Category: Born again Cynic!
“Where’s Mayor Richard J. Daley when we really need him?” – Grumpy
Will Chicago Become A War Zone?
Leftwing Radicals Pledge To Kill Kamala’s Campaign
Will the Democratic National Convention in Chicago next week face a well-managed series of polite, if messy protests? Or will the city become a war zone?
Things are quickly heating up in Chicago. Nervous Democrats are wondering if the city might come under siege by swarms of pro-Palestinian protesters and/or if they will face riots by extremists – with the explicit goal of defeating Kamala Harris. Public estimates are that between 30,000 to 50,000 protesters are expected to enter the city.
A vast coalition comprising of more than 200 Palestinian, Marxist, anti-imperialist and progressive organizations have signed on to join the “March on the DNC 2024” which is planning marches and rallies between August 19 and 21.
Meanwhile, Chicago authorities have opened a defunct courthouse to streamline arrests and have cleared 30 additional courtrooms if there are mass arrests, according to NewsNation.
The city has postponed all criminal jury trials scheduled for next week and “criminal judges from other divisions of Cook County have been asked to clear their calendars in case they need to be called into action to help process those arrested,” according to the news channel.
The convention grounds now are officially considered a “national special security event.” This means the Secret Service will oversee security inside the convention grounds.
The security size of the massive police perimeter around the DNC “is based off a bomb assessment and blast radius,” according to Chicago police Deputy Chief of Counter-Terrorism Duane DeVries.
The Chicago Tribune reports today that the city has inflamed the protesters who “are crying foul after Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration issued last-minute denials of requests to set up stages and sound systems for rallies in parks near the United Center.” The United Center is the main hall for the Democratic delegates.
Further upsetting the radicals was Tuesday’s federal court decision by U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood, an Obama appointee. She denied any additional new permits for the protesters to get them to the convention hall. She upheld the city’s limitations on the demonstrators.
The protester’s lawyer has warned the judge’s negative ruling is going to spark “chaos” in the city.
Hatem Abudayyeh, a Palestinian radical and the spokesman for the “March on the DNC,” was evasive on Tuesday about whether they would forcefully expand their presence near the convention.
He told the Chicago Sun-Times after the judge’s verdict, that he “could not say whether the protest groups would abide by Wood’s decision.”
The crowds are believed to be at a minimum, unruly and at worst, riotous. The single largest part of the coalition, of course, are scores of radical Palestinian solidarity committees, which uniformly call for the end to Israel.
The march’s organizational leadership is a Who’s Who of well-known militant groups throughout the United States including Code Pink, Democratic Socialists of America and ANSWER.
But there also is a fringe feeling to the coalition, which includes such seemingly antiquated ‘60’s groups as the All Afrikan-People’s Revolutionary Party, the Malcom X Center for Self-Determinations, Denver Communists, and the Proletariat Representation USA. There are plenty of fringe groups listed by the coalition.
Meanwhile, Democrats are trying to stop demonstrations actually inside the United Center where the delegates are scheduled to meet. According to the New York Times, “as of now, the delegates are still planning to make their presence at the proceedings known, threatening the overwhelming display of unity that Democrats hope to project heading into the fall campaign.”
Social media posts show that the “March on the DNC” will bring together pro-Palestinian Islamicists with self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninists, anti-imperialists, anarchists as well as some progressive groups. All are determined to viciously denounce Harris and the Democratic Party.
Ryan Mauro, a decades-long expert of extremist groups who is with the non-profit research group, the Capital Research Center, says the really interesting development in today’s radical world is about how “the era of the selfie” can excite and motivate activists to do crazy things.
“Don’t underestimate the power of the selfie,” he told me in an interview.
“It’s apparent when you see their social media accounts, the majority of these participants are young,” he continued. “They want to look to their peers of influence, that they’re willing to sacrifice for a cause, and in their mind, show how righteous they are by acting as aggressively as possible and creating as much of a public display of martyrdom as possible – without getting killed of course – because then you can’t later enjoy Instagram ‘likes.’
“They want to enjoy the aftermath, and the pictures and the praise and being the ‘cool one’ in their social circle,” he notes.
Mauro adds another observation: that the alliance between Islamicists and radical Marxists is a new and a potentially dangerous development and next week this alliance will be seen on full display throughout Chicago.
