Kamala Harris declared in the Sept. 10 "debate" that a vote for her (emphasis, mine) is a vote “to end the approach that is about attacking the foundations of our democracy ’cause you don’t like the outcome.”
Please.
As my colleague Sister Toldjah reported on Tuesday, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) got all kinds of snippy with CNN host Jake Tapper and his imprudence for simply covering Donald Trump's comments at a Savannah, Georgia, campaign event. The host pointed out that Trump had opined that Harris has more cognitive issues than cognitively vacant Joe Biden. Pelosi snapped:
Why would you even cover that? This is a person who’s not on the level.[Trump] is their nominee for president. He is incompetent. Let’s not even talk about the silliness of it all and the weirdness of it all and the assault on women that it is. We’re not going to talk issues.
Memo to barely-functioning 84-year-old Ms. Pelosi: You might want to read the "freedom of the press" part of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, irrespective of your disdain for fair and balanced reporting, and actual journalism.
READ MORE:
In other words, today's Democrat Party — along with the whole of the rabid left — could not be more hypocritical in its selective views on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
And Then Some
Speaking of the U.S. Constitution, the left's direct assault on our nation's founding document has never been more blatant. As I wrote in late August, Human Rights Campaign president Kelley Robinson proclaimed during her speech on the third night at the Democrat National Convention that people need to "reimagine" freedom and democracy beyond the Founders' "little piece of paper." (Emphasis, mine.)
We can't just worry about protecting democracy. In this moment, we've got to reimagine it with people that look and love like us at the center. And I think for us right now is about reimagining freedom and this American story in a way that is more revolutionary than what our Founders actually put down on that little piece of paper, but instead is the type of democracy that is by and for all of the people in this country. That's the opportunity that we have.
READ MORE:
Yes, Kamala Harris' Policy Proposals Would Hurt the Economy - but They Are Also Unconstitutional
Translation: Robinson and the rabid left — with Kamala Harris as the current hood ornament of the radical clown car — want nothing less than to "reimagine" and fundamentally alter America through the lens of radical leftism:
Massive wealth redistribution. "Equity" vs. equally. Censorship or outright banning of speech that runs counter to their destructive narratives, or that they simply don't like, à la Nancy Pelosi. And of course a permanent change in the demographics of this country by continuing to import as many illegal aliens — who they see as future Democrat votes — as they can get away with.
The Democrats know it's true. We know it's true. And they know we know it's true.
As George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a recent op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal, "several [Democrat] candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination, including Ms. Harris, said they were open to the idea of packing the court by expanding the number of seats."
Turley continued:
Mr. Biden opposed the idea, but a week after he exited the 2024 presidential race, he announced a “bold plan” to “reform” the high court. It would pack the court via term limits and also impose a “binding code of conduct,” aimed at conservative justices.
Ms. Harris quickly endorsed the proposal in a statement, citing a “clear crisis of confidence” in the court owing to “decision after decision overturning long-standing precedent.” She might as well have added “because you don’t like the outcome.” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has already introduced ethics and term-limits legislation and said Ms. Harris’s campaign has told him “that your bills are precisely aligned with what we are talking about.”
The attacks on the court are part of a growing counter-constitutional movement that began in higher education and seems recently to have reached a critical mass in the media and politics. The past few months have seen an explosion of books and articles laying out a new vision of “democracy” unconstrained by constitutional limits on majority power.
Turley's last paragraph above perfectly illustrates not only how the Democrat Party thinks, but also how it acts — or at least tries to. If Democrats can't win under existing laws and rules, they attempt to change those laws or rules. The 2016 presidential election results presented a perfect example. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote over Donald Trump by roughly 2.9 million votes, but Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote.
What did Democrats do, as a result?
They whined and moaned — including Hillary, vociferously so — about how "antiquated" and "unfair" the Electoral College is, and promptly called for its demise. But here's the question: If Trump had won the popular vote, and Hillary, the Electoral College vote, would the Democrats have whined and moaned? Of course not.
Moreover, Democrats are well aware that if the Electoral College was kicked to the curb, every presidential election would be decided by Democrat-dominated New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and perhaps Philadelphia or Phoenix.
The Bottom Line
We live in perilous times — and that's not a hyperbolic statement. Kamala Harris and Tim Walz combine for the most radical, by far, ticket in the history of America. They want nothing less than to transform this country into a police state that does their bidding. Yet they continue to call Donald Trump a threat to democracy. Go figure.
