Thursday, April 6, 2017

Boy, 16, killed, 8 wounded in city shootings (a typical Wednesday in Chicago)

Chicago Tribune ^ | 4/6/2017 | Staff 

A 16-year-old boy was shot dead and eight others were wounded in separate attacks from Wednesday afternoon to Thursday, police said.
The boy, Kahari Stovall, of the 7300 block of South East End Avenue, was pronounced dead at Mount Sinai Hospital at 3:40 p.m., according to the Cook County medical examiner's office.

Stovall and a 19-year-old man were coming from a store in the 1300 block of South Lawndale Avenue about 1:10 p.m. when they were shot, police said.
Stovall suffered gunshot wounds to the lower back and abdomen during the Lawndale neighborhood shooting, according to police.
The 19-year-old was shot in the knee and was in good condition at Mount Sinai Hospital, police said.
An autopsy is scheduled for Thursday and police were releasing no further information about the shooting.
Late Wednesday, a man was shot on the left side while he was driving about 11:05 p.m. on the inbound lanes of the Kennedy Expressway near West Addison Street, Illinois State Police said.
In other shootings:
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Sen. Ron Johnson: ‘What We Do Know About Susan Rice Is You Can’t Believe What She Says’! ^ | 5 Apr 2017 

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee told Breitbart News that he is very concerned about allegations that Susan Rice, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, abused her access to intelligence reports that included incidental collection of information about associates of President Donald Trump. “First of all, I don’t know all there is to know about what Susan Rice was doing,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI).
Rice is accused of “unmasking” the names of American citizens associated with Trump in intelligence reports. Those names are deliberately cloaked to preserve the constitutional protections against warrantless monitoring enshrined in the 4th Amendment.
“What we do know about Susan Rice is you can’t believe what she says, and that is pretty obvious, so we need to get her under oath,” he said.
“It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that the former administration would utilize the awesome power of the government–they did it with Lois Lerner and the IRS, using the IRS as a political weapon against their political opponents,” he said.
If the Obama administration was willing to use the IRS for political advantage, it is natural for them to use the federal surveillance programs, as well, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...







Brains not required!




How to make a liberal


Who's Grateful?




And you are?




Why is mainstream media trying to cover up the Susan Rice story?

The Hill ^ | 5 Apr, 2017 | JOE CONCHA 

The worst kind of bias is the bias of omission. And that was never more on display than after reports surfaced earlier this week alleging former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice's had unmasked Trump transition team members.
So why is this a big story that deserves attention? Simply put, one of the highest-ranking members of the previous administration unmasked names of members of the incoming administration via classified intelligence reports, prompting many questions that warrant dogged journalism:
Who leaked the information to newspapers like The Washington Post?
Who, if anyone, ordered Rice to unmask the names of private U.S. citizens in the first place?
Was the ultimate objective of spying and exposing Trump associates for political purposes or for national security reasons?
And why did Rice lie when originally asked about an announcement by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) that Trump and some transition team members were incidentally swept up in surveillance?
To review what happened to prompt the last question above, here's how Rice answered a question around the Nunes revelation when asked by "PBS NewsHour" host Judy Woodruff on March 22.
Rice: “I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.".....
Now if I'm host Andrea Mitchell or one of her producers, the first soundbite I cue up is Rice on PBS denying any knowledge that she knew “nothing about” surveillance allegations. It's a simple but highly effective interviewing technique perfected by the late Tim Russert of NBC "Meet the Press" fame: Play the interviewee's own words back to them and ask them to explain themselves if those words appear to be a lie.
Mitchell and team don't bother doing so.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

THE CIVIL WAR IS HERE. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule.

Front Page Magazine ^ | 27MAR17 | Daniel Greenfield 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

A civil war has begun.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.
The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.
It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.
It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.
It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.
There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.
After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.
This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.
Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.
 That’s why compromise has become impossible.
Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.
Instead it has retreated to cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form a permanent demographic majority for its agenda.
But it couldn’t wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what had been a hidden transition into an open break.
In the hidden transition, its authority figures had hijacked the law and every political office they held to pursue their ideological agenda. The left had used its vast cultural power to manufacture a consensus that was slowly transitioning the country from American values to its values and agendas. The right had proven largely impotent in the face of a program which corrupted and subverted from within.
The left was enormously successful in this regard. It was so successful that it lost all sense of proportion and decided to be open about its views and to launch a political power struggle after losing an election.
The Democrats were no longer being slowly injected with leftist ideology. Instead the left openly took over and demanded allegiance to open borders, identity politics and environmental fanaticism. The exodus of voters wiped out the Democrats across much of what the left deemed flyover country.
The left responded to democratic defeats by retreating deeper into undemocratic institutions, whether it was the bureaucracy or the corporate media, while doubling down on its political radicalism. It is now openly defying the outcome of a national election using a coalition of bureaucrats, corporations, unelected officials, celebrities and reporters that are based out of its cultural and political enclaves.

It has responded to a lost election by constructing sanctuary cities and states thereby turning a cultural and ideological secession into a legal secession. But while secessionists want to be left alone authoritarians want everyone to follow their laws. The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey.
The left describes its actions as principled. But more accurately they are ideological. Officials at various levels of government have rejected the authority of the President of the United States, of Congress and of the Constitution because those are at odds with their radical ideology. Judges have cloaked this rejection in law. Mayors and governors are not even pretending that their actions are lawful.
The choices of this civil war are painfully clear.
We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.
But we cannot have both.
Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.
That is what we have now.
The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.
The question is what comes next.
The last time around growing tensions began to explode in violent confrontations between extremists on both sides. These extremists were lauded by moderates who mainstreamed their views. The first Republican president was elected and rejected. The political tensions led to conflict and then civil war.
The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials.
What this really means is that there are two competing governments; the legal government and a treasonous anti-government of the left. If this political conflict progresses, agencies and individuals at every level of government will be asked to demonstrate their allegiance to these two competing governments. And that can swiftly and explosively transform into an actual civil war.
There is no sign that the left understands or is troubled by the implications of the conflict it has initiated. And there are few signs that Democrats properly understand the dangerous road that the radical left is drawing them toward. The left assumes that the winners of a democratic election will back down rather than stand on their authority. It is unprepared for the possibility that democracy won’t die in darkness.
Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders.
The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.
This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.