State Rep Monique Davis (D-Chicago) “It’s the police killing some of these kids”

 

State Rep. Monique Davis
(D-Chicago)

An Illinois state representative has publicly raised the possibility that Chicago police officers might be the ones responsible for the unsolved murders of black youths in Chicago.

State Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) was interviewed about Chicago crime Tuesday on WCHB-AM in Detroit.

Listen Here

“I’m going to tell you what some suspicions have been, and people have whispered to me: they’re not sure that black people are shooting all of these children,”

“There’s some suspicion–and I don’t want to spread this, but I’m just going to tell you what I’ve been hearing–they suspect maybe the police are killing some of these kids.”

When WBBM asked Davis if she thinks it’s possible that police are killing children, she said, “I don’t know. I don’t know that they are, and I don’t know that they aren’t, since no one’s been arrested. We don’t know who’s doing it.”

Davis called a news conference at her South Side legislative office Friday to says that, while some of her constituents believe that, she does not, nor does she believes she owes anyone an apology.

“My community believes that,” she said. “Should I apologize for my community’s beliefs?”
.
“There’s some suspicion–and I don’t want to spread this, but….” But you did,and under the guise of concern for your community- despicable.

In a July 19 press release, Davis attempted to smooth over hard feelings by praising the Chicago police for their efforts, but she stood by her statements on the Detroit radio program.

“I’m not a detective, I’m not an investigator,” Davis said. “I said my community, many people in my community, based upon their experiences and their knowledge, believe it is possible that some of these murders are committed by our finest. Now, we can’t say that doesn’t happen.”

So black youths are killing other black youths in record numbers. The gang culture absolutely has a “snitches get stitches” mentality,
and she’s surprised that no one’s fingered anyone else in these murders?
She doesn’t know or understand her own organic demographic but feels compelled to comment on it.

Monique Davis is part of the problem, and that problem is race baiting. We’ve seen a lot of pot stirring recently, from the not so Reverend like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and political activist AG Eric Holder. Davis is absurd, inflammatory and insulting.

Fighting back on voting rights – Because voter ID’s are racist?

E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post and MSNBC commentator.

This morning I came across an article written by E.J. Dionne, a long time op-ed contributor for The Washington Post and a NPR, PBS and MSNBC commentator, about fighting back on voting rights. I knew it was going to be skewed to the left, I just didn’t realize how much so.

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Guest Columnist
WASHINGTON —
Attorney General Eric Holder has opened what will be an epic battle over whether our country will remain committed to equal rights at the ballot box. In a display of egregious judicial activism in late June, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Holder made clear last week he intends to fight back.

The struggle will begin in Texas, but it won’t end there. “We cannot allow the slow unraveling of the progress that so many, throughout history, have sacrificed so much to achieve,” Holder told the National Urban League’s annual conference.
He wasn’t exaggerating the stakes. From the moment the Supreme Court threw out Section 4 of the act, which subjected the voting laws in states and jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to Justice Department scrutiny, conservative legislators in those places gleefully signaled their intention to pass laws to make it harder to vote. In addition, Texas re-imposed a redistricting map that a federal court had already ruled was discriminatory.

These hasty moves were unseemly but entirely predictable, proving that Chief Justice John Robert’s opinion in the case will become a Magna Carta for voter suppression. Without having to worry about “preclearance” from the Justice Department, legislators can go about their business of making it more difficult for voters who would throw them out of office to reach the polls — and of drawing racially gerrymandered districts that prolong their tenure. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg understood a logic here that escaped Roberts. “A governing political coalition,” she wrote in her dissent, “has an incentive to prevent changes in the existing balance of voting power.”
This in turn means that when a political party fares badly with minority voters, it will try to turn them away from the polling booths. That’s what segregationist Southern Democrats did in the past. Many Republican-controlled legislatures are doing it now.

