U.S.
Inner Cities In America Are A Mess – Here’s Why
Published
8 years agoon

(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.
Politics
President Donald J. Trump on Israel and Iran: “Two Countries Don’t Know What the F*** They’re Doing.”
Published
6 days agoon
June 24, 2025
Trump’s Blunt Rebuke of Israel and Iran: A Strategic Display of Control Amid Ceasefire Chaos
On June 24, 2025, President Donald J. Trump delivered a characteristically unfiltered assessment of the faltering ceasefire between Israel and Iran, declaring, “Two countries don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.” The comment, made to reporters as he departed for a NATO summit, underscored his frustration with both nations for violating a fragile truce brokered just a day earlier on June 23, 2025. Far from a mere outburst, Trump’s statement and the actions surrounding it reveal a calculated approach to reasserting U.S. influence over a volatile Middle East conflict, showcasing his ability to navigate and control a complex geopolitical crisis.
The Context: A Ceasefire Undermined
The ceasefire, intended to de-escalate tensions between Israel and Iran, was a significant diplomatic achievement for the Trump administration, signaling a potential pause in a conflict that has long threatened regional stability. However, within hours, Iran launched a strike that killed several people, prompting Israel to respond with a “symbolic attack” on the same day. These violations unraveled the truce, drawing global attention and risking further escalation, particularly given Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s military resolve.
Trump’s blunt remark came in response to this rapid deterioration. He expressed particular displeasure with Israel, noting that it “unloaded” on Iran shortly after the agreement, undermining the deal he had championed. “I’m really unhappy with Israel,” he told reporters, a rare public rebuke of a key U.S. ally. Yet, his criticism extended to both parties, reflecting his view that their tit-for-tat actions lacked strategic clarity and jeopardized a cycle of violence.
Why Trump Said It: A Strategic Calculus
Trump’s choice of words was no accident. His provocative language served multiple purposes, each reinforcing his ability to steer the situation:
- Reasserting U.S. Authority: By publicly chastising both Israel and Iran, Trump signaled that the United States, under his leadership, remains the dominant force in Middle East diplomacy. His frustration highlighted the U.S.’s role as the ceasefire’s architect and underscored that violations would not be tolerated without consequences. This move reminded both nations of their reliance on U.S. support—militarily for Israel and diplomatically for Iran in avoiding broader sanctions or isolation.
- Pressuring for Compliance: Trump’s bluntness was a calculated pressure tactic. By calling out Israel’s “unloading” and Iran’s initial strike, he aimed to shame both into reconsidering further violations. His urgent appeal to Israel to avoid additional strikes against Iran, labeling such actions a “serious violation” of the ceasefire, was a direct warning to an ally accustomed to significant autonomy. Similarly, his criticism of Iran’s actions reinforced his earlier stance of giving them “chance after chance” to negotiate, signaling that his patience was not infinite.
- Shaping the Narrative: Trump’s colorful language ensured his message dominated global headlines, keeping the focus on his administration’s efforts to broker peace rather than the ceasefire’s collapse. By framing Israel and Iran as directionless, he positioned himself as the clear-headed leader seeking order amid chaos. This narrative was particularly critical as he headed to the NATO summit, where allies would scrutinize his handling of the crisis.
- Balancing Domestic and International Audiences: Domestically, Trump’s tough talk resonated with his base, who value his no-nonsense style. Internationally, it sent a message to adversaries like Iran that he was not afraid to confront allies like Israel, challenging perceptions of unchecked U.S. support for Israeli actions. This balancing act strengthened his leverage in future negotiations.
Trump’s Control: Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Beyond his rhetoric, Trump demonstrated control through decisive actions that underscored his influence over the situation:
- Direct Diplomacy: Prior to the ceasefire, Trump had privately and publicly urged Israel to refrain from striking Iran, emphasizing his desire for a deal to prevent escalation. Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to act, Trump’s ability to extract a ceasefire agreement in the first place showcased his diplomatic clout.
- Public Rebuke as Leverage: By openly criticizing Israel, a move described as a “rare public rebuke of an ally,” Trump shifted the dynamic of U.S.-Israel relations. This signaled to Israel that U.S. support, while steadfast, comes with expectations of compliance with American-led initiatives. It also positioned Trump as a neutral arbiter, increasing his credibility with other regional players.
- Pushing for De-escalation: Trump’s comments were paired with a clear call for negotiations to resume, particularly with Iran, to address its nuclear program and prevent further strikes. His insistence that both nations “don’t know what they’re doing” was a strategic jab to nudge them toward the negotiating table, where the U.S. could dictate terms.
- Navigating NATO and Global Opinion: Departing for the NATO summit, Trump used the crisis to project strength to allies wary of U.S. foreign policy under his second term. His ability to manage the ceasefire’s fallout while engaging with global leaders demonstrated his multitasking prowess and commitment to U.S. leadership on the world stage.
The Bigger Picture: A Pattern of Control
Trump’s handling of the Israel-Iran ceasefire breach aligns with his broader foreign policy approach: bold rhetoric, strategic pressure, and a knack for keeping adversaries and allies alike off balance. His critics, such as those on X who argue he has ceded too much control to Israel, overlook the nuance of his strategy. While Israel’s actions may have tested his influence, Trump’s public frustration and diplomatic maneuvering suggest he is far from a bystander. Instead, he is actively shaping the conflict’s trajectory, using the ceasefire’s collapse as an opportunity to reinforce U.S. dominance.
Conclusion
President Trump’s June 24, 2025, statement that Israel and Iran “don’t know what the f*** they’re doing” was more than a soundbite—it was a calculated move to reassert control over a spiraling Middle East crisis. By leveraging blunt rhetoric, public rebukes, and diplomatic pressure, Trump demonstrated his ability to steer the actions of both allies and adversaries. While the ceasefire’s breach exposed the region’s volatility, Trump’s response showcased his strategic acumen, ensuring the U.S. remains the central player in the quest for stability. As he navigates this crisis, his blend of bravado and pragmatism continues to define his approach, proving that even in chaos, he knows exactly what he’s doing.

