Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (200709)	7/11/2017 12:30:12 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	2 Recommendations Recommended By isopatch TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

lol spitting coffee

To: TideGlider who wrote (200709)

7/11/2017 1:25:33 PM

From: FJB

2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Investor Clouseau
TideGlider

Respond to of 224749

Retired Border Patrol Agent: Things Are Looking Up, Enforcement-Wise
VDARE
Paul Nachman July 10, 2017

Mostly heartened by Federale’s blog entry here today [ Sabotage Confirmed, Deep State Operatives In ICE Fighting Trump–The Good News Is ICE Says No Illegals “Exempt From Arrest Or Removal”], I emailed the link to Kermit Liebel, a retired immigration-enforcement agent I know who lives near Helena, Montana. I’d previously introduced Mr. Liebel here at VDARE shortly after the election, as follows:

Kermit Liebel, who’s treasurer of the Fraternal Order of Retired Border Patrol Officers —not to be confused with the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers— … now lives in Montana. Mr. Liebel retired from the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] in 1994, following seven years’ service in its Border Patrol division and 23 years in Investigations, including time spent in California, metropolitan Chicago, Montana, and Alaska. Of course, he’s free to speak now, and he keeps close track of what’s happening in his old shops.

(The INS, along with the Coast Guard and several other federal agencies, became part of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002.)

Regarding the conditions in ICE and the Border Patrol, Mr. Liebel told me by phone (Monday, November 14, 2016) that “Morale is extremely low. The turnover rate is very high, despite the jobs being well-paid.”

[ With Trump Elected, Immigration Enforcers Breathe A Collective Sigh Of Relief, November 16, 2016]

After sending him the link to Federale’s blog post, I followed up by phone with Mr. Liebel. He enthusiastically told me that he’d attended the Fraternal Order’s annual meeting in May, held this year in San Diego. The retirees were given a tour of the border locally and briefed on the state of affairs by active Border Patrol personnel.

The agents’ morale, Mr. Liebel said, is now “very, very high. … They’re doing a lot of enforcement. It’s a 180-degree turn from the Obama administration to the Trump administration. And they’re no longer bringing them in the front door and releasing them out the back door [i.e. setting them loose into the U.S. interior].”

He added that Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE]—separate from the Border Patrol—has arrested over 16,000 aliens with standing orders of removal [aka “deportation”] nationwide since the turn of the year. Most of these have been aliens with criminal convictions aside from any immigration violations. (Note that Lawful Permanent Residents who commit crimes are also subject to removal in some cases.) And there’s a task force that’s focused on arresting gang members such as those of MS-13.

Given that there were close to a million illegal aliens with final orders of removal as of May 2016 [ ICE: 950,000 illegals with ‘removal orders’ free, raids get just a sliver, by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner, February 20, 2017], 16,000 getting snared over five to six months isn’t a big haul, relatively speaking. But if the administration remains committed to enforcement and this is well-publicized, it’s a good bet that “ attrition through enforcement” will kick in, big-time—seeing the handwriting on the wall, significant numbers of deplorable deportables will begin leaving on their own, rather than constantly looking over their shoulders and worrying about getting nabbed. (To the amusement of the clueless, Mitt Romney called this “self-deportation.”)

Having enforcement officers back to being enthused about their work is important, too. For there’s a L O N G way to go, and the many branches of America’s depraved political class will continue actively monkey-wrenching the historic American nation’s fight for survival in the face of massively-unwanted immigration. (Example from the Oregon branch of our depraved political class: the malign doings of their legislature, nicely summarized by Oregonians For Immigration Reform.)

To: TideGlider who wrote (200709)	7/11/2017 1:29:41 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Respond to of 224749

