Kamala Harris Announces She is Running for President

It won’t come as a surprise to anyone who has been keeping their ear to the ground about the 2020 presidential primaries, that Senator Kamala Harris announced she is putting her name in the race for president.

This is number 3 in our series – 

California Sen. Kamala Harris announced Monday she is running for president, joining a fast-growing crowd of Democrats jumping into the 2020 race.

“I’m running for president of the United States, and I’m very excited about it,” Harris, 54, told ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Harris paired the announcement with the release of a campaign video on Twitter in which she said, “Truth. Justice. Decency. Equality. Freedom. Democracy. These aren’t just words. They’re the values we as Americans cherish. And they’re all on the line now.”

“The future of our country depends on you and millions of others lifting our voices to fight for our American values,” Harris said. “That’s why I’m running for president of the United States.”

The former California attorney general was elected to the Senate in 2016. Since then, she has worked to establish a national profile — by aggressively questioning President Trump’s judicial nominees, writing a book and stumping for Democrats in last year’s midterm elections.

Her announcement comes as some Democrats, emboldened with their new majority in the House, have suggested impeaching the president. Asked on ABC on Monday if she believes Trump has committed an impeachable offense, Harris wouldn’t say, but said it’s important that Special Counsel Robert Mueller continue his investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in the 2016 race.

She plans a formal campaign launch in Oakland on Jan. 27. The campaign will be based in Baltimore, with a second office in Oakland.

Harris, who is black, launched her presidential as the nation observes what would have been the 90th birthday of the slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.

Still, her record as a prosecutor and state attorney general has attracted new scrutiny from liberals as she has inched closer to a presidential run.

EPIC BATTLE FOR THE LEFT TAKING SHAPE IN 2020, AS BERNIE SANDERS FORCED TO SHARE SPOTLIGHT

University of San Francisco associate law professor Lara Bazelon recently argued in an op-ed piece that the perception that Harris acted as a “progressive prosecutor” during her tenure as the district attorney of San Francisco and then California’s attorney general contradict her actions.

“Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state’s attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or stayed silent,” Lara Bazelon wrote in the New York Times.

But Republicans are taking her seriously as a top-tier candidate.

“At 54, Harris is two decades younger than some of her septuagenarian competitors – an age that enables her to appeal to the Instagram crowd without being painted as inexperienced,” said Colin Reed, a Republican strategist who worked for former Republican Sen. Scott Brown. “A child of immigrants, she brings diversity to a party obsessed with racial and gender politics.”

Harris’ announcement comes as a slew of Democrats have begun making plans to run for the White House in 2020.

In recent weeks, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro have moved forward with plans to seek the party’s nomination.

Other prominent figures, including former Vice President Joe Biden, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, are also mulling possible campaigns.

Fox News’ Louis Casiano and Jennifer Girdon and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kamala-harris-announces-she-is-running-for-president-in-2020

KAMALA HARRIS’S PRESIDENTIAL PITCH: HIGHER TAXES, MEDICARE FOR ALL AND REDUCED BAIL

Kamala Harris is running for president on a platform of raising taxes on the wealthy, implementing a Socialist healthcare system and reforming state cash bail systems in favor of poor inmates, The Washington Post reports.

The U.S. senator from California will compete with other Democrats for the chance to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020. Harris announced the start of her campaignMonday. (RELATED: Top Hopeful To Take On Trump Wins Porker Of The Year Award)

Harris intends to make taxes a focal point of her campaign, contrasting her tax package with the legislation Trump and Congressional Republicans passed in December 2017.

Harris’s tax plan, proposed Oct. 18, is a Robin Hood-type plan that would hike tax rates on wealthier Americans to cover the cost of tax credits, up to $3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for families, offered to people making under $100,000 a year. The tax credits would not be available for Americans who do not earn a paycheck.

Harris’s tax plan would overwhelmingly benefit poor and lower middle-class individuals and families, while increasing the tax burden of those over the $100,000 cutoff. It would reduce federal revenues by roughly $2.7 trillion over a decade, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation.

Harris publicly backed the Medicare-for-all plan of self-proclaimed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders in August 2017, arguing that “It’s not just about what is morally and ethically right, it also makes sense just from a fiscal standpoint.”

