Who is doing the shootings in Chicago?

First a map


The quick overview of who lives where in Chicago – from Roosevelt South and including Harvey, from Lake Michigan west to the Dan Ryan freeway and just beyond is the Democratic Party plantation – originally blacks from the South who moved North after Reconstruction ended, and Henry Ford needed labor for his plant in South Chicago – and Pullman needed porters for its sleeping cars.  South Chicago was a working class neighborhood for blacks looking for a better tomorrow.

Then the Great Society arrived.  Democrats saw the potential for taking blacks, putting them in free high rise public housing, free food, free public education with no expectation that learning will happen – in a generation or two, the voting rolls would swell with loyal voters with no skills, no work ethic and completely dependent on government handouts.

West Chicago was a mixture of Hispanics and Asians who are not really part of the same Plantation. They are the people who work at the low status jobs like working in restaurants, cleaning houses, driving taxis…

The North Side is the “lakefront liberals” (or at least was) – multicultural, well educated, high income and “gay friendly”.

Rahm Emanuel is now the mayor – you may remember him as the foulmouthed former Chief of Staff for Barack Obama.  I don’t believe for a moment that the shootings are unrelated to politics and who is running the city.  Here are my main theories (which are not mutually exclusive):

Fast & Furious Northern edition – gun control laws are about keeping guns out of the hands of blacks.  That’s one of those things that Eric Holder says we can’t talk honestly about.  Chicago had one of the strictest gun control laws in the country.  In June 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled that blacks are humans and therefore have the same rights to keep and bear arms.   Perhaps this unsuppressed shooting spree is designed to scare people into supporting tighter gun control laws.

Cabrini Green part II – you may remember Cabrini Green as the prototype of failure of high rise Soviet style government run housing projects – dangerous, overcrowded, decrepit lawless buildings full of non producing people collecting welfare.   Most of Cabrini green is gone – replaced by new developments full of high income professional white people who like the convenient access to downtown.  If the folks living in South Chicago can be chased out, 40 blocks of new lakefront development might happen  – maybe a few casinos could transform the city

Mexican invasion – somewhat under the radar, blacks in Los Angeles have been systematically forced to leave the city, often fleeing violence directed at them by Mexican gangs – with national press ignoring it (remember that Carlis Slim kept the NY Times out of bankruptcy).   If you look down the list of victims, they are fairly evenly spread between blacks and “white Hispanics”.   What’s missing is the names and descriptions of the shooters.

Any other theories?

This entry was posted in Art's Big Adventure, Collapse of America, Dead Things. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Who is doing the shootings in Chicago?

  1. Art Stone says:

    TV Interview

    There is a related story out in LA of Blacks and Latinos rioting against each other in school.

    Curiously there is a global news blackout on this.

    There is a wedge issue. Will Romney bring the hammer down and fracture the Democratic Party constituencies away?

  2. rosegrower says:

    It doesn’t help that Rahm Emanuel has paid over 1 million dollars in taxpayer funds to a group that calls itself “Cease Fire.” Cease Fire is composed of – get this – felons paroled from Joliet. The idea is that these fine people can corral the young hoodlums and set them on the straight and narrow. Emanuel has also told the police to back off. Call me a cynic, but how much does anyone want to bet that a lot of the Cease Fire money went to BUY guns, drugs and other gang amenities and that the older generation of hoodlums is mentoring the young ones?

  3. magnusphi says:

    We’re already getting hints of power sharing with the Chris Christie speech tonight. But who can be surprised by that? Mittens had to deal with the liberals as governor, and he’ll likely have to deal with them in the Senate (thanks, Akin). What does this portend for the Republican Party?

    The Democrats seem to own the future, especially with the rise of minorities. Don’t take my word for it…no less than Jeb Bush in an interview with Bret Baier stated the Republicans need to make the tent bigger (paraphrased). Contrast that with Rush Limbaugh, who has for years stated that true conservative planks lead to a solid Republican platform that in turn leads to conservative victory. Is that still the case? One of those views has to win. That could be a good discussion thread.

    The inner city in flames with a Romney win? That wouldn’t surprise me. And what happens after that? Jobs for the rabble? The national debt becomes a surplus? Russia loses its position as a global power? The US returns to the gold standard? We exit Afghanistan so it can return to its custom blend of theocratic fascism?

    I think I’ll get that passport too.

  4. magnusphi says:

    Welcome back, Art. You seem to have picked a helluva time to move to the City of Big Shoulders. I hail from NW Indiana, so my exposure to Chicago occurred a few times per year over the course of about 20 years. I’ve talked myself out of the Air and Water Show for the last couple of years due to the violence that was well under way during the end of Daley’s reign. Enough background.

    Whatever the reason for the crime, I see Chicago joining the ranks of Detroit. I live in Wisconsin these days, and I see Milwaukee joining the trend. I’d be surprised if Obama is engineering lawlessness in Chicago since it seems so beneath him these days. I think he is eyeing the UN Sec Gen position as his next gig. His ego wouldn’t let him pull a Lyndon Johnson with a second term run, but he knows he won’t win…and he doesn’t want to. This guy had fun as POTUS until Obamacare was passed. After that, he was just putting in time. And it shows.

    Team Romney is playing checkers, I agree. And they seem okay with that mindset. Mittens needs to keep a lid on sentiments like “not worrying about the poor,” and his enjoyment of firing people. It makes it too easy for an adversarial press. Brush up on the facts, use Obama’s words and the Democrat’s actions against them, and kick serious debate ass. Then it can be morning in America again, except we’ve fallen too far to experience another 1980s Pax Americana.

    -Your Old Pal Earnest

    • Art Stone says:

      My worry is Romney will repeat the 2000 Karl Rove mess – don’t shoot for a decisive 5% margin – do just enough to just push the ball over the finish line by 100 votes, and then agree to some power sharing agreement with Dems in Congress to defuse the conflict over a close election.

      I don’t think there is a lot of doubt that the urban areas will erupt in large scale violence on the scale of the 1960s no matter which way things turn out – anger or jubilation or civil war.

      While I’m technically in the City of Chicago, in maybe 15 minutes I could be out in fields of corn. Some interesting lawyering was done when the City of Chicago annexed the farmland that would become O’Hare airport. I’m living in the small strip of land that connects Chicago to O’Hare. Oh, there goes another plane by my window…

      I can also be at O’hare in about 5 minutes and on a plane to anywhere in the world. I should really stop procrastinating and get a passport.

  5. Wil Schuemann says:

    A second possibility is to create the impression of massive lawlessness in a growing number of cities, sufficient to give the Obama an excuse to impose martial law and postpone the election.

    A third possibility is a rapid spreading of the violence into other big cities, all run by Democrat mayors. Then: (1) the Democrat mayors beg Obama for help to control the lawlessness; (2) Obama gets personally involved; and (3) the violence subsides. Obama gains two electoral advantages: (1) he gets to put his halo back on; and (2) the main stream media covers Obama’s success rather than the Republican’s election message about Obama’s failures.

    Since Obama wants a revolution Obama would prefer to do the second possibility, but trying to delay an election creates many legal, constitutional, and practical problems.

    The third possibility is more chess like, creates no problems for Obama, and could be accomplished before the election.

    • Art Stone says:

      I wonder if the people around Romney play chess. They seem more like checkers players. A discovered check would probably totally baffle the O man. He needs to be put on defense – a good offensive player will fall apart when surprised and suddenly needing to protect the troops when they got too aggressive on offense and hadn’t secured the middle of the board.

      Know what I mean Vern?

Leave a Reply