When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in early September whether he thinks Kamala Harris is “abandoning her ideals” by publicly disavowing many of the extreme positions she has long aired, no one should have been surprised when Bernie said, “No, I don’t think she’s abandoning her ideals. I think she’s trying to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election.”
It is no secret that political promises said with a smile during a campaign are often only capriciously related to what the candidate would really do in office—this is especially true of an extremist who is clearly hiding from even favorable media, lest she reveal her true intentions. It is also no secret that a small, but perhaps pivotal, percentage of people nevertheless believe what they hear even from such politicians.
Some might even call it a “gaffe” that Bernie was honest enough to say this on a live Sunday morning show.
I mention this right before this critical election because Harris is plainly trying to appear moderate when, in fact, she is the same extremist she has always been.
To get her way if she wins (and if her party maintains control of the U.S. Senate), Harris has been in favor of killing the Senate’s filibuster rule. That would allow her party to push through massive infringements on our rights with simple majority votes. If you think the U.S. Supreme Court might be an impediment to this power grab, you also need to consider that Harris said she is “open” to packing the U.S. Supreme Court. This way, political partisans placed on the high court could overrule the current majority and its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. They could overturn Heller, McDonald and Bruen. They could rule that the Second Amendment is not an individual right.
At this point, they could rewrite all of our federal gun laws. They could pass gun bans that would be deemed “constitutional.” They could try to confiscate our guns. They could end concealed carry.
Harris’ staff, as this was being written, have attempted to back away from her 2020 policy goal of confiscating popular semi-automatic rifles with a so-called mandatory “gun buyback.” But, as Bernie noted, this is a political ruse to appear moderate.
If a mandatory “buyback” sounds extreme (and it is), consider whether it would be too extreme for a Harris administration. As I said, she is in favor of repealing the Senate’s filibuster rule and of packing the high court. She is also opposed to our right to keep and bear arms. When she ran for president in 2019, she said if Congress didn’t pass the gun bans she desired, she’d do it by herself with executive actions.
During a primary debate on CNN, after Harris was told the U.S. Constitution would stop her from ordering a gun confiscation, she laughingly said, “I would just say, ‘hey, Joe, instead of saying “no, we can’t,” let’s say, “yes, we can.’”
For perspective, remember that when the attorney general for New York attempted to dissolve this association, she wasn’t treated in the mainstream media as a rogue extremist. She wasn’t treated that way because she was attempting to do what a small, but powerful and influential group on the far-Left want to do. We saw this same thing when President Joe Biden (D) called the firearms industry “the enemy.”
When far-Left people like Harris are in power, this rhetoric has proven to be a presage to action. Harris, should she become president, would use the office to checkmate our freedom.
