Connect with us

U.S.

Inner Cities In America Are A Mess – Here’s Why

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

The stories coming out from Chicago and Baltimore paint an increasingly pessimistic picture: that America’s inner cities are transitioning into a warzone, where violence has returned to levels not seen since the drug wars of the early 1990s.

Take for example Chicago, five men were killed and at least 20 people shot over the four-day Christmas holiday weekend. Last year, 59 people were shot over the same period, leaving 11 dead.

Across the United States, homicides rose about 9% last year with more than one-third of the increase concentrated in Chicago neighborhoods, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Despite the overall deterioration of American inner cities, there was some improvement in areas such as Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., where declines in violent crimes have been in downward trajectories since the 1990s.

According to the WSJ, soaring homicides in Chicago and Baltimore share wide wealth inequality rates, de-industrialization, depleted residential real estate, and a reduction of police officers following the Ferguson effect in 2014. Nevertheless, the opioid crisis is fueling much of this death and despair in the inner cities, trapping the younger generations into a perpetual world of crime.

Meanwhile, in Washington and Los Angeles, “gang interventions and community policing,” which explores ways to strengthen the community have led to a long-term reduction in homicides. The article brings up the dreaded word gentrification, while it has worked in Washington to suppress crime, it has certainly not been effective in Chicago and or Baltimore.

David Weisburd, a criminologist at George Mason University said about 1% of city streets contributes to 25% of a city’s crime, and 5% of the streets produces half the crime. He coined the phrase the “law of crime concentration.”

In Chicago, half the violent crime came from five neighborhoods, including West Garfield Park, exemplifying Weisburd’s theory. In fact, crime in the area has surged to levels not seen since the “drug wars fueled by the crack-cocaine epidemic” of the 1990s.

As the WSJ adds, “violence in Chicago erupted last year, with the city recording 771 murders—a 58% jump from 2015. The third largest city in the U.S. with 2.7 million people, Chicago had more murders than New York and Los Angeles combined.” Violent crime in Chicago is concentrated in just a handful of neighborhoods, where inequalities are wide and it’s not just in wealth.

WSJ interviewed Amarley Coggins who started dealing drugs aged 12. A decade later, he sits in jail for “felony drug charges and possession of a weapon”.

Amarley Coggins remembers the first time he dealt heroin, discreetly approaching a car coming off an interstate highway and into West Garfield Park, the neighborhood where he grew up on Chicago’s west side. He was 12 years old and had just been recruited into a gang by his older brothers and cousin.

A decade later, he sits in Cook County jail, held without bail and awaiting trial on three cases, including felony drug charges and possession of a weapon. “I have a lot of friends who didn’t make it to 22,” said Mr. Coggins, who hasn’t entered a plea. “I want to stay alive for my son and my family.”

“Baltimore City has a lot of people walking around that have committed homicides and shootings,” said former deputy police commissioner, Tony Barksdale. Meanwhile community leaders and former police members warn that police have disbanded proactive operations to combat crime since the April 2015 riots:

Some community leaders and former police officials say police have pulled back from a more proactive approach on the street since April 2015, when riots erupted after Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old black man, died from a broken neck he sustained in a police van. Officers had chased Mr. Gray from North and Pennsylvania, a known drug corner, and arrested him for allegedly possessing an illegal knife.

A police department spokesman said foot patrols have increased because now officers are mandated to walk through neighborhoods in the first months of field training, which wasn’t the case a few years ago.

Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis, in charge since July 2015, also said violent criminals feel emboldened. He said judges too often give offenders who use guns suspended prison sentences.

“You look at Baltimore’s crime numbers, that’s criminals taking advantage of weakness,” Mr. Barksdale said. He further said: “I am against mass arrests, but you still need arrests.”

JPMorgan Chase funds the Racial Wealth Divide Initiative at CFED, and warns an astronomical amount of Baltimore citizens have a net worth of zero; the racial divide and wealth inequality is among the highest in the country, contributing to high levels of violent crime.

Baltimore residents describe life on the streets:

Ericka Alston-Buck, who runs a youth center blocks from where Mr. Gray was arrested in 2015, says the violence is tied to poverty that hasn’t eased since the riots. “You have to be here to feel the blight, the vacant houses, the cat-sized rodents that run through the streets, the open-air drug markets, prostitution, no grocery store,” she said.

Jacqueline Caldwell, a local resident who leads a nonprofit umbrella group that includes several west-side community associations, said the police have become nonexistent over the past two years. “I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out we need more police on the street, more community involvement with the police,” Ms. Caldwell said.

John Skinner, a former deputy police commissioner who retired in 2014, said after the riots, police feared “another triggering effect.” He said while he thinks the retreat from proactive policing was brief, its effects were lasting. “Violence can escalate really, really rapidly. When it occurs it’s tough to get that stabilization back,” he said.


