↓ Archives ↓

Archive → October 5th, 2016

Smart Power: U.S. controls ‘international terrorist alliance,’ Russian officials say

Smart Power: U.S. controls ‘international terrorist alliance,’ Russian officials say

158 Shares

163165100As U.S.-Russia relations continue to deteriorate ahead of the 2016 presidential election, Kremlin officials are now accusing the Pentagon of siding with terrorists in the Middle East.

This week, State Department spokesman John Kirby warned that if Russia doesn’t cooperate with the U.S. in Syria, Moscow could be in danger of a terror attack.

“Extremists and extremists groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there … which will include, no question, attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities, and Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags,” he said.

Officials at the Russian Foreign and Defense Ministries responded, saying that sounded a lot like a threat.

“We can’t assess those statements as anything else but a call, a directive for action,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said.

Russian Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov went further, calling the U.S. officials remarks the most honest “confession by the U.S. side so far that the whole ‘opposition’ ostensibly fighting a ‘civil war’ in Syria is a U.S.-controlled international terrorist alliance.”

“What makes Kirby’s statement particularly shocking is that the scale of direct U.S. influence on terrorists’ activity is global and reaches as far as Russia,” he said.

U.S. officials have pushed Russia to halt bombing campaigns in Syria aimed at helping the Assad regime regain control of the nation.

Washington would instead like to embark on joint air raids to knock out terrorist factions within the country— but Russian officials maintain that the U.S. refuses to recognize rebels it has aided as terrorists despite actions proving they are.

“Our colleagues from Washington have tried to cover up their inability to fulfill their own obligations with verbal attacks on Russia,” President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Thursday, adding that Russia will only continue talks with the U.S. on the matter if officials “exclude even a hint at threatening our military and Russian citizens.”

Source: Will County News

Lester Holt: Android, wisdom figure, computer brain

Lester Holt: Android, wisdom figure, computer brain

94 Shares

Debate moderator Lester Holt presides over the first presidential debate between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump on Monday, Sept. 26, 2016 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. (Qin Lang/Xinhua/Sipa USA/TNS)Others have pointed out how many times debate moderator Lester Holt slanted criticism toward Trump, rather than Hillary. Others have suggested Hillary and Holt were a tag-team, with Hillary throwing hand signals to Holt indicating she was ready to hit Trump with a zinger.

On a different level…

Watching the debate-host, Holt, working his way through Trump vs. Hillary, sitting in his chair, bathed in a spotlight glow against a sea of total darkness, eerie metallic glimmers reflecting from his glasses, I was reminded of Dr. Eldon Tyrell, the barely human chairman of the corporation that designed androids in the film Blade Runner.

Holt, the man who had the script and the questions and the facts at his immediate disposal. The brain. The wisdom figure. The synthetic guide with a touch of humanity built in.

Quite an archetype.

As I pointed out recently, the ridiculous notion of a debate with a moderator is modern. When Lincoln and Douglas famously debated slavery for hours at a time, over the course of several weeks, there was no intermediary voice. One man spoke for an hour, and then the other man spoke for an hour.

The moderator is a prop, a pretense of introducing objectivity into the proceeding.

The moderator is the “voice of rationality,” as it were. From that perch, he can, of course, slant the event — and Holt certainly did.

His dry speech patterns, in fact, resembled those of Barack Obama, when the President is reciting script.

Watching Holt operate, I was also reminded of the technocratic wet dream of a human brain hooked up to a computer, from which emanates undeniable wisdom.

Holt adopted the persona of a machine, and he pulled it off.

Which means? This is where the world is heading, if the technocrats have anything to say about it. You “need the best data — and one day soon you’ll get the data from a computer your brain is connected to. All will be well.”

Holt is also NBC’s national news anchor, which means he tells the stories of our time, every night, to millions of tranced viewers who are seeking a voice not their own.

Anchor and debate moderator — a powerful combination.

Hypnotically commanding.

Replay the debate moment when, out of nowhere, Holt’s words suddenly crackled like dry autumn leaves: “[Stop and frisk] was ruled unconstitutional.”

The narrator thus spake.

A brain not their own… a voice not their own… a narrator of reality… a fount of instant wisdom… the answer from on high… there are many, many people who want those things, and they want them embodied in a machine-like structure that assures them of dispassionate “honesty.”

Holt provided.

It’s no surprise that giant television networks have made these debates their own property. After all, the companies consider the events media-moments. Hosting them and appointing the moderators is no different from designing and presenting the nightly news broadcasts.

Of course, when you stop and think about this arrangement for debates, it’s absurd. Why would Lester Holt be more qualified to guide the proceeding than a car mechanic from Peoria?

Why have a guide at all?

Why allow media companies or government entities or even non-profit organizations a place in the debates? The two ruling political parties are the correct sponsors. We’re watching their candidates.

Holt was a well-groomed device. A hint of the near-future. A figure of “just-enough-authority” sitting in the darkness, dispensing voice-of-god to the masses, backed up by a production crew with split-screen, mic’d-up, podium-on-stage technology to provide a fatuous imitation of a real debate.

Instead, let there be a stage in a glen. Two or three television cameras. Let there be a topic. Foreign policy. Hillary ascends the stage and speaks for an hour. Then she leaves. Trump appears. He talks for 90 minutes. Then Hillary comes back for 30 minutes. The candidates never speak to each other. There is no moment-to-moment exchange of daggers or jokes or gotchas. This isn’t entertainment. It isn’t grins or hair or dress or tie or teeth.

If there is a moderator, he stands down off-stage and to the side, grumpy and frowning, holding an umbrella in case it rains. He reads a book while the candidates speak, he eats a hot dog. He combs and re-combs his hair. He waits. He thinks about his 20-dollar-an-hour salary. He must remain absolutely silent.

He’s an actual prop put there to remind people of a time when things were different, when the so-called news was delivered by media stars, who competed to see which ones were the most clever at inventing reality that seemed factual, but wasn’t.

In a world with a shred of sanity, that’s what Lester Holt would be doing.

What is modern television news (including debate moderation)?

From their perch, anchors can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.

But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right.” “You can rely on us for that.”

This is the great PR arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold millions to convey that false assurance.

The anchor is the narrative voice of his time, for all people everywhere. The voice that replaces what is going on in the heads of his audience — all those doubts and confusions and objections in the heads of the great unwashed. The anchor will replace those and substitute his own plot line.

The network anchor is The Wizard Of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable, unimaginable truth.

The anchor must become comfortable with having very little personality of his own. On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.

This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.

Essentially, the anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?”

All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion.

The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor great. Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow.

The public expects to hear that vibrating string. It’s been conditioned by many hard nights at the tube, watching the news.

There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”

Neutrality gives assurance that everything is under control.

Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re like a responsible charity.

The other night Lester Holt was the machine-like agent of the Cosmic Charity of All Souls dedicated to higher wisdom from an unimpeachable source. That was his role and he played it.

“I take no sides. I have no opinions. I am objectivity personified. I am… The Fact Checker.”

— Jon Rappoport

Source: Will County News

The stupid empire

 

Abraham LincolnThis was originally published on The Abbeville Blog on September 27, 2016.

As the first leg of the American invasion force rolled through Iraq in 2003, Sergeant Brad Colbert of the 1st Reconnaissance Battalion of the United States Marine Corps leaned out the window of his Humvee and urged the Iraqi people to “vote Republican.” This moment was captured by the embedded reporter, Evan Wright, and made famous in a series of articles that appeared in Rolling Stone magazine and later in the HBO mini-series Generation Kill. (I recommend this series to anyone who wants a realistic view of the early stages of the war in Iraq. It is not for the faint of heart, however. The vulgarity and violence may turn some viewers off, but it also helps explain why people in other parts of the world hate the United States.) Wright later recounted that Colbert was not making a joke; he firmly believed what he was saying. While this surprised Wright, it typifies the “stupid empire” of the Republican Party and progressives in general.