The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, estimated that a Medicare-for-all plan could cost as much as $42 trillion over a decade and more than five-times that amount over the course of 30 years.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., listen as Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testifies during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, focusing on allegations of sexual assault by Kavanaugh against Christine Blasey Ford in the early 1980s, in Washington, DC, U.S., September 27, 2018. Tom Williams/Pool via REUTERS

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., listen as Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testifies during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, focusing on allegations of sexual assault by Kavanaugh against Christine Blasey Ford in the early 1980s, in Washington, DC, U.S., September 27, 2018. Tom Williams/Pool via REUTERS

Proponents of the plan say the immense cost would be offset by freeing Americans from paying for health plans and premiums, but skeptics and critics say that argument is not backed by any sort of data. Massive tax hikes and spending cuts in other programs would have to come with the single-payer system to make it financially feasible, according to the Manhattan Institute.

Harris also plans to push reforms to cash bail systems to favor poor Americans. Harris, along with Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, introduced a bill in July 2017 that would offer a three-year, $10 million grant to states that reform or abolish their cash bail systems.

The push may stave off criticism coming from fellow Democrats over Harris’s career as a federal prosecutor for actions such as criminalizing truancy, which disproportionately affected poor families.

Follow Tim Pearce on Twitter

https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/22/kamala-harris-platform-2020/

 

Advertisements

Elizabeth Warren Forms an Exploratory Committee

Here is the 2nd post for a Democrat forming an exploratory committee for a possible presidential run.

Elizabeth Warren 

 

PS – I am in no way endorsing or agreeing with her views or comments in this video by sharing it.

Kirsten Gillibrand Announces Presidential Exploratory Committee

In the first of what will likely be many of these posts, I thought I’d share details about the Democrats that will be challenging the Republicans – and presumably President Trump in 2020.

First up – Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (her website https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) announced on Tuesday that she will form a 2020 presidential exploratory committee, a precursor to officially seeking the Democratic nomination.

“I’m filing an exploratory committee for the president of the United States tonight,” she said during a taped interview on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.”

Gillibrand mentioned health care, better public schools, taking on institutional racism and “corruption and greed in Washington” as motivators and goals for her run.

“I know that I have the compassion, courage and the fearless determination to get that done,” she said.

Asked by Colbert as to whether what she was doing was a formality for actually running, she said: “It’s an important first step. It’s one that I’m taking because I’m going to run.”

The Senator was also asked about swearing on the campaign trail and she said she’d try not to do so. When Colbert asked what word she’d miss the most, Gillibrand joked that it “rhymes with duck.”

He proceeded to give her a corn cob for a trip to Iowa, a plane ticket to Michigan and a button saying she announced on Colbert.

Using Colbert’s late-night show as the avenue to announce news is not all that uncommon among prospective candidates. In November 2018, following her easy Senate re-election, where she actually over-performed the result for the state’s House Democrats and performed well in rural pro-Trump counties, Gillibrand told Colbert that she would give serious consideration to running for president. More recently, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) made an appearance on the show as part of her book tour, though she did not officially commit to running. She is widely expected to launch her bid soon.

There had been indications, prior to her Colbert appearance, that Gillibrand was launching a campaign. Just four days ago, The New York Times reported that she recruited aides from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the former digital director for recently-elected California Governor Gavin Newsom. Gillibrand is also reportedly set to visit Iowa this weekend and her camp has signed a lease for office space in Troy, New York, where she lives and where the campaign will be headquartered.

The 52-year-old New York Democrat joins a broad field of candidates that will likely expand through the end of January until the end of the first fundraising quarter.

On New Year’s Eve, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) announced the formation of her exploratory committee, which was quickly followed by a trip to Iowa and more recently a New Hampshire swing. This past Friday, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) said on CNN that she will soon formally announce a run. She was followed Saturday by an official presidential announcement from former HUD Secretary Julian Castro. Those candidates are in addition to Rep. John Delaney (D-MD), the first declared candidate who has been traveling early primary states; and former West Virginia state senator and congressional candidate Richard Ojeda.

But Gillibrand—who was appointed to fill a Senate vacancy when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009—is one of the more high-profile names to enter the field, at least among progressives. Before holding office, Gillibrand was an attorney and forged a relationship with Clinton while the latter ran for Senate in 2000.

