments, rent, and a designer dog.

While Smith raked in the cash, Asher Vann, the white student accused of organizing the alleged attack on Humphrey, was vilified and attacked.

“I was getting death threats from thousands of people on social media,” Vann told the Free Beacon. “People leaked my address and my name. During one of the protests, they walked all the way to my house and threw bricks through my house.”

“It was scary,” continued Vann, whose family apparently often looked after Humphrey. “These were adults, and I was in middle school at the time. Full-grown adults were rushing my house and causing harm to it. What if I was home and they saw me? They could have ripped me from my home and beaten me. It was very scary.”

In addition to bricks and vitriol, Vann was slapped along with some of his friends with criminal charges — charges that a grand jury declined to accept and a Plano Police Department officer admitted last year likely lacked probable cause, the Free Beacon reported.

A father’s justice

Aaron Vann ultimately sued Cole and Smith on behalf of his son, Asher.

The lawsuit accused the duo of:

creating an “outrageously false narrative for the purposes of raising money and garnering attention, at the expense of children’s privacy”; invasion of privacy, noting that Smith and Cole apparently publicized the teen’s name and address “with the express purpose of causing humiliation, public ridicule, and inspiring public hatred and harassment” of the teen; andacting “intentionally and/or recklessly, when they knowingly and intentionally launched a crusade of false facts, allegations, and narratives to create a social media and public outrage designed to torment [Asher] and subject him to intense ridicule, hatred, embarrassment, and fear – all based on facts Defendants knew to be false.”

According to Plano Police Department Officer Patricia McClure’s 2025 testimony cited by the Beacon, the boys attending the sleepover apparently went outside with airsoft rifles and BB guns in search of frogs during a winter storm. Absent any sign of amphibian targets, the boys reportedly took turns shooting one another. Later, they pranked one another.

Vann suggested to the Beacon that there was no ill will between him and Humphrey after the sleepover but that Smith later caught wind of the events and pushed an alternate version in the press.

The case was called to trial in late October, and a jury — which included four black members — found that Smith and Cole effectively blew up Asher Vann’s life with a false narrative.

Judge Benjamin Smith of Texas’ 380th Judicial District Court ruled late last month that for their “intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy” against the young man, Smith and her lawyer must each pay $1,599,000, accruing interest at a rate of 7.5% per annum. The judge also ordered both women to each pay several thousand dollars more for Vann’s attorney fees.

Smith told the Beacon she plans on filing an appeal and maintains that her preferred narrative is the truth. Cole did not return Blaze News’ request for comment.

This is not the Vann family’s first court victory in recent years.

The Vanns took the Plano Independent School District to court after it suspended Asher Vann for three days and placed him in an off-campus disciplinary program for 75 days amid Smith’s hate hoax campaign. In 2022, a U.S. district court found that the district had indeed violated the boy’s substantive due process rights.

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

​Kim cole, Plano, Texas, Summer smith, Asher vann, Aaron vann, Bullying, Prank, Leftism, Racism, Hate hoax, Hoax, Politics 

Helen Andrews recently revived discussion of what she calls the great feminization — the idea that as women come to numerically dominate institutions, those institutions begin to function differently, often badly. Her observations are important and largely correct. What follows is a friendly amendment to her thesis. I agree with much of what she sees, but I think an essential part of the story still needs to be named.

Let’s begin by laying out her argument clearly.

The psychological feminization of institutions preceded the numerical one. Men in power enabled it.

The great feminization thesis

Men and women, on average, tend to behave differently. For our purposes, the key distinction is this: Women tend to prioritize relationships and consensus-building, while men tend to prioritize rules, justice, and abstract principles.

Helen Andrews puts it this way: Women ask, “How do we make everyone feel okay?” Men ask, “What are the rules, and what is just?”

If we borrow a familiar parental analogy: Mothers want children to be happy; fathers want children to behave.

The great feminization thesis makes two claims:

When women numerically dominate an institution — whether a profession, a university, or a bureaucracy — that institution will naturally drift toward more “feminine” priorities.What we now call “wokeness” is simply the institutionalization of those priorities.

From this, Andrews draws a sobering conclusion: If wokeness is driven by demographics rather than ideology, it will not simply burn itself out or be defeated by better arguments.

That observation is serious, largely correct, and incomplete.

Key takeaway #1: Wokeness is not the point — totalitarianism is the point

Anyone who thinks wokeness began in 2020 is already naïve. What we now call wokeness is simply a recycled version of an ideology that has been circulating since at least the 1930s. We have called it communism, socialism, political correctness, multiculturalism — and now wokeness. Same garbage, different label.

The label is not the point. The content is.

These ideologies all promise the impossible: the end of poverty, the end of discrimination, the end of pollution, even the end of viral disease. When people talk this way, look out. They are asking for a blank check — unlimited moral permission to acquire power in pursuit of an unattainable goal.

Doing the impossible requires enormous power. Convincing people that it is not only possible, but a moral duty, requires propaganda. These ideologies don’t work for you or for society as a whole. They work for the people who are trying to accumulate power, while endlessly moving the goalposts.

So worrying about where “wokeness” begins or ends is a distraction. Totalitarian aspiration is the point.

Key takeaway #2: The great feminization is more than numbers

The problems Helen Andrews identifies did not begin when women crossed the 50% mark in any institution. They began much earlier. Which means we cannot diagnose civilizational decline by counting heads alone.

The great feminization is not merely statistical. It is psychological and political.

Consider the case of Larry Summers, forced out as president of Harvard in 2006 after remarks about sex differences in aptitude at the extreme upper end of scientific fields. Importantly, Harvard was not majority-female at the time.

Several prominent women defended Summers. They noted that he was speaking off the record, citing substantial research, and had a long history of supporting women in academia. But those voices did not matter. What mattered were the women who expressed the greatest emotional distress — the ones who said they felt sick or faint.

Someone made a decision to elevate those reactions above truth-seeking and institutional integrity. Someone allowed the public to believe that “insensitivity” was the decisive issue. That decision mattered.

Key takeaway #3: Specific people made specific decisions

Treating wokeness or feminization as an automatic demographic process lets decision-makers off the hook. Institutions did not drift accidentally. People chose to reward grievance, punish dissent, and redefine excellence around emotional display.

Statistical generalizations obscure two crucial facts.

First, bell curves overlap. While men and women differ on average, individuals vary widely. Some women are more analytical than many men; some men more emotional than many women.

Second — and more importantly — no one’s behavior is predestined. The ability to regulate our emotions is a basic requirement of adulthood. Every functioning society expects adults to govern their reactions rather than demand that institutions reorganize themselves around tantrums.

The Yale moment

The 2015 Yale Halloween costume episode provides a clear example. A professor’s wife suggested students “be chill” about costumes. Students were outraged, with some of them having public meltdowns, demanding that Yale prioritize their emotional comfort over free inquiry.

Yale was not majority-female. Feminization alone cannot explain this behavior.

What we witnessed instead was a demand for paternal authority stripped of paternal discipline. “Make us feel safe,” the student insisted — while rejecting the professor’s insistence that other people have rights too.

When you smash the patriarchy, you don’t get freedom and justice. You get a spoiled 2-year-old running the place.

RELATED: Milo Yiannopolous dares to tell the truth about homosexuality

Phillip Faraone/Getty Images

The sexual revolution and power

The psychological feminization of institutions preceded the numerical one. Men in power enabled it.

Businesses gained access to a new labor pool. Elite men rewrote workplace rules in ways that advantaged themselves while disadvantaging male competitors lower down the ladder. Universities institutionalized grievance disciplines. Contraceptive ideology separated sex from responsibility, granting men sexual access without paternal obligation.

Women did not enact these changes alone. Men cooperated — and benefited.

Key takeaway #4: Identity politics is a power-grab

Every wave of identity politics follows the same script: Emotional display replaces argument; disruption replaces persuasion; grievance replaces evidence.

“We are oppressed. You owe us.”

This is not really a moral argument at all. It is a power-grab.

Helen Andrews has done a real service by calling attention to the deep problems that majority-female professions and institutions may present. But we have to go deeper than demographics. We have to be willing to say — calmly, firmly, and without apology — “I don’t care how offended you say you are. You still have to behave.”

Men and women alike benefit from that expectation. And the future of civilization and free institutions really does depend on it.

This essay is adapted from the following video, which originally appeared on the Ruth Institute’s YouTube channel.

​Wokeness, Feminism, Ruth institute, Lifestyle, Politics, Culture