From the war to “end slavery” to the war to “liberate Iraq,” the United States has been waging war for the last 150 years to theoretically bring “liberty and democracy” to “heathen” parts of the world. These are, rhetorically, wars for “humanity’s sake,” but more than anything they bring a perverted form of empire, one in which United States taxpayers are on the hook for trillions of dollars with nothing to show for it except more war, higher taxes, inflation and resentment from many of the people the military sought to “liberate.” Liberation becomes a relative term, and most of the people “freed” by the United States become dependents of the federal government or are betrayed by the loose promises of “freedom and democracy.”

On 18 December 1865, the Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania made the following remark before the House of Representatives: “The future condition of the conquered power depends on the will of the conqueror. They [the Southern states] must come in as new states or remain as conquered provinces.” In one sentence, Stevens clearly articulated the intent of the Republican Party during the War Between the States. Southerners were a conquered people subject to the will of the Republican Party. Former slaves, the “liberated,” were the pawns by which to keep the South “loyal” to the Union.

It is easy to imagine a Union soldier insisting that Southern blacks “vote Republican,” just as Colbert called on Iraqis to “vote Republican.” And, of course, most freedmen and their descendants did vote Republican until the 1960s. Grant would have been hard pressed to win the 1868 presidential election without them and the concurrent disfranchisement of most “evil” Southern whites through the illegally-passed 14th Amendment. The Republican war machine spent four years destroying homes, property, lives and infrastructure and now planned on rebuilding, or more accurately remaking, the South with the help of the “liberated.” As Radical Republican Lot Morrill of Maine said following the war, “The ballot in the hands of the negro became as much the necessity of reconstruction of the republican States and their restoration as the bayonet in his hands was the necessity of the war.”

Abraham Lincoln made the war a “humanitarian” effort with the pithy though incorrect Gettysburg Address in 1863, but where was the humanitarianism of William T. Sherman’s army as they plundered their way to the sea in 1864 or Philip Sheridan’s army as it commenced with the burning of the Shenandoah Valley in the same year? And how was the Republican Party being “humanitarian” when it used the military to enforce carpetbag rule, higher taxes and both direct and indirect confiscation of property following the war? It seems the blueprint for the United States Empire was written in the years after the unnecessary carnage of the War Between the States: “liberate” a group of people and make them dependent on your continued rule; disfranchise those who oppose you and destroy their property and culture, but tell the world you are doing this for the good of the “liberated.” The South, personified as the woman in the following political cartoon, could easily be any other culture who has faced the burden of the American empire in the last 150 years.

CarpetbaggerAs the Democrats consistently pointed out during the years following Reconstruction, the Republican Party did not change. Without evil Southerners to fight, the Union army turned its attention to the West, and under the direction of Sherman and Sheridan, the western Indian tribes faced the onslaught of the new American foreign policy of “liberty and equality.” Tribes that supported the Confederacy during the War Between the States felt the hammer of the federal government or were intentionally deceived in order to secure land for the railroads. Others who opposed the “blessings” of the Republican Party and the Union army were often slaughtered. Lincoln, in fact, ordered the largest mass execution in American history. 38 Dakota warriors were executed in 1862 after a Sioux revolt against Minnesota residents who continually breached treaties between the tribes and the federal government. Republican benevolence had limits, particularly in regard to those who could not help the Party win elections.

The frontier was “closed” during the administration of Republican Benjamin Harrison with the land runs in Oklahoma beginning in 1889. Again, the government, under Republican leadership, mainly through the corrupt Radical Republican Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts, reneged on promises to the Five Civilized Tribes and seized their land through “re-allotment.” The Dawes Act of 1887 divided Oklahoma into small homestead farms, often too small to be productive. Dawes and other Republicans insisted that the re-allotment process would “help” the tribes and provide them with the blessings of liberty and prosperity, but without question, the Act destroyed tribal culture and through corruption and intimidation, most of the tribal members who received land eventually sold it for less than what it was worth or lost it. Dawes had shown a propensity for scheming before — he had been part of the infamous Credit Mobiler Scandal of 1872 — and his actions toward tribal lands did him no justice. This should not have been a surprise, however. It was the M.O. for the Republican Party, the same men who pillaged the South following the War in the name of humanity and who ran roughshod over the Constitution during Radical Reconstruction.

The election of Republican William McKinley in 1896 ushered in a new age of American imperialism, but one directly tied to the ideas of Reconstruction. Less than two years after taking office, McKinley asked congress for a declaration of war against Spain. This “Splendid Little War,” known as the Spanish-American War of 1898, netted the United States Cuba, the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico. The United States went to war, in part, to “liberate” the Cubans and the Filipino people from evil Spanish rule. Without question, Cuban revolutionaries fighting for independence from Spain before the war began were harshly treated by the Spanish governor of Cuba, but opponents wondered whether that justified American involvement. And, since the United States occupied Cuba after the war and inserted the infamous Platt Amendment into the Cuban Constitution in 1901, what had Cubans gained by cozying up to the United States? Authored by Connecticut Republican Orville Platt, the Amendment made Cuba a virtual protectorate of the United States, and the big brother to the north could intervene at any time to “save” Cuba from itself.

In the Pacific, the United States became involved in a guerrilla war against Filipino insurrectionary forces after they refused to submit to American rule. Teddy Roosevelt, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, had instructed Admiral George Dewey to invade the Philippines once war was declared in 1898 (How that related to the poor, downtrodden Cubans no one could answer). Dewey steamed into Manila Bay, defeated a larger Spanish Fleet and helped protect the American expeditionary force led by Wesley Merritt, a Union War veteran and participant in Sheridan’s burning of the Shenandoah Valley in 1864. The Philippines were placed under an American military governor — at first all Republican Civil War vets starting with Merritt — in an effort to bring the blessing of “liberty” their “little brown brothers,” but not all of them accepted American gestures of “humanity” and “liberty.”

Filipino Emilio Aguinaldo harassed American combat forces for three years. This was the first American Vietnam. William H. Taft was eventually appointed governor of the Philippines by McKinley and, to his credit, reluctantly accepted the position because he did not support the acquisition in the first place, but Taft did oversee some of the fiercest combat of the Philippine-American War and ultimately supported American occupation.

Republicans trumpeted American military successes (sound familiar?) and claimed that the war was merited to help the pitiful Cuban and Filipino people. This campaign poster says it all:

Campaign posterBy the time Teddy Roosevelt assumed the presidency in 1901, the Republicans had firmly established themselves as the Party of international empire and no better articulation of this principle can be found than Roosevelt’s 1904 annual address. In this message, Roosevelt rolled out the principles of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine: “Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.” So, the United States determines good conduct and “decency in social and political matters,” and if you fail, the United States will become an “international police power” to keep you in line. This has since been extended to the globe. Ask the people of the Middle East.

Successive presidents used Roosevelt’s logic to intervene in Latin American affairs, and interventionism found new flavor under Democrats Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Imperialism was no longer confined to the Republican Party; progressives had co-opted the message and used it to bring “liberty and democracy” to “unenlightened” or “hopeless” people around the globe. Wilson re-organized Europe after World War I (to the detriment of many cultures in Europe), and Roosevelt helped jump start fifty years of American “police power” by involving the United States in World War II, by appeasing Josef Stalin at Yalta and by insisting on a United Nations. This led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives during the Cold War.

All of these actions had their roots in the Radical Reconstruction of the South. Republicans conquered and subjugated the South and found new votes in the Freedmen. They extended their “humanitarian” efforts by crushing the Plains Indian tribes and in the process opened thousands of acres for their railroads. The Party brought “liberty” to the Cubans and Filipinos and became the police force of the Western Hemisphere under Teddy Roosevelt. “Vote Republican!” Of course, by World War I, you no longer had to vote Republican; voting for either major party sufficed.

