Vote Kamala For Tyrant in Chief
Vote Kamala For Tyrant in Chief
Kamala Harris should change her last name to “harass.” Her demands that innocent people forego their rights and be prosecuted at her behest is textbook tyrant behavior. Pharma executives are not responsible for the opiate crisis, but the wanna be Tyrant in Chief will prosecute them anyway. You have no rights in “Kamalaland.”
In a level of pandering rarely seen outside of the Clinton campaign, Kamala Harris wants to hold pharmaceutical executives legally accountable for the opiate addiction “crisis.” Her rationale is that they know their products can be addictive, and dangerous if abused. She equates them to drug dealers. What she fails to recognize is that they aren’t actually responsible for the epidemic of abuse.
As someone who has seen addiction on a personal level in my family, and as a nurse, the potential for addiction wasn’t a secret. There was no cover-up or denial. The package inserts clearly state the potential for addiction. Every responsible health care provider knows the risk. Yet some of those practitioners over-prescribed narcotics to their patients. Some practitioners evolved into Pill Mills. But that doesn’t make the Pharma executives responsible. They didn’t write the prescriptions to addicted patients. They didn’t track the prescriptions in a database. The medical practitioners did that. The state and federal agencies tracked it. But Kamala wants to hold pharmacy executives legally responsible for it. Because SHE thinks they should be prosecuted.
The Washington Examiner’s Quin Hillyer states in his opinion piece,
These drugs are legally produced. How in tarnation is it right to penalize an executive for making a legal medicine that makes life better for tens of millions, just because others misuse those medicines? Furthermore, in spirit and at least arguably in law as well, how is it not a constitutional violation to criminalize something ex post facto? If it is not criminal to produce and advertise a legal product now, how can the government rightly imprison somebody for having done so?”
Am I in favor of sending pharmaceutical executives to jail for flooding communities with opioids?
Yes, I am. #DemDebate
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 16, 2019
Pick a country run by a tyrant. Now quickly find the citizens’ rights…. You probably can’t. Because they have been eradicated by a capricious, self-absorbed leader. A leader who demands that citizens be denied rights once freely enjoyed, is no leader worth following. Kamala has already told us who she is, and we should believe her.
A candidate for President of the United States is advocating for the denial of the sitting President’s First Amendment rights (bold for emphasis),
“Frankly, when you look at what he’s been tweeting today directed at the whistleblower, directed at so many people, you know, I, frankly, think that based on this and all we’ve seen him do before, including attacking members of Congress, that he, frankly, should be — his Twitter account should be suspended. I think there is plenty of new evidence to suggest that he is irresponsible with his words in a way that could result in harm to other people. And so the privilege of using those words in that way should probably be taken from him.”
Are you kidding me?! That’s the definition of “I don’t like what you are saying, so you shouldn’t be allowed to say it!” Even more disconcerting is that it came from someone who is a lawyer, former city prosecutor, and former State Attorney General. Was she hanging outside class with Obama and Holder when the lecture covered abuse of power? First Amendment….?
Kamala has been accused of putting aside actual legal process in favor of political opportunism, at the expense of the average citizen. The most vulnerable individual outgunned by the juggernaut of the state. But never fear! She’s going to be on the side of the most vulnerable and at risk!
Those in power must protect the most vulnerable among us. I will do that as president. pic.twitter.com/Pgbe8tKu5B
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 13, 2019
Several other candidates have noted that her time in the prosecutor seat demands scrutiny. The Washington Examiner outlines five cases where people were wrongly and unjustly convicted, where further investigation later proved them innocent.
This is what tyrants do…not leaders.
Now the Pharmaceutical executives find themselves in her political cross-hairs.
Did they actually commit a crime? Does this matter to a tyrant? No, to the second question. Probably the first as well.