“I can’t think of another time in recent years when the Islamicists network and basically the entirety of the Marxist-Leninist and anarchist networks have come forth and shown themselves. So, we have an actual identifiable multi-layered network.”
I clearly remember the “street energy” of radical protests when I was one myself in the 1970’s. I was the roommate with Chicago 8 defendant Rennie Davis who was a New Left leader during the 1968 riots in Chicago.
Later I was a member with Rennie on the May Day Collective that organized mass civil disobedience in Washington, D.C. in 1971. Thousands were arrested. I’ve become more conservative over time but vividly recall the energy and excitement of that era.
So my impression is that street war does seem to be in the offing in Chicago.
Based on both the character of the coalition and on their rhetoric, this is one very mean group of people.
“For at least six months radical leftwing and pro-Palestinian activists have routinely called President Biden, “Genocide Joe” over his Israeli policies.
Now they are calling Kamala Harris, the apparent Democratic Presidential candidate, “Killer Kamala.”
And that’s the polite part.
One particularly menacing radical group coming to Chicago is called “Behind the Lines.” It openly expresses a willingness to use violence in the name of “resistance.”
They write on their website, “We envision a resistance that is willing to break through the police barricades, both metaphorically and physically.”
Their war cry to the masses is: “Escalate for Gaza! Shut down the DNC!”
Behind the Lines also challenges the idea that protests should be peaceful and safe.
“All of this begs the question: Who says protesting should be safe,” they ask on their website.
“Let’s be fucking serious here: why do people in the US have the right to prioritize their own safety? How is any protest going to be successful if it doesn’t challenge and disrupt business as usual to disturb the normal functioning of a society that is aiding and abetting a genocide? And why should any of that be safe,” they ask.
This brings me to Saul Alinsky, a New Left radical who was our political guru in the 1970’s. He advised activists in his 1971 book titled “Rules for Radicals.” I have a four-part series on Alinsky on Substack.
“Rules” is still the handbook for today’s pro-Palestinian radicals who, as the Wall Street Journal reported, are being advised by many aging New Left radicals.
Disturbingly, Alinsky makes it clear that tactics can be very fluid, depending on your circumstances. He particularly notes that morality and ethics are elastic when it comes to making revolutionary history.
“You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments,” he advises radical leaders.
Alinsky is quite clear that flexibility is important during “the struggle.” He writes, “If weapons are needed, then are appropriate weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly; whether you will move for extensive changes or limited adjustments; whether you will move by passive resistance or active resistance; or whether you will move at all”
The March on DNC’s rhetoric isn’t much different than Behind the Lines. Its main web site is filled with unremitting anger towards the Democratic Party. ‘We recognize the Democratic Party as a tool of billionaires and corporations,” the coalition statement begins.
They continue: “Their actions, such as financing genocide in Palestine and war in multiple countries; continuing the mass incarceration of Black and brown people; deporting millions of immigrants; and neglecting campaign promises made to the oppressed communities who represent their voting base, show that the Democratic Party only serves the agenda of the rich and powerful.”
The coalition’s opposition to Harris is clear. Abudayyeh, the coalition’s spokesman, said the switch to Harris “doesn’t change the policies of Democratic Party leadership, specifically their support of the genocide in Palestine, so our movement must continue to apply pressure.”
He added, “When it comes to the genocide in Gaza there is no difference between Biden, Harris, or any of the likely candidates for the nomination. They are all complicit. This is why the coalition will still be marching on the DNC in the tens of thousands.”
The Democratic establishment now is in a quandary. They know they can’t fulfill the radical’s agenda. But dissing them also could cost them the election.
Mauro notes that these anti-imperialist, Marxist and pro-Palestinian activists were never part of the Democratic party. “The reality is, they were never part of the Biden-Harris base to begin with. And they cannot be won over. Their demands are too high.”
The protesters, he says, “want to give an impression that this is a segment of the Democratic voting base that was lost because of Biden and Harris being too moderate and especially for being too supportive of Israel.” From a sterile political calculation, he says these are voters they never had and will never have.
Nevertheless, the image of violence in the streets and disruption among the delegates could both spoil the sense of political unity of the party and could permanently end Harris’ political momentum.