So, why is the United States the “stupid empire?” Simple. Unlike other empires in history, the United States expects the conquered to love the conqueror. The Romans did not expect their conquered subjects to love them. They ruled and the conquered accepted. The Athenians crushed several attempts to jettison their rule during the height of their empire, and the British did not care for the plight of their “subjects.” A subject in each case was part of the best and most fee state in the world. Resistance was preposterous (and deadly). Americans, however, believe that our efforts are the result of a simple dichotomy of good vs. evil. We freed you from evil and “gave” you your country back (conditionally), so love us! Reconstruction is taught that way, so is the American push to “liberate” other parts of the world. Certainly, the hypocrisy of the Spanish-American War and the misfortunes of the Plains Indian tribes have been documented, but no one connects the dots between the Republicans who looted the South during Reconstruction and the Republicans who raided the West, the Pacific and Latin American during the late-19th and early-20th century.

History has been unjustly kind to the conquerors and many mainstream historians have defended the conquering under idiotic moralistic pretenses. Slavery was bad so white Southerners deserved a beating; the railroads and western homesteaders needed property and Indians were vicious, so the tribes (somewhat) deserved a beating; the Spanish brutalized the Cubans and the Filipinos so the Spanish deserved a beating; Saddam was bad so he deserved a beating. Of course, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and others were brutal madmen, but it had never been American foreign policy to make “corrections” in the name of “liberty and democracy” until after the War Between the States. Like grizzly bears, the Republicans tasted human blood and had to continue their feeding. It has never stopped. Unfortunately, now voting for either major party perpetuates the “stupid empire.” Love us or die! [But we’ll give you everything back anyway with our strings attached because Americans are the “good guys.”]

— Brion McClanahan

Source: Will County News

Possessed by Demons

Possessed by Demons
Briton Ryle
Photo By Briton Ryle
Written Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Is your head spinning? No? Not even a little?

We’ve got negative interest rates in Japan and parts of Europe, so it costs you to put your money in a bank… and those bonds pay you nothing… The Fed thinks another quarter-point interest rate will send the economy reeling into recession…The U.S. will inevitably have the least popular president in history… Saudi Arabia just made nice with Iran on an oil production agreement… the stock market is ruled by machines and trading algorithms… an army of terrorists have taken land and created their own country… Facebook is worth as much as Exxon (around $360 billion)… the biggest online retailer, Amazon, is accepting applications for a space mission to Mars…

It’s a small miracle your head’s not spinning around like Linda Blair in The Exorcist. It’s like the whole world has been possessed by demons that just want to make everything as confusing as possible…

At least we don’t have an obstructionist Congress threatening to shut down the U.S. government and default on debt obligations. That would truly be the icing on the weird-cake…

Still, to those demons of confusion I say: mission accomplished, many investors are indeed confused.

As an editor of the Wealth Advisory income/dividend newsletter, I do hear from individual investors fairly frequently. And while I occasionally hear from subscribers who think there is a recession coming, or that they’re worried that inflation is picking up, it doesn’t seem as though such fears/worries/concerns are keeping them from investing. After all, they’ve bought a subscription to get my insights and stock picks, and I know that many of them are buying stocks…

Still, total daily trading volume on the S&P 500 has been in decline for a few years. Surveys show that the number of households that own stocks is at multi-decade lows. And finally, other studies show that the average American does not have very much money saved for retirement at all. All this suggests that Americans are simply not investing as much as they once did. And that is a bad trend.

Devil in the Details

I strongly believe that people who might otherwise invest in stocks are still suffering from PTSD brought on by the financial crisis. And really, I can’t blame anyone for that. It was damn scary, watching the very pillars of the U.S. economy get completely unraveled. We quite literally stared into the abyss, wondering if we could still get money out of ATMs. And the speed with which it all fell apart absolutely had my head spinning…

And the thing is, we all know that the things that brought the economy to its knees — too much leverage, too much risk, not enough sensible regulation — are still very much present. And in some areas, it might actually be worse. Emerging market companies have taken on a few trillion in dollar-denominated debt that isn’t going to be easy to pay off. Here in the U.S., corporate debt levels are very high too, as companies have used low interest rates to borrow money and buy back stock.

The thing is, if all this debt was taken on and invested for a real return (infrastructure, improving operations, etc), that would be one thing. But for the most part, companies haven’t borrowed to grow their businesses. They’ve simply maintained the status quo. This a big reason why earnings and revenue aren’t really growing, and why salaries have been so stagnant.

