4 people killed, 11 others injured in Chicago weekend shootings, CPD says
4/25/26
Officer Killed, Another Wounded in Shooting at Chicago Hospital; Suspect in Custody
Officer Killed, Another Wounded in Shooting at Chicago Hospital; Suspect in Custody
A routine prisoner transport turned deadly on Saturday morning when a suspect opened fire inside a Chicago hospital, killing one police officer and leaving another critically wounded. The shooting triggered a massive manhunt and a multi-hour lockdown of the medical facility.
Shooting Inside the Hospital
The incident occurred around 10:45 a.m. at Endeavor Health Swedish Hospital, located on the North Side of Chicago in the Lincoln Square neighborhood . According to law enforcement sources, two Chicago police officers were transporting a prisoner to or from the hospital for medical treatment before the individual was to be taken to jail for a separate offense .
During that transport, the suspect **managed to obtain a firearm and open fire**, striking both officers . One officer was shot in the head and later pronounced dead at a different area hospital. The second officer remains in critical condition .
Manhunt and Shelter-in-Place
In the chaos that followed the shooting, the suspect fled the hospital on foot and ran to a nearby home several blocks away, according to CBS News Chicago . The escape triggered an urgent manhunt, with authorities swarming the hospital and surrounding neighborhoods.
Alderman Andre Vasquez (40th Ward) urged residents in the vicinity to shelter in place and avoid the streets as police conducted their search . "THIS IS AN ACTIVE SITUATION!" Vasquez wrote on Facebook. "Please shelter in place if you are in the surrounding area or avoid the area" .
Suspect Apprehended
The manhunt concluded approximately one hour after the shooting, when authorities took the suspect into custody around noon . SWAT teams had surrounded the home where the suspect was believed to be hiding before the arrest was made .
Hospital Lockdown and Response
Endeavor Health Swedish Hospital was immediately placed on lockdown following the shooting. The hospital confirmed in a statement that the suspect had been brought in for treatment around 9 a.m. and was "escorted by law enforcement at all times" while inside the facility before the shooting occurred.
The hospital also noted that the individual was scanned for weapons upon arrival in accordance with standard public safety protocols. The lockdown was lifted by 2 p.m., though the campus remained closed while investigators processed the scene .
"No team members or patients were physically harmed as a result of this incident," Endeavor Health stated. "The safety of our patients and team members remains our top priority" .
What Police Know So Far
As of Saturday afternoon, authorities have confirmed the following key details:
- The shooting occurred during a prisoner transport at Swedish Hospital
- One officer has died; the second officer remains in critical condition
- The suspect has been taken into custody
- The hospital's lockdown has been lifted, though the campus remains closed
- The area surrounding the hospital is still blocked off as investigations continue
No further information about the suspect or potential charges has been released at this time.
Chicago Alderman Jim Gardiner shared a message on social media following the incident: "Please pray for our police officers"
This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available.
#Chicago #POLICE #Officerkilled #Officerwounded
4/24/26
Award-Winning Chef Fatally Beat His Wife with Bare Hands and ‘Variety' of Objects, He Allegedly Told Police
Award-Winning Chef Fatally Beat His Wife with Bare Hands and ‘Variety' of Objects, He Allegedly Told Police
Emma MacDonald, 31, was found dead from what authorities allege was a "violent assault" by her husband
#Crime #DomesticViolence
4/23/26
4/21/26
Gas Light: From Democrats and Voting ... WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY
Gas Light: From Democrats and Voting ... WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY:
I hate to beat a dead horse. However, everytime I hear a Democrat say the word 'DEMOCRACY' or 'Our DEMOCRACY is at stake' I want to go 'AAARRRRGGGHHH'. We don't live in a DEMOCRACY. We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC by design.