Holder announced he was using Section 3, a different part of the Voting Rights Act that was left standing, to ask a federal court to re-subject Texas to preclearance. It is a less efficient way to achieve what the pre-gutted act allowed automatically, but it is the best that can be done for now. It would be better still if Congress reinstated a revised version of Section 4. In the meantime, the hope is to limit the damage of the high court’s folly — and perhaps also give other states pause before they rush into new discriminatory schemes.
“This is the department’s first action to protect voting rights following the [Supreme Court] decision, but it will not be our last,” Holder declared. His department is likely to move this week against the Texas voter-identification law, and to go to court eventually against other states that pass comparable statutes.

To get a sense of how bad these laws are, consider the bill Republicans rushed through both houses of North Carolina’s Legislature that should be called the Omnibus Voter Suppression Act of 2013. It reads like a parody written for Stephen Colbert’s show with its cornucopia of provisions that would make it as hard as possible for African-Americans, Latinos and young people to vote.

As the Charlotte Observer reported, it shortens the early-voting period, eliminates the opportunity to register and vote on the same day during that time, and ends pre-registration for teenagers 16 to 17. The bill also prevents counties from extending voting hours when lines are long — which they will be with the cutback on early voting days. It not only requires photo identification, but also narrows the list of what’s acceptable, eliminating college IDs, for example.

Oh, yes, and remember the old civic tradition of using all avenues to encourage people to register to vote, a favorite cause of that famously revolutionary group, the League of Women Voters? This bill would ban paid voter registration drives.

… Read More
E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne@washpost.com

Expecting more from a man who penned the book, “They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives Will Dominate the Next Political Era” , was kind of naive, but thinking that being a print journalist he would have been more scrupulous – even just a bit impartial. Lesson learned.

Of course I have an opinion on his op-ed piece, but I wanted to make sure he was aware of it. I emailed him this morning –

Mr.Dionne,
I noticed in your article, Fighting Back On Voting Rights, a few omissions. I’m sure this was unintended.
For example, you wrote, “This in turn means that when a political party fares badly with minority voters, it will try to turn them away from the polling booths.” You mean like the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation in Philly that was later dismissed by Holder? I’m sure you mean just like that.

New Black Panthers intimidating voters at the polls in Philadelphia

Then there was that little rant on banning paid voter drives. You must have been distracted during the last election. Unless you were living under a rock, you would know that paid voter drives breed voter registration fraud. If you need examples, I’d be more than happy to supply them. Perhaps it was just an oversight on your part. It’s inconceivable that some people think voter fraud is a myth, they must be part of the low information voters. Ask me how I could have voted twice when I was handed the ballot of another voter because of the same last name and similar address. I suppose if someone had asked to see my ID the situation could have been avoided. Not everyone is as honest as I am.

That got me thinking about photo identification – either a driver’s license or a state ID for non-drivers. I noticed some pertinent data was missing from your article. There are so many instances besides voting where showing/having an ID is necessary.
For instance, one would need an ID to apply for/receive Medicare and Medicaid, purchase cigarettes and alcohol, buy Sudafed, rent a car, get a hotel room, check out a library book, any bank transactions, register yourself or a child in school, board an airplane, get certain medications at the pharmacy, apply for store credit, set up a utilities account (water, lights, etc), buy a car, register a car, vote in a union, donate blood, use a credit card, Social Security services, buy train tickets, volunteer at non-profit organizations, buy a house, rent an apartment, and even at print shops.

I don’t think you were seriously suggesting that asking for an ID to vote is somehow racist or “right wing”, that would be ludicrous. I’m sure the groups you mentioned: blacks, latinos and young people, (I’ll even throw one in of my own – senior citizens) have used at least one or more of these services. To think otherwise would be absurd…. or intellectually dishonest. Wouldn’t you say?

I do hope Mr. Dionne gets sarcasm –

What are your thoughts…opinions on voter’s rights and voter ID?

This is for Trayvon!

Excerpt from The Blaze:
Now if all of these people out there protesting for Trayvon are so concerned about the death of a youth, then where have they been these past ten years?

If people really cared about the loss of black youth, they would be asking what the hell is going on in their communities.  They would be asking why black youth are dying at an epidemic rate.  This violence is a symptom of a problem.  A number of Chicago communities see half their residents living in poverty.  Schools are failing.  Economic opportunity is hard to find.  The family unit has been all but obliterated.

…But you know, Chicago is just the progressive utopian dream, right?  This is President Obama’s backyard.  You have to ask why with the first black president are black Americans are one of the demographics – along with women – so adversely affected by his policies?  Why is dependence upon government assistance at an all time high?  Oh I see change, but there’s no hope to be found!  And why does it take a white girl with American-Indian ancestry [to ask] these questions?  Why is this not a topic of analysis on BET or One News or with Al Sharpton?

Holder “Shooting was tragic and unecessary” – More Race baiting from the AG

Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday called the killing of Trayvon Martin a “tragic, unnecessary shooting,” and said the Justice Department will follow “the facts and the law” as it reviews evidence to see whether federal criminal charges are warranted.

In his first comments since the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the Martin case, the attorney general said the 17-year-old’s death provides an opportunity for the nation to speak honestly about complicated and emotionally charged issues.

He said the nation must not forgo an opportunity toward better understanding of one another.

On Sunday, the Justice Department said it is reviewing evidence in the case to determine whether criminal civil rights charges would be brought.

The department opened an investigation into Martin’s death last year but stepped aside to allow the state prosecution to proceed.

Holder said, “We are … mindful of the pain felt by our nation surrounding the tragic, unnecessary shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., last year.” The attorney general’s characterization of the killing drew strong applause from the audience at the 51st national convention of the Delta Sigma Theta, the nation’s largest African-American sorority.

“Independent of the legal determination that will be made, I believe that this tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honestly about the complicated and emotionally charged issues that this case has raised,” Holder said.

“We must not — as we have too often in the past — let this opportunity pass,” he added.

“I hope that we will approach this necessarily difficult dialogue with the same dignity that those who have lost the most, Trayvon’s parents, have demonstrated throughout the last year — and especially over the past few days,” said Holder. “They suffered a pain that no parent should have to endure — and one that I, as a father, cannot begin to conceive.”

The Justice Department says the criminal section of the agency’s civil rights division, along with the FBI and federal prosecutors in Florida, are all continuing to evaluate the evidence generated during the federal investigation, plus evidence and testimony from the state trial.

Also on Monday, the White House said President Barack Obama won’t involve himself in the Justice Department decision on whether to pursue civil rights charges against Zimmerman. White House spokesman Jay Carney said it would be inappropriate for Obama to express an opinion on how the department deals with Zimmerman.

I’m galled, yet not surprised. The White House resident, Barry Soetero, thinks it would be inappropriate to express his opinion – now? He was quick with an opinion without having all the facts during his, “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon” speech.

Now we have AG Holder continuing the race baiting. Unbelievable.  Maybe someone needs to remind him that a report submitted by the FBI after their investigation has already stated that George Zimmerman’s actions were not based on race:

“Zimmerman’s actions were not based on Martin’s skin color [BUT]rather based on his attire, the total circumstances of the encounter and the previous burglary suspects in the community,” an FBI agent wrote in a report dated March 5, 2012

Sanford Florida Police Department’s lead investigator concluded: “George Zimmerman wasn’t a racist, but instead a bit “overzealous” and emboldened by a little hero complex.”

You can’t re-investigate something and expect magic to appear and new evidence to show up…unless you’re Eric Holder or Al Sharpton. So why do it? It’s very helpful when you’re pandering to a certain segment of society.

Here’s something for you to chew on:

A 2007 special report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, reveals that approximately 8,000 — and, in certain years, as many as 9,000 blacks are murdered annually in the United States. This figure is accompanied by another equally sobering fact, that 93% of these murders are in fact perpetrated by other blacks. The analysis, supported by FBI records, finds that in 2005 alone, for example, blacks accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in the US — again, almost exclusively at the hands of other blacks.

No opinion on that, Barry? It’s not going to happen because race baiting and dividing a nation is much easier.
Wasn’t justice already served? I thought that’s what a jury trial is for, or does justice only count when you agree with the verdict?

h/t: AP