Democrats couldn’t socially construct a worse candidate than the smug, angry, divisive Kamala Harris if they tried. That is no more evident than in her rally in La Crosse, Wisconsin where she openly acknowledged her contempt for Christians, telling them that they don’t belong at her rally.
During her rage-fueled tirade in support of the one cause that perversely animates her supporters—the legal right to have unborn humans slaughtered for any or no reason from conception till birth—someone shouted, “Jesus is Lord.” In a must-see video, Harris retorted with a smirk,
Oh, you guys are at the wrong rally.
This follows her refusal to attend the 79th annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, a politically nonpartisan Catholic event that honors Alfred Smith, the “first Roman Catholic presidential candidate for a major party and a four-term governor who catalyzed labor reform and social security legislation in America,” an event that “raises millions of dollars for New York’s most vulnerable women and children.”
We already know Harris doesn’t want to help vulnerable women and children. Her campaign is sustained almost solely by her advocacy for abortion, which grievously harms the unborn and their mothers.
To make sure Christians understand they are unwelcome at her rally, she haughtily continued while giggling like a middle school mean girl:
No, I think you meant to go to the smaller one down the street.
What the heck is she talking about?
That, my friends, is what is called “misinformation.” Crowd estimates for Trump’s rally in La Crosse were almost 8,000. The Harris event saw only 3,000 attendees.
When Harris goes off-script, we learn exactly what she thinks and how she feels, and it’s not pretty or presidential.
She began this portion of her unseemly speech by suggesting that Americans were duped by Trump in 2016:
We’re not going to be gaslighted on this. We remember Donald Trump hand-selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would the protections of Roe v. Wade, and they did as he intended.
Who is trying to gaslight Americans? Trump? Trump is an open book, and he’s already been president. If anyone is trying to dupe Americans, it is Harris and her feckless campaign. They want Americans to elect her before they know what her policies are.
Every president “hand-selects” members of the Supreme Court when a vacancy occurs. And every president “hand-selects” members who embrace a judicial philosophy that accords with his judicial philosophy.
Harris is ignorant, but surely, she isn’t so ignorant as to be unaware of how many liberals, including pro-choice law professors, hold Roe v. Wade in disdain:
- “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” (Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor).
- “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose” (Edward Lazarus, former clerk to SCOTUS Justice Harry Blackmun).
- What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent—at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed” (Edward Lazarus).
- “[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum—will tell you it is basically indefensible” (Edward Lazarus).
- “Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference” (William Saletan, Slate magazine writer).
- Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be…. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. (John Hart Ely, clerk for Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren).
- Roe “is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” (Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution).
- “[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision—the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution—strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. …. “[Roe] is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument (Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist).
- “Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself. As a result, the pro-choice majority asks nominees to swear allegiance to the decision without being able to identify an intelligible principle to support it” (Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School professor, former clerk to Judge Abner Mikva).
- “Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision…. Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching” (Michael Kinsley, attorney, political journalist).
- “You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. … As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether (Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor).
- “Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution” (Archibald Cox, JFK’s Solicitor General, former Harvard Law School professor).
Americans learned two important truths from this rally: 1. Harris is not a unifier, and 2. She doesn’t want the support of Christians. I say, give her what she wants.