When they say DEMOCRACY that is code for POPULAR VOTE. Even though Trump won the POPULAR VOTE in 2024 they are fighting to keep ILLEGALS in the country and fighting against the SAFE ACT. They want the future votes from the anchor babies. They also are pushing for ILLEGALS to vote in National elections, as they are already allowed to vote in Municipal elections. I saw it in Los Angeles County. I remember when they passed that Legislation.
They hate the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. If they can remove it's Angeles, Chicago, NYC, Seattle, Portland, and Detroit would decide every Presidential election. Those are the POPULATION BIG CITY BLUE CITIES. If we just used the POPULAR VOTE Republicans would probably never win the Whitehouse again. States like Wyoming, North Dakota, or South Dakota, and the like would never have a say In a Presidential election again. They don't have enough people to have a voice. You don't want BLUE CITIES running AMERICA.
The Reason The Forefathers Added The ELECTORAL COLLEGE:
The Forefathers added the ELECTORAL COLLEGE because they were afraid VIRGINIA would or could decided every Presidential election (In a 13 State country at the time.) Virginia was the most populous State at that time. Virginia had enough people to drown out all of the other States. And they weren't having that.
Thank God the Forefathers, although some were slave owners, were smarter than the MODERN DAY DEMOCRATS. However, remember, DEMOCRATS were the Party of Slavery. Go after THEM for your REPARATIONS CHECK.
#ElectoralCollege #Democracy #Voting #Forefathers #ConstitutionalRepublic #Constitution
4/20/26
4/15/26
Democrats Knew About Swalwell
Democrats Knew About Swalwell
Swalwell:
Democrats cover up their own and eat their own in order to keep power, gain power, and lie to you. If you wonder why Democrats complain about the Epstein files, ask yourself why Democrats cover up sex crimes on their side. Swalwell was an asset for the January 6th Committee, but when it looked like his run for Governor of California all of a sudden HE HAD TO GO. They knew a long time ago what Swalwell was about.
#Swalwell #Democrats #California #rape #sexualassault #Congress
The Swalwell Reckoning: What Democrats Knew and When They Knew It
The political obituary of Representative Eric Swalwell writes itself in real time a California Democrat who rose to prominence as a telegenic Trump antagonist, served as a House impeachment manager, became a fixture on cable news panels, and positioned himself as the frontrunner to succeed Gavin Newsom as governor of the nation's most populous state. Then, in a matter of days, it all collapsed. Multiple women came forward with allegations of sexual misconduct spanning years. The House Ethics Committee opened an investigation. Democratic leadership including Nancy Pelosi and Hakeem Jeffries publicly called for him to end his gubernatorial campaign. Swalwell complied, first suspending his campaign and then announcing his resignation from Congress altogether .
For conservatives who have long observed the Democratic Party's selective application of moral standards, the Swalwell saga represents something more revealing than a single politician's downfall. It exposes the machinery of a party that protects its own until protection becomes politically untenable and then discards them without ceremony when power is threatened.
The Fang Connection: A Scandal in Plain Sight
Before the sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, Swalwell carried baggage that would have ended most political careers. In 2020, Axios reported that Swalwell had maintained a relationship with Christine Fang, a woman identified by U.S. counterintelligence officials as a suspected Chinese operative running an influence operation targeting California politicians. Fang reportedly bundled campaign contributions, attended fundraising events, and even recommended an intern who worked in Swalwell's congressional office.
The FBI briefed Swalwell about Fang in 2015 meaning Democratic leadership in the House knew, or should have known, that one of their rising stars had been compromised by a foreign intelligence operation. Yet Swalwell was not marginalized. He was elevated. He received plum assignments. He was named to the House Intelligence Committee, a position granting access to America's most sensitive secrets. He became a manager in Donald Trump's second impeachment trial, entrusted by Pelosi to make the constitutional case against a sitting president.
The question conservatives have asked for years is straightforward: If a Republican congressman had been caught in a relationship with a suspected Chinese spy, would Democratic leadership have rewarded him with Intelligence Committee membership and impeachment manager status? The answer requires no imagination. The same party that demanded Congressman Devin Nunes recuse himself from the Russia investigation and that spent years investigating Trump's every foreign contact saw no issue elevating a member with documented ties to a suspected Chinese influence operation.