In 2006, Gillibrand defeated Republican incumbent John E. Sweeney to represent New York’s 20th congressional district, an area including Albany and Schenectady counties that traditionally leaned conservative. She easily won re-election despite questions in both campaigns about Gillibrand’s prior legal representation of the tobacco giant Philip Morris and contributions she received from the industry.

During her tenure in the House, Gillibrand was part of the Blue Dog Coalition, voting in favor of legislation that would withhold funds from sanctuary cities and opposing amnesty for undocumented immigrants. Additionally, she advertised on her website that she had a 100-percent voting record with the National Rifle Association.

For those just getting acquainted with Gillibrand in the Trump era, in which she has voted with the president’s position less than 12 percent of the time (the lowest among her colleagues), her past views may come as a surprise.

She was confronted with her ideological shift during a 60 Minutes segment last February, explaining how she went from having an “A” rating from the NRA to an “F.”

“I went down to Brooklyn to meet with families who had suffered from gun violence in their communities,” Gillibrand recounted. “And you immediately experience the feeling that I couldn’t have been more wrong—you know, I only had the lens of upstate New York.”

She went on to say that she was “embarrassed” because she had in fact lived in New York City for a decade.

On immigration, the New York Democrat explained her shift: “I came from a district that was 98 percent white,” Gillibrand said. “We have immigrants, but not a lot of immigrants… And I just didn’t take the time to understand why these issues mattered because it wasn’t right in front of me. And that was my fault. It was something that I’m embarrassed about and I’m ashamed of.”

Gillibrand’s recent Senate tenure has been defined by this forthright, confrontational approach, one that has—at times—pitted her against powerful members of her own party. In Dec. 2017, she was the first Democratic senator to call for the resignation of her colleague Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) after he was accused of sexual misconduct. After Gillibrand’s initial statement, a number of her colleagues joined in and eventually forced his ouster.

She had also recently said that President Bill Clinton should have resigned following the revelation of his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, a statement that put her at odds with the political family she had been so closely aligned with throughout her career.

These flashpoints lent added credibility to Gillibrand’s cultivated reputation as an advocate for women and sexual-assault victims. She has pushed legislation on sexual assault in the military and on college campuses and more recently served as a lead sponsor of the Me Too Congress Act, which aimed to ease the process for victims within Congress to come forward. And prior to that, nearly as soon as she entered the Senate, Gillibrand secured hearings on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for the first time in 16 years.

It was her recent action against Franken that was taken especially hard by Democratic donors, whose animus could actually prove useful for Gillibrand in a 2020 Democratic primary: As a handful of mega-donors have griped about her role in torpedoing the Minnesota Democrat’s career, Gillibrand’s small-dollar contributions have spiked. She raised more than $27 million in the 2018 cycle with $8.2 million coming from online contributions, with an average donation of $20. Gillibrand has also raised millions for women candidates via her Off the Sidelines PAC, with some 50 supported candidates winning in the 2018 cycle.

She has also co-sponsored Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) Medicare for All legislation, backed Sen. Cory Booker’s (D-NJ) Marijuana Justice Act, swore off corporate PAC contributions and said last year that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) needs to be dismantled.

“I believe that it has become a deportation force,” she told CNN at the time. “And I think you should separate out the criminal justice from the immigration issues. And I think you should reimagine ICE under a new agency with a very different mission and take those two missions out. So we believe that we should protect families that need our help and that is not what ICE is doing today. And that’s why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it and build something that actually works.”

Read more at The Daily Beast.

What Americans Can Do When They Are United

Many people have commented about how divisive this administration has been and that has lead to many other issues throughout the country and the world to some degree. When I got an email yesterday – I did a Google check to see if the stats are accurate, but I didn’t see anything disputing the numbers. Whether the numbers are exactly true or not – it seems to me that it makes a definite statement about the positive power of the US when the country can be united against a common foe.

What do you think? What do you think contributed to this accomplishment?

Imagine That!

During the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the

Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941

and ended with the Surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945,

“We the People of the U.S.A. ” produced the following:

22 aircraft carriers,

8 battleships,

48 cruisers,

349 destroyers,

420 destroyer escorts,

203 submarines,

34 million tons of merchant ships,

100,000 fighter aircraft,

98,000 bombers,

24,000 transport aircraft,

58,000 training aircraft,

93,000 tanks,

257,000 artillery pieces,

105,000 mortars,

3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks.

