Japan raises fee for permanent residency in effort to control immigration.

 

File photo of Japan. BBC/Getty. 

Japan has raised the fee for permanent residency in an effort to control immigration. BBC. The price has increased 20 times to $1270. Permanent residences will also meant new income, pension and Japanese language requirements. The visa hike is the first in 50 years. Immigration is a hot-button issue in Japan as the country tries to balance an aging population with a labor shortage. Japan's foreign born population was at 4.12 million, a 9.5% increase in 2025. 

My Comment:

As one of the last homogonous Western countries, it is nice to see Japan taking steps to preserve their country from unlimited immigration. This means that Japan will probably have a much brighter future than most Western countries, barring a huge war with China or some act of God. 

Indeed, these restrictions seem like common sense to me. Folks have to pay to play and if they don't they can't stay. They have to work while they are in Japan and make a decent amount of money while doing it and they also have to contribute to pension funds. And, they have to speak the language too! It's like a wish list for what we should have here in America. 

Japan also seems to realize that bringing in millions of people that don't respect the local culture and act however they want is a bad thing. Japan does have a labor shortage, mostly due to an aging population, but the solution to that is not immigration. Some immigration is being allowed but the path the citizenship is hard to attain and citizenship is based on blood, not soil. 

So why are they restricting things now? In short, some of the migrants brought in under the previous administration were not well behaved. Japan has seen a minor uptick in crime, but the source has been migrants. And there have been several high profile incidents of foreigners acting terribly, be they immigrants or immigrants, and that led to the conservative government getting into power and restricting things. Imagine that, a problem arises and the voters elect people to deal with it! It's not just crime, it's the fact that a lot of these people were not fitting in with Japan's culture of respect and cleanliness. 

This new fee structure probably won't do a whole lot. The new restrictions and fees will make it a little harder for less desirable folks to get in while still allowing a few people in to help with the labor shortage. And those people won't automatically become citizens. It might not be a permanent solution for Japan but it's a lot better than what we are doing here in the United States. 

Attempted hijacking foiled by passengers and crew.

 

Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu hugs Yaniv Hayoun still covered in blood. New York Post/GPO.

An attempted hijacking on a Flydubai flight out of Dubai was foiled by passengers and crew. New York Post. The captain of the flight, Smit Machchhar, an Indian national, was attacked and stabbed by his copilot. Machchhar was able to alert his crew that he was under attack. He unlocked the cabin and allowed civilians to help subdue the copilot. One of those passengers, Yaniv Hayoun, an Israeli plumber, helped subdue the attacker as he was pounding on the control panels. He and other passengers were able to subdue the copilot. Hayoun was then able to pull the plane out of a dive due to watching the program Mayday (Air Crash Investigations in the United States). The pilot was able to help at that point and two off-duty pilots were able to land the plane. Hayoun then met with Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu still covered in blood. 

My Comment:

This was a very serious incident and it could have, at the very least, resulted in the deaths of everyone on the plane. The copilot was attempting to sabotage the plane and it was diving. If it weren't for the actions of the pilot, Smit Machchhar and the passengers, including Yaniv Hayoun, this plane would have been destroyed. 

What isn't clear is if this was an attempt to just destroy the plane or if it was an attempt to pull off a 9/11 style attack on Israel itself. Given the circumstances of this incident I am guessing the first scenario is more likely. Given that he was smashing the controls, I am guessing the copilot simply wanted to crash the plane in the Saudi Arabian desert. 

A 9/11 style ramming attack isn't impossible though. It could be that was the copilots original plan but it was disrupted by the pilot, who managed to unlock the cockpit. At that point his plot may have been foiled, and much like United Airlines Flight 93, tried to put the plane on the ground to at least accomplish something. Thankfully that did not come to pass. 

This is pretty clearly an attack on Israel and Israeli citizens. The majority of people on the flight were Israelis returning from Dubai and there is little doubt in my mind that that was the entire point. I doubt that there is going to be any other motive for this attack. 

What is unclear is if the copilot had any help. My guess is that this was a lone wolf attack and one that did not have any involvement with a wider terror network. I am guessing he may have been radicalized online at worst, but this was probably his plan and he didn't get any help.  

Regardless of his actual plan or his alignment to any terror groups, what is clear is that the passengers and crew were heroes here. All of them had to act to save themselves and stop this attack. There were multiple points of failure here that were avoided. 