The January 6th Connection
Swalwell's role on the January 6th Select Committee merits particular scrutiny in light of what we now know. The committee, which Democrats structured to exclude Republican members appointed by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, served as a made-for-television prosecution of Donald Trump and his supporters. Swalwell was among the most aggressive questioners, using his platform to paint the former president and his movement as existential threats to democracy.
What the American public was not told during those nationally televised hearings was that one of the committee's most visible members was simultaneously navigating with apparent assistance from his party's leadership serious questions about his own judgment and conduct. The Fang revelations were public knowledge by 2020. The sexual misconduct allegations, we now understand, involved conduct dating back to at least 2019. The woman who accused Swalwell of drugging and raping her described her encounter in harrowing detail at a press conference, claiming she was incapacitated and unable to consent.
Democrats made a calculated decision. Swalwell was useful. He was young, articulate, and unafraid of the cameras. He could be deployed against Trump and the MAGA movement. The baggage could be managed, ignored, or explained away as partisan attacks. The same media ecosystem that amplifies every allegation against Republican officials treated the Fang story as a minor curiosity rather than a national security concern warranting sustained investigation.
The California Calculation
What changed? Not the evidence. The Fang connection was documented years ago. The first sexual misconduct allegations were reportedly known to some in Democratic circles well before they became public. What changed was Swalwell's ambition.
A March 2026 poll showed Swalwell leading the crowded field to replace term-limited Gavin Newsom. California's jungle primary system in which the top two vote-getters advance regardless of party created a nightmare scenario for Democrats. With too many Democratic candidates splintering the electorate, Republicans stood a credible chance of securing both general election spots, locking Democrats out of the governor's mansion in a state where Donald Trump's approval rating hovers below 30 percent.
Suddenly, Swalwell was no longer an asset but a liability. The allegations that Democratic leadership had been content to overlook when Swalwell was merely a House backbencher and cable news surrogate became disqualifying when he threatened to cost the party the California governorship. Within days of the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN publishing detailed accounts from multiple women, Pelosi issued her carefully worded statement calling for the allegations to be "appropriately investigated with full transparency and accountability" outside the context of a gubernatorial campaign. The translation was unmistakable: we can no longer protect you, and you must go.
The Double Standard and the Epstein Parallel
The original post raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: "If you wonder why Democrats complain about the Epstein files, ask yourself why Democrats cover up sex crimes on their side." The comparison is not as strained as critics might suggest.
The Jeffrey Epstein case has become a conservative rallying point precisely because it exemplifies elite protection networks. Epstein's social circle included prominent Democrats and Republicans alike, but the aggressive pursuit of his client list and flight logs has come primarily from conservative media and Republican officials. Democrats, with notable exceptions, have shown considerably less enthusiasm for full disclosure.
The Swalwell case operates on the same principle at a smaller scale. Multiple women accused a powerful Democratic congressman of sexual misconduct ranging from inappropriate messages to rape. Democratic leadership knew about the Fang counterintelligence concerns for years. They likely knew or suspected more about Swalwell's personal conduct than they will ever acknowledge. Yet they protected him until the political calculus inverted.
Representative Ro Khanna, who initially defended Swalwell against what he called social media rumors, reversed course once the allegations gained media traction, declaring on Fox News that "what he did is sick and disgusting" and calling for investigations . Khanna's statement reveals the pattern: defend the party's own until defense becomes impossible, then pivot to outrage as though the information is new to you.
The Institutional Rot
The Swalwell affair is not merely about one politician's misconduct. It illuminates the institutional incentives that enable such behavior to persist. The Democratic Party like any political organization values power above principle. Members who deliver results receive protection. Members who threaten electoral outcomes get cut loose.