The sad conclusion is that the inner-city playgrounds of the establishment elite, Chicago and Baltimore, have been let to fail. The decades-long experiment is now resulting in a war zone that is progressively getting worse, not better, despite recurring narratives to suck in poor millennials for revival purposes. As a country, it’s time to take two steps back and reflect on the failures before we taking any more steps “forward” otherwise the situation will only get worse.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Bannon An ‘Oppurtunist’ – Trump Jr & Newt Gingrich

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

In the course of less than a day, former Trump strategist Steve Bannon has gone from simply “former Trump strategist” to “radioactive backstabber,” after The Guardian reported that Bannon, in Michael Wolff’s new book “Fire and Fury, called a June 2016 meeting at Trump tower involving Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya “treasonous” and “unpatriotic.”


“Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”

In response, President Trump issued a four-paragraph scorching reply, saying Bannon had “lost his mind.” Donald Trump Jr. also responded, calling his father’s former chief strategist “backstabbing, harassing, leaking, lying & undermining the President,” adding “Steve is not a strategist, he is an opportunist.”

Newt Gingrich chimed in on Fox News, telling Neil Cavuto, “I think that Bannon thinks he’s extraordinarily important. But the fact is, Trump had won the nomination without Bannon. Trump would have won the presidency without Bannon. And Trump has governed without Bannon.”

So I think there’s an exaggerated sense of who Steve is. And I think, remember, this is a guy who got fired. So you have a guy who has been fired who is trying to claim a bunch of things, which he apparently did not claim at the time.

And I think you have to just say, you know, it’s noise. It has nothing to do with — the things that matter to America and the things that matter to the American people have no relationship to the kind of noise that we’re going to spend all day today with.

And luckily for the president, he’s really come to distinguish between the things that matter and the things that don’t. The meeting this weekend at Camp David matters with the Republican leadership. Steve Bannon saying a bunch of junk doesn’t really matter in the long run. It will disappear. -Newt Gingrich

Trump Jr. also replied to a tweet by conservative pundit Bill Mitchell, which quotes a portion of Bannon’s book, reading:

“On Election Night, when the unexpected trend , Trump might actually win, seemed confirmed, Don Jr. told a friend that his father, or DJT, as he calls him, looked as if he had seen a ghost. Melania was in tears—and not of joy.”


Trump Jr. responded: “Another good one. Anyone who knows me or follows me knows that’s about as far from something I would say or how I speak as possible… What a joke.”

And earlier in the day, Trump Jr. tweeted “Andrew Breitbart would be ashamed of the division and lies Steve Bannon is spreading!,” after tweeting “Wow, just looked at the comments section on Breitbart. Wow. When Bannon has lost Breitbart, he’s left with . . . umm, nothing.”

And now, it appears as though Bannon may have lost any hope of cobbling together political capital. As US News reports;

Despite his blatant miscalculation and the animosity he stirred among traditional Republicans, Bannon’s enduring influence was that he purportedly had a direct line to Trump – the White House confirmed they spoke by phone last month – and could help mold the president’s thoughts on policy and political strategy.

Now, that line appears lacerated.

“Now that he is on his own, Steve is learning that winning isn’t as easy as I make it look,” Trump said in the statement. “Steve doesn’t represent my base – he’s only in it for himself.”

The extraordinary breakup between the two larger-than-life comrades led to immediate fallout across the Republican Party. GOP leadership rejoiced at Bannon’s fall from grace, with allies of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reveling in and sharing the president’s takedown.

Bannon’s split from the Trumps puts wealthy GOP donor Robert Mercer and his daughter, Rebekah Mercer in an awkward spot – as the financier have financially supported Breitbart, while also supporting President Trump and his GOP causes. Mercer announced in November that he was selling his stake in his company to his daughters – while at the time, making it clear that while he occasionally discusses politics with Bannon, he’s not always aligned with him.

And as Trump Jr. said earlier today – when Bannon has lost Breitbart, “he’s left with … ummm, nothing.”

In September, Bannon appeared on 60 minutes where heb called himself a “street fighter” and “declared war on the GOP” for trying to “nullify the election.” Bannon also said that the Trump administration made the “original sin” of embracing the establishment. “I mean, we totally embraced the establishment … Because ya had to staff a government.”

Bannon also said he was going to be Trump’s “wing man outside for the entire time, to protect [Trump] and to “make sure his enemies know that there’s no free shot on goal.”

Well – it looks like Bannon just took a shot on his own goal, and will be cast into radioactive irrelevancy for time immemorial.

Continue Reading

Media

Bill Maher Brings On Vaccines Skeptic, Gets Railed By Media

Published

on

This past Friday Bill Maher brought on a “questionable” guest as his first on his show ‘Real Time’ on HBO. The guest in question —, is a known Vaccine Skeptic. It was quickly noticeable from the crowd reaction, which is usually sporadically either clapping or laughing, often mocked by Bill himself, was very quiet and toned down, most likely thrown off guard. This issue, like many Bill champions on his show, are issues he prides as fringe on both sides of the aisle, the far-left and far-right often being huge skeptic of establishment Scientist and Doctor opinions.

Continue Reading

Iowa

Randy Feenstra Built on Kim Reynolds’ Betrayal of Steve King: The Artificial Replacement Who Ousted a Conservative Warrior

Published

on

In the summer of 2020, Iowa’s 4th Congressional District witnessed one of the most brazen establishment takeovers in recent Republican politics. Nine-term Congressman Steve King—the fiery, unapologetic voice of rural conservatism, border security, and Western civilization—was unceremoniously dumped by his own party. In his place? State Senator Randy Feenstra, a polished, establishment-backed challenger who cruised to victory in the June 2 primary with 45.5% of the vote to King’s 35.8%.

This wasn’t a grassroots revolt. It was a calculated betrayal orchestrated by the very insiders King had helped elevate—including Governor Kim Reynolds, whom he had proudly endorsed and supported just years earlier.

The Endorsement: King Lifts Reynolds When She Needed Him Most

Flash back to 2017-2018. Kim Reynolds was running for a full term as governor after ascending from lieutenant governor. Steve King didn’t just back her—he went all-in. Reynolds named King a statewide campaign co-chair and proudly touted his endorsement. In a November 2017 press release, she gushed: “Congressman Steve King is a strong defender of freedom and our conservative values. He’s independent, principled, and is fighting the good fight in Washington, D.C. You never have to question where he stands.”

King delivered for Reynolds in the heavily conservative 4th District. She rode that support to victory in 2018. Their alliance was public, mutual, and mutually beneficial—classic Republican teamwork, or so it seemed.

The Betrayal: Reynolds Stabs King in the Back

Fast forward to January 2019. After years of King being smeared by the media for his blunt defense of immigration enforcement and cultural issues, House Republican leadership stripped him of his committee assignments over remarks questioning why “white nationalist” had become a slur. King’s enemies pounced. Enter Randy Feenstra, who announced his primary challenge against the incumbent.

Governor Kim Reynolds? She didn’t lift a finger to defend the man who had co-chaired her campaign. Instead, she publicly washed her hands of him. In an interview with WHO-TV, Reynolds declared she would “stay out of the primary” but pointedly noted King’s surprisingly close 2018 re-election as a “wakeup call.” Translation: She wasn’t backing King over Feenstra.

Prominent Iowa Republicans like Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst followed suit and stayed neutral—abandoning the pattern of past support for King. Meanwhile, Feenstra raked in cash from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Right to Life, the Republican Jewish Coalition, and other establishment heavyweights. He painted King as “caustic” and ineffective, precisely the line the D.C. and Des Moines insiders wanted to hear.

Steve King, the guy who had carried water for the party through thick and thin, was left twisting in the wind. The same Reynolds who once called him a “strong defender of conservative values” now stood aside while the machine dismantled him.

Feenstra: The Artificial Candidate

Randy Feenstra didn’t storm onto the scene as a populist firebrand with grassroots rage behind him. He was the safe, scripted alternative. A state senator from Hull whose district overlapped King’s, Feenstra resigned a powerful Ways & Means committee chairmanship to run full-time—signaling deep establishment buy-in. He outraised King dramatically and dominated his home turf, but the broader narrative was clear: this was the party clearing out the “problematic” incumbent for someone who wouldn’t rock the boat or make national headlines for the wrong reasons.

Feenstra’s campaign pitch boiled down to “effectiveness” over principle. He criticized King’s rhetoric while promising results—code for “we’ll keep the seat Republican without the drama.” National GOP groups poured in to protect the safe red district from any general-election risk. King, stripped of power in Washington, was portrayed as the reason the district lacked a “seat at the table.”

The voters in the primary bought it. Feenstra won. King was out. The establishment had its man.

Why This Still Matters: The Pattern of Artificial Republicans

This wasn’t about ideology—Feenstra and King both cast conservative votes. It was about control. Steve King represented the raw, unfiltered voice of the heartland that made the Republican Party a fighting force. The insiders—Reynolds, the Chamber, the national PACs—wanted someone more manageable. Someone who wouldn’t embarrass them on cable news. Someone “artificial”: manufactured by money, party machinery, and calculated neutrality from the very people King had once helped.

Fast-forward to today, and the irony is thick. Feenstra is now running for governor in 2026, positioning himself as the heir to the Reynolds legacy. Meanwhile, Steve King—still influential in conservative circles—has thrown his support behind a challenger attacking Feenstra as the ultimate establishment candidate.

The 2020 primary wasn’t a rejection of conservatism. It was the establishment’s successful coup against one of its own most outspoken warriors. Randy Feenstra didn’t earn that seat through pure populist fire—he was handed it after the party betrayed the man who had helped build their machine.

Iowa conservatives should never forget: when the insiders decide you’re too loud, too principled, or too effective at exposing the real threats facing America, they’ll find a “cleaner” replacement. Steve King learned that the hard way. The rest of us should learn from it before the same machine installs more artificial candidates across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.