Kamala Harris’ Career as AG, was built on Truancy and Separation of Black Children and Families #SeparatingFamilies

CharliePeach🍑BlockedUnblockFollowFollowing

Jun 23, 2018

To say that I am angered would be an understatement, to say that I have hope that my people will wake up from this con game being played against us would be a lie. It was gut wrenching watching Kamala boldly protesting the separation of refugee children and families, and all of her concerns about the incarceration of women and its economic effects, yet as district attorney she successfully championed a statewide version of an anti-truancy law that she had put in place in San Francisco. A law that threatened parents of chronically truant children with as much as a $2,000 fine and a year in jail.

Kamala Harris’ career was built on both the slave labor of black and brown prisoners and also the pettiness of truancy laws that separated poor and mostly black mothers from their children. Harris was so proud of her history with taking mothers from their children that she used it as her signature campaign agenda while running for AG.

“We are putting parents on notice,” she said in her inaugural speech as attorney general. “If you fail in your responsibility to your kids, we are going to work to make sure you face the full force and consequences of the law.”~Kamala Harris

Out of all the crimes that are being committed in California, Harris thought that charging poor and mostly black mothers of truancy, then separating them from their families, causing many to lose their jobs, and finally locking those up who could not afford the $2000 fine she imposed; was ultimately the crimes of the century. The statement below is taken from one of her adds.

“If you’re chronically truant from elementary school, you are four times more likely to drop out and become a perpetrator or a victim of crime,” Harris says in the commercial. “That’s why we’re taking on the truancy crisis in the California Department of Justice.”~Kamala Harris

In Harris’ autobiography she brags about locking up poor mothers and separating them from their children for truancy. Once these mothers are arrested and held for days, they are then charged with thousands of dollars in fines that they can not pay, and ultimately end up in the prison system for the crime of simply being poor. However, when it came time to prosecute Steve Mnuchin of One West Bank for corruption around the foreclosure of over 80,000 homeowners in California, she refused to do so.

The Campaign for Accountability called for a federal investigation of Mnuchin and OneWest Bank claiming they used “potentially illegal tactics to foreclose on as many as 80,000 California homes.”

Yet despite internal memos explicitly mentioning numerous prosecutable offenses by Mnuchin and co., then California Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to prosecute.

She’s never given an explanation for her decision and Mnuchin later donated $2,000.00 to Harris’ campaign. It was his only donation to a democratic candidate.~Jesse Mechanic — Huffington Post

So imagine the real shock and awe that I felt seeing Kamala Harris plastered across the news lamenting her pain for mothers separated from their children. Watching this past weeks display of faux outrage by the Democratic Party has been jaw dropping, but watching politicians like Kamala Harris, John Lewis and Elijah Cummings has been insulting beyond belief to me as a black woman and mother.

THE REAL FACE OF KAMALA HARRIS?

“Getting Smart on Crime does not mean reducing sentences or punishments for crimes,” she explains in her book. As her website outlines, “Kamala believes that we must maintain a relentless focus on reducing violence and aggressively prosecuting violent criminals.” Fittingly, when she became San Francisco DA, the felony conviction rate rose from 52 percent to 67 percent in three years.

In practice, Harris defended California’s uniquely cruel three-strikes law, the only one in the country which imposed life sentences for a third “strike” that was any minor felony. She urged voters to reject Proposition 66, a ballot initiative that would have reformed the harsh law by making only serious or violent felonies trigger life sentences. Harris promised that if voters rejected the initiative, she would put forward her own, different reform.

When the Supreme Court decided that California’s overcrowded prisons represented cruel and unusual punishment, Attorney General Harris fought a ruling ordering California to release some of its prisoners. Harris claims she had to fight the ruling for Gov. Jerry Brown. “I have a client, and I don’t get to choose my client,” she said. But the attorney general in California is an independent, elected position, not an appointee serving at the governor’s pleasure.

She also refused to endorse sentencing reform measures on the ballot in 2012 and 2014, saying she couldn’t do so because she was responsible for producing an official explanation of the measures. John Van de Kamp, a Democrat who served as attorney general from 1983 to 1991, told The New York Times Magazine that her explanation was “baloney.” No statute prohibits attorneys general from endorsing ballot measures, and de Kamp himself endorsed three separate 1990 ballot measures while he held the office.

When a federal judge ruled in 2014 that California’s application of the death penalty was unconstitutional, Harris fought that ruling too, almost certainly for political reasons. The first time she had run for attorney general, back in 2010, only one law enforcement group endorsed her; the rest were upset that she hadn’t sought the death penalty against an alleged cop killer in San Francisco. In 2014, by contrast, nearly 50 police groups endorsed her reelection campaign.

When the Supreme Court decided that California’s overcrowded prisons represented cruel and unusual punishment, Attorney General Harris fought a ruling ordering California to release some of its prisoners. Harris claims she had to fight the ruling for Gov. Jerry Brown. “I have a client, and I don’t get to choose my client,” she said. But the attorney general in California is an independent, elected position, not an appointee serving at the governor’s pleasure.

She also refused to endorse sentencing reform measures on the ballot in 2012 and 2014, saying she couldn’t do so because she was responsible for producing an official explanation of the measures. John Van de Kamp, a Democrat who served as attorney general from 1983 to 1991, told The New York Times Magazine that her explanation was “baloney.” No statute prohibits attorneys general from endorsing ballot measures, and de Kamp himself endorsed three separate 1990 ballot measures while he held the office.

When a federal judge ruled in 2014 that California’s application of the death penalty was unconstitutional, Harris fought that ruling too, almost certainly for political reasons. The first time she had run for attorney general, back in 2010, only one law enforcement group endorsed her; the rest were upset that she hadn’t sought the death penalty against an alleged cop killer in San Francisco. In 2014, by contrast, nearly 50 police groups endorsed her reelection campaign.

Harris’s bullishness on three strikes was unusual. When she ran for attorney general, her Republican opponent actually ran to her left on the issue. In fact, four years earlier, as the Los Angeles County district attorney, he had proposed a reform of the law. Harris had not supported it. The below video posted by Lee Camp, outlines an in depth factual view on who Kamala Harris really is.

I have no faith anymore that my people will wake up, those of us who have made it are too happy to be seen as equal to white people, a shameful quest they’ve fought so long to be a part of.

I have since updated this article to include the below articles on Kamala Harris’ career as a prosecutor and AG.

From Russia With Love,

Charlie Peach