House Democratic leadership had multiple off-ramps with Swalwell. They could have removed him from the Intelligence Committee when the Fang story broke, as Republicans demanded in 2021. They could have insisted on a full Ethics Committee investigation years ago. They could have declined to feature him as an impeachment manager, sending the message that members with counterintelligence red flags should not be elevated to national platforms.
They chose none of these options. Instead, they waited until Swalwell's continued presence on the ticket endangered Democratic control of the California governorship. Only then did the dam break. Pelosi withdrew her protection. Jeffries called for a "swift investigation." Endorsements evaporated overnight .
What Conservatives Should Learn
The Swalwell episode offers several lessons for conservative observers of American politics.
First, it confirms that the media double standard conservatives have long alleged is real and consequential. The same outlets that would devote months of wall-to-wall coverage to allegations against a Republican congressman treated the Fang story as a one-day curiosity. When the sexual misconduct allegations finally forced their hand, the framing emphasized the implications for the California governor's race rather than the substance of the accusations against a powerful Democrat.
Second, it demonstrates that Democratic Party discipline is real but situational. The party can close ranks around a vulnerable member when that member serves an important function. It can also orchestrate a swift and decisive purge when that member becomes expendable. Swalwell experienced both realities within the span of a few years.
Third, it underscores the importance of institutional memory. The Fang counterintelligence concerns should have disqualified Swalwell from sensitive committee assignments regardless of partisan affiliation. That they did not reveals a party willing to subordinate national security to political convenience.
The Democratic Party that lectures Americans about believing women, about transparency, about accountability for sexual misconduct, protected Eric Swalwell until protecting him became more costly than discarding him. The women who came forward deserved to be heard years ago. The voters of California deserved to know about the Fang connection before Swalwell was entrusted with Intelligence Committee access. The American people deserved a January 6th Committee whose members were not carrying undisclosed baggage while prosecuting their political enemies.
None of that happened. And when conservatives point out the hypocrisy, they are not engaging in whataboutism. They are identifying a pattern that corrodes public trust in institutions. A party that selectively enforces standards based on political utility rather than principle has forfeited its claim to moral authority. Swalwell is gone, but the machine that protected him—and that will protect the next useful member until protection becomes inconvenient remains intact and operational.
The United States Is Only 6% Developed: Unpacking the Claim That the Government Owns the Rest
The United States Is Only 6% Developed: Unpacking the Claim That the Government Owns the Rest
The statistic flashes across social media feeds and talk radio segments with a tone of conspiratorial alarm: The United States is only 6% developed. Who is using the other 94%? Could it be the GOVERNMENT?! It's a claim designed to stoke indignation a suggestion that a sprawling, unaccountable bureaucracy is hoarding a continent while ordinary Americans struggle to find affordable housing or space to build.
But while the meme captures a genuine truth about the scale of federal land ownership in America, the numbers it relies on are a dramatic misreading of geography and policy. The federal government does indeed own an enormous amount of land roughly 28% of the nation but that land is not unused, nor is it a secret . The real story behind that "94%" reveals less about government hoarding and more about the geographical quirks of the American West, the difference between a parking lot and a national park, and the complex debate over what "developed" land actually means.
The Truth Beneath the Meme: Where the 28% Figure Comes From
Let's start by correcting the math. The federal government owns approximately 640 million acres of surface land within the United States. Given that the total land area of the 50 states is roughly 2.3 billion acres, this means the federal stake is just over a quarter of the country a far cry from 94%, but still a massive real estate portfolio.
This ownership is not a modern bureaucratic land grab. It is largely a historical artifact of westward expansion. As the United States acquired territory through the Louisiana Purchase, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and other acquisitions, the federal government became the default owner of vast tracts of land before private citizens settled them. Over the 19th century, much of this land was transferred out of federal hands through homesteading, railroad grants, and statehood agreements. But in the arid, mountainous West, large portions were never privatized because they were, quite simply, difficult to farm or settle.