Still, there’s one area of the U.S. economy that’s doing pretty darn well. And it’s a significant part of the economy, too. I’m talking about you, the average American and the average American household. I hope you’ll forgive me for calling you “average”, I don’t really think that. I think you’re pretty amazing. But the point is that debt and leverage for most American households is very, very low. Here’s a chart that shows you what household debt payments as a percentage of income looks like…debt payment to
income

We can easily see that the economic expansion from the mid-1990s to 2007 was fueled by more and more debt. With so much debt being added to the household, it shouldn’t really come as a surprise that the financial crisis kicked off at the household level, with a spike in foreclosures. We — you and I — finally buckled under the weight of all that debt…

And that’s the real irony about the financial crisis and the subsequent recovery (as tepid as it is) — it wasn’t the banks and other companies that started the financial crisis. Sure, they were over-leveraged, which made the crisis far worse when it finally hit, but again, the crisis started because households had too much debt. And now we are so focused on the health of the average corporation that we are missing what’s probably the single most important fact: the average U.S. household is in darn good shape.

Shhh, Just Between You and Me

The average U.S. household has done a fantastic job of de-leveraging and getting its finances back in shape. And I will tell you right now: this is going to pay dividends at some point, when that buying power gets unleashed. Seriously, you can look at the chart above and see that U.S. households could very easily fuel a decade-long economic expansion.

The question is: what would it take to get such an expansion started? What would convince the average American that things will be better a year from now, that he or she will be making more money and their assets will be worth more next year, and still more a year after that? What would unleash these so-called “animal spirits?”

Unfortunately, I don’t know the answer to this. But let me ask you this: what happened in the mid-1990s that suddenly kicked off a 10-12 year run of growth? Was it just the Internet? Was it the peace dividend after the fall of the Soviet Union? Was it deregulation and lower taxes?

Certainly it was a combination of these, plus some other catalysts, like the emergence of the Chinese economy and the impact of the EU on the global economy.

It would be a worthy exercise to consider new catalysts that are merging now that may have a similar effect on the world. Things like renewable energy, a consumer economy in China, a peace dividend if/when the Middle East gets some stabilization. Again I can’t put a finger on exactly when, but these ghosts of the financial crisis will be exorcised at some point, and we will start to look to the future with more optimism. You’re going to want to own stocks when that happens.

brit''s sig

Briton Ryle

Source: Will County News

National ICE Council Announces First-Ever Presidential Endorsement In Its History for Trump

National ICE Council Announces First-Ever Presidential Endorsement In Its History

Western Journalism 9/26/2016

Unprecedented…

Early Monday morning, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council made a huge announcement that rocked the political world.

“We hereby endorse Donald J. Trump, and urge all Americans, especially the millions of lawful immigrants living within our country, to support Donald J. Trump, and to protect American jobs, wages and lives,” the organization’s president, Chris Crane, wrote in a statement published at DonaldJTrump.com.

What made the endorsement so stunning was that the National ICE Council had never before in its history made an endorsement for a candidate running for an elected office.

Plus, the council represented 7,600 federal immigration officers and law enforcement support staff members.

Yet this time around, the council chose to have a vote, and according to the results of that vote, GOP candidate Donald Trump received the vast majority of the council members’ support.

“This first-ever endorsement was conducted by a vote of our membership, with Hillary Clinton receiving only 5 percent of that vote,” Crane’s statement clarified.

In explaining why council members disliked Democrat candidate Clinton so much, Crane pointed to her support of “the most radical immigration proposal in U.S. history.”

He also claimed that her plan had been crafted with the assistance of “special interests and open-borders radicals.”

“Her radical plan would result in the loss of thousands of innocent American lives, mass victimization and death for many attempting to immigrate to the United States, the total gutting of interior enforcement, the handcuffing of ICE officers, and an uncontrollable flood of illegal immigrants across U.S. borders,” his statement went on.

The Democrat candidate would also expand executive amnesty, expand catch-and-release and prioritize the non-enforcement of America’s federal immigration laws, Crane wrote.

Source: Will County News