Excerpt: vdare.com Its ranking was determined by counting the number of fatalities in each country. Syria had 50,000, Mexico second with 23,000, Iraq with 17,000, Afghanistan 16,000, Yemen 7,000. [ Report: Mexico was second deadliest country in 2016 by Elizabeth Roberts, CNN, May 10, 2017] The Mexican government objected to the report, disputing the number of fatalities and asserting that the Mexican situation was not comparable to that of other countries. Two days after Trump’s tweet, CNN ran a more nuanced article asking, Is Mexico the world’s second most dangerous country, as Trump says? That depends [by Jeanne Bonner, June 24, 2017]. “If you go with raw numbers, Trump is right”, writes Bonner, but “based on population, Mexico is right”. To complicate matters further, IISS itself subsequently issued a statement: One of the findings that attracted attention and debate centered on the figures for Mexico, which placed the country second in terms of total estimated armed-conflict fatalities in 2016. We accept there was a methodological flaw in our calculation of estimated conflict fatalities that requires revision. Our researchers are working to rectify this and we will share the results in due course. We anticipate this will result in Mexico’s conflict remaining among the ten most lethal in the world, by estimated fatalities attributable to an armed conflict. [ IISS statement on 2016 Mexico conflict fatalities, IISS Press Release, June 23, 2017] The statement also pointed out “The Armed Conflict Database and Survey do not measure homicides on either an absolute or per capita basis. We estimate deaths directly related to conflict. We do not provide an assessment of the levels of violence in any country.” The difficulty is determining which murders are related to the drug war and which are unrelated to the drug war. But both types of murder are still murder. For murder rates in Latin America and the Caribbean, a good source is the InSight Crime website, which on January 16 2017 published InSight Crime’s 2016 Homicide Round-up [by David Gagne]. According to that source, here are the ten most murderous countries (per capita) in Latin America and the Caribbean. El Salvador, 81.2 per 100,000. Venezuela, 59 per 100,000 (but probably higher). Honduras, 59 per 100,000. Jamaica, 50 per 100,000. Guatemala, 27.3 per 100,000. Brazil, 25.7 per 100,000. Colombia, 24.4 per 100,000. Puerto Rico, 20 per 100,000. Mexico, 16.2 per 100,000 Dominican Republic, 15.8 per 100,000. The 2016 murder rate in the U.S.: 5.3 murders per 100,000 people–with a big jump due to the “Ferguson Effect”. [ The Murder Rate Jumped Again In 2016. A Handful Of Cities Are Largely Responsible., by By Ryan J. Reilly, Huffington Post, April 18, 2016] So Mexico doesn’t have the highest murder rate in Latin America but it’s still in the top ten and its rate is over three times higher than the American murder rate. Note that Puerto Rico, which some want to make a U.S. state, has an even higher rate than Mexico. El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, the sources of a great number of illegals who pass through Mexico, are ranked #1, #3, and #5 respectively.

To: TideGlider who wrote (200709)	7/12/2017 3:07:38 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By isopatch TideGlider Respond to of 224749

This day in “collusion” hysteria Power LinePower Line by Paul Mirengoff The mainstream media is in a state of ecstasy over the story of Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with that Russian lawyer. It’s easy to understand why. After months with nothing to feed on, the media now has a scrap. In this context, the meal feels like a feast. It certainly seems that way to Ruth Marcus. She declares, absurdly, that the Trump Jr. emails “could hardly be more incriminating.” I must have missed the one in which he told the Russkies to go ahead and hack John Podesta’s emails, and provided them the password. Marcus also opines that Trump, Jr. violated U.S. law by accepting something of value from a foreign government agent. If that’s true, then the FBI should raid every embassy party in Washington and half of the city’s cocktail party. Journalists and others routinely accept useful information (and plenty of interesting gossip) from “foreign government agent’s” at these events. Even I have used information obtained from diplomats in my writing. For a sane take on the criminal law implications, if any, of Trump’s emails and subsequent meeting, see this column by Jonathan Turley. Also lost on (or ignored by) the frenzied mainstream media is the fact, noted by me here, that the information Trump expected to receive from the Russian lawyer pertained to serious collusion between Hillary Clinton and/or Democrats and the Russian government, a potential crime. In other words, Trump Jr. went to the meeting to learn whether there was a basis for believing that Clinton and/or the Democrats were engaging in criminal behavior (treasonous behavior, in the view of some in the media and the Senate). Though his intent was to help his father’s campaign, his attendance was nonetheless a potential service to the country. It certainly wasn’t treason. The other thing the Democrats and their supporters in the media ignore is instances of efforts by foreign governments to influence American presidential elections in favor of Democrats. Byron York discusses this history. One needn’t delve into the past to find examples. Byron reminds us of a Politico story from January — one that, surprise, never really caught on — describing an effort by the government of Ukraine to sabotage the Trump campaign: “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office,” Politico’s Ken Vogel and David Stern reported. “They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. The covert Ukrainian campaign had some effect — it helped forced Trump to fire his campaign chief, Manafort, in a shakeup that made a difficult August even more difficult — but has generated about one-millionth the interest that Russia’s meddling has produced. Byron also recalls how representatives of foreign powers weighed in on Bill Clinton’s behalf in the 1996 election? He asks, “Anyone remember Yah-lin “Charlie” Trie? Or Johnny Chung? Or John Huang? James Riady? Maria Shia?” Chung testified before the House of Representatives that the head of Chinese military intelligence told him: “We like your president very much. We hope to see him re-elected. I’ll give you 300,000 U.S. dollars. You can give it to your president and the Democratic Party.” Republicans called for an independent counsel to investigate. Clinton’s attorney general refused to appoint one. The mainstream media was mostly unperturbed, if I recall correctly. For our media, foreign interference is only a treason or some other crime if the interference is on behalf of a Republican. If the interference is on behalf of a Democrat, it’s a non-issue.