Joe Rogan, host of the world’s most listened-to podcast, openly mocked the former president’s September debate performance while crowning the star turn of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. “She’s…

"This problem is becoming increasingly worse."

Foreign Affairs Germany’s Establishment Conservatives Get Real on Migration Establishment politicians in Berlin scramble to respond to public concerns about illegal immigration, but it is the “far-right” AfD that deserves the real credit. Credit: image via Shutterstock The national debate inside Germany is again fiercely focused on the country’s chaotic border and asylum policies. Conservatives are demanding changes, and Berlin’s far-left ruling coalition, led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz, is reeling. Under pressure, Scholz has agreed to impose new measures on Germany’s national borders to check illegal immigration and undertake some modest deportations of foreign criminals.  As a Social Democrat (SPD), Scholz does not really want to make any changes. When it comes to illegal immigration, Scholz and his ruling coalition in Berlin typically claim that their hands are tied by European Union rules and their own (extreme) interpretation of the German constitution and national laws. The reality is, as with Democrats in Washington, they are also ideologically committed to immigration as a tool to gradually remake society. But they are now scrambling, and the new measures that Scholz reluctantly accepted could open the door to reforms in asylum policies and the return of illegal migrants that have consequences across Europe.  The opposition Christian Democrats (CDU), led by Friedrich Merz, launched a high-profile political effort that pushed Scholz’s shaky coalition to concede to the changes. How much the negotiations between Merz and Scholz represent a calculated insider deal to try to defuse the issue is open to speculation.  Disgruntlement among ordinary Germans caused by asylum-seekers and refugees has been building up for years. State and local authorities are overwhelmed in straining to accommodate more than 3.2 million foreigners. The public’s sense of insecurity is at unprecedentedly high levels, as German communities deal not only with Ukrainians, but many Muslim groups, particularly Afghans and Syrians, hostile to assimilation into Western traditions.  Close to half a million asylum applications are pending. Foreigners who have no right to stay (approaching a quarter of a million) are not compelled to leave the country. The authorities have failed to remove some 80 percent of those under deportation orders. “For every five deportations,” Merz complained, “there are 100 new arrivals.”  Germany’s total numbers are smaller than those in the United States, but the percentages are similar. Like Americans, Germans must endure imported migratory chaos and uncertainty created by a federal government more concerned about the interests of foreigners than its own nationals. The policies that brought it about in Germany are right out of the Biden-Harris asylum playbook: First, admit massive numbers who overwhelm the capacity of federal and local authorities to process, screen, and, as necessary, detain new arrivals. Create a cumbersome legal process that makes rapid adjudication of asylum applications impossible so that backlogs become unmanageable. Offer generous financial subsidies and issue public statements to encourage more to come. Refuse to deport or detain those who are ordered to leave. Denounce opposition politicians and citizens who fight against such irresponsible policies as “extremists” and “racists.”  In August, a Syrian asylum-seeker, under deportation orders that were not implemented, carried out a high-profile terrorist attack in Solingen, a small city in western Germany. The killer-terrorist, who later claimed he was working for ISIS, wielded a knife to murder three and injure eight at a local festival.  For many Germans, the Solingen attacks are part of increasing criminal activity across the country linked to Islamic extremists. Those motivated to carry out terrorist strikes often use knives as their weapons. In responding to the Solingen attack, government officials seriously argued that better knife control was the answer. For many Germans, this ridiculous response highlighted just how out of touch Scholz government officials are in dealing with an illegal migrant problem they created.  As in the U.S., experts in Germany argue much over the question of how much crime can be attributed to illegal migrants. Nevertheless, in one specific category—young foreign-born Muslim men—the statistics indicate, and most Germans believe, they cause crime way out of proportion to their numbers. Even Merz, as he denounced the Scholz government in his recent Bundestag speech, made reference to these problematic young men. The timing of the duel between Merz and Scholz over Germany’s open borders is particularly noteworthy. The issue has been out there for years, and Merz has previously declined to engage at the level of his recent demands. The reason now for all the political fury, speechmaking, and modest policy changes is that both the CDU and the Berlin ruling coalition fear the elephant in the room: the “far-right” Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), whose signature issue for a decade has been border security and immigration.  