Today, federal ownership is concentrated in 12 Western states. Nevada leads the nation, with the federal government managing over 80% of the land within state boundaries. In Alaska, the figure exceeds 60%, and in Utah and Idaho, it hovers around two-thirds. In contrast, states east of the Mississippi River tend to have federal ownership levels in the single digits often limited to military bases, national forests, and historic sites.
Who Actually Manages This Land?
The notion that the "government" is a monolithic entity locking away 640 million acres for nefarious purposes fades when you look at how the land is actually managed. The acreage is divided among four primary agencies, each with distinct missions mandated by Congress :
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages about 244 million acres, primarily in the West. This is the agency closest to the meme's caricature, but its land is far from unused. It is managed for "multiple use," which actively includes livestock grazing, oil and gas drilling, mining, and timber harvesting alongside recreation and conservation .
The U.S. Forest Service oversees 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands. These are working forests sources of timber, water, and recreation explicitly managed for sustained yield under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act .
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages 89 million acres, primarily as wildlife refuges focused on conservation. While these lands have stricter protections, they also generate billions in economic activity through hunting, fishing, and ecotourism .
The National Park Service manages 80 million acres of the country's most iconic landscapes. These are preservation-first lands, but they also function as massive economic engines for gateway communities .
The remaining federal acreage belongs to the Department of Defense for military bases and training ranges. While the public can't picnic on an artillery range, these 27 million acres serve a clear national security function .
The Definition Problem: What Does "Developed" Mean?
The "6% developed" statistic most likely stems from a misinterpretation of urban land use data. Studies of land cover show that urban areas cities, suburbs, pavement, and buildings do indeed cover only about 3% to 6% of the contiguous United States. The rest is a mix of forests, cropland, pasture, wetlands, and open space.
The error lies in equating "non-urban" with "unused government land." A cornfield in Iowa is not "developed" in the urban sense, but it is private, productive agricultural land. Similarly, a national forest in Colorado is not developed with houses, but it is actively used for timber, grazing leases, and recreation infrastructure. To call the federal share "undeveloped" as a pejorative ignores that undevelopment is often the explicit legislative purpose we *want* Yellowstone to stay undeveloped, and that decision was made by elected representatives, not unelected bureaucrats hoarding acres for themselves.
The Legitimate Debate: Housing and the Nevada Example
While the "94%" meme is statistically absurd, the frustration that fuels it is not entirely unfounded, particularly in states like Nevada. When 80% of a state is federally controlled, local governments and residents often feel a legitimate squeeze. As cities like Las Vegas grow, they literally bump against federal boundaries. This limits housing supply and drives up land costs, making housing less affordable for residents.
This has led to a growing, bipartisan push to release small portions of federal land for development. In Nevada, Governor Joe Lombardo has been vocal in asking Washington to release land for housing, and even Democrats like Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona have recently proposed evaluating federal lands for residential use in land-constrained Western regions . The argument is not to pave over national parks, but to adjust the boundaries at the urban-wildland interface to allow for logical, managed growth.
However, there is a strong counterargument rooted in conservation and long-term planning. Once federal land is sold to private interests, it is exceptionally difficult to reclaim for public use . Conservationists argue that selling off parcels near sensitive habitats can lead to fragmentation, wildfire risk, and the loss of ecosystems that clean water and support biodiversity. The debate, therefore, is not about government hoarding versus freedom it is a genuine policy tension between preservation, property rights, and affordable housing.
Conclusion: Government Land, Public Land
The claim that the government secretly controls 94% of America is a social media fiction built on a kernel of geographic truth. The government does own nearly a third of the nation's land, but almost all of it is in the West, and almost all of it is managed for specific, publicly mandated purposes from timber harvesting and cattle grazing to wildlife conservation and national defense.
The more interesting conversation is not about the size of the portfolio, but about its management. Should the boundaries drawn in the 19th century be adjusted for 21st-century housing needs? Can we balance energy extraction with recreation and conservation? These are complex questions of land use and public policy. They deserve a more nuanced discussion than an angry post about a 94% government hoax, because the land in question isn't the government's secret stash—it is, by law and by purpose, the public's land.
