I always laugh when I read a bio of a secular leftist, who claims to be an “anti-fascist”. I think to myself, “has this person ever read any history?” History is filled with the stories of big-government atheists using political power to force others violate their consciences. In contrast, conservatives support marriage, unborn children, parent’s rights, free markets, free trade, free speech and religious liberty.

Let’s hear about the latest evidence that Kamala Harris would be a terrible president for Christians.

This is from The Federalist:

On Tuesday, Kamala Harris voiced opposition to providing religious exemptions in any federal legislation legalizing abortion nationwide in the event that such legislation is brought to her desk as president.

The moment came during the vice president’s sit-down interview with NBC News’ Hallie Jackson.

[…]The NBC host specifically queried if “religious exemptions” were “something [Harris] would consider.”

“I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body,” Harris said.

And it’s not just her words against religious liberty that are a problem. It’s her actions. Here’s a reminder of some of her actions, from First Things:

In February 2019, Harris introduced the Do No Harm Act in the U.S. Senate, the purpose of which was to dilute—if not neutralize—the federal 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and similar legislation in about twenty states. The purpose of RFRA was to give legislative protection to religious practices that might incidentally be forbidden by otherwise generally applicable laws prohibiting (or compelling) certain behaviors. RFRA was a legislative response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed a state law to prohibit the use of sacramental peyote in a minority religious ritual. RFRA laws carve out exemptions from generally applicable laws for some religious practices that are fundamental to religious belief.

For example, a RFRA law might protect a church from another law that prohibits consideration of sexual orientation for employment, promotion, or retention. Or it might protect a physician who participates in public health reimbursement programs from a law requiring such physicians to perform a broad scope of so-called healthcare services, such as abortion.

Now, I often run into people who claim to be Christians, but warn me that they don’t want to get involved in “culture wars” and that Christianity is just about “loving everyone” and they also think Jesus would attend gay weddings. And for fake Christians like this, it’s not going to be a problem that Kamala Harris stops Christians from acting like Christians. Because these people don’t act like Christians already. They just attend church and sing songs and do nice things, but they would never dream of obeying God if they had to pay some kind of price for it.

For these people – and for Kamala Harris – Christianity is just about singing songs in church on Sunday. It’s not any more important than going bowling on Tuesday nights with your friends.

More:

Harris sponsored the Do No Harm Act for the express purpose of emasculating RFRA laws. As she explained on the website introducing the act, it would prevent RFRA laws from “being used to deny” such things as “Healthcare access, . . . coverage or services to which persons are otherwise legally entitled,” or “Services that the government has contracted to be beneficiaries through a government . . . grant.” In other words, the Do No Harm Act would compel a Catholic physician to prescribe contraceptives or perform abortions if she participates in federal or state reimbursement programs. And it would require a parochial school that receives state grants, for example, to employ persons in open same-sex relationships as teachers or even ministers.

The full implications of Harris’s philosophical understanding of the scope and limit of religious freedom, however, are found in her apologetic for the Do No Harm Act. In a statement on her website explaining the purpose of the act, Harris uses a very narrow definition of religious freedom. “The freedom to worship is one of our nation’s most fundamental rights,” she writes. “That First Amendment guarantee should never be used to undermine other Americans’ civil rights.” The problem, of course, is that “the freedom to worship” is not a “First Amendment guarantee.” The First Amendment guarantees the “free exercise” of religion, which has a much more expansive scope than mere “worship.”

The free exercise clause of the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise of” religion. Harris misquotes the clause, changing “free exercise” to “freedom to worship,” betraying a definition of religious practice that would remove it from any meaningful legislative or political protection. In doing so, she turns the free exercise clause on its head, driving religious faith to the margins of public life and religious exercise out of public life altogether.

Like I said, I don’t expect this kind of warning to mean anything to the “Shepherds for Sale” Christians. Their real religion is being liked, and Christianity has value only if it helps them to be liked. For the rest of us, who take the Bible seriously, a Kamala Harris presidentcy would be a disaster to our plans. To our ability to work, to keep what we earn, and to champion what God says. She would use the force of government to force Christians to choose between working to feed their families, and their relationships with God in Christ. And for a secular left fascist, that’s pretty exciting. They love that. They get a sick and twisted joy out of using power to force Christians to abandon their convictions.

Don’t forget how she pre-dawn raided the homes of pro-lifers, and how many pro-lifers have been pre-dawn raided by the Biden-Harris federal law enforcement. Why think that American Stalinists are any different than the Stalin of the Soviet Union?

If I could get young people to accept one thing about the secular left, it’s that all the “nice” things that they talk about are always at other people’s expense. As soon as you ask them to solve a problem for someone with their own costs, efforts and risks, they say “I was thinking that we could have a systemic solution”. They’re always spending other people’s money, risking other people’s safety.

Here’s an article from the Daily Wire:

Dozens of seniors in New York, including a 94-year-old Army veteran named Frank Tammaro, were evicted from their senior center, which was then converted into a migrant shelter.

City officials have estimated that tens of thousands of migrants have entered the city since last spring, which is costing around $5 million per day. Mayor Eric Adams, who previously boasted about NYC being a “sanctuary” for migrants, has more recently complained about the influx of migrants.

Tammaro told Fox News that he had lived in the center for five years, and intended to spend the rest of his days there until he and the other members were notified that they were being kicked out. After he was evicted, Tammaro’s family found out that the center was turned into a migrant shelter.