We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services,

invaded Africa,

invaded Sicily and Italy,

won the battle for the Atlantic,

planned and executed D-Day,

marched across the Pacific and Europe,

developed the atomic bomb,

and ultimately conquered Japan and Germany.

It’s worth noting,

that during the almost exact amount of time,

the Obama Administration couldn’t even build a web site that worked.

A Public Defender Shares Thoughts of Race

Allen West shared this article and I would really like to hear some thoughts about his article. I do have to say that I know plenty of people of all races that show the behaviors, attitudes and mentality he talks about. Its interesting how I hadn’t thought about their behaviors etc until I read this. No matter what gender, race or ethnicity – I find these things very irritating. Seems to me that he is making very broad assumptions about entire races and genders based on his experiences, but I guess in some ways we all do that to some degree. We all see things from our perspective and our life experiences.

This is the post – feel free to share your thoughts below…

Confessions of a Public Defender

Michael Smith, American Renaissance, May 9, 2014

Still liberal after all these years.

I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.

I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.

As a young lawyer, I believed the official story that blacks are law abiding, intelligent, family-oriented people, but are so poor they must turn to crime to survive. Actual black behavior was a shock to me.

The media invariably sugarcoat black behavior. Even the news reports of the very crimes I dealt with in court were slanted. Television news intentionally leaves out unflattering facts about the accused, and sometimes omits names that are obviously black. All this rocked my liberal, tolerant beliefs, but it took me years to set aside my illusions and accept the reality of what I see every day. I have now served thousands of blacks and their families, protecting their rights and defending them in court. What follow are my observations.

Although blacks are only a small percentage of our community, the courthouse is filled with them: the halls and gallery benches are overflowing with black defendants, families, and crime victims. Most whites with business in court arrive quietly, dress appropriately, and keep their heads down. They get in and get out–if they can–as fast as they can. For blacks, the courthouse is like a carnival. They all seem to know each other: hundreds and hundreds each day, gossiping, laughing loudly, waving, and crowding the halls.

When I am appointed to represent a client I introduce myself and explain that I am his lawyer. I explain the court process and my role in it, and I ask the client some basic questions about himself. At this stage, I can tell with great accuracy how people will react. Hispanics are extremely polite and deferential. An Hispanic will never call me by my first name and will answer my questions directly and with appropriate respect for my position. Whites are similarly respectful.

A black man will never call me Mr. Smith; I am always “Mike.” It is not unusual for a 19-year-old black to refer to me as “dog.” A black may mumble complaints about everything I say, and roll his eyes when I politely interrupt so I can continue with my explanation. Also, everything I say to blacks must be at about the third-grade level. If I slip and use adult language, they get angry because they think I am flaunting my superiority.

At the early stages of a case, I explain the process to my clients. I often do not yet have the information in the police reports. Blacks are unable to understand that I do not yet have answers to all of their questions, but that I will by a certain date. They live in the here and the now and are unable to wait for anything. Usually, by the second meeting with the client I have most of the police reports and understand their case.

Unlike people of other races, blacks never see their lawyer as someone who is there to help them. I am a part of the system against which they are waging war. They often explode with anger at me and are quick to blame me for anything that goes wrong in their case.

Black men often try to trip me up and challenge my knowledge of the law or the facts of the case. I appreciate sincere questions about the elements of the offense or the sentencing guidelines, but blacks ask questions to test me. Unfortunately, they are almost always wrong in their reading, or understanding, of the law, and this can cause friction. I may repeatedly explain the law, and provide copies of the statute showing, for example, why my client must serve six years if convicted, but he continues to believe that a hand-written note from his “cellie” is controlling law.

The risks of trial

The Constitution allows a defendant to make three crucial decisions in his case. He decides whether to plea guilty or not guilty. He decides whether to have a bench trial or a jury trial. He decides whether he will testify or whether he will remain silent. A client who insists on testifying is almost always making a terrible mistake, but I cannot stop him.

Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.

Prosecutors are delighted when a black defendant takes the stand. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, the defense usually gets to cross-examine the black victim, who is likely to make just as bad an impression on the stand as the defendant. This is an invaluable gift to the defense, because jurors may not convict a defendant—even if they think he is guilty—if they dislike the victim even more than they dislike the defendant.

