Vice President Kamala Harris, who has overseen an unprecedented surge of illegal immigration during her time in office, sought to present herself as a border hawk on Friday as she visited the southern border for the first time since being handed the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Beginning her Arizona speech, Harris presented herself as tough on immigration, saying “the United States is a sovereign nation, and I believe we have a duty to set rules at our border and to enforce them.” “And I take that responsibility very seriously,” she added. Harris continued, saying that American is “a nation of immigrants,” and as such pains must be taken to reform the immigration system so that it functions properly and “makes our country stronger.” Despite her recent attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, Harris has presided over an unprecedented flood of illegal immigrants into the United States as vice president. As The Daily Wire reported, more than 10 million people have crossed the border under the Biden-Harris administration, with an estimated 1.7 million illegal immigrant gotaways recorded since President Joe Biden was inaugurated in 2021. This is in contrast to the years 2018, 2019, and 2020 during President Donald Trump’s administration, which reported a total of 415,000 reported gotaways. Harris also visited Trump’s border wall, which in 2019 she called a “medieval vanity project.” In 2020, she said the border wall was a “waste of taxpayer money and won’t make us any safer.” Kamala: “President Trump’s wall is a racist vanity project.” Kamala Harris after looking at her poll numbers on border security: pic.twitter.com/3cLJpdk6oO — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 27, 2024 The vice president added during her Arizona speech that she supports the recent border security bill, a controversial bipartisan plan that faced intense criticism from many Republicans, and would, according to The Heritage Foundation, codify “crisis levels of daily illegal immigration” and make it difficult for a future president to deal with the issue. Harris continued: “On behalf of all, across our nation, who want to see these problems solved, I say, we cannot accept Donald Trump’s failure to lead, we should not permit scapegoating instead of solutions … or rhetoric instead of results.” Despite promises to stand tough on illegal immigration, the Biden-Harris administration ended many Trump administration policies that restricted the flow of immigration into the United States, including the Remain in Mexico policy, Title 42, and Proclamation 9844, among others.

Congratulations to MSNBC's Morning Joe. They actually interviewed outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg for over five minutes on Friday morning without giving in to their natural urge to try to get him to criticize Donald Trump. However, at about the six minute mark they could resist no longer and the Morning Joe tag team of Eugene Robinson and Jonathan Lemire tried to get Stoltenberg to express even minor disapproval of Orange Man Bad. Unfortunately, their attempt not only failed but Stoltenberg praised Trump for getting NATO allies to pay their fair share of the costs. First up at bat was Eugene Robinson.   EUGENE ROBINSON: Mr. Stoltenberg, what is the level of trepidation about the U.S. election, and how is that being seen in the NATO countries? JENS: STOLTENBERG: Well, of course, NATO allies watch the elections in the U.S., as everyone else, but I expect that regardless of who is elected as president in November, the United States will remain a strong and committed ally, partly because it is the U.S. security interest to have a strong NATO. the United States has not gone to war alone since the Korean War, you’ve always gone to war together with NATO allies. That makes it stronger. You have something China and Russia doesn’t have, and that’s more than 30 friends and allies, good for the United States. Second, there’s strong bipartisan support in the United States for NATO in the Congress, but also among the voters, according to all the opinion polls. And thirdly, the criticism from the United States and also from former President Trump has not mainly been against NATO. It has been against NATO allies not spending enough on NATO, and that was right, but that has changed because a few years ago, very few allies spent 2%, now many allies are spending much more than 2%, and the U.S. is no longer the biggest spender based on GDP or a share of the GDP. Poland and the Baltic countries are spending more share of the GDP than the United States. So this has really improved the burden sharing within the alliance. Drat! Stoltenberg praised Trump for getting NATO allies to act with fiscal responsibility in sharing the financial burden of that organization. Well, perhaps Jonathan Lemire can squeeze a Trump critique out of Stoltenberg with a more direct and heavy-handed approach. JONATHAN LEMIRE: So, you are right, Mr. Secretary General, that former President Trump was a big advocate on allies to spend more, but he also, as you well know, has been rather deferential to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, throughout his political career. What is your level of concern that if Trump were to win again, that he would abandon Ukraine and he would give Putin at least some measure of a victory there in Ukraine? JENS STOLTENBERG: “Well, again, I expect that the United States, regardless of who is the president, see what is in the security interest of the United States. And if President Putin wins in Ukraine, it’s a tragedy for the Ukrainians, but it’s dangerous for us. It will send a message to President Putin that when he violates international law and he uses military force, he gets what he wants. That’s also closely watched in Beijing, so it will send a message to all the authoritarian powers, including China, that using force, then they get what they want. What happens in Ukraine today could happen in Asia tomorrow. It was clearly stated, for instance, by the Japanese prime minister said recently. And it’s not for me to speak on behalf of any of the candidates, but I just know that when I worked with former President Trump, we had the issue of Javelins, and he actually stepped up the military support too Ukraine and provided Javelins. So, well, it is in the U.S. security interest to ensure that European allies and the United States enable Ukrainians to stop the Russian invaders, and I expect that to be the position of our elections. Morning Joe signed off with that and you could almost hear a sad trombone signaling mission NOT accomplished.