So today, the Democrats can’t count out a person like Jae Yates, 31, an organizer with the Twin Cities Coalition for Justice. His coalition is a progressive Minnesota group that operates in the state governed Vice President-designate Tim Walz.
Ordinarily, Yates should be a pretty ardent supporter of the ticket. But instead, he plans to bring two busloads of protesters to the Chicago anti-Democratic Party march.
“People feel more betrayed by the Democratic Party because Republicans have sort of always been naked in their support for war and repression abroad,” Yates said to the Chicago Sun-Times. “But the Democratic Party has been promising people for years to do so many things that they’ve never delivered on … I think people are exhausted and sick of the runaround from the Democrats.”
Will it 2024 become 1968? The Olympics are over. So, America probably will be watching.
The Pentagon announced Monday that it had finished withdrawing U.S. forces from a $110 million military base in Niger, Africa, as the nation’s ruling regime takes over.
Niger’s Air Base 201 previously hosted hundreds of U.S. troops who have now evacuated at the request of the country’s military junta. The Pentagon said in a statement on Monday that all remaining forces and assets at the base have been withdrawn as final evacuation efforts come to a close.
“This effort began on May 19 following the mutual establishment of withdrawal conditions and coordination will continue between U.S. and Nigerien armed forces over the coming weeks to ensure the full withdrawal is complete as planned,” a statement from the Pentagon reads. “The effective cooperation and communication between the U.S. and Nigerien armed forces ensured that this turnover was finished ahead of schedule and without complications.”
American soldiers in front of military vehicles that they are preparing to board a cargo plane in Niamey on June 7, 2024 during the ceremony for the first departure of American troops from Niger. (Photo by BOUREIMA HAMA/AFP via Getty Images)
Some U.S. troops will remain at the U.S. Embassy in Niger while final withdrawal operations are completed in the coming weeks, according to The New York Times. Some equipment from Air Base 201 was shipped out, such as weaponry, but other equipment was left behind.
The U.S. relationship with Niger began to unravel after the country’s military regime toppled the democratic system in mid-2023, sending the nation spiraling into chaos. The regime was adamant that it did not want the U.S. to maintain a presence in Niger and demanded its immediate withdrawal.
Attempts to negotiate with the military regime largely failed as the country became increasingly hostile to troops stationed in the country. Officials issued a formal order in May to begin evacuating U.S. forces over the coming months, with the last of troops expected to depart from Niger by mid-September, according to the Times.
Some prominent U.S. defense officials argue that not having forces in Niger limits the U.S.’ ability to conduct counterterrorism operations against extremist and terrorist groups in the Sahel region.
TOPSHOT – Niger’s security officers stand guard as supporters of Niger’s National Council of Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP) gather oustide Niger and French airbase in Niamey on September 3, 2023, to demand the departure of the French army from Niger. (Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images)
“This does make safeguarding U.S. security interests in the Sahel that much harder,” Maj. Gen. Kenneth P. Ekman of the Air Force, tasked with overseeing the withdrawal, told the Times in July. “The threats from ISIS and Al Qaeda in the region are getting worse every day.”
However, some defense experts and former U.S. officials who previously spoke to the Daily Caller News Foundation believed that withdrawing forces from Niger was the right decision, given that they were falling under an increasing amount of danger from the country’s hostile government and population. Boots on the ground are not necessarily needed to conduct counterterrorism operations, as the U.S. has other extensive military and intelligence capabilities, experts told the DCNF.
“What the [Biden administration] was not understanding, is that these guys are cold-blooded. This new government in Niger? They don’t care. They do not want the United States involved in their country,” Michael DiMino, a former CIA official and senior fellow at Defense Priorities, told the DCNF. “There was this denialism for several months that, ‘We can salvage this, we did fix this.’”
The Pentagon and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Gee, just another thing that the US Media has missed AGAIN!!! Why am I so not surprised by this? Grumpy
The United Nation’s Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its Aspects (PoA) is now almost 23 years old. With a lack of any meaningful measurables and reporting remaining steady at around 50%, it should come as no surprise to anyone that follows the logic of the United Nations (UN) that expansion, not compliance, remains its priority.
