Reasons not to vote for Kamala Harris

Reasons not to vote for Kamala Harris
George Howard, Kamala Harris (Images: Right—Hennepin County Sheriff's Office, left—YouTube screen grab)

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Kamala Harris, like her support for evil creeps and violent criminals — and her support for bad economic policies that would make Americans poorer, like Harris’s call to ban fracking. Banning fracking would wipe out countless jobs.

Kamala Harris told Jacob Blake, who pulled a knife on a police officer while trying to kidnap children from his baby mama who he sexually assaulted, that she was proud of him,” notes Greg Price.

Kamala Harris backed a fund that paid for” George Howard’s “bail after he rioted for BLM in 2020. Once he got out, he killed someone.”

Harris “rejects equality” in favor of racial preferences, reports Aaron Sibarium of the Washington Free Beacon. And the “presumptive Democratic nominee also had nice things to say about Jussie Smollett,” who committed a transparently obvious hate crime hoax. She vouched for the character of that proven liar, falsely claiming Smollett was “one of the kindest, most gentle human beings,” and that the hoax Smollett fabricated “was an attempted modern day lynching.”

Harris supports banning fracking, even though fracking adds 7.7 million jobs and $1.1 trillion to the U.S. economy, according to an Energy Department report. “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking,” she said.

She supports economic policies that are stupid, according to most economists — such as rent control, which 93% of economists oppose.

“Kamala Harris supports the Green New Deal which could cost $90 trillion — more than 3 times the size of our economy — as well as unfair bailouts & handouts that would cost trillions,” including (but not limited to) race-based reparations, which would be harmful to the economy as a whole.

Harris is an empty suit. She says things like, “I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit.”

As Fox News’s Guy Benson points out, “Harris is a radical. Her failed 2020 campaign….is a goldmine.” “Kamala Harris says she would eliminate the filibuster to pass Green New Deal,” CNN reported.

The Green New Deal’s economic thinking was so primitive that parts of it would actually harm the environment, despite its cost of tens of trillions of dollars:

The Green New Deal would pay for a vast array of new construction projects, many of them pointless white elephants….this construction activity would lead to lots of new greenhouse gas emissions and pollution: “How much steel is this going to involve? How much concrete? Think about the sheer amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere for retrofitting alone,” [an analyst] said….The Green New Deal would “increase emissions” of greenhouse gases by shutting down nuclear plants, as happened in Vermont when it shut its nuclear plants. Nuclear power plants emit no carbon dioxide while operating.

It will also increase greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging people to travel by rail instead of by air. That will reduce the ability of America’s rail system to transport freight in a low-carbon, low-pollution way….The Green New Deal seeks to replace air travel with passenger trains wherever possible. In so doing, it will replace environmentally-friendly freight trains with less environmentally-friendly passenger trains. That will result in trucks, rather than trains, carrying more of America’s freight — radically increasing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution…..

The Green New Deal would also finance wasteful light-rail projects backed by construction unions that few commuters can or will use. As Steve Greenhut of the R Street Institute notes, building such under-used rail projects doesn’t help the environment. He observes: “It has been around 15 years since Orange County tried to build a $1 billion light-rail system that would have gone from one suburban parking lot to another. It would have moved around half of 1 percent of the county’s commuters. What I remember most about that incredibly shrinking Centerline was that while it was supposed to reduce congestion overall, it would actually have increased congestion along main thoroughfares.”

Comments

For your convenience, you may leave commments below using Disqus. If Disqus is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.