#land #realestate #USA #blm #usforestryservice
4/14/26
Eric Swalwell investigated for alleged rape of Lonna Drewes, LA County Sheriff's Dept. says
Eric Swalwell investigated for alleged rape of Lonna Drewes, LA County Sheriff's Dept. says
- A new accuser of Rep. Eric Swalwell said she believed the California Democrat drugged her before choking and raping her in a West Hollywood hotel room in 2018.
- The woman, Lonna Drewes, spoke at a press conference in Los Angeles, where her attorney, Lisa Bloom, said she would file a police report detailing the accusations against Swalwell.
- The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said later that it had open an investigation of Drewes' claims.
- Swalwell on Monday said he was resigning his seat in Congress, a day after suspending his candidacy for California governor.
4/13/26
4/8/26
Rex Heuermann admits to killing 8 women in Gilgo Beach in changed plea hearing
Rex Heuermann admits to killing 8 women in Gilgo Beach in changed plea hearing
#RexHeurmann #NewYork #LongIsland #Crime #Murder
3/30/26
A Deadly Reckoning: How Sanctuary Policies Undermine Justice and Endanger American Lives
Sheridan Gorman’s family slams Chicago Mayor and Illinois governor over student’s killing
The suspect, an undocumented migrant from Venezuela, was hiding behind a lighthouse when he came out and shot at the group 18-year-old Sheridan Gorman was with.
San Francisco Woman Shot, Killed While Strolling on Pier with Father in 'Random Shooting'
She was reportedly on her way to see her brother and his wife expecting a baby.
A Deadly Reckoning: How Sanctuary Policies Undermine Justice and Endanger American Lives
The city of Chicago, bathed in the blue glow of its iconic skyline, has long been a stage for progressive political theater. For years, its leaders have wrapped themselves in the banner of “sanctuary,” proclaiming their jurisdictions to be havens for those who flout federal immigration law. Yet, the tragic and violent death of 18-year-old Sheridan Gorman has torn away the abstract rhetoric to reveal a stark, gruesome reality. As her grieving family now levels its fury at Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, we are forced to confront the consequences of policies that prioritize political ideology over the safety of American citizens.
According to reports, Sheridan was with a group when a suspect, identified as an undocumented migrant from Venezuela, emerged from behind a lighthouse and opened fire. In an instant, a young life full of promise was extinguished. The suspect, who had no legal right to be in this country, was roaming the streets of an American city. The question demanding an answer is simple: How did this happen? The answer, though uncomfortable for the progressive establishment, is equally simple: sanctuary policies.
Sanctuary cities and states are not merely passive refuges; they are active impediments to the rule of law. By deliberately refusing to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), these jurisdictions create a magnet for illegal immigration. They declare to the world that within their borders, the federal statutes governing who may enter and reside in the United States will not be enforced. This is not compassion; it is a dereliction of the most fundamental duty of government: to protect the people within its jurisdiction.
The danger posed by these policies is not abstract. When local law enforcement is prohibited from communicating with federal immigration authorities, dangerous individuals who should be deported are instead released back into the community. We are not speaking of families seeking a better life in the abstract; we are speaking of individuals who have already demonstrated a willingness to commit violent acts. In the case of Sheridan Gorman’s alleged killer, an undocumented migrant was present in Chicago because the city’s leadership built a wall of bureaucratic resistance against federal immigration enforcement.
When Mayor Johnson and Governor Pritzker double down on the Illinois Trust Act and similar measures, they are not merely making a political statement. They are actively obstructing the ability of federal agencies to remove public safety threats. The logic is perverse: a violent illegal alien is shielded from deportation because local police are handcuffed by policies designed to prevent “fear” in the undocumented community. What about the fear of a mother burying her 18-year-old daughter? What about the fear of citizens who wonder if the next person hiding behind a public landmark is there to sightsee or to ambush?
