DHS Confirms Over 3 Million Total Deportations, Highlights Arrests Of Five More "Worst Of The Worst" Criminal Illegals

Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Monday arrested five more “worst of the worst” criminal illegal aliens convicted for heinous crimes, including voluntary manslaughter, criminal indecent exposure, aggravated assault, and fentanyl trafficking.

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), more than three million illegal aliens have left the United States due to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown: 2.2 million self-deportations, and over 985,000 deported by DHS.

Each of the five violent criminals highlighted by DHS Tuesday were arrested in deep blue sanctuary cities where anti-ICE agitators continue to harass immigration officers.

• Fernando Ruiz-Maldonado, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico, convicted for voluntary manslaughter in Los Angeles, California.

• Sergio Loya-Lozano, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico, convicted for criminal indecent exposure, hit-and-run, and TWO counts of driving under the influence in San Jose, California.

• Olman Josue Pineda-Jimenez, a criminal illegal alien from Honduras, convicted for aggravated assault and harassing communications in Charlotte, North Carolina.

• Heriberto Hernandez-Sosa, a criminal illegal alien from the Dominican Republic, convicted for fentanyl trafficking in Worcester, Massachusetts.

• Jose Manuel Pertuz-Pena, a criminal illegal alien from Venezuela, convicted for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon in Cook County, Illinois.

Immigration agents continue to carry out their law enforcement duties in blue sanctuary enclaves despite the left’s relentless coordinated campaigns of violence against them.

According to DHS, immigration officers have experienced a 1,300+ percent increase in assaults against them, a 3,300 percent increase in vehicular attacks, and an 8,000 percent increase in death threats.

“Every single day, we are REMOVING criminals from American communities. Just yesterday, ICE arrested murderers, sexual predators, violent assailants, drug traffickers, and other dangerous criminal illegal aliens,” said DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin.

“Under the Trump Administration, the Department of Homeland Security is enforcing the law, deporting criminal illegal aliens, and defending the homeland. It’s no wonder crime rates have reached historic lows.”

DHS has listed over 40,000 illegal alien criminals on their Worst of the Worst (WOW) website which tracks ICE arrests of murderers, rapists, pedophiles, violent gangbangers and arsonists.

A DHS spokesperson told American Greatness Tuesday that over 985,000 illegal aliens have been deported since President Trump took office. An additional 2.2 million have self-deported.

“In President Trump’s first year back in office, more than 3 million illegal aliens have left the U.S. because of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration including an estimated 2.2 million self-deportations,” the spokesman said via email.

“As of July 12, we have now deported over 985,000 illegal aliens and arrested over 1 million illegal aliens.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 08/05/2026 - 17:00
https://ift.tt/NxaHC7Q
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/NxaHC7Q
via IFTTT

DHS Confirms Over 3 Million Total Deportations, Highlights Arrests Of Five More "Worst Of The Worst" Criminal Illegals

Sandisk Tumbles After Revenue, Earnings Forecasts Miss Estimates

Sandisk was one of the largest public holdings of the hedge fund of 24-year-old former wunderkind, Leopold Aschenbrenner, and its July collapse from $2300 to $1000 was chief the main reasons why the former OpenAI employee had to liquidate his extremely overlevered hedge fund and sell all positions at a 10% discount to Citadel to meet a volley of endless margin calls.

Well, if he has some dry powder left he just may be able to repurchase some or all of his portfolio from Ken Griffen following the plunge of Sandisk after hours (we jest, of course), not because earnings were weak - they beat solidly - but because the company's revenue guidance was very disappointing... and for a stock like SNDK which is priced to perfection beyond 2030 on the assumption that nobody else can produce the biggest commodity product in electronics - memory chips - the guidance was rather dismal. 

Here is what SNDK reported for fiscal Q4:

• EPS $39.25 vs Est. $34.37
• Revenue $8.97BN vs Est. $8.64BN
  • Data Center Revenue $3.0B vs Est. $2.6B
• Operating Income $7.0B vs Est. $6.4B
  • Adjusted gross margin 84.6%, estimate 81.5%
• Free cash flow $7.08 billion

And while historical were fine, it was the company's Q1 guidance that sent its stock tumbling after hours: 

• Sees revenue $10.30 billion to $10.80 billion, far below the median estimate of $11.16 billion 
• Sees adjusted EPS $44.00 to $46.00, a midline also below the estimate $45.58

Commenting on the results, SNDK said that "as the cloud and other data-intensive workloads continue to expand, we remain confident in the long-term growth trajectory of our business, further margin expansion, and strong free cash flow generation."

