Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Alderman Do Not Like Spike Lee Film Title ‘Chiraq’

Prominent officials in Chicago have raised concerns with a film being produced by renowned director Spike Lee. The concerns include the working film’s name and a $3 million tax break.

The Chicago Tribune reported Mayor Rahm Emanuel met with Lee Wednesday to discuss his film documenting violence on Chicago’s south side, specifically the neighborhood of Englewood.

During the meeting, Emanuel conveyed his displeasure with the film’s working title, Chiraq, a portmanteau combining ‘Chicago’ and ‘Iraq’ and a term popularized in the hip-hop scene. “He said the movie is about the neighborhood of Englewood. I was clear that I was not happy about the title,” Emanuel said at a press conference.

I told him also that there are very good people who live in Englewood who are raising their family. There’s a lot of positive things happening in Englewood, mainly driven by the people that make up Englewood.

The former chief of staff to President Barack Obama said Lee did recognize Chicago was not the only violent city in the U.S. during their meeting. “It’s happening in Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York, where he’s from. He talked about a name of a part of Brooklyn where he’s from. He talked about how Philadelphia’s referred to. He talked about how Baltimore’s referred to,” Emanuel added.

While the recently re-elected mayor did not say whether Lee would agree to changing the film’s title, he did say it would tackle important issues including black-on-black violence:

I said then, and I believe, that’s an important conversation to have. Given you’re a great artist, while I don’t support the title and I don’t like the working title, the topic is a conversation that has been ignored for too long and needs to be discussed.

Chicago Alderman Will Burns Wednesday also slammed the ‘Chiraq’ title. “For people who live on the South and West Sides who pay their taxes, are active in block clubs and work to make their neighborhoods better, it’s a slap in the face,” Burns said.

South Siders and West Siders already walk around with a massive chip on their shoulders. There’s a sense the media only comes to cover dead bodies and not the positive things that happen every day. And why is this guy from New York coming to do a movie about Chicago?

Passed in December 2008 by the Illinois General Assembly, the tax credit offers filmmakers a 30 percent break on “all qualified expenditures,” Politico pointed out. The intention of the policy was to create jobs and “stimulate diversity in production hiring,” says the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity.

Still, Burns had no objection to Lee making the film.

It’s not a First Amendment issue, and I’m on the board of the ACLU by the way, because no one is saying he can’t make the movie. I’m just saying if you’re going to take the subsidy, the public should be given a seat at the table, and we need to have a conversation and a dialogue about it. It’s our money, and it’s our city.

h/t: DNA Info

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

George W. Bush Took Just One Word To Sum Up Jeb’s Biggest Problem In Running For President

According to an analysis just published in The Washington Post, Jeb Bush is not running away from many of the views and policies of his older brother when he was president. In fact, says author Ed O’Keefe, the former Florida governor and likely GOP presidential contender is “embracing” and “emphasizing” what George W. Bush did when he was in the White House, particularly in the area of international relations.

If Jeb Bush is elected president, the United States won’t be on speaking terms with Cuba and will partner more closely with Israel.

He’ll tighten sanctions on Iran and urge NATO to deploy more troops in Eastern Europe to counter Vladimir Putin. And he’ll order the U.S. military to root out “barbarians” and “evil doers” around the globe.

Curiously, if the Post article is accurate, Jeb’s older brother says that very alignment is the biggest problem facing the younger Bush in his likely bid for the presidency — which, of course, may be a big clue as to the Post’s intention in making this analysis. Politico reports that the former president spoke to IT experts in Chicago on Wednesday, telling the crowd of some 7,000 that Jeb’s candidacy has a problem that could be expressed in one word: “Me.”

“That’s why you won’t see me out there, and he doesn’t need to defend me, and he’s totally different from me. The role of family is not to be a political adviser or a policy adviser — there are plenty of those around — the role is to say, ‘Hey man, I love you.’