First Kamala Harris drew a softball interview from MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle. Then her husband apparently drew a softball interview from MSNBC's Jen Psaki, who served as White House press secretary for Biden, and Harris. They previewed part of the interview on Andrea Mitchell Reports on Friday. In it, Psaki cued up Emhoff to denounce Donald Trump.  The Democrats have pounced on Trump claiming the Jews could be the difference if he loses again. "In my opinion, the Jewish people would have a lot to do with a loss if I’m at 40%. If I’m at for– think of it. That means 60% are voting for Kamala, who in particular is a bad Democrat. The Democrats are bad to Israel. Very bad." Trump also promised to be the best friend Israel's ever had and promised to fight antisemitism. None of that context is going to make MSDNC.  They didn't show a Psaki question before Emhoff teed off.  “What really bothered me a week or so ago is when Trump got up there at an event purporting, an event purporting to fight antisemitism and he said vile antisemitic things long tropes that are just terrible, and we have to speak out every single time when something like that happens,” Emhoff said. “So I’m going to continue not to be afraid, not to be intimidated, not to live in fear, but to live openly and proudly as a Jewish person.” PSAKI: When you hear him say things like that, and he said that if he doesn’t win, it will be essentially the fault of Jewish Americans — EMHOFF: Blame the Jews, one of the oldest tropes.” PSAKI: An old trope, I know you put out a statement on X at the time. Do you worry that he’s putting a target on the backs of Jewish Americans? EMHOFF: He is. I mean, take him at his word. He lies about a lot of things, but you’ve got to take him at his word on things like this. S so yeah, this is a disgusting trope, this so-called dual loyalties. It’s an outrage and it’s not just Jewish people that should be outraged. So on MSNBC, they're never responsible for "putting a target on the back of Donald Trump" with their constant denunciations, but Trump complaining he should get a higher share of the Jewish vote is dangerously antisemitic.

