By
John C. Chalberg
Her laundry list of “freedoms” was actually quite revealing, meaning both what she didn’t include and what she did include. First was the “freedom to make decisions about your own body.” That wasn’t exactly one of Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms,” but there has never been much doubt that it is Kamala Haris’s first freedom. Now we have solid evidence that this is the case.
And yet it, too, was in its own way a bit vague. The obvious presumption is that she was referring to the modern Democrat party version of a “positive good,” meaning an unlimited right to an abortion rather than the right to own slaves. But notice what was missing: “your body,” not a woman’s body. She left open the possibility that she was also including the freedom of a child to attempt to alter his sex. Or the right of an illegal alien to do the same thing — and at taxpayer expense. Or the right of a male to compete in female sports. In any case, it is revealing that this is Kamala Harris’s first freedom.
Second on her list was the “freedom to be safe from gun violence.” But how will she ensure this? She doesn’t say. Will she interfere with the freedoms of gun-owners? After all, to guarantee such a freedom, there will have to be gun confiscation on a massive scale. If this is really her second most important freedom, nothing less than that will be required.
Third was the “freedom to have access to the ballot box.” To be sure, that freedom was denied to women and minorities decades upon decades ago. But just how is this freedom being denied to any eligible voter today? And might it not be considered freeing to know that assurances are made to ascertain that only eligible voters exercise the franchise?
To be more specific, does Harris’s third freedom include the right to have an unrequested ballot mailed to you? Does it demand voting for weeks on end? And does it include not being required to show identification prior to voting?
To cap it all off, Harris returned to the body — and perhaps the mind:
“the freedom to be who you are and just be ...” And precisely what does that freedom imply? Who knows? It’s not likely that even she knows. In any case, it is completely vacuous.
Then she got slightly more specific: “the freedom to love who you love openly and with pride.” Everyone who is sentient knows precisely what category of lovers she was pridefully talking about here. But just to make sure that everyone gets it, she clinches things with a second mention of the “freedom to just be.” The Peter Sellers character in
Being There couldn’t have said it any better.
Having covered virtually all of the bases of the ever-expanding sexual revolution, Harris concludes with a triumphant “And that’s who we are. We believe in all that.” And that apparently is that. But not quite.