Donald Trump’s political journey over the last eight years has been a vivid illustration of modern populism, defying conventional political odds. Starting with his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump, a real estate mogul and reality TV star, harnessed populist sentiments to propel his candidacy. His message resonated with many Americans feeling left behind by globalization and economic shifts, promising to restore jobs, combat what he described as unfair trade deals, and prioritize American interests over international cooperation. This populist wave was marked by his direct communication style, bypassing traditional media to connect with voters through rallies and social media, where he spoke of “draining the swamp” in Washington, suggesting a deep-seated distrust in the political establishment.
The struggle of Trump supporters has mirrored this populist movement, characterized by a sense of alienation from what they perceive as a detached political and cultural elite. This group, often labeled pejoratively by some in the mainstream, found in Trump a voice for their frustrations with immigration policies, economic policies favoring global trade over local jobs, and cultural shifts they felt were imposed without their consent. The Trump family, from Melania’s fashion choices to Ivanka’s political involvement, became symbols of this populist resistance against the perceived elitism of politics. The criticism they faced only deepened the solidarity among Trump’s supporters, who saw in his family a reflection of their own battles against the establishment.
The alt-media ecosystem was instrumental in this populist surge, serving as both a battleground and a bastion. Outlets like Breitbart and Infowars, and later platforms like Parler and Truth Social, became the echo chambers where Trump’s narrative of being a victim of political witch hunts and media bias was amplified. These platforms didn’t just report news; they crafted a narrative where Trump’s every move, from policy to personal tweets, was framed as part of a larger fight against a corrupt system. This interaction between Trump, his supporters, and the alt-media has redefined political discourse, showcasing how populism can harness media, both traditional and digital, to challenge and reshape political norms. Trump’s journey has thus not only defied odds but has also redefined what political success looks like in an era where populism can sway elections and influence policy discussions at the highest levels.
Politics
President Trump Returns to Butler to FIGHT for America First
Published
9 months agoon
October 5, 2024
Trump’s Return to Butler, PA: A Symbol of Tenacity and Defiance
Today, former President Donald Trump makes a symbolically charged return to Butler, Pennsylvania, the site where his resilience was tested in an unprecedented manner. This visit, on October 5, 2024, is not just another campaign stop but a poignant reminder of his enduring “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra, which has become emblematic of his political persona.
10/4 | BUTLER, PENNSYLVANIA… pic.twitter.com/YradtyIbMR
— Dan Scavino Jr.🇺🇸🦅 (@DanScavino) October 5, 2024
A Historical Backdrop
On July 13, 2024, Butler was thrust into the national spotlight when an assassination attempt was made on Trump during a rally. Surviving with a mere graze to his ear, Trump’s immediate response was to raise his fist, a moment captured in what has now become an iconic image, symbolizing his defiance against adversity. This incident didn’t just scar him physically but also galvanized his supporters, turning Butler into a shrine of sorts for Trump’s resilience.
The Symbolism of the Return
Trump’s decision to return to Butler is laden with symbolism. Here’s why this visit resonates deeply with his campaign ethos:
- Defiance in the Face of Danger: Returning to the site where his life was threatened underscores Trump’s narrative of not backing down. It’s a physical manifestation of his “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” ethos, showcasing his refusal to be intimidated by violence or political opposition.
- Political Theatre and Momentum: This rally serves as a masterstroke in political theatre, aiming to convert the attempt on his life into a rallying cry for his supporters. It’s an attempt to reignite the fervor seen in the immediate aftermath of the incident, where his campaign saw a surge in support, portraying him as a fighter against all odds.
- Uniting the Base: By revisiting Butler, Trump not only honors the victims of the incident but also uses the location to unify his base. The rally is expected to be a blend of remembrance and a call to action, emphasizing themes of perseverance, security, and defiance against the establishment’s perceived failures.
- A Message of Strength: For Trump, every appearance since the assassination attempt has been an opportunity to project strength. Returning to Butler amplifies this message, suggesting that neither personal attacks nor political challenges will deter his campaign or his message.
The Broader Impact
The “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra has transcended its initial context, becoming a broader call against what Trump describes as systemic failures, from immigration policies to disaster response, as seen in his critiques of the current administration’s handling of events in North Carolina, echoed in his and his allies’ posts on X.
This return to Butler isn’t just about revisiting the site of a traumatic event; it’s a strategic move to encapsulate his campaign’s spirit in one location, making it a pilgrimage of sorts for his supporters. It represents Trump not just as a politician but as a symbol of resistance and persistence, key themes in his narrative of reclaiming America.
In sum, Trump’s rally in Butler today is more than a campaign event; it’s a testament to his campaign’s core message: a relentless fight against adversaries, be they political opponents, critics, or even those who threaten his life. This event is poised to be a significant moment in the 2024 presidential race, leveraging trauma, resilience, and defiance into political capital.

RICO in Iowa: Will Frazier’s Battle for Justice

President Donald J. Trump on Israel and Iran: “Two Countries Don’t Know What the F*** They’re Doing.”

Chad Pelley Lawsuit in Shambles – Free Speech Win Relieves Bailey Symonds, Strips Injunction

Chad Pelley Denied: Free Speech Injunction Hearing to Proceed Friday in Linn County