The consequences extend beyond the immediate horror of violent crime. The drain on public funds in sanctuary jurisdictions is a secondary crisis that exacerbates the primary one. States like Illinois and cities like Chicago are already teetering on the brink of fiscal insolvency. Yet, they continue to invite a humanitarian and logistical crisis that strains resources to the breaking point.
Taxpayer dollars that should be used to repair crumbling infrastructure, bolster understaffed police departments, and improve struggling public schools are instead diverted to provide shelter, healthcare, legal aid, and education to a massive influx of illegal immigrants. This is not an issue of xenophobia; it is an issue of math. The welfare state, already bloated, becomes unsustainable when millions of individuals who did not go through the legal immigration process are granted access to services funded by American taxpayers.
We see this acutely in Chicago, where the city has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on migrant shelters and services—funds that were not budgeted for and that critics argue are being siphoned from long-neglected South and West Side neighborhoods where American citizens, many of them minorities, live in poverty. The progressive hypocrisy is staggering: the same leaders who champion sanctuary policies preside over communities where crime rates are high and city services are failing the citizens who live there. They would rather spend political capital protecting illegal aliens from deportation than protecting their own constituents from being victimized.
Furthermore, the illegality of sanctuary states cannot be overstated. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution establishes that federal law is supreme over state law. By intentionally obstructing federal immigration enforcement, states like Illinois are engaging in a form of nullification—a concept settled by the Civil War. When governors and mayors refuse to honor ICE detainers, they are not exercising “local control”; they are actively violating the principle of federal law enforcement.
The Biden administration, which shares the ideological bent of the Illinois governor, has done nothing to enforce federal supremacy. Instead, they have facilitated the crisis by ending remain-in-Mexico policies, halting border wall construction, and releasing hundreds of thousands of migrants into the interior. The result is that violent criminals who have no right to be here are filtered into cities where local leaders have promised to shield them from accountability.
Sheridan Gorman’s family is right to be furious. They are the victims of a political experiment that has failed. While the Mayor of Chicago and the Governor of Illinois hold press conferences virtue-signaling about their “welcoming” cities, American families are burying their children. The suspect in this case should never have been in a position to hide behind a lighthouse with a firearm. He should have been detained at the border, processed, and, given the nature of his eventual alleged crimes, deported long before he had the chance to take an American life.
It is time to call this what it is: a dereliction of duty. Sanctuary policies do not make communities safer; they make them more dangerous. They do not save taxpayer money; they squander it on a crisis of their own making. They do not uphold American values; they undermine the rule of law that makes ordered liberty possible.
If there is to be justice for Sheridan Gorman, it must begin with an honest reckoning. We must dismantle the sanctuary structures that gave her alleged killer a foothold in this country. We must demand that federal law be enforced uniformly, without regard to the political whims of local mayors. And we must insist that the safety of American citizens not the comfort of illegal immigrants who have broken our laws be the paramount concern of our government. Until then, we will continue to see headlines like this one: a promising young life cut short, and a family left to mourn in the shadow of a political agenda that valued sanctuary over safety.
#KateSteinle
3/20/26
3/15/26
3/10/26
2/10/26
2/5/26
Crazy Guy With Knife Shot By NYC Cop After the Cop Was Stabbed
Crazy Guy With Knife Shot By NYC Cop After the Cop Was Stabbed ...You Won't Believe Who The MAYOR went to see.
When someone, family or not, calls 911 and says someone has a knife the 911 Operator is going to send the POLICE, not a Social Worker. Social Workers and Ambulance Drivers do not show up on a scene until the Police secure the scene. And yes, if you charge a cop with a knife you're gonna get shot.
BTW, Mamdani went to the hospital to visit the crazy guy, not the Cop. NYC is in trouble and they will get what they voted for.
#NewYorkPoliceShooting #NYC #Mamdani #Police
Body camera footage show
shooting of man by NYPD officer
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)