Durham investigation into origins of 2016 Trump campaign surveillance expands its scope

I wanna see indictments and trials, or this is just more smoke and mirrors.

 John Durham, the U.S. attorney reviewing the origins of the 2016 counterintelligence investigation into Russia and the Trump campaign, is probing a wider timeline than previously known, according to multiple senior administration officials.

Fox News previously reported that Durham would be reviewing the days leading up to the 2016 election and through the inauguration.

However, based on what he has been finding, Durham has expanded his investigation adding agents and resources, the senior administration officials said. The timeline has grown from the beginning of the probe through the election and now has included a post-election timeline through the spring of 2017, up to when Robert Mueller was named special counsel.

Ignore the hype — this is not an impeachment inquiry

There is no impeachment inquiry. There are no subpoenas.

You are not to be faulted if you think a formal inquest is under way and that legal process has been issued. The misimpression is completely understandable if you have been taking in media coverage — in particular, reporting on a haughty Sept. 27 letter from House Democrats, presuming to direct Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on pain of citation for obstruction, to cooperate in their demands to depose State Department officials and review various records.

The letter is signed by not one but three committee chairmen. Remember your elementary math, though: Zero is still zero even when multiplied by three.

What is portrayed as an “impeachment inquiry” is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. To the contrary, congressional Democrats are conducting the 2020 political campaign.

The House has not voted as a body to authorize an impeachment inquiry. What we have are partisan theatrics, proceeding under the ipse dixit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It raises the profile, but not the legitimacy, of the same “impeachment inquiry” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) previously tried to abracadabra into being without a committee vote.

Moreover, there are no subpoenas. As Secretary Pompeo observed in his fittingly tart response on Tuesday, what the committee chairmen issued was merely a letter. Its huffing and puffing notwithstanding, the letter is nothing more than an informal request for voluntary cooperation. Legally, it has no compulsive power. If anything, it is rife with legal deficiencies.

The Democrats, of course, hope you don’t notice that the House is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. They are using the guise of frenetic activity by several standing committees — Intelligence, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, Financial Services, and Ways and Means — whose normal oversight functions are being gussied up to look like serious impeachment business.

But standing committees do have subpoena power, so why not use it? Well, because subpoenas get litigated in court when the people or agencies on the receiving end object. Democrats want to have an impeachment show — um, inquiry — on television; they do not want to defend its bona fides in court.

They certainly do not want to defend their letter. The Democrats’ media scribes note the chairmen’s admonition that any failure by Pompeo to comply “shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry.” What a crock.

On Kickbacks and Democrats, Ukraine-Style

I believe there is a real nugget in POTUS’s quest to deal with Ukraine (and the Bidens) that has not been mentioned, and that nugget is what has the Democrats so up in arms and willing to march over the cliff politically with this impeachment ruse. There is a high likelihood that US taxpayer funds in the form of foreign aid were laundered through Ukraine (and other corrupt countries), with kickbacks to the likes of Hunter Biden and other politically-connected Americans. And there are even reports that Nancy Pelosi’s son Paul Jr. was on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, too! No wonder San Fran Nan is pressing ahead with the impeachment “inquiry.” Here is one of those reports:

Did you know that US foreign aid to Ukraine DOUBLED from $272M in 2015 to $513M in 2016? I wonder where that money went? Accountability under the Petro Poroshenko regime in Ukraine was a joke, and corruption was the key issue that led to Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s landslide victory in April 2019. I am certain that Poroshenko’s defeat was a severe blow to Democrats, in particular the Bidens, because they expected him to keep the lid on their corrupt dealings. However, the new Ukraine president is a reformer who is tackling corruption, and that is welcome news for those of us who, like our president and attorney general, want to find out about the likes of Crowdstrike’s and also various DNC operatives’ activities in Ukraine during the 2016 campaign.

Bottom line: I strongly suspect that the retainer Hunter Biden received was part of the kickback scheme involving US foreign aid laundered through Poroshenko’s regime using Burisma Holdings Ltd. as a cutout. In short, US taxpayers paid Hunter’s salary, thanks to a real quid pro quo executed by his father who was the vice president of the United States! And this misuse of foreign aid dollars is what POTUS is actually targeting, with the Bidens being the means of exposing it all. That’s what the Democrats cannot tolerate because Ukraine wasn’t the only country in which this kickback scheme was practiced during the Obama era. For starters, think about Obama’s Iran nuke agreement and the $1.5 billion…

IOWA VOTER ID LAW SURVIVES LAWSUIT CLAIMING IT IS “AN ATTACK ON THE LATINO COMMUNITY”

In a much-needed victory for election integrity a judge has upheld Iowa’s voter identification law, rejecting claims by a leftist open borders group that the measure is unconstitutional because it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. When the group, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), filed the lawsuit, the head of its Iowa chapter referred to the state’s voter ID law as “an attack on the Latino community” that places many restrictions on the right to vote. He also said the measure, passed in 2017, is a form of “voter suppression.”

Under the law Iowans must present a valid form of identification before voting in elections. Acceptable IDs include a driver’s license, non-operator’s license, passport, military ID, veteran’s ID or state-issued voter card. Voter ID laws are created to prevent election fraud and 35 states have enacted them, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue. In 2008 the high court upheld Indiana’s Voter ID law, ruling that the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of the voting process outweighed the insufficiently proven burdens the law may impose on voters. “There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” the nation’s highest court wrote in its decision. Even the famously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of voter ID laws. In a decision involving Arizona’s measure, the federal appellate court found that the “photo identification requirement is not an invidious restriction” and does not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Yet states continue to spend a fortune defending their voter ID measures in court, mostly against leftwing groups that assert they discriminate against minorities and the poor. LULAC filed its Iowa lawsuit in 2018 and the case went to trial this year, around the end of June. The Latino civil rights group claimed the law makes it harder for certain citizens—especially minorities—in Iowa to vote and that it violates sections of the state Constitution that guarantee the right to vote, due process, equal treatment under the law and freedom of speech. The defendant is Iowa’s Secretary of State, Paul Pate. The Polk County District Judge, Joseph Seidlin, who presided over the case wrote in his decision that “for the vast majority of eligible voters in Iowa, the voter identification requirement poses no real burden. They either present a driver’s license or nonoperator’s identification card which they already have, or a voter ID card which they either have or can easily obtain for free.” Seidlin also found that the evidence presented in his courtroom failed to demonstrate what LULAC alleged; that the burden on young, old, female, minority and poor voters to show an approved form of identification at the polls is greater than the rest of the population.

Pate, Iowa’s Secretary of State, applauded the court for upholding the principles of Voter ID and election integrity. “My goal has always been to make it easy to vote, but hard to cheat,” Pate said in a statement following the ruling. “Iowans have overwhelmingly voiced their support for Voter ID and this law ensures voters will be asked to provide identification before casting their ballot.”

If You Can’t Sell Your Hysteria To Adults, Try Kids
Hysterias are to the Left what oxygen is to biological life.

The entire American left — the mainstream media, the environmentalist movement and Democratic politicians in particular — are celebrating the involvement of teenagers and even younger children in protesting the world’s “inaction” with regard to global warming.

And not just the American left, of course. The left throughout the world is celebrating. A 16-year-old Swedish girl whose contempt for adults is breathtaking is an international hero. Congressional Democrats invited her to testify in Congress, and the United Nations has likewise invited her.

The mayor and city council of New York City further politicized their city’s public schools by allowing students to skip school to actively participate in a global warming protest.

The message of young climate change activists is: “You adults aren’t doing your job. As a result, we have no future.” As a sympathetic reporter — are there any non-sympathetic reporters? — for the Los Angeles Times put it, “(T)eens are still waiting for a sign that their elders get it.”

The Times’ coverage is typical. It reported: “Underneath the activism lies a simple truth: Young people are incredibly scared about climate change. They see it as a profound injustice and an existential threat to their generation and those that will follow. …

“‘They do worry, and they worry kind of a lot,’ said Maria Ojala, an environmental psychologist at Orebro University in Sweden. …

“Arielle Martinez Cohen” — an 18-year-old Los Angeles activist with the youth climate group Zero Hour — “remembers reading a report from an Australian think tank that warned the human species could face extinction by 2050 if society doesn’t get its act together.

“‘I almost imagine, like, an apocalypse-type thing happening,’ Arielle said.

“Many young people say they can’t fathom bringing kids of their own into the world. …

“‘It’s not ethical. It’s literally a burning house,’ Lana said.

“‘That’s something that’s not realistic,’ agreed her twin sister, Yena.

“And how can they even think about college or contemplate their careers when faced with so much uncertainty?

“‘It’s something I feel every single day,’ Yena said. ‘I work really hard at school and I do all these things, and I’m like, “What am I working for? Do I have a future?”‘”

It is critical to remember that hysterias — such as Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, “endemic and systemic racism in America,” the heterosexual AIDS “crisis” in America and the “rape culture” on American college campuses — are to the left what oxygen is to biological life. No oxygen, no life; no hysteria, no left.

Apparently, however, the left-wing hysteria about global warming leading to the virtual extinction of life on Earth has not moved enough adults. Many adults who do not deny that the Earth is getting warmer — such as Danish writer and environmentalist thinker Bjorn Lomborg — do deny that the threat is “existential” and do believe that the left’s solutions, such as the Green New Deal, will damage the world far more than will carbon emissions. Proof that the left is hysterical is its unwillingness to promote nuclear power — a completely clean, non-fossil fuel-based source of power. It provides France with 70 percent of its energy. Anyone who really believes life on Earth is endangered would grasp at the nuclear power lifeboat. That they do not proves what many of us have believed from the beginning: The “existential threat” scenario is another left-wing falsehood used to whip up hysteria that will lead to the left’s control of the economy and society.

And that takes us back to the children: If you can’t sell your hysteria to adults, try kids. And that is what the left has done. After all, no one is as malleable or as easily indoctrinated as children.

 

Probe the Effort to Sink Kavanaugh.

In “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly report that Leland Keyser —who was unable to corroborate high-school friend Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation of youthful sexual misconduct—says she felt pressured by a group of common acquaintances to vouch for it anyway. The book quotes an unnamed male member of the group suggesting in a text message: “Perhaps it makes sense to let everyone in the public know what her condition is”—a remark the reporters describe as reading “like a veiled reference” to Ms. Keyser’s “addictive tendencies.” (The authors quote her as saying she told investigators “my whole history of using.”)

A concerted effort to mislead the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Senate, especially if it involved threats to potential witnesses, could violate several federal criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. 1001 (lying to federal officials), 18 U.S.C. 1505 (obstruction of official proceedings) and 18 U.S.C. 1622 (subornation of perjury). Investigating and, if the evidence is sufficient, prosecuting such offenses would deter similar misconduct in the future.

with that:

The biggest Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly a decade, explained
Gun control supporters are desperate — and have already taken drastic steps — to get the Supreme Court to dismiss this case.

Last January, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, the first major Second Amendment case to be heard by the Supreme Court in nearly a decade — and also the first since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement shifted the Court dramatically to the right.

The case centers on an unusual — and recently changed — New York City rule that limited where gun owners with a certain kind of permit were allowed to bring their guns.

Gun control advocates, including policymakers in both New York City and the New York state legislature, fear a big loss in the Supreme Court and are desperate to make the case go away. Indeed, New York City changed their gun rules after the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case, and state legislators enacted a new law forbidding the city from bringing back the old rules — all in the hopes of obviating the need for the Court to weigh in. Because the legal controversy between the city and the plaintiffs is now over, the city asked the Court to dismiss this case as moot.

The justices are scheduled to discuss whether to dismiss the case at their October 1 conference……………..

Why gun rights advocates have so much to gain
A few months before his death this summer, retired Justice John Paul Stevens offered a surprisingly candid window into the Court’s internal deliberations.

In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. The Court split along familiar ideological lines, with Kennedy joining his fellow conservatives in the 5-4 majority.

Heller, however, was hardly a total victory for advocates of gun rights. Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion is riddled with caveats. Heller suggests that “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” all remain valid, as are bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

In a November interview with the New York Times’ Adam Liptak, Stevens revealed that Kennedy asked for “some important changes” to Scalia’s original draft of the Heller opinion. At Stevens’s urging, Kennedy requested language stating that Heller “should not be taken to cast doubt” on many existing gun laws. Without Kennedy’s intervention, in other words, Heller may not have included the important language limiting the scope of the Second Amendment.

But Kennedy is gone. And his replacement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appears very eager to expand gun rights.

Shorter after Heller was decided, the District of Columbia’s government passed legislation banning semi-automatic “assault weapons” and requiring gun owners to register their firearms. Dick Heller, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, also led the challenge to this new gun law, and the case — Heller v. District of Columbia — was eventually heard by a panel of three Republican-appointed judges.

Two of those judges largely upheld the law in 2011 (although they called for further proceedings on the registration requirement). The third judge was Brett Kavanaugh, who claimed that “both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.” (This second iteration of the Heller litigation was never heard by the Supreme Court.)

And Kavanaugh’s dissent also went even further than that. The future justice did not simply argue that this specific DC law should be struck down. He also suggested that nearly a decade of Second Amendment jurisprudence should be tossed out.

Now you can see why the demoncraps decided that Kavanaugh’s nomination was a hill to die on.
And now you can see why they’re going crazy ape bonkers about impeaching Trump.
Pelosi and the rest of them know too well that they’re not going to get Trump ejected from office. What they hope to do is make the nomination for whoever is going to replace Ginsburg think twice about wanting to go through the same crap and/or also give them some sort of political cover “He’s tainted by being impeached!” if it happens before the 2020 election.

The Curious Case of Andy Ngo
How the mainstream media downplay left-wing violence
.

Many journalists resent Ngo’s politics, ethics, and sudden success. Yet the establishment media’s approach is the same when Ngo is out of the picture. Antifa is a subject that major media outlets tend to cover once, as a box to be checked. Far-left attacks are treated as isolated incidents rather than episodes in an ongoing story. They are not to be covered like violence from the far right or white nationalists. Andy Ngo covers the story that way—and the media do not like it or the mirror he holds up to them.

The establishment media’s lopsided approach to political violence ultimately damages both our politics and journalism. Politics are supposed to function as nonviolent dispute resolution. Weimar-style street brawling is a signpost on the path to the collapse of normal politics, one we ignore at our peril. Pretending that groups such as Antifa are not a problem is a tactic that will be noticed by at least half the country, accelerate the vicious cycle of our political discourse, and desensitize partisans to political violence of all stripes.

Turning a blind eye to left-wing violence may have the corollary effect of burning up whatever moral and institutional capital the establishment media have left. The media will be seen as knuckling under to—or even embracing—Antifa’s core beliefs. After all, many progressives already believe hate speech is no different from physical assault, which is the root of Antifa’s belief in preemptive violence.

To blame Andy Ngo for injuries he suffered while reporting on Antifa, even if one finds him biased, is to tacitly accept Antifa’s general demand that its members are not to be photographed or identified on threat of violence. No respectable journalist would accept that demand from the Ku Klux Klan. Those who accept it here will similarly lose public respect. The establishment media need to do the right thing covering left-wing violence, if only out of self-interest. Whether they will is another story.

Another Week, Another Pseudo-Scandal.

Can anyone keep them all straight? They rise like noxious bubbles from the cauldron of deep-state anti-Trump sentiment, only to pass away almost immediately, carried off by their own insubstantiality and the contrasting bright-light series of real achievements on the part of the Trump Administration.

Just this last week, we saw the New York chapter of the left-over Left make a last-ditch effort to smear Justice Brett Kavanaugh by fabricating yet another spurious complaint that an 18-year-old Kavanaugh had been over-served and acted rudely to a fellow female student at Yale. Only the student in question had no memory of the incident.

Like every other complaint against the teenaged Kavanaugh, it was a matter of “my cousin Ernie’s brother’s girlfriend heard from her college roommate that three people whose names she cannot remember told her best friend that someone who might have been Brett Kavanaugh was rumored to have exposed himself at a drunken white-privilege party at Yale 35 or maybe 36 years ago.” …………

But back to the Ukraine. On Friday, the oyez, oyez, oyez boys in the press whipped up the big display type to announce that someone in the “intelligence community” (we don’t know whom) issued an official complaint that President Trump made a “promise” (we don’t know what) to an unnamed foreign leader that the complainant, whoever it is, found “troubling.” …..

Stepping back for a moment from that snarling imbroglio, I do wonder whether the latest “Trump abused his powers, let’s impeach him!” gambit is not rather an impressive deployment of a rhetorical-political gambit known as the “preemptive tu quoque I-tagged-you-first” strategy. The media and anti-Trump commentariat is jumping up and down in unison saying, “Trump is leaning on a foreign power in order to gain a political advantage.”

But what is that charge cover for? A chap called Robert Barnes, writing on Twitter, reminds us of a pertinent fact. “The same Democrats who used all the powers of the Presidency to spy on an opposing campaign, and continue to use every power of the House to invade the privacy of the President, are deeply offended that Trump would want corruption investigated involving a former Vice President?” That’s what Latinists called a nonne question, one that expects the answer “Yes.”

Trump Whistleblower Drama Puts Biden In The Hot Seat Over Ukraine

For days we’ve been treated to MSM insinuations that President Trump may have betrayed the United States after a whistleblower lodged an ‘urgent’ complaint about something Trump promised another world leader – the details of which the White House has refused to share.

Then, we learned it was a phone call.

Then, we learned it was several phone calls.

Now, we learn it wasn’t Russia or North Korea – it was Ukraine!

Here’s the scandal; It appears that Trump, may have made promises to newly minted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – very likely involving an effort to convince Ukraine to reopen its investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter, after Biden strongarmed Ukraine’s prior government into firing its top prosecutor – something Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani have pursued for months. There are also unsupported rumors that Trump threatened to withhold $250 million in aid to help Ukraine fight Russian-backed separatists.

And while the MSM and Congressional Democrats are starting to focus on the sitting US president having a political opponent investigated, The New York Times admits that nothing Trump did would have been illegal, as “while Mr. Trump may have discussed intelligence activities with the foreign leader, he enjoys broad power as president to declassify intelligence secrets, order the intelligence community to act and otherwise direct the conduct of foreign policy as he sees fit.”

Moreover, here’s why Trump and Giuliani are going to dig their heels in; last year Biden openly bragged about threatening to hurl Ukraine into bankruptcy as Vice President if they didn’t fire their top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin – who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into a natural gas firm whose board  Hunter Biden sat on. 

In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. –The Hill

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko.

You Just Can’t Make This Up! Joe Biden’s $1.5 Billion China-Ukraine Bribery Scandal That Was Ignored by Media is Now President Trump’s Scandal!

After leaving office in 2017, Vice President Joe Biden Bragged about strong-arming the government of Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor.

Joe Biden made the remarks during a meeting of foreign policy specialists. Biden said he, “Threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.” Biden suggested during his talk that Barack Obama was in on the threat.

In April John Solomon revealed what Biden did not tell his audience. Joe Biden had Shokin fired because he was investigating Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

Poroshenko was investigating $3 million in funds that were being transferred out of Ukraine and into accounts in the United States at that time.

We’ve lost sight of the real scandal

What will Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s latest investigation reveal? Will Congress hold hearings about it? Will former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe actually get indicted? After all, it’s said that a motivated prosecutor can “indict a ham sandwich” if he really wants to.

We’re so wrapped up in the daily tick-tock, we could be losing sight of a big picture that’s come into focus over the past two years. For the first time in our nation’s history, an inspector general — one appointed by President Obama — has determined that at least two men who sat in the top spot at the FBI committed multiple violations that warrant possible prosecution. That in itself is a scandal with national implications deserving of headlines, congressional hearings and promises to overhaul a broken system.

Of course, the complicating factor in the whole mess is that the government entities responsible for addressing any wrongdoing are the same ones inextricably tied to the alleged wrongdoing.

The symbiotic relationship between gun-toting criminals and Democratic lawmakers

Maybe the reason behind that last article?

Democratic lawmakers love gun-toting criminals. They give them the ammunition (pun intended) they need to stir up their base to push for gun control legislation. After every mass shooting, the cries to “do something” are deafening on social media as virtue-signaling politicians pander for effect.

Gun-toting criminals love Democratic lawmakers. They fight to reduce sentences, hamper law enforcement, and most importantly to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. The less the citizenry is armed, the easier it is for criminals to commit their crimes. This is why gun-free zones are often targeted. It’s why gun crimes are rampant in cities like Chicago where guns are allegedly controlled. Criminals owe Democrats a debt of gratitude for helping them stay in business.

Democratic lawmakers love gun-toting criminals. They give them the ammunition (pun intended) they need to stir up their base to push for gun control legislation. After every mass shooting, the cries to “do something” are deafening on social media as virtue-signaling politicians pander for effect.

Gun-toting criminals love Democratic lawmakers. They fight to reduce sentences, hamper law enforcement, and most importantly to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. The less the citizenry is armed, the easier it is for criminals to commit their crimes. This is why gun-free zones are often targeted. It’s why gun crimes are rampant in cities like Chicago where guns are allegedly controlled. Criminals owe Democrats a debt of gratitude for helping them stay in business.

Meanwhile, legacy media does everything it can to support both. They selectively highlight which gun crimes they want to promote. If it matches their propagandized narrative that gun control would have stopped them, you will hear about the story ad nauseam for weeks. If it doesn’t fit the storyline, they’re quick to drop it from the headlines. Take note of this when trying to determine why there were so few stories about the Odessa mass shooter following the initial media blitz. The gun he used was illegally manufactured and sold to him. No proposed gun control measure could have possibly stopped him, so the media has backed off the story faster than vampires from a crucifix……………..

The conditions Democrats create enable criminals to do their deeds. The crimes criminals commit empower Democrats to enact their authoritarian laws and remain in power indefinitely. This is why patriots must aggressively oppose both.

41 shot, 7 fatally, in Chicago Labor Day weekend violence

And only local media report this.
The corrupt demoncrap politicians that have run Chicago for so long simply can not admit they’ve made a mess of things. They have to blame other states for their problems. I’ve always asked, as others have; If the problem is the guns in Indiana, why doesn’t Indiana have the violence problems you have. ..All anyone gets is silence.

CHICAGO (WLS) — A violent Labor Day weekend in Chicago has left seven people killed and another 34 wounded.

In the latest shooting, four men were shot near the King Drive CTA Green Line station at about 11 p.m. Monday night. All four men are expected to be OK.

Davantae Jackson, 15, was among the seven people shot and killed. The teen was supposed to be starting high school Tuesday. Instead, his family is making funeral plans.

Family members said Davantae was lured outside early Sunday morning by someone he thought was a friend who then opened fire, shooting and killing him just steps away from his own home.

“They called him and told him to come outside,” said Alexis Jackson, the victim’s sister. “When they told him to come outside and he was guessing he was going to see his friends,” she said. “And they did what they did to him after they called his phone.”

The shootings occurred as Chicago police increased patrols during the holiday weekend.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot lashed out against Texas Senator Ted Cruz after his tweet about violence in Chicago over Labor Day weekend.

The Republican Cruz said, “Gun control doesn’t work. Look at Chicago. Disarming law-abiding citizens isn’t the answer.”

Mayor Lightfoot fired back, tweeting “60% of illegal firearms recovered in Chicago come from outside Illinois-mostly from states dominated by coward Republicans like you who refuse to enact commonsense gun legislation. Keep our name out of your mouth. “