Connect with us

Nation

63 Shot, 12 Dead in Chicago This Weekend, Mayor Says She Has ‘Great Concerns’ About Federal Help To Quell Violence

Published

on

chicago shootings week of aug 11

With dozens of people shot and 12 killed, the city of Chicago saw another violent weekend — the totals included a mother’s third and last-living child, after the first two fell victim to Chicago violence in years previous.

Nine of those shot this past weekend were juveniles.

It is a staggering statistic, with 41 different shooting incidents occurring between 6 p.m. Friday and midnight Sunday. WGN reported that since Jan. 1, 203 children — 17 and under — have been shot in Chicago, with 35 of those children killed.

Patricia Pearson lost her third child this weekend, as reported by the Sun Times — her 12-year-old daughter was injured in a 1995 shooting and later died in a car accident, her 26-year-old son was killed in a 1999 shooting, and her last child, Venyon Fluckers, a father of three, was murdered this weekend.

“My heart is heavy. He was my last baby,” said Pearson, 67, to the Sun Times who hasn’t seen justice in her other children’s shootings. “This time I want to know what happened. And I’m trusting and believing and hoping police will do their job and find out.”

Despite the gruesome violence tearing apart Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot is spending her time fretting over President Donald Trump’s proposal to send in federal help to ease the violence.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1284894845614600194?s=20

Instead of accepting the much needed help, the mayor said she has “great concerns” with regard to federal agents.

“We don’t need federal agents without any insignia taking people off the street and holding them I think unlawfully,” Lightfoot said to NBC5. “That’s not what we mean.”

Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown felt differently about the federal assistance.

“We will take any and all help and we’ve made numerous requests for titularly in our efforts to address the mid level and upper level criminal networks, drug and gang networks and we have great relationships with our local federal partners and we hope to continue that to address some of the things that are happening,” Supt. David Brown said at a Monday press conference, adding that he doesn’t “do politics.”

You may like

Continue Reading

Media

WSJ: Corporate Dirty Pool in Washington’s Senate Race

Published

on

GettyImages 1241869045 scaled

The Wall Street Journal’s,  Kimberly A. Strassel wrote a piece identifying how the Democrats are so worried about Washington Senator Patty Murray’s re-election “that Seattle’s corporate heavyweights are playing dirty pool on her behalf.”

Murray, a leftwing progressive, has faced little competition while in office; until now. Tiffany Smiley, a Republican nurse and entrepreneur “is pummeling Ms. Murray from every direction and laying out her own detailed reform agenda” adds the WSJ.

A RealClearPolitics average has Ms. Murray winning by 8 points. Another poll has Smiley within 2 points. Regardless, It’s close enough that “Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recently transferred $500,000 of his own campaign cash to Ms. Murray’s campaign.”

Money from Schumer isn’t the only liberal panic dough. “Starbucks, the Seattle Times and the Seattle Seahawks—are actively attempting to sabotage the Smiley campaign, albeit in a distinctly underhanded fashion” writes the WSJ. “Their targets are two effective Smiley campaign ads.”

At the center of the fight are two of Smiley’s ads: “Game Day” and “Cup of Coffee.”

Strassel reports:

In “Game Day” the Republican is in a kitchen preparing to watch a football game, hitting Ms. Murray and Democrats for the spiraling cost of food. In “Cup of Coffee,” she stands in front of a derelict building. Barely visible at the top, and seen backward, is the store’s faded Starbucks sign. Ms. Smiley hits Ms. Murray for rising crime, while the ad flashes two Seattle Times headlines, one of which reads: “Starbucks to Close 5 Seattle Stores Over Safety Concerns.”

“Game Day” hit the airwaves Sept 1. Five days later, according to documents I obtained, the Smiley campaign received a terse email from the Seahawks claiming a trademark violation. The ad briefly shows Ms. Smiley’s husband, Scotty—a retired U.S. Army Ranger who was blinded by shrapnel in Iraq—expressing alarm that “even beer” prices are rising. You only see his shoulders above a tall couch—and if you get a magnifying glass you might make out a letter or two from the word “Seahawks.” The letter insisted the Smiley campaign “immediately cease” its “unauthorized commercial use.” Nothing like your local sports franchise dumping cease-and-desist orders on wounded veterans.

“Cup of Coffee” went live on Sept. 20. The next day, the Seattle Times sent an email to the “Jane Smiley” campaign—apparently without running it past its fact-checking desk—accusing it of “unauthorized use of The Seattle Times logo and two headlines” in violation of the paper’s “copyright and trademark.” It demanded the campaign remove any references to the paper not only in its own ad, but in an NBC News article about the ad’s launch.

Two days later, Starbucks sent a certified letter saying the campaign was appropriating its intellectual property, and complaining it might “create an unfounded association in the minds of consumers between Starbucks and your campaign.” It insisted the campaign either pull the ad or alter it to strip both the (barely visible, backward) sign and the Seattle Times headline referencing Starbucks.

One such letter may be the product of an overzealous lawyer, but three in a row looks like more than a coincidence. One might even wonder if some Murray staffer was putting bugs in Seattle business leaders’ ears. And while corporate political-action committees routinely play politics by making donations, it’s something else for individual companies to go to bat for a candidate via behind-the-scenes threats based on tenuous legal claims. These letters were bound to cost the Smiley campaign money and headaches and might have pushed it off the airwaves.

The campaign didn’t roll over. It made a painless accommodation to the “Game Day” ad, blurring the jersey colors to obscure anything distinct. In a legal letter sent Thursday to Starbucks, the campaign rebutted the company’s infringement claims, running through political speech protections and noting that no reasonable person would ever think a factual ad about shuttered Starbucks stores amounted to a coffee-chain endorsement. It suggested Starbucks focus on its own problems, like its recent union woes.

The Seattle Times also received a letter refuting its claims, but it got something in addition. The Smiley campaign on Thursday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint, charging the paper with providing the Murray campaign a prohibited in-kind contribution. It turns out that Ms. Murray has also used a Seattle Times headline in her ads. Her “First 2016 Ad” sports the newspaper’s logo under the headline: “Patty Murray’s and Paul Ryan’s Teamwork Is a Model for Congress.” It seems the Times has a different legal standard for candidates it endorses.

As the FEC complaint notes, the Smiley campaign would have to spend an estimated $5,000 to remove and update the ad—“costs that Patty Murray does not have to accrue.” It cites FEC regulations that provide “if a corporation makes its resources available for free, it must do so for all candidates.”

Don’t expect the Seattle corporate set to do anything on behalf of Ms. Smiley soon. But it shouldn’t be too much to ask that they do their politicking straight—and out in the open.

You may like

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending Now

Advertisement

Trending

Proudly Made In America | © 2022 M3 Media Management, LLC