Perhaps, although one look at prevailing NAND prices indicates that the peak is now well in the rearview mirror...

... and the market agrees with the stock, which surged about 40% in the past few days since the Citadel takeover of the Situational Awareness hedge fund, sliding and back to about half of its all time high hit in early June.

Tyler Durden Wed, 08/05/2026 - 16:45
https://ift.tt/niCSlBa
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/niCSlBa
via IFTTT

Sandisk Tumbles After Revenue, Earnings Forecasts Miss Estimates

They Really Don't Care

Authored by Todd Hayen via Off-Guardian.org,

This might not apply to all sheep-types, but many of the ones I have encountered simply do not care. This could be the reason we can’t seem to get through to them with the facts we are constantly shoving down their throats. Of course, the ones I’ve talked to may just be saying they don’t care to shut me up, but I really don’t think so. They seem pretty sincere.

How could they not care? Now, that is the $64,000 question. People, in general, do not care about things they do not see directly affecting them. They should, but they don’t. People these days, at least, don’t seem very skilled at discerning things that will—if not cared about—eventually bite them in the ass. I think people used to be better at determining such things.

They used to see war in a neighbouring country, for example, and say, “Hmmm, if we don’t do something about that, those bloodthirsty marauders may be over here next.” People who thought that way—speculating about a potential ass-bite—actually disappeared a long time ago, if they ever existed at all.

Still, my point stands: if it doesn’t directly affect them in the present moment, they don’t care.

Sorry, I think that is weird.

And, of course, people seem very inconsistent about this.

Some things they do care about, and usually those things are not as important as the things they should care about.

Take immigration control and enforcement, for example. Most people leaning to the left seem to care very much about the treatment ICE gives to people suspected (or legally determined) to be in the US illegally. They worry about their rights, their families, and the way they are arrested and deported. Yes, some of these worries are legitimate.

Everyone should be treated fairly and respectfully by law enforcement officials, and if they are not, it is right to complain about it through the proper channels. But none of these people seem the least bit concerned about how millions of illegal—and often criminal—people will degrade the way of life for everyone already living here.

I often ask, “So, do you want open borders then, and as a result, never have laws about enforcing the rules regarding immigration?” They will invariably say, “Oh no, I do believe we should control our borders!” Go figure.

The same story goes for free speech. People may seem to care about hate speech and speech that does not fit their worldview, such as Charlie Kirk’s speaking about the negatives regarding transgenderism or abortion. But if you ask them, “So, you don’t believe in free speech then? You think the First Amendment of the US Constitution is idealistic hooey?” They will invariably say, “No, of course I believe in free speech!” But they don’t. Go figure.

They can’t see far enough ahead to recognize the consequences of cherry-picking speech—eliminating what they think is offensive and keeping only the “important stuff.” Unfortunately, you can’t do that, and up until recently people knew that. There is a consequence for freedom, and sometimes it isn’t pretty.

I think a lot of the time this “I don’t care” attitude stems from the fact that people don’t seem to care much about principles. Of course, that does depend on the “principle.” Using the immigration example again to illustrate this point: those against deporting illegal aliens seem to care about the principle of “kindness” and “loving your neighbour” and “no one should be hurt, for pretty much any reason.”

Yet they contradict this attitude in dozens of ways: expecting that people be put into prison for not calling someone by their chosen pronoun, or arresting someone giving a speech about the atrocities being committed in Gaza—they see these examples as hate speech. In these cases, it is fine to be arrested. But sneaking into the US illegally, or doing so and lying about your criminal record? That’s all okay.

I feel the shrew-types are (see my Substack for a definition of “shrew”) very aware of principles. The destruction of free speech and even the obliteration of privacy in the US is not necessarily affecting people directly (except during Covid, when it certainly did, with persecution toward the unvaccinated and the loss of jobs and livelihoods). It is a “principle thing” for a lot of us. It is the wanton destruction of the very fundamentals our country (the US) was founded on.