That drive to expand was on full display during the PoA’s Fourth Review Conference, which concluded on June 28th after two full weeks of negotiations. As the only American firearms user group attending in a sea of anti-firearm nations and Non-Governmental Associations (NGOs), the NRA fought fiercely to stem the PoA’s growth and preserve the rights of American firearms and ammunition users against increased international standards meant to destroy those very rights afforded to us by our Second Amendment.
The arguments for expansion this year mirrored many of those from the past, especially in regard to including international regulations on ammunition under the PoA’s terms, synergizing its language with that of other legally binding UN instruments such as the Arms Trade Treaty and Firearms Protocol and establishing international regulations over personally manufactured firearms, or as the UN calls them, craft-built weapons.
There were also call to expand the PoA into new areas, such as the environment, technology, and gender dominions. The most notable of these were calls for the creation of an Open-Ended Technical Expert Group to study and develop international regulations and oversight on what the UN considers “new technologies” (polymers, modular weapons, and 3D printing), as well as the inclusion of language calling for the exploration of the relationship between firearms, “masculinities” and “genders in all their diversity.”
The justification for expansion of the PoA is transparent, as the inclusion of new language and regulations not only hamper the ability of civilians to use and possess firearms, but also allow for the PoA to continue to exist. It is hard to debate against the continuation of a body that has shown no real impact on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, or that only 50% of its members even bother to report to; however, if one can show continued growth an argument can be made that life still exists. Accordingly, expanding into ammunition, creating a new technical group, and arguing that firearms have a disproportionate impact on diverse genders ultimately creates a case for increasingly tailored interventions by the UN. This in turn calls for the expenditure of funds on more regional meetings in developing countries and fundraising opportunities for NGOs to continue producing junk-based academic “studies.” It’s the financial lifeblood of many, and the circle of life in general at the UN.
Fortunately, by the end of two-weeks of negotiations, and considerable efforts working friendly delegations, most of these calls for expansion were either removed from consideration entirely or watered down with limiting language leaving them barren of any real-world implications. In particular, the multiple references to international ammunition regulations included in the initial draft of the outcome document were watered down to a single paragraph that accomplishes nothing more than recognizing the existence of the Global Framework for Through-Life Conventional Ammunition Management. In addition, any regulations pertaining to private manufacturing were edited to include limiting language pertaining only to those manufactured illegally under national laws.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. the Open-Ended Technical Expert Group was established, and membership was limited to governments and invited “experts” only. The Group will also meet informally, which in UN parlance means that unless invited, we will be unable to attend. It is no surprise that this is the format agreed to, as it has always been the goal of the UN to exclude any real experts that could dispel their ideological views and instead fill their seats with anti-firearm academics that feed off the questionable science of their colleagues. Again, it’s the UN’s circle of life.
The next meeting of the PoA will be in the early summer of 2026, during which the Open-Ended Technical Expert Group will hold their first meeting. Until such time, we will be working to find a seat at the table so that we can continue to fight the UN from interfering with our national sovereignty.
Five months after the longtime face of the gun rights movement, Wayne LaPierre, was found liable for misspending $5.4 million of the National Rifle Association’s money, the gun group’s leadership will return next week to a Manhattan courtroom.
For the N.R.A. itself, the stakes this time will be far higher.
Mr. LaPierre stepped down as the group’s chief executive in January, on the eve of the first phase of the trial, which featured testimony about years of lavish spending and executive perks, including Zegna suits, superyacht junkets, charter flights and vacations in the Bahamas. The jury’s verdict was a victory for New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, who brought the corruption case.
But the N.R.A. itself was not then a defendant. In the second phase, scheduled to begin on Monday in State Supreme Court, a judge will decide whether the group needs outside monitoring, a step that would curb its independence, at least temporarily, and that it stridently opposes.
For decades, the N.R.A. was at the forefront of a movement that repeatedly beat back gun control legislation while vastly expanding the scope of the right to bear arms. But this new challenge comes as the group’s influence within the gun rights movement has waned, along with its standing as a power player in Republican politics.
A recent court filing underlined how wounded the N.R.A. has been by a half decade of scandal. Its membership fell below 4 million last year, from nearly 5.3 million in 2018. Annual dues and contributions have fallen by far more than half over the same period, from $281 million to roughly $115 million.
