Kamala Harris and a Smattering of History

Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris is proud of her record as California’s Attorney General. Here’s an example from that proud record of hers, against the backdrop of the Progressive-Democrat Biden-Harris administration’s lawfare campaign against their political opponent, former President and Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump.

As AG, Harris demanded nonprofits in her jurisdiction hand over their federal IRS Forms 990 Schedule B so she could pretend to be investigating self-dealing and improper loans involving those organizations and their donors. Her office then promptly “leaked” 2,000 Conservative cause-supporting organizations’ Schedules B to the public via Harris’ Attorney General Web site. Those organizations and their donors then began receiving threats of retaliation and death threats.

It won’t matter that the Supreme Court blew up her California AG case in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v Bonta. She’s already shown her disdain of the Court and complete disregard for its rulings; her demand for those Schedules B (much less her release of so many submittals) was in complete disregard of a much earlier, already long-standing Supreme Court NAACP v Alabama ruling which had held that similar demands violated the 1st Amendment’s right freely to associate as a critical aspect of the Amendment’s explicit Free Speech Clause.

Harris will continue Party’s lawfare campaigns against those of whom Party elite personally disapprove. This is the empirical practice and view of “law” that the highly experienced, and proud of that experience, Harris will bring to her administration, including the Department of Justice that she will build during her term.

That’s if we average Americans are foolish enough to elect her.

Kamala Harris’ Extreme-Left Positions

Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate (since last Thursday’s Party-elite online vote of Biden-voted-in delegates) Kamala Harris has taken a number of extreme-left positions. Among them are:

  • In the immediate aftermath of George Floyd’s murder and ensuing Black Lives Matter riots, she supported the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to free a twice convicted rapist and a woman charged with stabbing her friend to death. Only a fraction of the fund’s money was used to free rioters
  • Harris called for ending the cash bail system during her 2020 presidential campaign
  • original co-sponsor of Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I, VT) “Medicare for All” legislation in 2019
  • introduced the Green New Deal legislation with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY), which could have cost up to $93 trillion wipe out more than 5.2 million jobs
  • co-sponsored a ban on offshore drilling in 2017 and supported banning fracking
  • supported reducing the consumption of red meat nationwide
  • take executive action to ban imports of AR-15 rifles, supported mandatory buyback program for confiscating Americans’ assault weapons
  • In the 2008 DC v Heller, Harris filed an amicus brief as the San Francisco district attorney, arguing that there is no broad constitutional right to gun ownership
  • would be open to increasing the number of justices on the US Supreme Court, endorsed Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s proposal for Justice term limits and a Congressionally mandated Court code of ethics
  • said the record-high gas prices are the “price to pay for democracy”

The list goes on.

It’s easy enough for Harris to claim she’s moderated some of those positions, but it’s also clear that she spoke for what she believed the first time, and her moderating words today come only after the opprobrium she’s caught from the political spectrum’s middle and from the undecided and the independent voters. She’s done nothing to indicate she’s actually changed.

Harris Intends to Continue…

…her boss’, Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s, disdain for Israel and that nation’s obligation (not merely right) to defend itself, an obligation that of necessity requires it to destroy an enemy whose openly stated goal includes the butchery of Israeli women and children en route to the extermination of Israel the nation.

Here’s Progressive-Democrat Vice President and likely Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential nominee Kamala Harris on the matter of Hamas creche-mate Hezbollah’s attack on Israel’s Druze children in the northern village of Majdal Shams as cited by The Wall Street Journal:

[A]lthough Israel has a right to defend itself, she would “not be silent” about “the death of far too many innocent civilians.”

This is Harris cynically naively taking the terrorist Hamas at its word regarding the entity’s casualty claims, claims that are carefully undifferentiated between civilian and combatant casualties and that are wholly unsubstantiated. This is Harris, also, completely disregarding Israel’s statements regarding the civilian to combatant casualty ratio in this Hamas-inflicted war while also disregarding the civilian casualty losses Israel has suffered at the hands of both Hamas and Hezbollah.

Harris also is committing the moral equivalence sewage of equating Hamas and Hezbollah’s terrorism with Israel’s fight for its existence against these terrorists: she’s demanding an unconditional cease fire, immediately.

I will not be silent. So to everyone who has been calling for a cease-fire, and to everyone who has been calling for peace, I see you and I hear you. Let’s get the deal done so we can get a cease-fire to end the war. Let’s bring the hostages home, and let’s provide much-needed relief to the Palestinian people.

She doesn’t care (it’s not possible to conclude she doesn’t know) that such a cease fire would benefit only the terrorists while doing nothing to recover the terrorist-seized hostages, many of whom the terrorists have already butchered while held or allowed to die of injuries while held. She doesn’t care (it’s not possible to conclude she doesn’t know) that Hamas will not agree to release the hostages or the hostage bodies unless and until Israel withdraws completely from the Gaza Strip, leaving Hamas in place to reconstitute, rearm, and resume attacking and butchering Israeli citizens. This is a straightforward continuation of Biden’s anti-Israeli policy. All that Harris lacks, so far, is a public intent to interfere with arms resupply of Israel, as Biden has done.

This is the candidate the Progressive-Democratic Party wants to put in the White House. This is the anti-Israeli policy Party wants to infuse throughout Congress by expanding its Senate majority and seizing a majority in the House.

She Avoided, Again

Last month, 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray was gang-raped and murdered by illegal aliens in Houston, TX. Last Saturday, Progressive-Democrat Vice President and likely Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential nominee Kamala Harris traveled to Houston to campaign for her nomination and then for office. However, she lacked the courtesy—even the courage—to visit with Jocelyn’s parents; she was reluctant, apparently, to face the possibility of having to explain the role her open border position might have played in their daughter’s rape and murder.

This, though, is of a piece with Harris’ visit to Border Patrol facilities in El Paso, TX, shortly after her boss, Progressive-Democrat Joe Biden assigned her the responsibility of overseeing the security of our southern border, or as the press had it before they began trying to purge their history, assigned her the role of Border Czar. On that visit, Harris was in the area, but she declined actually to go to the border itself.

All of this, insulting as it is to young Jocelyn’s memory and to her parents, is part and parcel with Harris’ strongly held position of open borders and her holding that illegal aliens shouldn’t be illegal.

Pseudo-Support, Two Ways

Pennsylvania’s Progressive-Democrat governor Josh Shapiro claims to be pro-school choice, yet when the State’s Republican legislature passed a $100 million voucher program, he vetoed it: his fellow Progressive-Democrats in the legislature objected, and their opposition would have “complicated” passing the State’s upcoming budget bill. Shapiro used his Party opposition as cover for his closet opposition to support for non-public school programs. Never mind that the same Republican legislature could have passed the State’s budget bill over continuing Party opposition.

Then there’s this claim by an organizer of a letter to Progressive-Democrat Vice President and likely Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris opposing any thought of her nominating Shapiro to be her running mate:

He is far too supportive of school privatization to be the vice president. We don’t need to be soft on this issue because public education is the cornerstone of our democracy.

Education certainly is a cornerstone of our (republican) democracy. There’s nothing magic about public education, though, especially in today’s world where public education districts, run for the most part by teachers unions, are so badly failing our students.

Pseudo-support for voucher schools and pseudo-support for education in general, each with the same Progressive-Democrat at the center—these are the positions of the Progressive-Democratic Party.