NBC Chicagoreports a hostage situation in a northwest Chicago suburb ended late Thursday when a swarm of officers rushed into a townhome and shot a man who police said earlier shot an officer in the neck.

That Arlington Heights police officer, a man with at least 10 years on the force, was taken in critical condition to Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in nearby Park Ridge.

The suspected gunman's hostage, a woman, exited the townhome on the 1900 block of Windham Court unharmed after police rushed in and shot the man, Arlington Heights Cmdr. Andrew Whowell told reporters.

Whowell did not detail the extent of the hostage-taker's injuries, but the Cook County Medical Examiner's Office confirmed the man died.

The woman was taken to a hospital as a precaution.

The wounded officer's name was not publicly released, but his family was seen at the hospital around 9:30 p.m.

More here

Democrat's Dictators Du Jour
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
*****************

What is it with democrats and dictators?  They (democrats) just seem to love them (dictators) so!

It was often said of Jimmy Carter that he never met a dictator he didn't like.   You may recall it was President Carter who provided sanctuary/asylum (whichever!) for the Shah of Iran.  We are still, to this day, paying for that blunder!  Obama seems to be following in Carter's footsteps on many things and having a penchant for dictators is one of them.  Although, Obama seems to prefer Marxist dictators.

America's democratic presidents just seem to gravitate toward the world's dictators.  Ever notice that?  Even FDR had the Soviet Union's Joe Stalin.

I think we often forget that liberalism is an authoritarian philosophy.  Liberals understand that THEY are smarter than everyone else and it is THEY who have a Providential right to govern, to rule over, to "dictate" to the remainder of the human race.  (Not unlike the "divine right of kings") In their mind, the world would be a much better place if those of us who demand our freedom would just relent , relax, recant, and retire and allow THEM to do the job for which they were born into this world.

I have come to believe that liberal/Progressive democrats yearn to be like dictators, therefore they tend to hover around them much as moths do a flame.

“If there is ever a fascist takeover in America, it will come not in the form of storm troopers kicking down doors but with lawyers and social workers saying. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”  (Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning)

Maybe that explains all the "secret" talks, the sub-Rosa negotiations between Obama and the Castro brothers, and Obama and the Iranians.  It may also explain Mr. Obama's obvious liking for the former late Marxist President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. 

Then there is the Russian,  Putin, or as some are referring to him (Ras)Putin.   Obama insisted on rebooting America's relationship with Russia.  Why?  I thought the mutual distrust was serving us well.  Actually, it served us far better than the NEW relationship in which Obama trusts and Putin distrusts -- and disrespects -- America.

If this piece seems to be cutting uncomfortably close to the truth here, ask yourself what else don't we know about our obviously Marxist President -- and  -- with whom is he talking -- AND -- negotiating in secret?

If you had any doubt about the democrat's penchant for dictatorships consider this: 

In a piece by Joe Newby, published on December 6th, 2013 by The Examiner and entitled: "Liberal Democrats to Obama: Rule like dictator on minimum wage, deportations," The writer says the following: "It seems liberal Democrats are ready to throw the Constitution out the window and grant Obama dictatorial powers to advance his agenda, according to two stories reported in the last two days. On Wednesday, Salon said 49 House Democrats demanded Obama use executive orders to raise the minimum wage of some workers. On Thursday, CNN said Democrats also want Obama to suspend all deportation of illegal immigrants using executive orders.

It's not the first time liberal Democrats have demanded Obama bypass Congress and essentially rule like a dictator.

Last December, for example, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi suggested giving Obama dictatorial power to raise the debt ceiling to infinity, and others -- like Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Il.,-- have repeatedly begged for Obama to unilaterally act on illegal immigration.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, and others have said Obama should unilaterally act on the debt ceiling, bypassing Congress and assuming the mantle of a tyrant.

Now, liberals in Congress want Obama to assume even more power."  SOURCE:  http://www.examiner.com/article/liberal-democrats-to-obama-rule-like-dictator-on-minimum-wage-deportations    
Now.  Consider this from the Washington Times:  "Ever since Barack Obama was nominated in 2008 as the Democratic candidate for the president of the United States, his staunchest critics have implied that he had the makings of a dictator.

Those admonitions were not taken at all seriously, however, and the liberal media ridiculed anyone if they dared suggest the new president was anything but the messiah.Those of us who saw then what the press is finally seeing now were dismissed and ridiculed as racist.

After several years of being told we were wrong about President Obama’s authoritarian streak, the liberal media are finally starting to consider that this president may be the very megalomaniac we said he was."   SOURCE:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/transforming-democrats-
to-dictators-940613292/#ixzz2nIZDrsa8

OK, so -- if you think, maybe, megalomaniac is a bit harsh, maybe a little strong, how about  this: A pathological egotist?  And tell me again. What trait do dictators share ... megalomania ... or  pathological egotism?

Uh-huh ....

J. D. Longstreet

December 11, 2013
New Republic: Techies Are the New Puritans


Emphasis added.

I know what you must be thinking.

1. Why doesn't compassionate Greg Gopman (CEO) and all the other biggest lovers in the world just stay the @#$% away from her cardboard box?

2. Should we really expect a toothless lady (who may actually live in a cardboard box) to do anything to make the life of a CEO better?

3. Is there some sort of special bubble suit that CEOs could wear to protect them from the decaying environment around them?

The following chart shows the year over year percentage change in retail sales per retail sales employee. It is not adjusted for inflation.


Click to enlarge.

“There are horrors beyond life's edge that we do not suspect, and once in a while man's evil prying calls them just within our range.” - H.P. Lovecraft, The Thing on the Doorstep

No sarcasm this time, just pure horror.

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Custom Chart

Carmen Figueroa
He pleaded guilty to a felony charge for falsely claiming to be a U.S. Citizen. He was deported after completing his three month sentence.
His brother, Alexander Ayala, a U.S. Citizen and a Milwaukee police officer was terminated, but his dismissal was overturned by the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission. He received a temporary suspension without pay after it was learned that he knew that Ayala-Cornejo began using his dead cousin's birth certificate in 1999 when he was in high school. Ayala also knew that it was illegal for a non-citizen to become a police officer in Milwaukee and Ayala did not notified the department of his brother's illegal status and false identity.
Ayala-Cornejo was well known and volunteered for the Mexican Fiesta annual event, which his aunt is currently the executive director and Ayala is the current president of the Latino Peace Officers Association,  which is a volunteer security team for the three day Mexican Fiesta.
In 2011, Rafael Mora-Lopez, now 49, a former Anchorage Police Department officer was found to be undocumented and was removed as a law enforcement officer. He began working as an officer since 2005 and was using the name of Rafael Espinoza. His non-citizen status was learned after he attempted to renew his U.S. Passport.

Deinstitutionalization is Madness
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
*****************
The definition of "deinstitutionalization" is simple.  It is taking mentally ill patients from mental institutions and placing them on your street corner and/or in local jails. 

Ever wondered where all those mentally ill "homeless" people came from?  Blame it on "deinstitutionalization."

Now, I realize there are millions of Americans who see or hear the word "deinstitutionalization" and have no clue what it means nor to what it is referring.

So let's see if we can shed a little light on it.

First we must understand the Law of Unintended Consequences.   "The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is this:  that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or
unintended."  SOURCE:  http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/UnintendedConsequences.html

So what makes the law of unintended consequences work?  Well, the "Wise Geek" says the following:  "The two top reasons why the law of unintended consequences works, according to Merton, is that the framers of a social change are either ignorant of possible far reaching effects of the law or make errors when they develop a change that don’t have the effects they desired. Other reasons why we sometimes see changes occur after any type of event, new scientific development, or treaty is passed may have to do with “self interest,” so much so that a person who desperately wants to see a change doesn’t evaluate the ultimate effects of that change." SOURCE:  http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-law-of-unintended-consequences.htm

Deinstitutionalization is a clear result of the law of unintended consequences.  They go together like bread and butter.

The idea behind deinstitutionalization was this -- that patients fare much better when they are looked after in a supportive and loving environment than when they are placed in a human warehouse, as mental institutions were sometimes referred to in the 1950’s and 1960’s. 

So, America closed down many of its mental institutions without making sure the community supports were in place ad ready to receive the former mental patients.  As a result, the mentally ill wound up on our streets, in our jails, and in unprepared homes where they created much discord and, in some cases, even committed heinous crimes that tore those families apart.

To understand what happened and the grievous error our government made by releasing much of the country's mentally ill onto society, we have to go back to the 1960's.  (Surprise! Surprise!)  Since, roughly, 1960 it has become almost impossible to hospitalize a person with a serious mental illness. 

Deinstitutionalization is a clear case in which the "do-gooders" have managed to bollocks things up to a fair-the-well. 

Civil Rights was the battle cry of the political left of the sixties and it was their actions at the time that led, eventually, to the mess we have now with the insane roaming the streets of America as "homeless" people.   It was their actions that led to the courts placing a limit on involuntary institutionalization and on the courts setting minimum standards for care in institutions.  Read more here: http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=About_the_Issue&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=137545

Unfortunately, as the mentally ill were invited OUT of the mental hospitals they found few services or support waiting for them outside.  In many cases, it fell to their families to take care of them, most often, those families were not prepared and were overwhelmed.  Far too many of the formerly institutionalized mentally ill eventually wound up on the streets of America as homeless people and/or in the nation's jails.

Clayton E. Cramer, in a piece entitled: ‘Deinstitutionalization’: Mass Murder and Untreated Madness, which was published at PJMedia says the following:  "For those of you under 40 — it used to be startling indeed to see people begging in the streets or obviously insane in public. Homelessness and various forms of urban degradation were byproducts of deinstitutionalization."  SOURCE:  http://pjmedia.com/blog/deinstitutionalization-mass-murder-and-untreated-madness/

In Mr. Cramer's book: "My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill." Mr. Cramer says:  "... for centuries the connection between mental illness and violence was considered sufficiently obvious that the legal system provided various ways to hospitalize the severely mentally ill when they first provided clear indications that they were a hazard to themselves or others. Only in the 1960s and 1970s did our society decide that this system was unfair. It then embarked on a policy of “deinstitutionalization.” The idea: standards for long-term, involuntary commitment of the mentally ill should be just a bit less demanding than the standards of proof for criminal conviction.

Unsurprisingly, emptying out the mental hospitals and making it difficult to hospitalize people with serious mental illness problems meant that society as a whole became a bit more like a low-grade mental hospital."

There is a compelling argument that those supporting gun control in America are missing the importance of treatment for our mentally ill.  Consider the role of mental illness in all the recent mass shootings all across the  country. "

Mr. Cramer says: "Supporters of gun control argue that we need stricter laws because ordinary, law-abiding people just “snap” and go on rampages. There are people who indeed snap and go on rampages (and not just with guns) — but they are seldom ordinary. Often, they are people with long histories of mental illness who in 1960 would have been hospitalized before they killed someone."   SOURCE:  http://pjmedia.com/blog/deinstitutionalization-mass-murder-and-untreated-madness/

Deinstitutionalization is not working.  It is not going to work.  It is far too late to even consider “fixing” it.

America needs Congress to step up on this problem and make the necessary changes to existing laws and/or pass new laws that will allow us to gather the mentally ill from our streets and prisons and from families that are at their wit’s end, and place them in institutions in which they will be cared for, and locked away from society -- for their sake AND for ours.

Deinstitutionalization was a "feel good" project.  In action it has been worse than a train wreck.

When one considers all the harm to individuals, to families, and to the country as a whole, it is difficult to determine which is more insane – the patient, or the deinstitutionalization policy. 

J. D. Longstreet

Futuristic elements? Why not!

Click to enlarge.



Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Custom Chart

Larry Hernández

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Principle is important. Vigorously pursuing the goal of achieving fiscal sanity again in America a noble and necessary endeavor. Finding the right mix that both allows government to function and at the same time control the natural human urges for excess is a challenge to say the least. A challenge our leadership in the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate have, in my never humble opinion, failed at miserably.

Now, when two congressional leaders from heretofore inept opposing sides have managed to piece together a deal that while far from perfect is a step in the right direction certain "principled" republicans seem only too willing to play the role of obstructionist yet again.

Reasonable people, who use reason as they think through what all this means will at the end of the day question the sanity of the party apparently bent on proving a point point that sold well and worked well a an era long since past.

Perhaps when those who taut fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint actually start practicing what they preach people will once again listen.

POLITICO - Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) will oppose the bipartisan budget proposal that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) released last night.

“Sen. Paul will oppose the reported cap busting deal,” Doug Stafford, Paul’s senior adviser, told POLITICO on Wednesday. “He opposes increasing spending and undoing the minimal sequester cuts in current law, which weren’t even close to enough to begin with.”

The potential 2016 presidential contender’s opposition could signal trouble that Ryan and Murray will have convincing members of the right to get on board with the two-year budget agreement that cuts deficits by $23 billion. Some conservatives say Ryan gave up too much ground.

“I cannot support a budget that raises taxes and never balances, nor can I support a deal that does nothing to reduce our nation’s $17.3 trillion debt,” Paul said in a statement released later Wednesday.

Meanwhile, Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) said earlier Tuesday he will “likely” oppose the deal, too.

“It doesn’t appear to be something I will likely support,” Crapo said. “It’s pretty light on entitlement reform and the entitlement reform that’s done is not structural. It doesn’t do anything to actually change or fix that. We’re looking now to see if it can pass the Congress.”

Skip

Paul and Crapo join an increasing number of GOPers who are opposing the bill. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said Wednesday on MSNBC that he also opposes it.

Conservative groups are also opposing the plan. The powerful Club for Growth PAC President Chris Chocola said in a statement that they are opposing the plan and would include it on their annual Congressional scorecard.

“Apparently, there are some Republicans who don’t have the stomach for even relatively small spending reductions that are devoid of budgetary smoke and mirrors,” Chocola said in a statement.

Time to consider DOD budget cuts and ending taxpayer subsidized corporate welfare for starters GOP. When that happens many real fiscal conservatives and libertarians who now view the GOP as a laughing stock just might come home to the party.

Mot going to hold my breath.

Via: Memeorandum

Marc Washington