First, the pilot had to survive long enough to open the door and alert the crew. Then the passengers, along with Hayoun, had to fight and subdue the attacker. Finally, there had to be pilots on board to actually land the plane as I doubt Machchhar would have been able to do so at that point. I do hope that the pilot makes a full recovery from his wounds too, he's a hero, along with the people that fought and the pilots that took over. 

The "Cornel 7" case has erupted on social media. But the case was not brought before now for a good reason.

 

Cornel University. Reason.

A sexual assault case in New York at Cornel University has erupted on social media, but are folks rushing to judgement? Reason. The case shares similarities to other cases than turned out to be false, like the Duke Lacrosse scandal and the UVA case that appeared in Rolling Stone before being retracted. The Jane Doe in the case now alleges that she was gang raped at a frat party. However, charges were not brought when the incident was reported in 2024 as it did not reach the level of criminal activity due to New York's standards on intoxicated sex. According to the original prosecutor, Jane Doe's statement did not allege any non-consensual action. In the statement she said she was involved in two separate threesomes. She originally claimed that neither the sex or the use of alcohol and ketamine was non-consensual and under New York law, that would not be sexual assault. However, Jane Doe filed a lawsuit this year saying that the acts and drug use were not consensual and the investigation has been reopened. 

The statement from the District Attorney can be found here.

Sunny Hostin, a former sex crimes prosecutor, actually defends the Cornell 7. She argues that under New York State law, the girl consented and that the media is "reporting this story inaccurately. I think they're reporting it unfairly."
"The pictures of these young men who have… pic.twitter.com/ZbnJpS8G6R

— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) September 29, 2026

My Comment:

There's a lot to unpack with this case. The first is the dueling narratives that are in place right now, the second is the actual legal standard. We will start with the legal standard first as that explains much of the controversy. 

New York has a fairly strange law when it comes to consent. Most states have a stricter standard where if you attempt to have sex with someone who is intoxicated to the point of incapacitation (to the point where they are not in control of their actions) is considered rape/sexual assault. However, New York, and several other states, have different standard. 

Under New York law, if the intoxication is voluntary, it is not sexual assault. You could still be charged if the person passed out or was completely incapable, but that wasn't alleged in the 2024 report. Jane Doe's statement was that she consented to both the sex and drugs and that she wasn't incapacitated. Given New York's standard it is little surprise that the men were not charged for a crime. Under New York law, no crime was committed based on the original allegations. 

Much of the outrage about this case is folks not understanding the law. Indeed, Jane Doe herself seemed to not understand it either, given that she made the report. You can argue that the New York Standard should not be what it is, but what you can't argue is that given the sworn statement and the law of the state, this was not a rape. 

Of course, that doesn't mean that the case is open and shut. The woman has now amended her statement to say that she did take drugs against her consent. If that can be proven in court, then a conviction would be likely under New York Law. 

However, with the evidence now, I doubt there is going to be a conviction. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that corroborates Jane Doe's statement, like forensic evidence, a statement from a witness or video or other recording of the event. Such evidence could be found, of course, but without it, there is no way that this case reaches the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". 

That's the legal situation, but this is a political story. There are, of course, two dueling narratives. The first one is the feminist "believe all woman" narrative that says we should believe Jane Doe, the men involved are all monsters and that this is proof that white males involved in Greek Life should all be treated as potential rapists (never mind that not all of the accused are white). 

The second narrative is that this case is, at best, a mess, and, at worst, basically blood liable. This narrative suspects that Jane Doe had a lot of kinky sex that she enjoyed and ended up regretting it after she became the "girl at Cornel that likes drug fueled orgies". She's now lying to save face and reputation. The case also has similarities to other cases that have been used by the left politically, including the Duke Lacrosse case, the UVA Rolling Stone story, and the accusations against President Trump and Justice Kavanaugh. 

These two narratives are now battling it out online, another chapter in the gender war which has gotten exceptionally vicious this year. The Lindsay Clancy case damaged things quite a bit, and it is affecting the battle over this case as well. This battle will probably make things worse. 

What is my take? I'm skeptical and fairly disgusted. There are a lot more important things than a single controversial criminal case. Honestly, this isn't an important case legally and the outcome before was fair. The men in this case were not angels and they should and were punished for the drug use if nothing else. But I also don't think, under New York Law, there is any criminal liability and I am afraid it's going to turn into a witch hunt. I really don't like that the men in this case are having their names and pictures blasted across the internet while Jane Doe is still a Jane Doe when they haven't had a chance to defend themselves in court. 