When it comes to critical matters of foreign policy, Jeb Bush’s “embrace” of his brother’s positions — if such is the case — could prove to be a good thing if the younger Bush does throw his hat into the presidential ring. As reported by Bloomberg Politics, New Hampshire voters in a recent poll expressed their preference for Jeb over potential GOP rivals because of his perceived foreign policy strengths, not necessarily his other positions on major issues.

Jeb Bush has taken a slight lead over other potential Republican presidential candidates in a new Bloomberg Politics/Saint Anselm New Hampshire poll, even though his party’s voters have doubts about his famous last name and his positions on immigration and education.

A follow-up piece on Bloomberg noted of that New Hampshire voter survey: “Republicans said their top issue was fighting terrorism, and that the former governor would be far better combating terrorism than Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Senator Rand Paul Paul, or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.”

Though he has not indicated any specific date for his long-expected announcement about entering the 2016 race, Jeb Bush has accepted an invitation to speak at the May 9th commencement at Liberty University in Virginia. That’s where Texas Sen. Ted Cruz announced his candidacy only a few weeks ago.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Wendy Davis Was Right—Just Look At Obama’s Destruction Of Black America

Photo credit: Facebook/Wendy Davis

Democratic Texas State Senator and gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis was heavily criticized for a political ad she ran against her disabled Republican opponent, Greg Abbott. To clarify, she did not claim Abbott was an unfit candidate because he is disabled—that would be discriminatory.

She argued, and rightfully so, that Greg Abbott politicizes his disability; yet he actively ruled and legally fought against the blind, deaf, and those with amputees among others. Despite his successful lawsuit for the injury he incurred 30 years ago, Abbott has consistently blocked disabled Texans from suing the state for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Davis’s logic, however, reveals the same fallacies about herself. She claims as a woman to support policies that safeguard and empower women, yet has little to show for it. Consider the issue of birth control, for example. Davis, like the majority of female elected officials, claims women should have unfettered access to it. Yet, the birth control medications available and readily prescribed to healthy young women—Depo Provera, Ortho Evra, and the Nuvo Ring—are killing and/or destroying women’s health.

Davis is not “standing with” the women who cite numerous examples in class actions lawsuits of the life-long and life-threatening health conditions they suffer because of these drugs: blood clots, pulmonary embolisms, heart attacks, blood disorders, sterilization, and death. Young women are dropping dead, and Davis is silent.

But more importantly, the first black president of the United States has caused more harm to black Americans than most of his predecessors.

Barack Obama’s policies of “hope” and “change” have increased long-term unemployment by 14 percent since he took office, increased the national debt more than all of his predecessors combined, increased inflation 43 percent more than President Bush, and caused more Americans to lose their health insurance and access to medical care than ever before.

Under the first black president, black unemployment is higher; and black participation in the labor force (60.2 percent) is at its lowest since December 1977. Both unemployment and underemployment among blacks is more than double that of whites according to national labor statistics.

In Obama’s Illinois, it’s worse—less than 50 percent of blacks are employed. They face significant challenges in a state whose food-stamp enrollment outpaces job creation by nearly 2 to 1, and ranks last of all 50 states in job creation. In fact, Illinoisians are leaving the state at a rate of one person every ten minutes because of Obama’s disastrous economic policies.

Obama’s economic policies have fostered a cycle of abject poverty and erosion of societal cohesion distinguished by the largest increase in criminal activity in nearly two decades. Federal statistics reveal that violent crime since 2011 is at an all-time high, with a significant increase of racially motivated hate crimes and “violent victimizations” of whites by blacks.

Worse still, black on black violence is escalating. In 2010, for example, 55 percent of homicide victims who were shot were black. Statistics indicate that 90 percent of black murder victims are killed by blacks.

In Obama’s Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, there are more murders committed than in New York City or Los Angeles. In 2012, for example, compared to Chicago’s 512 murders, there were 418 in New York City and 298 in Los Angeles. Yet, Chicago is one third smaller than New York City and has one million fewer people than Los Angeles.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Ouch: Obama’s Home City Just Did Something That Might Make Him Not Want To Go Back

Obama Chicago

When unveiling the project with great fanfare back in April, the president’s former Chief of Staff and current Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, announced that a new Chicago high school would be named for Barack Obama.