He’s got the curls. The chain. The threads. And now, increasingly branded an enemy by the movements on the left and right alike, Zuck has come out (in rather premeditated fashion) as a libertarian. Will it finally allow him to slip the noose of bad press, dissident suspicion, and persecution at the hands of the regime that still blames him for Trump’s victory in 2016?Stranger things have happened, but there are pitfalls. Long the refuge of people too cool to be conservative and too intelligent to be liberal — and those who hoped to be seen that way — libertarianism began a long leftward drift in the Obama years, leading skeptics to slap resultant squishes with the unflattering neologisms “libertarian” and “libertarian.” Once lauded as the youthful face of the new American golden age of social media-powered global uplift, someone seen as a probable presidential candidate himself, the buzzsaw of the early Trump years led to what I continue to believe was a decision by top Democrats and the Deep State left to punish him for 2016 until he broke.Part of the reason for the liberty-forward movement’s retreat into “personal preferences” (read: sexual kinks) was the sheer defeat of the conservative movement in the wake of the George W. Bush administration’s disastrous turn toward neoconservatism. But another factor at work was the aging out of the so-called paleolibertarians, typically cantankerous and decidedly uncool intellectuals who warned that abandoning the political insights of the Anti-Federalists and Southern Agrarians would lead to the collapse of the Republic into an ever more post-American empire. Today, in the face of bitter experience, the reputation of paleolibertarianism has been rehabilitated. Its most charismatic and articulate exponent, Pat Buchanan, inspires admiration in relatively young men on the right who consider his traditional piety, anti-imperialism, and fight against the Bush wing of the party well ahead of the curve we find ourselves on today. The affable but strident Buchanan made “the culture war” a household concept; his friendliness with literary renegades on the freedom-loving left like Hunter S. Thompson and Norman Mailer held out the dazzling prospect of a national political realignment that never really materialized until Donald Trump brought RFK Jr. onstage a few weeks ago. Tech bro politics ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - FEBRUARY 17: Mark Zuckerberg is seen at UFC 298 at Honda Center on February 17, 2024 in Anaheim, California. (Photo by Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images)But in the meantime, another phenomenon altogether has reshaped the libertarian brand and identity: the rise of the tech bro. Often diametrically opposed to the anti-progressive Buchananite agenda, the tech bro has gravitated toward the idea that the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution has been more or less obsolesced by circumstances, replaced by a kind of plebiscitarian democracy that stands in the way of the vast scientific and mechanical transformations that make growth possible and life worth living. For the average tech bro, both conservatism and communism converge on an irrational and ultimately self-destructive fetish with the status quo; the state, whatever its ideological fashion, is at best a tool of leverage — never to be trusted for spiritual authority but presumed guilty of scheming to hoard power, control money, and punish divergent or revolutionary thought and action. All told, as one ex-Big Techer recently told me, tech bro libertarianism is “a very different breed” from that of the movement’s official Beltway representatives in the Cato Institute and elsewhere, which have proven almost totally unable to seize and wield political power in Washington. On the other hand, the kind of libertarianism Zuck wants to be associated with has some liabilities of its own. Enemies on the left focus on what they see as the brand’s twin evils of anti-democratic anti-statism while critics on the right identify it with “right-leaning pederast[s], crypto gamblers and all sorts of junkies,” as one X pseud put it, concluding that “if the suit fits, let him wear it.” Fair or unfair as all the grumbling may be, the clearest clue to the future of Zuckertarianism is probably Zuck’s singular personal experience itself. Once lauded as the youthful face of the new American golden age of social media-powered global uplift, someone seen as a probable presidential candidate himself, the buzzsaw of the early Trump years led to what I continue to believe was a decision by top Democrats and the Deep State left to punish him for 2016 until he broke. To me, at least, it’s just difficult to look at Zuck’s experience over the past eight years — the Frances Haugen op against Facebook, which helped force Zuck to pivot prematurely into the hugely lame and undercooked metaverse, even unto rebranding his company Meta; at the annihilation of Facebook’s news feed and support for political content; at the extraction of massive Zuckerbucks to “fortify” the 2020 election; and at the continuing federal antitrust lawsuit against Facebook for acquiring WhatsApp and Instagram, despite the Obama administration having rubber-stamped just about every merger and acquisition that crossed its regulatory desk — and not see a coordinated effort to torment the Zuck until he broke. Well, try as they might, that didn’t happen. Somewhat like Trump, Zuck looks better than his pre-persecution self, and on the inside, it’s not difficult to sense the marks of trial and tribulation. He has gotten out from under the branding burden of Facebook and the metaverse, and he’s got a loooooooong natural life ahead of him.His renaissance seemed natural until he let slip the engineered character of it all, leading at least some techworld people to roast him for it. But he has the juice to take the hit and keep on trucking — a rare quality in this moment, one that money still can’t always buy. There’s not really been anyone quite like Zuck. But his vertiginous ups and downs are familiar to any student of more or less great men, and, if anything, his out-and-proud libertarianism probably signals most of all that an ideological commitment to taking in stride whatever laughs and arrows come his way, come what may.

Things in Warframe are about to get wild. The upcoming questline 1999 is set to bring players back in time to a simpler, better era. If you’re nostalgic for the ‘90s, love grungy aesthetics, or just want to spend time riding around on a frankly too-cool Atomicycle, then Warframe 1999 is going to be the chapter you’ve been looking for. You won’t have to wait too much longer either, as for the first time Digital Extremes is letting players get a teaser of the action before it officially releases. Continue reading You can play Warframe 1999 before it launches thanks to upcoming demo MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Warframe on Steam Deck, Warframe builds, Warframe codes

As a new Warframe player, Koumei and the Five Fates is the update I've been waiting for. Overhauling some of the more frustrating parts of the onboarding experience, while simultaneously adding a swathe of new Japanese-inspired content, it's exactly what I needed ahead of the highly anticipated Warframe 1999. From new frame Koumei to the Caliban rework, there's a lot to unpack. Continue reading Next Warframe update is coming very soon, and Caliban is free for two weeks MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Warframe on Steam Deck, Warframe builds, Warframe codes