Not only our constitutional rights, but the inalienable rights our Creator granted us. The writing on the wall exclaiming a future none of us will be comfortable in is clear and present. We hear the train a-comin’, rolling ‘round the bend…And it doesn’t look good.

So maybe shrews also don’t freak out over injustices until we feel them, but maybe we also see what’s on the horizon more logically and pragmatically than the sheep-types do. But that too is arguable. The sheepies certainly have no problem losing their cookies over Trump, even though there is little he is doing that directly affects them in a bad way (until recently, at least).

They too claim to be looking at future calamity to justify their hate. Yet Canadians adore Carney, and can’t seem to see what his antics are bringing onto Canada: soaring inflation and grocery prices, ballooning deficits and national debt (now larger than the economy), higher taxes, and escalating trade tensions with the US through tariff retaliation and protectionist policies that critics argue risk recession and long-term economic decline. Or, probably the most devastating, getting into bed with China and the Chinese Communist Party (“It’s not Communism,” they love to bellow, “It’s socialism.” Ha ha.)

We see these inconsistencies in a variety of ways. Obama’s approach to drone warfare was entirely ignored, yet anything Trump did that was similar (before the Iran catastrophe) was considered criminal.

But do they really care? Or are they just oddly selective about what they care about?

Maybe it is more the latter we are seeing. Maybe they do care, but about strangely inappropriate things. And then not care about things that are very appropriate to care about. Got me. All I can say for certain is that it is weird. Very weird. And I do care about that.

Tyler Durden Wed, 08/05/2026 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/kG5TuVP
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/kG5TuVP
via IFTTT

They Really Don't Care

Israel To Scale Back Gaza Strikes To Give Trump's Hamas Disarmament Plan A Chance

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Israel has tightened restrictions on targeted strikes in Gaza, signaling that it intends to give President Donald Trump’s initiative to disarm Hamas a chance despite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s firm public conditions for an Israeli withdrawal.

Senior Israeli security and political officials told Epoch Magazine Israel on Aug. 5 that Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir has ordered that every targeted strike in Gaza receive his personal approval.

Such operations previously required approval from the head of the IDF’s Southern Command. Under the new directive, Zamir must also obtain authorization from Israel’s political leadership before a strike can proceed.

The officials said the change followed a request from Nickolay Mladenov, the Gaza envoy for Trump’s Board of Peace, to suspend Israeli strikes for two weeks while negotiations over Hamas’s disarmament move forward.

They said Israel wants to avoid a confrontation with Trump and demonstrate that it remains fully coordinated with the Board of Peace and committed to the president’s 20-point Gaza plan.

The remarks, made a day after Netanyahu publicly outlined Israel’s objections to the U.S. proposal, highlighted Israel’s coordination with Washington and signaled that Jerusalem remained open to continued negotiations.

Netanyahu said in an Aug. 4 video message that Israel would not withdraw from its current positions in Gaza until Hamas had been completely disarmed.

“President Trump and his team believe they can bring about Hamas’s disarmament and the demilitarization of Gaza,” Netanyahu said. “We are examining that.”

Netanyahu said Washington had sent Israel a draft proposal that his government had not accepted, adding that Israel had submitted its own comments.

“This is our position,” he said. “We stand firm in defending our interests, both wisely and resolutely.”

A senior Israeli official told Epoch Magazine Israel that despite the new restrictions on strikes, militants in Gaza would not have immunity. Anyone attempting to harm Israeli troops would be targeted.

Disarmament Talks

Trump announced on July 30 that the Board of Peace had reached what he called a historic agreement for the complete disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza.

Under the proposed phased arrangement, military operations would stop before heavy weapons, tunnels, and weapons-production sites were decommissioned. Israeli forces would then withdraw as disarmament progressed, while an International Stabilization Force and a newly trained Palestinian police force assumed responsibility for security.

Gaza would eventually be governed by a technocratic Palestinian administration working with the Board of Peace, according to U.S. officials.

Hamas and other Palestinian factions agreed on July 31 to a gradual process for cataloging and storing their weapons under the supervision of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, according to the Board of Peace.