Recent state elections in Thuringia and Saxony, in which the AfD came in first and second place respectively, continue to rock the country’s political establishment. The AfD is also leading in upcoming state elections in Brandenburg, where German officialdom fears yet another hammer blow. Virtually all of the political parties continue to stand by their pledge to build a firewall around the AfD and refuse to enter into coalition with it. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is still conducting officialdom’s lawfare against the AfD, classifying it as an “extremist” party based on contorted evidence and little due process. Despite it all, polls indicate some 45 percent of CDU members are open to working with the AfD. But Merz, who is cut from the establishment conservative cloth of a Bush Republican, will not have it. “We cannot work with this party,” he announced. “That would kill the CDU. The destruction of the CDU is the goal of the AfD.”  Merz knows the CDU is on thin ice with conservative voters who remember that its last chancellor, Angela Merkel, opened Germany’s border in 2015 to over a million asylum-seekers. And AfD politicians never let voters forget it, a fact that no doubt stands out prominently in CDU internal polling. Presently, the AfD is scoring its high-profile successes in Germany’s eastern states, but it is approaching 22 percent in national polling, making it the second-strongest party in the country. The AfD national leader Alice Weidel could not resist pointing out the flagrant hypocrisy. She reminded voters that when her party called for strong borders and deportations, German officialdom condemned it as pushing “extreme right” and “Nazi” policy. But when such demands come from the CDU, as Merz goes on the attack, the invective against the messenger suddenly ends, and the national debate actually takes up the merits of the policy.  Meanwhile in Berlin, Chancellor Scholz’s coalition, composed of Social Democrats (SPD), Greens, and Liberals (FDP), is politically fragile. On many issues, most prominently federal deficit spending, the ruling “Ampel” or “traffic-light” coalition (so-called because of the colors associated with the three parties—red, green, and yellow) is often dysfunctional. Until now, the SPD, Greens, and FDP had somehow managed to close ranks behind their unpopular border and asylum policies. But that creaky unity appears now to be cracking. The FDP leader Christian Lindner knows his party is in dire straits. Polling indicates the FDP hardly reaches Germany’s 5 percent hurdle, which is the legal threshold required for a political party to enter any state legislature or the national Bundestag.  Lindner also knows his coalition partners’ extremism, particularly from the Greens, on open borders is unsustainable. He has praised Denmark’s model for controlling illegal immigration, which is considered hardline by many in Europe, and he has announced support for more border security: Border controls are to be intensified in order to prevent people smuggling and illegal migration. To ensure that this happens quickly, I have decided that the [border patrol] will support this urgent task with 500 [additional] officials. This is a red flag for Lindner’s partners in the coalition. Since the FDP desperately fears new national elections, it is unlikely that Lindner will crash the coalition over this issue. But it is an indication that Berlin, thanks more to the AfD than Merz, is finally breaking through in forcing some basic rethinking of Germany’s disastrous asylum and border policies.  Scholz’s big concern is that Germany’s new controls, that he has reluctantly authorized, will ultimately wreck the rules of the “Schengen Zone,” which allows free movement across national borders of European member states. But the Schengen Zone’s outer borders are failing to keep out illegal immigrants; without that control, Europe’s internal free-movement concept is doomed. Scholz also worries that a change in German policy could threaten the so-called Dublin Agreement, the European Union’s shaky consensus on processing asylum-seekers. These are all policies that the Europeans need to fundamentally reinvent. Changing Germany on borders will begin to change Europe on borders. Above all, Europe must finally end its foolish asylum concept that constantly attracts illegal economic migrants, mainly young men, from Africa, Eurasia, and the Middle East to its frontiers. A hearty danke schön goes to the AfD. The post Germany’s Establishment Conservatives Get Real on Migration  appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs The Argument for Recognizing the Houthis If we are not going to make a serious contest for naval victory in the Red Sea, we should try to cut a deal. A few facts: Yemen’s Houthis are still harassing shipping and lobbing increasingly advanced missiles at the Israelis to support the Palestinians in the Gaza war. As of this writing, the U.S. has no naval presence in the Red Sea. There’s an amphibious assault group in the Eastern Mediterranean and a carrier group hanging around the Persian Gulf; last week, a second carrier group in the Gulf began its schlep over to the western Pacific, which had spent some weeks under the coverage of two amphibious groups. The British and the French are still making gestures at fighting the Houthis with their own ships, and the Russians are escorting their own shipping through the Sea, but the U.S. has retired from the area, prompting a nasty headline in the British Telegraph, “The Houthis have defeated the US Navy.” The sole spot of good news amid this bleak spread is that the abandoned and burning oil tanker MT Sounion has been towed to safety, and so presumably will not cause an environmental disaster that would make the Exxon Valdez spill look like knocking over the pepper shaker.   Here we leave the facts and enter the world of speculation and the policy that follows in its wake. A Houthi spokesman told an Al Jazeera organ Monday that the U.S. had offered diplomatic recognition of his government, an offer that was declined; anonymous American State Department officials issued stentorian denials characterizing the remark as “a total fabrication” and “misinformation.” (“Misinformation?” Golly, that must be pretty bad.) In short, a ridiculous suggestion. Taking these brave anonymous diplomats at their word, we have to ask the question: Why aren’t we using diplomatic recognition as a bargaining chip? To be sure, we wouldn’t break out the welcome wagon if the Houthis moved into our neighborhood—their prolix and remarkably uncatchy official slogan calls for death to America, death to Israel, and a curse upon the Jews—but Yemen is very, very far away. The main American interest there is keeping the Suez–Red Sea shipping lane open—for our own economic interests, sure, for our maritime hegemony, fine, but also so Egypt, which is propped up by canal fees, doesn’t collapse—and arresting the ongoing regional escalatory spiral from the Israel–Gaza war. The Houthis produce and deploy increasingly sophisticated weapons including maritime drones and, now, hypersonic missiles; despite a decade and change of Saudi- and American-backed bombing and a rolling famine, they control the nation’s capital and a third of its territory.  By my lights, if you’re producing your own weapons and gamely holding on to the capital and a territory the size of a country—one of the countries that was merged to make the modern Republic of Yemen, in fact—you are a state. We should be dealing with the Houthis as we deal with a state, a hostile one, to be sure, but a state nonetheless. In getting states to do what you want them to do (here, ending the harassment of shipping and the attacks on Israel), it is a severe limitation to neglect the diplomatic toolkit and rely solely on force. All the more so when you cannot or will not use force, as is now the case in the Navy-free Red Sea. Perhaps the Houthis are just so itchy to blow up Israelis and set oil tankers on fire that they will decline to bite at any diplomatic carrots, but why should such vegetables be off the table entirely? The Trump administration, for the many flaws of its cowboyish, fly-by-night foreign policy, was willing to cut deals with nasty characters like the Gulf monarchs to pursue American interests in the region and beyond, most spectacularly by the Abraham Accords, but also by the now much-maligned Doha deal with the Taliban and the overtures to North Korea. The sad truth of it is that the U.S., while still the most powerful nation this increasingly shabby planet has ever seen, does have limits; the era of the Highway of Death and unconditional military victories in multiple theaters is over. The naval abandonment of the Red Sea is a tacit acknowledgment of this truth. Do we care more about protecting American interests or about the principle of not dealing with ugly people? The Navy is all but admitting that rebuilding fleet strength in the near future is a fantasy, thanks to the fabulous dysfunction of the military–industrial complex and particularly the shipbuilding sector. Especially as warhawkish eyes drift toward Formosa and the Persian Gulf, an actually serious campaign to secure the Red Sea does not seem to be in the cards; at the same time, the current situation is highly undesirable. After almost 15 years of bombing the problem, and about a month of quietly ignoring it, let’s give some other techniques a spin. The post The Argument for Recognizing the Houthis appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Has Trump Lost the Internet? Joe Rogan’s disparagement of the former president’s debate performance should worry the campaign. Joe Rogan, host of the world’s most listened-to podcast, openly mocked the former president’s September debate performance while crowning the star turn of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. “She’s nailing it,” exclaimed Rogan in response to Harris’s campaign and debate performance. “Whoever’s helping her, whoever’s coaching her, whoever is the puppet master running the strings; f–king amazing job.” “She’s nailing it.” Joe Rogan raves about Kamala Harris’ campaign and debate performance, and he mocks Donald Trump. (Video: The Joe Rogan Experience) pic.twitter.com/tnAWPnZlFM— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) September 17, 2024 Rogan repeatedly teased Trump in the Don’s signature accent during his interview with comedian Tom Segura before comparing Harris’s baiting of Trump in the ABC debate to mastering the art of Jiu Jitsu.  “She was like, ‘If you go to his rallies, his crowds are boring, they’re tired, they’re all leaving early,’ and he’s like, ‘My crowd’s are the best crowds, I have the number 1 crowds.’ He couldn’t help himself!” Rogan, as he has done for the past several years, downplayed left-wing fantasies about Trump being a dictator and highlighted Trump’s success in guiding the American economy during his one term in office.  “He actually was the president for four years, and the economy really did well,” Rogan told Segura. “He really did try to cut some of the bullsh-t down that’s going on in this country. Who knows what would have happened if he had four more years.”  But Rogan’s support for the former president ended there. When tasked with discussing Trump’s performance in 2024, Rogan continued to hammer on the weaknesses of his campaign.  “I know he’s doing mock debates but someone needs to tell him—you’ve got these tiny little windows and you should have all the words ready for those windows,” Rogan remarked. “There should be no repeating things.” The former Fear Factor host bluntly stated that Harris was “better prepared” for last Tuesday’s debate which was widely characterized as a surprise Harris victory by most outside MAGA’s ardent faithful. “The difference in that debate was not ‘who has better policies’ or ‘who’s gonna be better for the country,’” Rogan stated. “The difference in the debate was who was better prepared. She was way better prepared. Even when it came to tough questions, instead of answering she’d just say things she believes and it sounded really good.” Spotify’s $100 million man has continually dodged attempts by Trump to appear on his platform. According to the UFC’s top commentator, Trump has reached out numerous times in an attempt to reach Rogan’s much-desired audience of young males but Rogan has repeatedly turned him away.  “I’m not a Trump supporter in any way, shape or form,” Rogan recently told the podcaster Lex Fridman. “I’ve had the opportunity to have him on my show more than once—I’ve said no, every time. I don’t want to help him. I’m not interested in helping him.” Despite Rogan’s comments and his relentless criticism of Trump’s debate performance, suggestions on ? Tuesday that Rogan had become a “Kamala fanboy” appear to be exaggerated. In episode #2200 of his Joe Rogan Experience, which premiered this August, Rogan expressed his strong opposition to Harris’s stance of censoring free speech on social media.  “She’s saying she wants government oversight and regulation for social media,” Rogan said. “That’s crazy.”  Over the course of more than 2000 episodes, Rogan has interviewed a slew of bipartisan political figures such as Bernie Sanders, Dan Crenshaw, Wesley Hunt, Tulsi Gabbard, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  Speaking with Segura, Rogan praised the Kennedy scion who ditched his independent presidential bid to support Trump in August. “If Trump winds up winning, they’re gonna expose our food systems,” Rogan said in praise of Kennedy and Trump’s pledge to “Make America Healthy Again.” The viral clips of Rogan’s critique will surely frustrate Trump who has overtly attempted, to varying degrees of success, to reach a younger demographic of voters as he seeks another term in the Oval Office. In interviews with Adin Ross, Lex Fridman, the Nelk Boys, the golfer Bryson DeChambeau, and other social-media influencers, Trump has attempted to bridge the age gap with new voters who were non-voting, young adults when Trump first won Pennsylvania Avenue in 2016. Trump has fairly won plaudits for his ability to connect, sincerely, with this cadre of celebrities and talkers. But there have been missteps as well. In a scene reminiscent to Trump’s mispronunciation of the name of rapper “Lil Pump” at a campaign event in 2020, the former president last weekend misgendered Puerto Rican reggaeton artist Nicky Jam during his rally in Las Vegas. Jam deleted his endorsement of the president within 24 hours after Trump said the musician was a “hot woman” moments before the male artist walked on stage. It was just the latest Zoomer faux pax committed by the 78-year-old who is desperate to reach the all-important youth voter base.  Earlier this week, Trump posted “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT” on his struggling Truth Social platform after the pop star and global icon endorsed Harris for president. Swift’s endorsement of Harris was expected but it was Trump’s hateful rhetoric that made international waves in the news.  Even the Trump fan Brittany Mahomes, who ironically is close friends with Swift, and who was shouted out by Trump only weeks ago, said she was “deeply disturbed” by Trump’s venom toward Swift and is now “rethinking” her support of the former president. All the Adin Ross and Lex Fridman interviews in the world can’t move popular opinion quite like a single tweet from the self-described “Catlady” of pop—and Trump knows it.  Rogan’s mockery is unlikely to sway the election, but it does signal a major shift in the 2024 election cycle that has seen Trump go from being characterized as a dangerous strongman to that of a laughingstock who poses no actionable threat to the industrial order that runs Washington, DC. In his debate rant about pets “being eaten” in Ohio, America saw not the iron fist of a fixed man but the crazed ravings of an aging shadow who may believe just about anything Laura Loomer tells him.  If Rogan, who is often snapped smiling with Trump at UFC events, can see the writing on the wall, who can’t? The post Has Trump Lost the Internet? appeared first on The American Conservative.

The following article, Revolver News: Tim Walz’s Crazy Wife Goes VIRAL For Looking And Sounding Like The Wicked Witch Of The West (Video), was first published on Conservative Firing Line. (Natural News) There’s something seriously off with the Walz family. These people aren’t normal—in fact, they might just be the weirdest family in America. Mr. Walz, better known as “Tampon Tim” for his bizarre obsession with giving young boys free tampons, is a chubby, “aww shucks” Marxist. His focus is gender-confused kids, all so he … Continue reading Revolver News: Tim Walz’s Crazy Wife Goes VIRAL For Looking And Sounding Like The Wicked Witch Of The West (Video) ...

An iconic figure... The post Lee “Scratch” Perry’s guide to the cosmos: the master’s religion of dub first appeared on Far Out Magazine.