Kamala Harris Destroys Herself on Live TV

Sane people are wondering why Kamala is so intent on ensuring we tolerate a society where our babies are slaughtered.

Other than her stark political ambitions, most Americans probably couldn’t tell you much about Kamala Harris, the woman who succeeded Barbara Boxer as California’s latest cookie-cutter leftist in Washington, D.C. But with her comments following the tragic school massacre in Parkland, Florida, this much we all can know for certain: she has absolutely no sense of irony or self-awareness.

“[W]e cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered.”

Umm, Kamala Harris is sickeningly devoted to the legal dismemberment of children in the womb as a form of “women’s healthcare.” She raises money for facilities that do just that.

To her intended point, it’s true that too many young people are dying as the result of gun violence in America. No one can or should deny that obvious reality. Just one death certainly qualifies as too many. And it’s fairly apparent that Harris chose to use the word “babies” instead of “kids” or “teenagers” in referencing this recent tragedy because it evokes a more emotional response to visualize a defenseless infant or toddler.

But how any person who supports the cruelty of mutilating a baby in the womb who experiences the pain of having her limbs torn from her body – as Kamala Harris does unapologetically – can utter such a statement without any internal sense of irony is astounding. Worse, what it actually reflects is something far more sinister – an ability to consciously or subconsciously ignore such inconsistency for the sake of political posturing.

After incidents like the Stoneman shooting, Harris and her like-minded leftists all repeat the same accusation that Republican politicians are so beholden to the contributions and financial support of the National Rifle Association that they have chosen to willfully accept the deaths of schoolchildren in order to get elected.

Such a statement is heinously presumptuous. It assumes that:

  1. These Republicans only vote the way they do about gun rights because the NRA gives them money, rather than they vote according to their convictions and the NRA supports them because of those convictions.
  2. These Republicans consciously know and believe that supporting gun policies that Harris supports would end the killing.

Both assumptions are false, of course. But that’s typical political posturing. When you turn this same scenario around on Harris, however, where does that leave her?

Begin with the accusation that Kamala Harris has become so beholden to the contributions and financial support of the abortion lobby that she has chosen to willfully accept the deaths of tiny infants in order to get elected. The only way that isn’t true is if:

  1. Harris does not believe the living being in the womb is a human being.
  2. Voting to end the practice of legal abortion would save children being legally aborted.

The first excuse makes her scientifically illiterate; the second excuse makes her frighteningly ignorant.

In the end, Harris is right. No one should take pride in a country that intentionally allows its babies to be slaughtered. Sane people are left wondering why Kamala is so intent on ensuring that we do.

Comments
No. 1-9
ONLYJB1
ONLYJB1

Just think she may be a 2020 presidential candidate. WOW!

cancerdoc
cancerdoc

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Vandalii
Vandalii

Oops, Freudian slip, accidentally told the truth...

RandyKleine
RandyKleine

I draw the line, Republican or Democrat, at how they regard and treat the most innocent and defenseless among us: the unborn child in the womb. Yes, a woman has a "right" to do with her body as she wishes, to a point: when her "choices" affect the life and safety of another, then her "rights" end where another's begin. Rights are given by God, not by government or the legal system/establishment, so the fact that our government/legal establishment currently ignores the God-given right-to-life of the unborn child does not give the mother or her accessories the "right" to kill the child. Is it a child? Ask any honest scientist or doctor (not many of those!). Look at any ultrasound images. Of course, we live at a time when a mother who decides that her baby is "unwanted" may declare it to be a mere "clump of cells," or a man who pretends that he is a woman demands to be regarded as such, and the media supports him in his delusion and fantasy. Dear God, help us.