“Ironically, a monitor might help the N.R.A. right the ship,” said Nick Suplina, a former senior adviser and special counsel at the attorney general’s office who now works for the gun control group Everytown. “Basically the same leadership circle isn’t going to be the path to them digging out of the hole.”
In May, the group’s annual conference saw an actual contest for its top posts, a rare occurrence, but insiders ultimately emerged. Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia and an N.R.A. stalwart, was elected board president, while Doug Hamlin, a little-known figure who ran the organization’s publications division, was the surprise choice for chief executive. Both are scheduled to be witnesses during the court proceedings.
Some good news for the N.R.A. followed the annual conference. In late May, the Supreme Court sided with the group, finding that the N.R.A. could pursue a First Amendment claim against a New York state official who had urged companies to cut ties with it after the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Fla.
Now it says it has spent nearly six years reforming its corporate governance on its own and does not need outside oversight.
“Every witness with personal knowledge of the internal workings of the association today concurs that further state intrusion poses a grave, needless threat to the N.R.A.’s recovery,” the association said in a recent legal filing, adding that the first part of the trial had aired events from its “distant past.”
Ms. James disagrees, and her office sees little reason to let up, having largely prevailed in the trial so far. She and her legal team are seeking the appointment of a compliance monitor for three years who would oversee the N.R.A.’s spending, assess its governance practices and determine whether it is following nonprofit law.
Ms. James’s office argues in court filings that “the N.R.A. did not voluntarily self-disclose its misconduct,” adding that “any attempts” to overhaul its corporate governance were “reactive” and only took place after the attorney general’s office warned it to “essentially get its house in order, and after the media began publishing investigative reports about financial misconduct.”
Her office said it would “introduce evidence concerning the nascent, untested and incomplete nature of the N.R.A.’s new compliance program.” The judge in the case, Joel M. Cohen, will rule from the bench in the second phase of the trial, which is expected to last two weeks. (New York has special jurisdiction over the N.R.A., since it was founded as a nonprofit in the state more than 150 years ago.)
The N.R.A.’s lead counsel, William A. Brewer III, acknowledged in a statement that “there was misconduct by former vendors and insiders” but said there was “no evidence it continues today. Not a shred.” Court filings show that the group is spending between $1,150 and $1,500 an hour for the consulting and testimony of Daniel L. Kurtz, who once ran the attorney general’s charities bureau, which oversees the N.R.A.
In a filing, Mr. Kurtz lauded “the N.R.A.’s willingness to self-examine and course correct,” adding that “if some few million dollars went ‘sideways,’ more than a billion dollars were devoted to N.R.A. causes and activities.”
The N.R.A. is not the only defendant. This week, Wilson Phillips, the former chief financial officer, sidestepped a role in the trial by agreeing to a 10-year ban on managing money for New York nonprofits. He had been ordered to repay $2 million in the first phase. A third official, John Frazer, is also a defendant. He was recently removed by the new leadership as general counsel but still serves as corporate secretary.
Mr. LaPierre will also be back in court. In addition to the financial judgment, Ms. James is seeking to bar him from any future fiduciary role at the N.R.A.
Mr. LaPierre’s attorney, P. Kent Correll, argues in legal filings that banning Mr. LaPierre would essentially mean “censoring, deplatforming and canceling him” and “excluding him from the national arena in which the debate over gun policy and legislation occurs.”
As an exhibit, Mr. Correll appended a seven-page passage from Alexis de Tocqueville, the 19th-century Frenchman who was a keen observer of the United States. (“In our time, freedom of association has become a necessary guarantee against the tyranny of the majority,” read part of the quotation.)
The N.R.A. alienated many of its own supporters in the late stages of the LaPierre era, and recent leadership changes notwithstanding, it remains restive and fractious. One dissident board member, Phillip Journey, is seeking to intervene in the case, and said in a recent note to the judge that he wanted some other board members removed “who actively aided and abetted the looting of N.R.A. assets.”
Mr. Journey is not in lock step with the attorney general’s office, but is among the insiders exasperated by the N.R.A.’s governance. As he has put it: “We don’t need a financial monitor, N.R.A. needs a hall monitor.”
The post The N.R.A. Is Facing a Court Fight for Control of Its Future appeared first on New York Times.