Most criminal cases do not go to trial. Often the evidence against the accused is overwhelming, and the chances of conviction are high. The defendant is better off with a plea bargain: pleading guilty to a lesser charge and getting a lighter sentence.

The decision to plea to a lesser charge turns on the strength of the evidence. When blacks ask the ultimate question—”Will we win at trial?”—I tell them I cannot know, but I then describe the strengths and weaknesses of our case. The weaknesses are usually obvious: There are five eyewitnesses against you. Or, you made a confession to both the detective and your grandmother. They found you in possession of a pink cell phone with a case that has rhinestones spelling the name of the victim of the robbery. There is a video of the murderer wearing the same shirt you were wearing when you were arrested, which has the words “In Da Houz” on the back, not to mention you have the same “RIP Pookie 7/4/12” tattoo on your neck as the man in the video. Etc.

If you tell a black man that the evidence is very harmful to his case, he will blame you. “You ain’t workin’ fo’ me.” “It like you workin’ with da State.” Every public defender hears this. The more you try to explain the evidence to a black man, the angrier he gets. It is my firm belief many black are unable to discuss the evidence against them rationally because they cannot view things from the perspective of others. They simply cannot understand how the facts in the case will appear to a jury.

This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women. All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.

My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video. “They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”

No fathers

As a public defender, I have learned many things about people. One is that defendants do not have fathers. If a black even knows the name of his father, he knows of him only as a shadowy person with whom he has absolutely no ties. When a client is sentenced, I often beg for mercy on the grounds that the defendant did not have a father and never had a chance in life. I have often tracked down the man’s father–in jail–and have brought him to the sentencing hearing to testify that he never knew his son and never lifted a finger to help him. Often, this is the first time my client has ever met his father. These meetings are utterly unemotional.

Many black defendants don’t even have mothers who care about them. Many are raised by grandmothers after the state removes the children from an incompetent teenaged mother. Many of these mothers and grandmothers are mentally unstable, and are completely disconnected from the realities they face in court and in life. A 47-year-old grandmother will deny that her grandson has gang ties even though his forehead is tattooed with a gang sign or slogan. When I point this out in as kind and understanding way as I can, she screams at me. When black women start screaming, they invoke the name of Jesus and shout swear words in the same breath.

Black women have great faith in God, but they have a twisted understanding of His role. They do not pray for strength or courage. They pray for results: the satisfaction of immediate needs. One of my clients was a black woman who prayed in a circle with her accomplices for God’s protection from the police before they would set out to commit a robbery.

The mothers and grandmothers pray in the hallways–not for justice, but for acquittal. When I explain that the evidence that their beloved child murdered the shop keeper is overwhelming, and that he should accept the very fair plea bargain I have negotiated, they will tell me that he is going to trial and will “ride with the Lord.” They tell me they speak to God every day and He assures them that the young man will be acquitted.

The mothers and grandmothers do not seem to be able to imagine and understand the consequences of going to trial and losing. Some–and this is a shocking reality it took me a long time to grasp–don’t really care what happens to the client, but want to make it look as though they care. This means pounding their chests in righteous indignation, and insisting on going to trial despite terrible evidence. They refuse to listen to the one person–me–who has the knowledge to make the best recommendation. These people soon lose interest in the case, and stop showing up after about the third or fourth court date. It is then easier for me to convince the client to act in his own best interests and accept a plea agreement.

Part of the problem is that underclass black women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different black men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work. I do not see this among whites, Hispanics, or any other people.

The black men who become my clients also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support. When I learn that my 19-year-old defendant does not work or go to school, I ask, “What do you do all day?” He smiles. “You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.

If you tell a black to dress properly for trial, and don’t give specific instructions, he will arrive in wildly inappropriate clothes. I represented a woman who was on trial for drugs; she wore a baseball cap with a marijuana leaf embroidered on it. I represented a man who wore a shirt that read “rules are for suckers” to his probation hearing. Our office provides suits, shirts, ties, and dresses for clients to wear for jury trials. Often, it takes a whole team of lawyers to persuade a black to wear a shirt and tie instead of gang colors.