A central dispute remains over the sequence. Israel says Hamas must disarm before Israeli forces pull back from the roughly 60 percent of Gaza they currently control. Hamas says Israel must first stop its strikes and begin withdrawing.

The Board of Peace held what it described as a “constructive and detailed” meeting with Netanyahu and other Israeli officials in Jerusalem on Aug. 3.

“The goal is clear and is not in question: the complete decommissioning of weapons in the Strip and the transition away from rule by the gun to civilian governance,” the board said. “Reaching it will be a process.”

The prospect of an agreement has generated cautious optimism among some Gaza residents exhausted by nearly three years of war and displacement.

“We feel a sense of joy when we hear the news, and we hope it turns out to be true,” said Fatima Mohammed, a displaced resident.

Tyler Durden Wed, 08/05/2026 - 15:45
https://ift.tt/FkAq0UY
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/FkAq0UY
via IFTTT

Israel To Scale Back Gaza Strikes To Give Trump's Hamas Disarmament Plan A Chance

Reality Denied

Authored by James Thorne via RealClearPolitics.com,

Elon Musk’s recent interview with The Economist underscored a simple but increasingly uncomfortable truth: In today’s political climate, stating the obvious can sound like provocation. The Overton Window, the range of ideas considered acceptable in public debate, has not merely drifted, it has been pulled away from the constraints of reality.

Musk’s real value in this conversation is not that he is always right. It is that he forces a confrontation between reality and rhetoric. And once that confrontation occurs, the limits of the prevailing framework come into view: It can organize language and signal virtue, but it struggles to explain outcomes. The exchange itself illustrated the point.

Rather than fully engaging his arguments, the interviewer at times defaulted to dismissive framing, implying that Musk himself was the issue. It was a familiar substitution: Discredit the speaker, avoid the substance.

Start with basics.

The United States should control its borders. Public safety should be enforced. Governments should operate within fiscal limits. Safe and secure elections are non-negotiable. Public institutions should act responsibly in the interests of their citizens. Industrial and trade policy should strengthen domestic production and deliver clear benefits to American workers.

These are common-sense views held by ordinary citizens, not some extreme ideological position as they are often portrayed.

That is precisely why they are now contested.

Basic logic and common sense are increasingly labeled as “extreme,” often coded as right-wing regardless of their content.

For too long, parts of the progressive left have effectively weaponized the Overton Window to enforce those labels. Questions grounded in observable facts, whether about immigration, crime, fiscal limits, trade, pandemic-era trade-offs, or basic policy outcomes, are too often branded “MAGA,” “far-right,” or a “conspiracy theory,” then brushed aside with confidence instead of answered on the merits.

This mechanism is effective because it shifts the cost of debate. Instead of defending weak outcomes, it raises the social and reputational cost of pointing them out. Dissent is not refuted, it is stigmatized. What was once ordinary becomes controversial. What remains inside the window is treated as settled, regardless of results.

The consequences are increasingly visible. Concerns about migration pressures on housing and public services are waved away as the hollowing out of middle America. Crime is discussed without equal emphasis on enforcement. Fiscal constraints are acknowledged rhetorically but deferred in practice, even as interest costs rise. Industrial policy is justified in expansive terms, but less often judged by whether it delivers measurable, broad-based gains for American workers.

The pattern extends to how arguments are received. When Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton spoke about border security, it was widely viewed as pragmatic. When Donald Trump raised similar concerns, they were often treated as outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. More broadly, the deeper problem is less about any single statement than the tendency of much of the media and the progressive left to protect favored figures from scrutiny while abdicating the traditional role of the fourth estate. That is what Musk attacks head on.

Over time, this weakens the connection between policy and results. When outcomes disappoint, the response is often reinterpretation rather than recalibration. Housing shortages persist, public safety concerns linger, deficits expand – yet the underlying assumptions remain largely intact.

A functioning political system requires more than intention. It requires feedback, accountability, and a willingness to confront inconvenient facts. When common sense is pushed outside the Overton Window, the system loses its capacity for self-correction.

The middle has not become extreme. The definition of “acceptable” has. And when common sense is treated as rebellion, the shift reflects changes in elite discourse, particularly within major media and institutional voices, more than any transformation among the public itself.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/WxQlNdS
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/WxQlNdS
via IFTTT

Reality Denied