Why this Never Trumper can’t vote for Harris

This Never Trumper he sees dangers from the Harris-Walz ticket, some of them severe, to the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, perhaps the Fourteenth Amendment, and even essential significant structural elements of the main body of the Constitution.

And that’s before factoring in all of her radical political preferences, both domestic and foreign, no to mention them anti-Catholicism or her inexcusable firing of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, both after and before the ridiculous sexual assault claims against him aired. And more.

Let’s start with Harris’ threats to the First Amendment, which are the most obvious and egregious. It has shown hostility to all four guaranteed freedoms – of speech, of the press, of assembly (or “association”) and of religious exercise.

Just this week, Harris repeated a stance against free exercise that should scare anyone and everyone. Asked bluntly whether she would recognize “religious exemptions” of the kind that would excuse traditionalist devout Christian doctors from performing abortions, she said: “I don’t think we should make concessions when we’re talking about the fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body.” This is consistent with a law he introduced in 2019 and with a policy the Biden-Harris administration tried to impose unilaterally in 2022 before being blocked by the courts.

This refusal to recognize religious exemptions, even in cases where a doctor believes he would be committing a crime, should be anathema to anyone, pro-life or pro-choice, who has the slightest appreciation for what it means freedom, not to mention basic decency. . It’s not about abortion itself, it’s about state coercion. It is one thing for the government to prohibit personal actions that harm others, but it is a different and deeply dangerous thing for the government to be able to compel actions against one’s faith or conscience.

Even where state coercion has been accepted in almost every society since time immemorial—that of conscripting citizens for the common defense—this nation has always allowed “conscientious objectors” to serve in the United States or as doctors. Again, even for people who believe there is a “right” to abortion, Harris’ position should be recognized as a moral monstrosity.

Meanwhile, where freedom of assembly and expression intersect, in what the Supreme Court describes as “freedom of association”, Harris is so radical that the high court reprimanded a stand he took that would undo a landmark victory not by a right-wing group, but by the NAACP. And where modern media, in the form of social media, intersects with discourse, Harris and fellow executive Tim Walz have repeatedly insisted that the government should be able to require platforms to pre-censor content and also that “hate speech” should be reduced.

On the Second Amendment, Harris is famous for advocating “mandatory buybacks” of certain guns. As to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Harris’ entire record, in which she repeatedly insists on nationalizing almost every issue and law, is inimical to the principles of federalism and the “preserved rights of the people.”

It is worth mentioning here, while discussing the few but important innumerable rights, privileges and immunities The Constitution has always assumed, and the Supreme Court has always approved, is that The hostility of the Biden-Harris administration to parental rights it is one of the most dangerous trends in the history of American politics and law. Just this week, daily signal, in focus on length on this dire trend, reported that in 2023 the Department of Justice issued a grant that the publication described as “encouraging judges to adopt an ideological framework that pits children against parents who do not uphold their self-selected identities.”

As with the free exercise of religion, the underlying principle here is not about the specific political point, i.e. abortion or transgenderism, but about the basic rights involved – here, parental rights, which are a hallmark of the civilized world.

As for the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, they all involve aspects of criminal or civil justice and due process. Without dwelling on each provision involved, suffice it to say that Harris, as a prosecutor, was a train wreck on these fronts.

Of course, Harris has a bizarre multiple personality when it comes to crime. On the one hand, her general approach as a self-proclaimed “progressive prosecutor” it involved her being soft on entire fields of crime and embrace radical organizations against bail and “fund the police” efforts. On the other hand, when it comes to using the full weight of government to make examples of people it targets or to protect its own turf, that’s where it’s willing to give up almost any procedural protection.

The gold standard of analysis in her trampling file appeared in a 2019 column, not in a right-wing publication, but in a liberal one New York Timesby law professor Lara Bazelon. Key summary quote: “Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that were secured through official misconduct that included tampering with evidence, perjury and suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.” In one example, Bazelon wrote that Harris tried to cover up wrongdoing by a lab technician. Ultimately, the justices ruled against Harris and dismissed an astounding 600 cases because of the lab technician’s violations.

On a direct and personal level, Harris has shown an extreme disregard for fairness and decency in making accusations and even pre-judging guilt. While she essentially supports the riots over the situation, she insisted that a Wisconsin police officer “should be charged” for stabbing Jacob Blake — only for her own administration’s Justice Department to join the other forces in order to decide that the officer did nothing meritorious. prosecution.

And when he opposed Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh, no tactic was too weak for Harris, no disappointment of limits. It wasn’t just that she hugged extremely dubious story of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford. She also gave credence to and called for an FBI investigation into the palpably ridiculous and defamatory allegations that Kavanaugh participated in gang-rape events at Atlantic beach parties.

Most discrediting, however, was an episode Harris designed just before Ford came forward. It has to be seen again to be believed. Repeatedly insinuating that Kavanaugh had some sort of unethical or illegal contact with an unnamed employee of a large law firm, but while he declined to name the employee or why anything was wrong, Harris repeatedly reprimanded him on Kavanaugh for not admitting a connection allegedly told to him by a supposedly impeccable source. she was unlucky.

The whole point was to make Kavanaugh seem evasive and dishonest. However, after the entire extended episode ended and generated numerous negative headlines about Kavanaugh, Harris stopped raising the issue or stating his concern. Two San Francisco Chronicle news reporters saw through the ruse, however, in one piece titled “Kamala Harris’ Viral Cook-Off of Kavanaugh Ends with a Bang.” No court of law would ever have allowed the libelous and contentless grilling that Harris inflicted on the candidate.

When you’re her target, you’re her target; all truth and fairness and procedural rules be damned.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

So even before you are scared of of Harris extremist register as the most left-wing member of the Senate, ca someone willing to consider racial reparationspressed meaningless leftist economics, sympathize with radical student protesters, deliberately let in millions of illegal immigrants, pack the Supreme Court, blow up the filibuster, and embrace the $83 billion Green New Deal, among a host of other awful policies…again, right before however, Harris fails the basic test. of giving for the protection and defense of the Constitution.

Harris may be right that former President Donald Trump is, in various ways, a “threat to democracy.” That’s how she is, though. Obviously and alarmingly.