“I do get upset when I see them handing out all this money and all these things, and I’m paying taxes and getting kicked out,” Tammaro said. “I’ve never got anything from the city. Or the state.”

Notice that this happened in New York state, which is denominated from top to bottom by Democrats. Democrats just feel better when they help illegal immigrants and refugees. They don’t get the same “buzz” from helping American taxpayers – especially if they have to use their own money.

Here’s another article from the UK Daily Mail:

A 96-year-old woman is facing eviction from her home of 22 years where she says she’s invested her entire savings – in a Democrat state where lawmakers want to give migrants $150,000 loans to buy homes.

Jean Jacques was given a three-day eviction notice from the Pacific Grove Senior Living facility, located on the picturesque Monterey County coast in California, KSBW reported.

The notice demands Jacques pays her outstanding balance of $110,000 or leave her unit, according to the outlet.

Meanwhile in California:

On Wednesday, state lawmakers approved the California Dream For All Shared Appreciation Loan program, which would provide no-interest home loans of up to $150,000 to illegal migrants to use on down payments and fees.

It now heads to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk for final approval.

The program was launched last year and has already provided thousands of first-time homebuyers with loans of up to 20 percent of a house’s purchase price.

People who vote Democrat often don’t think about the costs of being “generous” with taxpayer money to illegal immigrants. But it’s hundreds of millions of dollars for each state. Here’s one report about Mississippi:

Illegal immigration could cost Mississippi more than $100 million every year, a new report from the state’s auditor reveals.

The report, from Mississippi State Auditor Shad White, addresses the costs of illegal immigration for the broader country before delving into the ways illegal immigration places a financial burden on Mississippi’s education, healthcare, and public safety systems. The investigation comes as polling indicates that immigration is a top issue for voters heading into the presidential election.

[…]“Illegal immigration creates a financial burden for taxpayers across the country, but the cost of illegal immigration is not borne solely by the federal government,” the report explains, also noting that an estimated 22,000 illegal immigrants reside in the state. “Taxpayers from each state—including Mississippi—must face the reality of increased spending as a result of crisis-level illegal immigration.”

That’s New York and California. If I had to pick another Democrat state, I’d pick Illinois. Specifically, Chicago.

Let’s see what’s happening there:

Chicago has spent $299 million on the migrant crisis since 2022, including $215 million since Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson took office in May 2023.

Nearly 37,000 migrants have arrived in Chicago since August 2022. As of March 14, more than 11,200 migrants were living in shelters.

Right now, we are $36 trillion in debt, so we really have run out of money to be spending on illegal immigration. Who will pay for this debt? Future generations. People who aren’t even born yet. Their quality of life is being diminished by these secular left big spenders who are desperate to virtue signal to you about their great generosity. Therefore, vote wisely.

It’s election time, so I thought it might be a good idea for everyone to get some data on one of the most pressing problems Americans are facing, and that’s inflation. People keep saying that the rate of inflation is coming down, but the prices are still way higher than they used to be. So, who did a better job of controlling inflation? Trump, during his 4 years, or Kamala, during her 4 years?

This article is from the Wall Street Journal:

Kamala Harris couldn’t explain during her interview with Fox News’s Bret Baier this week why she’d be better on the economy and inflation than Donald Trump. The Vice President instead invoked the expert wisdom of progressive economists. That wisdom is worth a closer look.

[…]A nearby chart shows the inflation trend during the Trump and Biden presidencies. Inflation averaged 2.1% annually between 2017 and 2019, compared to 5.1% under Mr. Biden. (Inflation declined to 1.2% in 2020 amid the Covid lockdowns.) Deficits totalled $2.4 trillion during Mr. Trump’s first three years compared to $5.8 trillion during Mr. Biden’s.

[…]In March 2021, Democrats stoked consumption… with their $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act…

The bill was largely composed of transfer payments, including $1,400 checks per person, $3,600 per child tax credits, an extra $300 a week in unemployment benefits, a 15% increase in food stamps, rental assistance and more. Such handouts discouraged unemployed Americans from returning to work since they could earn as much not working.

President Biden further loosened the spending spigot with executive actions, sweetening food stamps and waiving monthly student loan payments. A Congressional Budget Office report this week noted that the 2021 food-stamp boost likely reduced the labor supply since people received fewer benefits the more income they earned.

This unprecedented helicopter drop of money, aided by the Federal Reserve, kicked off the highest inflation in 40 years.

And the article concludes:

Ms. Harris has adopted the Biden spending agenda and more. Mr. Trump is no fiscal conservative, but on deficits and inflation his first-term record is far superior to the four years of Biden-Harris.

Remember, Kamala was asked what she would do differently than Biden, and she said that she wouldn’t do anything different than Biden. Now, some people might say that’s because she doesn’t know enough about policy to know how to answer that question, but let’s just take her at her word, and expect 4 more years of Biden’s record on inflation.

The nice thing about a Kamala victory is that the people who will have to pay the most are the people who spend a lot of money now. Especially people who just don’t have the willpower to stop spending money on things they don’t need. We have a $36 trillion debt. Interest on the debt will start to crowd out discretionary spending like spending on welfare programs. So, it’s going to be harder for people who depend on collecting welfare to make ends meet. I’m looking forward to seeing people with high burn rates have to cut their spending, because of the consequences of their votes.