A number of schools across the country have been named for Obama, but this was to be the first in his home state of Illinois. The operative word in the previous sentence — WAS.

The Chicago Tribune now reports that, without any fanfare whatsoever, Emanuel let it be known that Obama’s name will not adorn the new $60 million high school.

In announcing the decision, Mayor Emanuel indicated it was the result of community input…in other words, the people didn’t want Barack Obama’s name on their new school.

“Over the last few months, my team has listened to questions and concerns from the community, ranging from location of the building to the naming of the school. We take that community input seriously, which is why – as we continue to look for a thoughtful way to honor President Obama – we will look for other possible names for this future school,” Emanuel said in a statement.

Given the coverage of this development in the New York Daily News, one must ask how long it might be before cries of racism fill the Chicago air.

Two sources confirmed to The Daily News that the Chicago Board of Education has quietly decided to not go ahead with plans for the name of a new so-called selective enrollment public high school on the city’s predominantly white North Side.

The board has a policy that does not allow schools to be named after those who are still living. It will cite that stricture as reason for the about-face.

It’s not as though President Obama has been overlooked when it comes to the naming of schools. As ABC News noted even back in 2010:

He has been in the White House 18 months, but President Obama already has seven U.S. schools named after him, far more than his predecessor George W. Bush and a designation that educators say bucks the trend.

Still, given the fact that this about-face has happened in the city where Barack Obama started his political career, one might suppose the sting of rejection for the president could be rather painful.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Want To Really Stop The Violence In Chicago? Here’s How…

Photo credit: Blanscape / Shutterstock.com

Despite the media play Chicago gets, it isn’t the official “Murder Capital of the U.S.A.”

That unhappy distinction — based on the murder rate per 100,000 people, not on the number of actual dead people on the streets — belongs to poor, under-populated Flint, Mich.

Chicago gets the bad rap — and the attention of the anti-gun nuts — because it led the nation with 415 homicides last year. That’s more murders than any other city, but not even in the top 10 when you factor in population.

Thanks to its recent “Independence Day Massacre,” which left 18 dead and 82 wounded, Chicago’s murder toll has already hit 201 for this year.

Homicides have been trending down in Mayor Emanuel’s kind of town and other major cities for decades. Chicago had nearly 1,000 murders a year in the early 1990s.

But most of the city’s murder victims, and their murderers, continue to be young blacks and Latinos who either belonged to gangs or were the victims of their drive-by violence.

The slaughter in our inner cities, while not as bloody as it used to be, is our continuing national tragedy.

Chicago and statistically more dangerous cities like Detroit, New Orleans, and Washington are perpetual war zones where Americans kill each other year round.

The only solution liberals have for ending gun violence in the cities is to take away everybody’s guns.

But Chicago already has some of the country’s toughest gun laws. They obviously don’t bother the local drug lords.

No one ever wants to address the underlying cause of the violence in our inner cities.

It’s not the presence of guns. It’s the absence of fathers in the homes of the gang-bangers who are using guns to shoot each other.

The numbers are depressing and well known. Nearly 2 in 3 black children grow up in homes without a father present. One in three Latino kids do.

We can thank the liberals and their 1960s welfare programs for many of these broken families.

It was their “War on Poverty” that gave unmarried mothers financial independence, made fathers superfluous, and undermined the formation of two-parent families.

Fathers were let off the hook for their baby making and disappeared from family life. Mothers and grandmothers raised the children.

And when the fatherless boys grew up, they did what children born into broken families often do. They went out and found their own substitute families on the streets. We call them gangs.

And then as gang members, they use guns to defend their street families from those who try to do them harm the same way we’d defend our family members.

The murderous violence in our cities is never going to end until someone stands up and wakes up America with a “Put the father back in the family” speech.

Bill Cosby tried it — and caught hell. Others have caught hell for talking about the importance to children and society of intact families.

It’s time for someone politically and culturally important — like the president — to make a big, brave speech and remind everyone in the country that families need fathers, and vice versa.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom