Kamala Harris: Petty Tyrant at the White House Door

Kamala Harris: Petty Tyrant at the White House Door

Kamala Harris: Petty Tyrant at the White House Door

Ever since Kamala Harris announced her candidacy to challenge Donald Trump for the White House in 2020, the media has been having a collective orgasm over the prospect of a half Jamaican-half Indian vagina holding the highest post in the land. They don’t care about her qualifications or about the fact that she is possibly one of the biggest would-be tyrants to run for national office. They’re enamored by the fact that she has female plumbing, that she’s a minority and has all sorts of color in her skin, and they’re willing to forgive her not-so-progressive transgressions that make her a threat to their progressive agenda.

That’s it. That’s all they need.

But Kamala Harris is so much more than just a minority with a vagina. She’s a petty tyrant who – if she ever reaches the White House – will drag our nation quickly to an authoritarian dictatorship.

And judging from the left’s reactions to her candidacy, they simply don’t care about her stances on the issues. They care about her plumbing and its color. That’s it. Nothing more.

But the liberals don’t care.

They don’t care that Harris went after parents whose children – for whatever reason – didn’t attend government indoctrination centers public schools. She sponsored a bill in 2010 to file misdemeanor charges against parents of truant children.

This bill would provide that a parent or guardian of a pupil of 6 years of age or more who is in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, and who is subject to compulsory full-time education or to compulsory continuation education, whose child is a chronic truant, who has failed to reasonably supervise and encourage the pupil’s school attendance, and who has been offered language accessible support services to address the pupil’s truancy, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. The bill would provide that a parent or guardian may not be punished for a violation of both these provisions and another specified law involving criminal liability for parents or guardians of truant children. By changing the definition of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Photo credit: Quinn Dombrowski; Some rights reserved

Harris is certainly a fan of government compulsion. Never mind that this legislation would put onerous burdens on families already in trouble – specifically poor, single-family, many times minority families. I guess Harris thinks that putting a parent in jail of up to a year and possibly sticking a kid into a system that kills their spirit is worth it.

I guess they don’t care that Kamala Harris promises to use her pen and phone to impose her tyrannical policies on Americans if Congress fails to act. And while the left applauded Barack Obama for using that strategy to evade Congress, they’re now castigating Trump as a would-be king for using executive actions to do what Congress cannot or will not.

It’s OK when the left does it to implement policies with which they agree.

They also don’t care that Kamala Harris would persecute and discriminate against Americans based on their religion. A few months ago, Harris and fellow moron Mazie “Men should shut up” Hirono torquemadaed Nebraska lawyer and Trump judicial nominee Brian Buescher because the latter had the unmitigated balls to belong to the Knights of Columbus – an organization opposed to abortion and to gay marriage. Never mind that the Knights of Columbus is much more than just its views on leftist raisons d’etre. Its charitable works include academic scholarships (apparently Harris only likes educational opportunities that involve money appropriated by government force), disaster and refugee relief, food banks and aid to orphans.

And who can forget her inquisitorial, confrontational, downright authoritarian questioning of Brett Kavanaugh?

They couldn’t care less that Harris actively supports illegal immigration. She doesn’t care about the law, and she doesn’t care about regulations. And thanks to her support as California Attorney General, illegal aliens will have no problem practicing law in California. Those openly flouting the law will now be able to practice law. If she had no respect for existing laws as the highest law enforcement officer in California, does anyone really expect her to faithfully execute the Law of the Land as President?

I certainly do not, but apparently liberals just don’t give a damn about that.

And they certainly don’t care that Harris proposes to force companies into an equal pay structure for women at the point of a government gun.

U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, one of two dozen Democrats vying for the 2020 presidential nomination, on Monday proposed closing the gender pay gap by requiring companies to disclose pay data and secure an “equal pay certification” or be fined.

Under Harris’s plan, it wouldn’t matter that women generally take more advantage of flexible schedules because they bear children. It wouldn’t matter that men work more overtime and tend to take less vacation. It wouldn’t matter that women don’t enter higher-paying career fields dominated by men – by choice. None of this matters. Companies of a certain size would be required to report to the government whom they hire and at what salary, and if they fail to hire a sufficient number of women, or justify their decision to hire a man over a woman to the government’s satisfaction, they will face penalties that could ruin their business and bring a huge payoff to lawyers who will be busy filing gender discrimination claims, regardless of the merit of the complaint and getting handsome compensation from companies they target.

But Harris doesn’t care that forcing companies to pay a certain demographic more based on its plumbing rather than what said demographic’s labor is worth is unethical to its core. The only people qualified to judge how much someone’s labor is worth are the people involved in the negotiations. She also doesn’t care that her plan would disproportionately impact small- and mid-sized companies – ones that cannot afford to keep expensive lawyers on staff at their beck and call like larger corporations can.

Those supporting her candidacy are doing so based on her color and her gender.

They don’t understand that keeping this statist wart away from the White House benefits society as a whole.

 

Featured photo: Donkey Hotey on Flickr; Some rights reserved.

