Thursday, August 22, 2019

Mystery Solved: Why Evangelicals Support Trump


By Bryan Preston | PJ Media


Why do some evangelical Christians support President Trump? What's the appeal, to people who profess family values, of a man whose life includes multiple marriages and affairs and who tends to be crude?

Let's dive into this alleged mystery.

Turn with me if you will to the book of Isaiah, chapter 45. We come to the story of Cyrus the Great. He was not a king of Israel or Judah. He was emperor of Persia from 539-530 BC. Persia tended to be an enemy of the children of Israel. It's now called Iran, and continues to be an enemy of Israel.

But Cyrus himself was not; God called Cyrus "my servant" and Cyrus followed through. Cyrus decreed that the Jewish exiles in Babylon could return to their homes and re-establish their country. He also allowed them to rebuild the temple. This was a big deal; Judah had been subjugated and exiled for 70 years, their ability to worship disrupted by the destruction of their temple in Jerusalem. Yet here was Cyrus, who was not one of them, playing a major role in fostering the Jews' return home.

I do have a point.

NeverTrumper Ben Howe has a book out called The Immoral Majority: Why Evangelicals Chose Political Power over Christian Values. Howe has been doing a lot of TV, MSNBC included, defending that incendiary title.

I have not read the book. I've seen him defend, it including the title, which suggests it reflects what he really thinks.

The thesis smears evangelicals.


It's fair to say Donald J. Trump is not an evangelical. He's never been called one and has not called himself one. Technically, he's Presbyterian. As a New York liberal for most of his life, he had no conservative credibility prior to 2016. This conservative evangelical was very skeptical of him, and did not support him in the 2016 primary. I initially thought his candidacy was Seinfeldian — about nothing.

But by the time he won the Republican primary in 2016, and he wasn't my first or second or third choice then, a few things were clear.

One: Donald Trump could win the presidency (though it looked unlikely).

Two: He seemed to have grasped a fact that eluded Jeb Bush and John Kasich; namely, that if you run as a Republican you shouldn't spend most of your time insulting Republicans. Not, at least, if you want them to vote for you (or applaud your speeches). You should probably spend the bulk of your time articulating a positive conservative vision and lambasting the left's rage and socialism. Trump did that. His passion suggested he might actually put up a fight against the left. The worse they treated him, the more he seemed to be readying for a fight.

Three: However flawed Trump might be, and he is, he was obviously better for the country and for evangelicals than any Democrat would be.

Recall that Trump was running after eight years of President Obama. Those eight years saw the federal government attempt to force nuns, literally the Little Sisters of the Poor, to violate their consciences and fund birth control. Obama took 'em to court over that. 

The eight years of Obama saw activist leftists haul Christian cake bakers to court and destroy their livelihood. 

The eight years of Obama saw a very emboldened left vent its hatred for everyone to their right, and evangelicals knew we were in their crosshairs.

They went after Christian-owned Hobby Lobby, they used our tax dollars to fund abortion, they made their disdain for our faith abundantly clear. The Democrats' 2016 appeal to us amounted to "Vote for us, you stupid, racist, bucktoothed haters!"

That's terrible marketing anywhere outside the New York Times newsroom.

Their 2020 message is worse. They're pushing failed 19th-century socialism paired with anti-Semitism (while calling us "racist"), along with the policy plan that just finished killing Venezuela. They want to erase our borders and take away our guns. They'll betray Israel at the first opportunity. Remember — Rep. Eric Swalwell (D) threatened to nuke gun owners, fellow Americans! Plus: they still hate evangelicals and want us to pay for abortion on demand.

Hillary Clinton did not offer a break from any of that. She called us "deplorable" and relished cranking Obama's hostility up a notch. The third-party guy, Evan whatever, also spent too much time attacking to his right, not his left. That's not a good look. Ditto for the NeverTrumpers.

Facepalm. Stupid.

So Trump emerged as a kind of Cyrus figure: Not necessarily "one of us," but not someone who would not go out of his way to smear or hurt us either.

Somebody is going to misread that previous line, so as Obama would say, let me be clear: Trump would be benign toward evangelicals, and might even be helpful, as Cyrus was helpful toward Israel. The previous is not meant to suggest Trump would literally become an emperor. We're not interested in that.

Speaking for myself and the evangelicals I know, Trump earned our votes by articulating many of our ideals fearlessly. This suggested he might actually follow through, unlike many who have called themselves "conservative" for their entire lives but "grow" left once they get to Washington. If we got some policy wins out of him, all the better.

Trump has been strongly pro-life, strongly pro-American, strongly pro-Israel, strongly pro-capitalism, and he has pushed back against the freedom-robbing regulatory state. He cut taxes and he left evangelicals alone. He didn't sue the nuns. He doesn't want our guns.

Voting for Trump is not "trading Christian values for political power." It's voting in self-defense against the radical, evangelical-hating left and hoping for the best - and getting more than expected.

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

BEWARE! The New York Times Reframes American History to Target Donald Trump and His Supporters




SUMMARY OF THE KEY POINTS FROM THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW


The Russia collusion hoax is dead. It died. It failed. They did not get rid of Trump. Impeachment failed. It’s gone. Every hope, everything that they had developed to get rid of Trump was wrapped up in Russian collusion and the Mueller report. And so it failed.

Therefore they had to move on to something else. Trump is a racist.  That failed. Racism is now not enough by itself. Because it’s been so overused it’s lost the impact. So they started calling all white people white supremacists and white nationalists.  That has failed, too. Now they have to move on to “something else.” Do you know what the “something else” is?

Well, on the 13th of August there was a tweet little noticed from Mara Gay at the New York Times. “In the days and weeks to come,” it begins, “we will publish essays demonstrating that nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery.”

Now, as part of this effort, the New York Times has started something called the 1619 Project. The New York Times says that the project “aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story.”

That’s the New York Times rewriting the founding of America and rewriting American history. It’s another hoax! The Russia hoax bombed out. The Covington kids hoax bombed out. They’ve tried a number of different hoaxes to get rid of Trump, and they have all blown up, and they are at their wits’ end. They are unable to harness any kind of sanity. I think this hatred of Trump has rendered them poisoned.

The New York Times said they plan on using this series, the 1619 Project — this series that all American greatness grew from slavery – throughout different parts of the paper’s news sections, including sports, business, and travel.” So no part of the paper will be safe from this revisionist propaganda. Every department of the newspaper is going to now be based on the premise that there is no American greatness, no legitimate American greatness.

They’re going to try to get a new curriculum entered into the public school system for American history designed around their just-discovered opinion that our true founding was in 1619 when the first African slaves arrived in the state of Virginia for sale. That’s their project.

Beware. This is an attempt to reframe American history for the purposes of targeting Trump and his supporters to get rid of him.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT

Monday, August 19, 2019

Trump Isn’t the One Dividing Us by Race


By Heather Mac Donald | Wall Street Journal


 ILLUSTRATION: PHIL FOSTER

He hardly mentions it, while his adversaries are obsessed with ‘whiteness’ and ‘white privilege.’

Long before the El Paso massacre, President Trump’s political opponents accused him of sowing “division” with his “racist language.” Mr. Trump “exploits race,” “uses race for his gain,” is engaged in a “racially divisive reprise” of his 2016 campaign, stokes “racial resentments,” and puts “race at the fore,” the New York Times has reported over the past several months.

Yet Mr. Trump rarely uses racial categories in his speech or his tweets. It is the media and Democratic leaders who routinely characterize individuals and groups by race and issue race-based denunciations of large parts of the American polity.

Some examples:

“As race dominates the political conversation, 10 white Democratic candidates will take the stage” (the Washington Post); 

Mr. Trump’s rally audiences are “overwhelmingly white” (multiple sources); 

Your son’s “whiteness is what protects him from not [sic] being shot” by the police ( Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ); 

White candidates need to be conscious of “white privilege” (South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg ); 

“White supremacy manifests itself” in the criminal-justice, immigration and health-care systems ( Sen. Cory Booker );

“ Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri” ( Sen. Elizabeth Warren ); 

Whiteness is “the very core” of Mr. Trump’s power, whereas his “predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness” (Ta-Nehisi Coates in the Atlantic).

Liberal opinion deems such rhetoric fair comment, even obvious truth, not “racially divisive.” America’s universities deserve credit for this double standard. 

Identity politics dominate higher education: Administrators, students and faculty obsessively categorize themselves and each other by race. “White privilege,” often coupled with “toxic masculinity,” is the focus of freshmen orientations and an ever-growing array of courses. 

Any institutional action that affects a “person of color” is “about race.” If a black professor doesn’t get tenure, he’s a victim of discrimination; a white professor is presumed to be unqualified.

That interpretive framework explains asymmetries in how the political and media elites analyze the Trump phenomenon. 

Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, recently denounced Mr. Trump’s “almost daily attacks on black and brown people.” 

But “almost” and “black and brown” are superfluous. 

Mr. Trump’s attacks on his fellow 2016 candidates—and on more-recent adversaries as homogeneous as Robert Mueller, Rep. Adam Schiff, Joe Biden and Ms. Warren—were as nasty as anything he’s directed at Rep. Elijah Cummings or Rep. Ilhan Omar.

But according to the academic template, to criticize a “person of color” is inevitably “about race.” 

Mr. Buttigieg ran afoul of this rule after firing South Bend’s black police chief for secretly taping officers’ phone calls. The idea that the mayor fired the chief because he was black is absurd, yet Mr. Buttigieg inevitably faced charges of racial insensitivity. 

Likewise, advocates and the media deemed Mr. Trump’s nonracial denunciation of Baltimore’s leadership racist. Never mind that the victims of the city’s almost daily drive-by shootings are black. Race shields minority politicians from criticism.

Ms. Warren recently provided an unwitting summary of academic identity politics. 

Mr. Trump’s “central message” to the American people, she declared, is: “If there’s anything wrong in your life, blame them—and ‘them’ means people who aren’t the same color as you.” 

She has in mind a white “you,” but change the race and you encapsulate the reigning assumption on college campuses—that white people are the source of nonwhite people’s problems, and any behavioral or cultural explanations for economic disparities are taboo.

The academy’s reflexive labeling of nonconforming views as “hate speech” has also infiltrated popular rhetoric against Mr. Trump. 

The president’s views on border control and national sovereignty are at odds with the apparent belief among Democratic elites that people living outside the country are entitled to enter at will and without consequences for illegal entry.

To the academic and democratic left, however, a commitment to border enforcement can only arise from “hate.” Such a pre-emptive interpretation is a means of foreclosing debate and stigmatizing dissent from liberal orthodoxy.

Identity politics, now a driving force in the Democratic Party, celebrates the racial and ethnic identities of designated victim groups while consigning whites—especially heterosexual white men—to scapegoat status. But its advocates should be careful what they wish for. If “whiteness” is a legitimate topic of academic and political discourse, some individuals are going to embrace “white identity” proudly.

To note the inevitability of white identity politics in no way condones the grotesque violence of men like the El Paso killer. But the dominant culture is creating a group of social pariahs, a very small percentage of whom—already unmoored from traditional sources of meaning and stability, such as family—are taking their revenge through stomach-churning mayhem. Overcoming racial divisiveness will be difficult. But the primary responsibility rests with its main propagators: the academic left and its imitators in politics and mass media.

Ms. Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of “The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.”

Saturday, August 17, 2019

How Important Is Today's Racial Discrimination?


By Walter E. Williams | Townhall.com


There is discrimination of all sorts, and that includes racial discrimination. Thus, it's somewhat foolhardy to debate the existence of racial discrimination yesteryear or today. From a policy point of view, a far more useful question to ask is: How much of the plight of many blacks can be explained by current racial discrimination? 

Let's examine some of today's most devastating problems of many black people with an eye toward addressing discrimination of the past and present.

At the root of most of the problems black people face is the breakdown of the family structure. Slightly over 70% of black children are raised in female-headed households. According to statistics about fatherless homes, 90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes; 71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father figure; 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes; 71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes; and 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions have no father. Furthermore, fatherless boys and girls are twice as likely to drop out of high school and twice as likely to end up in jail.

One might say, "Williams, one cannot ignore the legacy of slavery and the gross racism and denial of civil rights in yesteryear!" Let's look at whether black fatherless homes are a result of a "legacy of slavery" and racial discrimination. In the late 1800s, depending on the city, 70% to 80% of black households were two-parent. Dr. Thomas Sowell has argued, "The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life."

As late as 1950, only 18% of black households were single-parent. From 1890 to 1940, a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. In 1938, black illegitimacy was about 11% instead of today's 75%. In 1925, 85% of black households in New York City were two-parent. Today, the black family is a mere shadow of its past.

Let's ask a couple of questions about crime and education and racial discrimination. It turns out that each year more than 7,000 blacks are victims of homicide. That's slightly over 50% of U.S. homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of the time, the perpetrator is another black person. Along with being most of the nation's homicide victims, blacks are most of the victims of violent personal crimes such as assault and robbery. At many predominantly black schools, chaos is the order of the day. There is a high rate of assaults on students and teachers. Youngsters who are hostile to the educational process are permitted to make education impossible for those who are prepared to learn. As a result, overall black educational achievement is a disaster.

Here are my questions to those who blame racial discrimination for the problems of black people: Is it necessary for us to await some kind of moral rejuvenation among white people before measures can be taken to end or at least reduce the kind of behavior that spells socio-economic disaster in so many black communities? Is it a requirement that we await moral rejuvenation among white people before we stop permitting some black youngsters from making education impossible for other black youngsters? Blacks were not the only people discriminated against in America. While Jews and Asians were not enslaved, they encountered gross discrimination. Nonetheless, neither Jews nor Asians felt that they had to await the end of discrimination before they took measures to gain upward mobility.

Intellectuals and political hustlers who blame the plight of so many blacks on poverty, racial discrimination and the "legacy of slavery" are complicit in the socioeconomic and moral decay. Black people must ignore the liberal agenda that suggests that we must await government money before measures can be taken to improve the tragic living conditions in so many of our urban communities. Black and white intellectuals and politicians suggesting that black people await government solutions wouldn't begin to live in the same high-crime, dangerous communities and send their children to the dangerous schools that so many black children attend.

Walter E. Williams's Latest Book American Contempt for Liberty is available on Amazon




________________


AVAILABLE ALSO ON HOVER INSTITUTION PRESS







Throughout history, personal liberty, free markets, and peaceable, voluntary exchange have been roundly denounced by tyrants and often greeted with suspicion by the general public. Unfortunately, Americans have increasingly accepted the tyrannical ideas of reduced private property rights and reduced rights to profits and have become enamored with restrictions on personal liberty and control by government.

In this latest collection of essays selected from his syndicated newspaper columns, Walter E. Williams takes on a range of controversial issues surrounding race, education, the environment, our Constitution, health care, foreign policy, and more. Skewering the self-righteous and self-important forces throughout society, he makes the case for what he calls the “the moral superiority of personal liberty and its main ingredient—limited government.”

With his usual straightforward insights and honesty, Williams reveals the loss of liberty in nearly every important aspect of our lives, the massive decline in our values, and the moral tragedy that has befallen Americans today: our belief that it is okay for government forcibly to use one American to serve the purposes of another.

Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and chairman of the economics department at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist. Williams is the author of several books and more than sixty articles which have appeared in scholarly journals such as Economic InquiryAmerican Economic Review, and Social Science Quarterly and popular publications such as Reader's DigestRegulationPolicy Review, and Newsweek.

Friday, August 16, 2019

New York Times chief outlines coverage shift: From Trump-Russia to Trump racism


By Byron York  | Washington Examiner


Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, said recently that, after the Mueller report, the paper has to shift the focus of its coverage from the Trump-Russia affair to the president's alleged racism.

"We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well," Baquet said. "Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story."

Baquet made the remarks at an employee town hall Monday. A recording was leaked to Slate, which published a transcript Thursday.

In the beginning of the Trump administration, the Times geared up to cover the Russia affair, Baquet explained. "Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let's not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I'm going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else."

But then came the Mueller report, with special counsel Robert Mueller failing to establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to fix the 2016 election.

"The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened," Baquet continued. "Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, 'Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.' And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we're talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We're a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that's what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?"

Baquet used the gentlest terms possible — "the story changed" — but the fact is, the conspiracy-coordination allegation the Times had devoted itself to pursuing turned out to be false. Beyond that, Democrats on Capitol Hill struggled to press an obstruction case against the president. The Trump-Russia hole came up dry.

Now, Baquet continued, "I think that we've got to change." The Times must "write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions."

"I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks?" Baquet said. "How do we cover the world's reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that's become so divided by Donald Trump?"

The town hall was spurred by angry reaction, both inside and outside the Times, to a headline that many on the Left faulted for being insufficiently anti-Trump. After the El Paso shootings, when the president denounced white supremacy, the Times published a page-one story with the heading, "Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism."

"I think one of the reasons people have such a problem with a headline like this ... is because they care so much," one staffer said to Baquet. "And they depend on the New York Times. They are depending on us to keep kicking down the doors and getting through, because they need that right now. It's a very scary time."

Baquet vowed a transition to a new "vision" for the paper for the next two years. "How do we grapple with all the stuff you all are talking about?" he said to the staffer. "How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven't done in a large way in a long time? That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that's what we're going to have to do for the rest of the next two years."

The headline controversy, it appears, was a preview of a new 2019-2020 New York Times. If Baquet follows through, the paper will spend the next two years, which just happens to be the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, building the Trump-is-a-racist narrative. (Baquet added, almost as an afterthought, that the Times will "continu[e] to cover his policies.")

The employee town hall was not intended to be public. But the Times is a news organization, and no one could be surprised that a recording of it leaked, possibly by Times employees who want to push Baquet in an even more anti-Trump direction. In any event, it's now public. And the results will play out for the next two years.

Thursday, August 15, 2019

UPDATE: Philadelphia suspect in custody after hours-long ordeal that left 6 officers wounded





The suspect linked to Wednesday's hours-long standoff in Philadelphia surrendered to authorities just after midnight Thursday, exiting the residence with his hands in the air and with a police light shining on him, surrounded by a cloud of tear gas.

The dramatic shootout in Philadelphia stretched on for hours as six officers were shot -- and two officers and three hostages were later freed, apparently unhurt.

The suspect was identified by unnamed police sources as Maurice Hill, 36, of Philadelphia.

Hill has a long record of gun-related convictions and of attempting to evade arrest, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

Shaka Mzee Johnson, the attorney who most recently represented Hill, also confirmed to the Inquirer that Hill was linked to the standoff.

One of the wounded officers reportedly was grazed in the head in the ongoing shootout in the city's Nicetown neighborhood that began on Wednesday afternoon.

Three officers were rushed to Temple University Hospital, officials told Philadelphia's FOX 29.

Three other officers were taken to Einstein Hospital, at least one of them was shot in an arm. All six officers were in stable condition and treated for non-life-threatening injuries before doctors released them, Philadelphia police Sgt. Eric Gripp said.

Two other officers, including a police sergeant, were injured in an accident related to the emergency response and were being treated for non-life-threatening injuries.

Ross said two officers with the Narcotics Strike Force were serving a warrant at the multifamily home -- in what may have been a drug-related offense -- when things "went awry almost immediately," and the shooter opened fire at the home. The two officers were barricaded in separate rooms with several hostages.

After five hours of enduring consistent gunfire, the two officers were safely evacuated, according to Gripp.

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

BREAKING NEWS: At least 6 Philadelphia officers wounded in shootout; police warn of active scene






At least six Philadelphia police officers were shot, one reportedly grazed in the head, in an ongoing shootout in the city's Nicetown neighborhood on Wednesday afternoon that has been unfolding for almost five hours.

Three officers were rushed to Temple University Hospital, officials told Fox 29.

One of those officers was released from the hospital later in the evening, while his fellow officers stood by and saluted him.

Three other officers were taken to Einstein Hospital, at least one of them was shot in the arm. All six officers were in stable condition and being treated for non-life threatening injuries.

"Fortunately, everybody is going to be okay," Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross told reporters on Wednesday, even as the shooter refused to surrender to officers during ongoing negotiations.



Philadelphia police staging as they respond to the active shooting situation. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Two other officers, including a police sergeant, were injured in an accident related to the emergency response and were being treated for non-life threatening injuries.

High-ranking police officials said two officers with the Narcotics Strike Force were serving a warrant at a multifamily home -- in what may have been a drug-related offense -- when a shooter opened fire at the home. The two officers were barricaded in separate rooms with as many as four suspects.

Hostage negotiators and a SWAT team were on the scene.

"Officers are attempting to communicate with the shooter; imploring him to surrender and avoid further injuries," Philadelphia Police Department Sgt. Eric Gripp tweeted.

Ross said that some suspects "were taken into custody initially and there may be someone in custody inside [the building] but there's no indication that the shooter is trying to surrender." He added that police were confident the shooter was still alive given the frequency of shots still being fired, but police have not been able to speak to the shooter yet.

Law enforcement officials continued to make repeated attempts to talk to the shooter, communicating over a loudspeaker as well as trying to reach him by phone, Ross said. Police also were trying to work with a person close to the shooter to make contact with him, but so far, the suspect has answered the phone but didn't speak. Fox News has learned that that liaison is the shooter's girlfriend.

"He continues to fire rounds out of a window," Ross said.

The SWAT team attempted to enter the building but were forced to retreat because of heavy gunfire through the first-floor ceiling up towards a higher floor of the building, as well as out the window, a law enforcement official told Fox News.

Hundreds of rounds of gunfire could be heard throughout the afternoon. The gunman was armed with an AR15 and several handguns, officials told Fox News.

Ross said many rounds of ammunition struck the SWAT truck and buildings across the street and "right now we're not sure" if it's just one shooter.

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney said he's "angry about someone having all that weaponry and all that firepower."

Officials negotiating with the suspect tried to assure him that he would not be harmed if he surrendered, to no avail.

"We're just trying to do as much as we can to resolve this peacefully," Ross said, adding that it's a "very volatile situation that is still unfolding."

Four women who were on the second floor of the building as the shootout continued were rescued by police officers and led to safety.

“I thank God for these cops. They’re good people. Don’t say nothing bad about them, they kept us safe the whole time,” one of the women told KYW-TV.

President Trump was made aware of the unfolding scene in Philadelphia, according to White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley.


 Law enforcement with a gun drawn in the Nicetown neighborhood of Philadelphia.

“The President has been briefed on the shooting in Philadelphia and continues to monitor the situation,” Gidley said.

The situation is being described as an active shooting scene that began around 4:30 p.m.

Officers called for backup frantically saying "shots fired, shots fired at North 15th street."


Police standing outside a house as they investigated the active shooting situation.

Video footage of the scene showed a massive police presence in the neighborhood as hundreds of responding police officers and police cars from the Philadelphia Police Department as well as special agents from the Philadelphia Field Division and the FBI blocked off the streets, crouching behind cars, many with their guns drawn, in search of a possible gunman, according to reports by WCAU.

"The Attorney General has been briefed on the current shooting incident in #Philadelphia and is monitoring the situation," Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said.

One officer appeared injured and was taken away in a police car. Video also showed two other officers carrying a man and putting them in the back of a police car, according to reports by The Associated Press.

Police are cautioning the community to stay indoors as gunshots continue to ring out in the neighborhood.

Philadelphia has been riddled with drug-related crime with several major busts occurring since the beginning of 2019.

U.S. officials seized over $1 billion worth of cocaine in June from a ship at a Philadelphia port, in a bust that the U.S. attorney’s office called one of the largest in American history.

One month later, law enforcement officials seized six kilos of heroin and fentanyl, two kilos of cocaine, five handguns, one rifle, $200,000 cash, as well as other drug paraphernalia after a 3-month long wiretap investigation on the Kensignton neighborhood in Philadelphia.

In March, drug dogs sniffed out 1,185 pounds of cocaine worth about $38 million, a bust that was recognized at the time as the city’s largest seizure of the drug in more than two decades.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates. Fox News' Rick Leventhal and The Associated Press contributed to this report.