Marijuana

From time to time the media report that although blacks are 12 percent of the population they are 40 percent of the prison population. This is supposed to be an outrage that results from unfair treatment by the criminal justice system. What the media only hint at is another staggering reality: recidivism. Black men are arrested and convicted over and over. It is typical for a black man to have five felony convictions before the age of 30. This kind of record is rare among whites and Hispanics, and probably even rarer among Asians.

Stats

At one time our office was looking for a motto that defined our philosophy. Someone joked that it should be: “Doesn’t everyone deserve an eleventh chance?”

I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.

My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.

However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.

I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth. As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.

TOPICS: , , 

Originally published at – http://www.amren.com/features/2014/05/confessions-of-a-public-defender/

NFL Gets it Right on Domestic Violence Among Players

BREAKING NEWS — The Baltimore Ravens have terminated the contract of running back Ray Rice, the team announced today, the same day a shocking video surfaced showing the NFL star punching his then-fiancee in February. 

If you don’t know why this happened – let me share a report by CNN.

My next question is WHY did she marry him after this attack and when can she get the help she needs. This is an article that I thought had some disturbing information about her, their relationship, his trial and their marriage – http://www.playerwives.com/nfl/baltimore-ravens/ray-rices-girlfriend-janay-palmer/

Ray Rice terminated after newly released video shows NFL star punch fiancee

(Video posted here http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/sports/2014/09/08/nr-vo-ray-rice-elevator-video.cnn-tmz.html)

The Baltimore Ravens have terminated the contract of running back Ray Rice, the team announced Monday, the same day a shocking video surfaced showing the NFL star punching his then-fiancee in February.

The news release from the NFL team was terse.

“The Baltimore Ravens terminated the contract of RB Ray Rice this afternoon,” it read.

Rice had been suspended by the league for the first two games of the season, a controversial move that led to widespread criticism and to the league re-evaluating the punishment for domestic violence cases.

The new video shows Rice punching Janay Palmer, who is now his wife, inside an elevator at a hotel in Atlantic City, New Jersey, seven months ago.

TMZ Sports posted the video Monday showing Rice and Palmer entering an elevator. Inside the elevator, Rice punches Palmer. Palmer lunges after Rice, and then Rice hits her back and she falls to the floor.

Previously, TMZ Sports had released hotel surveillance video of Rice dragging an unconscious Palmer out of the elevator. This is the first time video has been released that shows Rice punching her.

A few months after the incident, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell suspended Rice without pay and fined him an additional game check for “conduct detrimental to the NFL.” However, no one in the NFL offices, including Goodell, had seen the newly released footage of the incident until Monday, the league told CNN.

Ray Rice: ‘My actions were inexcusable’

“We requested from law enforcement any and all information about the incident, including the video from inside the elevator,” NFL senior vice president of communications Greg Aiello said. “That video was not made available to us and no one in our office has seen it until today.”

The NFL has previously said that Rice entered a pretrial intervention program in May. Under the program, he won’t be prosecuted, and the charges will be expunged after one year.

In a press conference in July, Rice said his actions were “inexcusable” and that he and his wife are in counseling.

“We’re taking the necessary steps to move forward,” he said. “My job is to lead my family. My job is to lead my wife. My job is to lead in whatever I do. And If I’m not being the example, then my family crumbles.”

Goodell has already been scrutinized for suspending Rice for just two games, months after the first video aired. Many felt the suspension wasn’t enough, and in August, the commissioner himself agreed.

In a letter to all NFL team owners, he said the league had fallen short of its goals in its handling of the Rice case: “We allowed our standards to fall below where they should be and lost an important opportunity to emphasize our strong stance on a critical issue and the effective programs we have in place.”

“I didn’t get it right. Simply put, we have to do better. And we will,” he added.

Some NFL fans have questioned why Ravens head coach John Harbaugh would call Rice “one heck of a guy,” and why the Ravens would tweet out “Janay Rice says she deeply regrets the role that she played the night of the incident.”

They have also questioned why Cleveland Browns receiver Josh Gordon would be suspended for a year after testing positive for marijuana when Rice was suspended for just two games.

In his August letter to team owners, Goodell said the league will institute a six-game unpaid suspension for personnel who violate the league’s personal conduct policy when it relates to domestic violence. A second domestic violence incident would be punished by a lifetime ban from the league.

The article was originally posted here – http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/08/us/ray-rice-new-video/index.html