What really angers me about this case is that both the dueling narratives are damaging, regardless of their truth. Women are going to think that men are rapists and men are going to think that women will just falsely accuse them of rape. You can argue until you are blue in the face which narrative is right or wrong, but in either case, its going to make it even more difficult for folks to get together. 

And I am on record as saying the problems men and woman are having getting together is one of the most dangerous things happening in the United States today. Historically, it's not a good thing when millions of men and women are single, especially the men. That's a recipe for revolution and warfare and this story is not going to help things. 

With that being said, I am open to new evidence. If someone corroborates Jane Doe's statement, or some physical evidence is found, I could be convinced that a crime occurred. Sometimes that happens, like the Ahmaud Arbery case. In that case it seemed like an open and shut case of self defense, but evidence was eventually released that showed he was hit by a car while fleeing, which nullified the claims of self defense. I don't think such an outcome is likely in this case, but it's early enough that a break in the case is possible. 

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders ignites firestorm after add depicting white males as lazy welfare recipients.

 

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Fox News/Getty. 

Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders has ignited a firestorm after an advertisement depicting white males as lazy welfare recipients. Fox News. The ad, made to promote a policy that requires work for welfare, stars a white male named "Brad". Brad is depicted as a lazy video game playing loser gorging himself on junk food. However, he was also depicted as white, which does not match the demographics of welfare recipients at all. The advertisement caused immediate backlash, with Sanders seemingly not understanding the reaction. Many conservatives said the ad was both inaccurate and tone deaf and questioned the intelligence of insulting a group that is a major GOP demographic.

 

You pay taxes to cover welfare for people who just choose not to work. That’s why I launched a welfare-to-work requirement.

If you’re young, healthy, and get government assistance, you should work, go to school, or volunteer. pic.twitter.com/M83nxNMdry

— Sarah Huckabee Sanders (@SarahHuckabee) September 28, 2026

My Comment:

I know there are some people that are theorizing that the GOP is purposely trying to tank the midterms and though I don't think that is what is happening here, I certainly get the argument. For a sorta of younger white male who likes to play video games during my time off work, this seemed like a direct middle finger towards me and if I was in Arkansas I'd at least consider not voting for Sanders because of it. I can't think of an advertisement which has played worse for me, and, given the reaction online, I don't think I am alone. 

The obvious problem is that young white males are about the least likely group to ever be on welfare. There are a few, obviously, but the numbers are extremely small given the actual demographics of government assistance. Most government assistance goes to women, minorities, children and the elderly. And young men? The ones that work are the ones paying for it. But Sanders took the cowardly way out, depicting "Brad" as a White Male instead of a Black female or immigrant from some random country.  And Sanders isn't the first person in the GOP to do this, other people, like Speaker of the House Johnson and Congressman Bobert, have said similar things about young men being lazy and playing video games, but saying it's White folks. 

And that's assuming young men can get jobs at all. A lot of noise was made about the fact that almost all of the new jobs under President Trump have gone to women. And there is still the simmering issue of H1B visas and illegal immigration taking jobs that would otherwise go to young men (and not just young White men, Blacks and Hispanics are getting screwed by this too). Though the economy is strong, that hasn't translated into good jobs for young men, and even when those jobs are available they have to compete with much of the world to get them. And that's not even counting the fact that HR departments are using AI to filter out applicants before they even get a chance to interview! 

What is more is how tone deaf it is for trying to get out the vote. The winning message in 2024 was that the economy was rigged against young White Men (and men in general) and that the GOP was going to be the party to fix it. Though efforts have been made by the Trump administration, and things are better than they were, the popular sentiment is that not enough has been done to help the demographic that helped the party win. Indeed, many folks are genuinely angry that the Trump administration has focused so hard on foreign policy, and I have to agree, even though I generally approve of Trump's foreign policy. 

So what is the message here? Young White Males are video game addicted losers that are scamming everyone else? How is that any different from what the Democrats are saying? The whole point of putting the GOP into office is to stop that message and offer something else, jobs, money and respect, that the Democrats refuse to give them. But we got the exact opposite from Sarah Huckabee Sanders. 

I do think that ever since the assassination of Charlie Kirk the GOP has had a major messaging problem for young people. Kirk was young enough and talked to enough young people to understand that young men are in trouble and need help, not a lecture. Though this ad might have happened regardless, I do think that Kirk would have been able to talk a lot of young men angry about this ad off the ledge and get them out to vote. But he's dead and I don't know if anyone in the GOP has the perspective he had, let alone the voice. 

So who was Sanders making this ad for? My guess is Boomers. Despite essentially all being on welfare, as what else could Social Security and Medicare be called, Boomers have as their generational story that they were the folks that worked hard. The younger generation? They are all lazy takers, despite the fact that they are the ones paying into those programs now in the first place, even though most of them believe they won't ever get the benefits that the Boomers are getting now. Given how red of a state Arkansas is, it might even work for Sanders, she doesn't need young people when the GOP has a lock on Boomers (and Silents and Gen X to a lesser degree). This kind of ad is catnip for them. But  I don't think she seems to understand or care that a short term gain for her is doing permanent damage to the Republican Party.

What message would be better? Almost anything really, but I know what I want to hear from the Republican Party is something like this: "We love and respect young White Males and know that you folks are working hard to make this country great again. We want to ensure that you won't be discriminated against and want to make sure you can succeed. We know you don't want a handout, but a fair chance to get a good job, a good home and a good wife and we want to get rid of the obstacles that the Democrats have put into place to stop you". Why that isn't the message for the 2026 midterms, instead of the slop we are getting from people like Sanders is beyond me. 

UK police disrupt major terror plot targeting RAF Fairford.

 

A B1B Lancer stationed at RAF Fairford. AP. 

A major terror attack on an airbase in the UK has been disrupted thanks to a vigilant citizen. AP. The attack would have involved three vehicles with explosives targeting RAF Fairford, a base used by the United States military. The base has been used to launch attacks against Iran and has several Air Force B1B Lancer bombers. Five men were arrested after a citizen say them wearing masks and driving towards the base. Police arrested them and bomb disposal units were called. It is unclear who is responsible for the plot, though Iran is largely seen as the most likely suspect after they declared bases like RAF Fairford to be legitimate military targets. 

My Comment:

This was a serious plot and if it wasn't for someone calling the cops on these guys, it may have succeeded. The attackers had explosives and they may have been able to blow the gate into the base and once that happened, they could have targeted the bombers or their hangers. And, even worse, they could have detonated the bombs in the town itself if the operation failed.  

I have no question that the B1B Lancers were the main targets. The US Air Force only has 45 B1B's, though they could probably reactivate a few that are currently mothballed. Losing even one of those to a terror attack would be devastating, let alone a few. Plus this attack could have knocked out the base for awhile too, meaning that any further strikes on Iran would be difficult. But losing any B1B's, let alone as many as a full squadron would be devastating. The type is slowly being replaced by the B21 Raider, but barely any of those have been built. 

So who was responsible for this attack? I would say that it's almost certainly Iran. Iran said this base was a legitimate target and they are absolutely capable of carrying out an attack like this. The suspects were described as Middle Eastern, and they absolutely have a motive to destroy as many B1B Lancers as they could. 

Iran isn't the only suspect though. I guess this could have been a terror organization like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. But I don't really see that being likely. Those terror groups go for civilian targets for the most part and are more about causing casualties, not degrading capabilities like this attack was. I also doubt it was the Russians. Though Russia is capable of this kind of attack and they have some ethnicities that could conceivably be described as "Middle Eastern", they don't really have a reason to attack an Air Force base. Indeed, trying to escalate the Ukraine war by targeting a base that isn't really a threat to them seems idiotic to me, and I don't think the Russians are that stupid. 

This attack was not a justifiable one, assuming Iran was the attacker. For one, the UK isn't really a party to the war and launching an attack on an airbase would be an act of war. The attackers also committed perfidy by not wearing uniforms and wearing civilian outfits. The target itself, the bombers and crew at the base, may have been valid targets, but this was not a valid attack. Indeed, had it succeeded, it may have drawn the UK into the war directly, though you never can tell with the current state of the UK. 

Either way, if it is proven that this was an Iranian attack, it will likely draw a response, perhaps from the very bombers that were the targets of this attack. It also means that a peace deal, already a longshot before the midterms, is probably dead for some time. Keep in mind, Iran reopened negotiations last week, to launch this attack while that is happening is not going to play well at all diplomatically. A new round of strikes isn't guaranteed, indeed, we don't even know Iran is responsible at this point. But I do think they are more likely now than they were before.