Written by

Marta Hernandez is an immigrant, writer, editor, science fiction fan (especially military sci-fi), and a lover of freedom, her children, her husband and her pets. She loves to shoot, and range time is sacred, as is her hiking obsession, especially if we’re talking the European Alps. She is an avid caffeine and TWD addict, and wants to own otters, sloths, wallabies, koalas, and wombats when she grows up.

4 Comments
  • GWB says:

    a collective orgasm over the prospect of a half Jamaican-half Indian vagina holding the highest post in the land
    I knew it was Marta. 🙂

    They don’t care … that she is possibly one of the biggest would-be tyrants to run for national office.
    Actually, that’s a feature, not a bug, to them. In order to bring about their utopia, they have to have power.

    specifically poor, single-family, many times minority families
    Wait, what? So, poor, single-parent, minority kids don’t have to obey the law as much as white, middle-class kids? That the law has a disparate impact on people in crappy situations is not an invalidation of that law. It’s the law that the kids have to go to school*, and it’s the law (at least de jure) that parents are responsible for their kids, so parents have to take a hit for the kid not going to school. Right? Perchance a year is overdoing it, but that’s the top end, and I doubt any parent who isn’t egregiously negligent or blatantly defying the law is going to see more than 30-60 days. If that. (Note it’s a misdemeanor, and 1 year is usually the maximum for misdemeanors. Heck, that’s what often defines them as misdemeanors.)

    (* Yes, some truancy laws are really bad. Some are written to not even take into account legal homeschooling.)

    possibly sticking a kid into a system that kills their spirit
    Do you mean juvie? Because that’s where they’re going to end up for chronic truancy anyway. I don’t think the new law affected that.
    Or did you mean public scruels? Because that’s a wholly different issue than truancy, and should be dealt with separately.

    BTW, Texas – you know, Red Central? – passed a law in 2015 removing criminal penalties for students, but adding them for parents. Because parents are responsible for their kids. (https://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/08/new-truancy-law-puts-pressure-schools/)

    Mind you, I agree with everything else about her being the typical progressive tyrant. But the parental responsibility for truancy is not really where we want to fight. It will come back to bite us.

    (apparently Harris only likes educational opportunities that involve money appropriated by government force)
    Well, duh. Progressive.

    She doesn’t care about the law
    Oh, I disagree. She cares about using it to enact her progressive agenda. What she doesn’t care about is the Rule Of Law. It’s just one more resource to use to achieve her ends (power for her and hers).

    closing the gender pay gap by requiring…
    And, thereby widening the pay gap when companies stop hiring women in large chunks.

    a huge payoff to lawyers
    There’s times I wonder if it isn’t lawyers, instead of progressives, driving all of this idiocy.

    They don’t understand that keeping this statist wart away from the White House benefits society as a whole.
    Again, I think you’re missing that this is a FEATURE not a bug, to the statists.

    • Marta Hernandez says:

      Wait, what? So, poor, single-parent, minority kids don’t have to obey the law as much as white, middle-class kids?

      No, I don’t like truancy laws to begin with. Education shouldn’t be compelled.

      That the law has a disparate impact on people in crappy situations is not an invalidation of that law.

      It should be to them, given their propensity to excuse any type of behavior as long as it is done by a minority or a poor person, but they’re willing to excuse her support for legislation that disproportionately impacts the poor and minorities, because she’s a WOC.

      It’s the law that the kids have to go to school*, and it’s the law (at least de jure) that parents are responsible for their kids, so parents have to take a hit for the kid not going to school. Right? Perchance a year is overdoing it, but that’s the top end, and I doubt any parent who isn’t egregiously negligent or blatantly defying the law is going to see more than 30-60 days. If that. (Note it’s a misdemeanor, and 1 year is usually the maximum for misdemeanors. Heck, that’s what often defines them as misdemeanors.)

      It’s one thing to say education is a good thing, but it’s quite another to FORCE people to send their kids to a government indoctrination center at the point of a government gun. Again, I despise truancy laws. Kid doesn’t want to go to school? That’s on them. If they grow up to be pieces of shit, that’s on them too, and they shouldn’t be given any taxpayer-funded bennies to reward the fact that they’re ignorant sloths. But I absolutely OPPOSE forcing parents to send their kids to school. Period.

      And yes, to them statism is a feature, not a bug.

      • GWB says:

        Education shouldn’t be compelled.
        Well, then, that’s the issue, not that people should be held responsible for breaking the law.

        It should be to them
        Yes, hypocrisy. But not for us, as conservatives.

        But I absolutely OPPOSE forcing parents to send their kids to school. Period.
        And I can absolutely respect that (even while partially disagreeing).
        (BTW, we homeschooled until the last two years. And those last two years were our son’s choice. Which he partially regrets.)

        • Marta Hernandez says:

          My point was that she is so wedded to government compulsion, she sponsored legislation to target parents even more – not that we should somehow discriminate whom we prosecute based on race or socioeconomic status.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram