The Liberals Utter Lack of Fundamental Principles

By Craig Andresen – Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio

On election night, in her victory speech, California’s newest Senator had this to say…“Whatever the results of the presidential election tonight, we know that we have a task in front of us. We know the stakes are high. When we have been attacked and when our ideals and fundamental ideals are being attacked, do we retreat or do we fight? I say we fight!”

Make no mistake, the “ideals and fundamental ideals” of which Harris spoke of are not hers alone, they are the “ideals and fundamental ideals” of the liberal/socialist party, otherwise known as democrats.

But what are those ideals, fundamental or otherwise?

Kamala Harris is pro black lives matter.

Kamala Harris is a staunch believer in “climate change” and the throwing of taxpayer dollars at it because only higher taxes, in her mind and the minds of liberal/socialists, can change the weather.

Kamala Harris is also a big-time supporter of sanctuary cities.

Kamala Harris hates the mere idea of the death penalty, even for those who murder police officers, but she is a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood…going so far as California’s Attorney General to team up WITH Planned Parenthood to target David Daleiden, the man whose undercover videos exposed the nation’s largest provider of abortions selling of the body parts of aborted children.

The list of her, and thus, liberals “ideals and fundamental ideals” goes on and on, but it is important, at this point, to point out Kamala Harris’ resume, and the fact that before she was the California Attorney General, Harris was the San Francisco District Attorney…which means it was her job to prosecute criminals.

Harris’ resume, her previous jobs, sheds a great deal of light on her words last week, when she took to Twitter to offer her explanation as to why she will not vote in favor of Judge Neil Gorsuch to become our next Supreme Court Justice.

“Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued legalisms over real lives. I won’t support his nomination.”

That is correct…Kamala Harris, now a United States Senator, and formerly a San Francisco District Attorney and the California Attorney General, whose job it was to prosecute criminals, will NOT support the nomination to the Supreme Court of Judge Neil Gorsuch…because he has “consistently valued legalisms over real lives.”

In other words, because Judge Gorsuch values the law, and applies it evenly without regard to individuals, their social standing, their financial standing or their feelings…he is not worthy of the support of one whose job was to prosecute criminals…those who break the law.

By this, one can only reason that in the eyes of Kamala Harris, due to her “Ideals and fundamental ideals” which she claims to stand for on behalf of her entire party…believe ours, to not be a nation of laws, but a nation of people’s feelings, and that our laws should be adjudicated unevenly, with special regard to the feelings, or the social or financial circumstances of the law-breaker.

To Harris, and because she speaks broadly for her party of liberal/socialists…laws are nothing more than guidelines…suggestions…and subject to alteration, or complete disregard depending on the individual who breaks them, and any judge so brazen to apply the law evenly, or to adjudicate in such a manner where the word of law is what it is regardless of the circumstances or feelings of the defendant, be that defendant an individual or corporation, simply isn’t worthy of becoming a Justice on the nation’s highest court.

Justice is supposed to be blind, yet Harris, and liberals want it to be clouded by crocodile tears on behalf of those who break the law. Neither Harris nor liberals believe in Constitutional protections being evenly applied to all citizens…they want the Constitution to be as squishy as they, themselves are, and applied only to those whose feelings may have been bruised.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about…

Black Lives Matters perpetrators of violence, murder and mayhem should be protected and allowed to rain down destruction against the general populous, so as to coddle their feelings while those injured by them either bodily, or due to the destruction of their property just need to suck it up.

According to the “ideals and fundamental ideals” of Kamala Harris and the liberal/socialists…any Judge who might uphold a 90 day, temporary travel ban on people from six terrorist sponsoring countries until proper vetting can be done, should not be on the bench because the feelings of those delayed, some of which may well intend to kill as many Americans as they can, might be hurt…but a Judge who would block such a travel ban, so as to preserve the delicate feelings of those who would otherwise be inconvenienced, is worthy or the robes.

By the standards of Harris, and liberals at large, any Judge who would issue a ruling against an individual of low standing, and the same ruling against one of high standing does not merit their support, but one who takes the high standing individual to the mat while letting the one of lower standing virtually skate free, does.

In a recent op-ed, Kamala Harris wrote this…”The stakes don’t get any higher. Some argue that if a nominee has a stellar legal resume, he or she is qualified to sit on the bench and our job is done. I disagree. As U.S. senators, we have an obligation to also examine a nominee’s legal approach and ask whether he or she considers the impact of those decisions on our society and the daily lives of our people.”

“President Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, certainly has a paper resume that would impress legal scholars. Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued narrow legalisms over real lives. I must do what’s right. I cannot support his nomination.”

I have a few questions for the ilk of Kamala Harris…

If our nation’s laws are, as you suggest, simply suggestions, to be applied with respect to the feelings or circumstances of the defendant…how can anyone know what the laws, or ramifications of breaking them are?

How can any law be applied in any way if there is no account given to the law as it was written?

And if our laws are nothing but suggestions, in the hands of Judges who are guided by their feelings rather than by the laws themselves, or the Constitution itself…how do your “ideals and fundamental ideals” differ from anarchy?

The real beef Harris, and liberals…since she claims to speak for liberals in general…have with Judge Gorsuch is that he does, in fact, believe in the rule of law…in the principle of law, and in both the law, and the Constitution, as they were written.

Above the entrance of the United States Supreme Court, chiseled into marble, are the words… “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”

Nowhere on that building, nor in the Constitution or within our laws will you find the words…written on paper or set in stone, alluding to squishy feelings or the whims of judges being the guiding factors in how the law is adjudicated.

The Supreme Court of the United States is unique in the world…a cut above and more respected for its ability to heed the words above its entrance than any other, in any other country on earth. In fact, nearly 150 years ago, when our nation was reaching toward its century mark, Alexis de Tocqueville, a political observer of note from France stated…”The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe, but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people.”

In fact, the Constitution ensures that our nation is to be ruled by laws and not by men, or their individual whims and feelings…which means that the rule of law is exactly that…as the laws are written…and as the constitution was written…nothing more, and nothing less.

Furthermore, the oath of office of a Supreme Court Justice states unequivocally that, the taker of the oath does, “solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a Supreme Court Justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Therein one discovers the problem for Kamala Harris, and liberals…no Judge more closely adheres to the Constitutional provisions nor the oath of office than does Judge Gorsuch in exactly the opposite manner to what constitutes the “ideals and fundamental ideals” of Harris and liberals.

Once more, let’s look at that tweet from Harris…“Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued legalisms over real lives. I won’t support his nomination.”

Shame on Kamala Harris, and the liberals she represents, for their innately un-American “ideals and fundamental ideals.”

Thanks to Kamala Harris, the liberal agenda has been exposed to the harsh light of truth for its complete and utter lack of “fundamental principles.”

Copyright © 2017 Craig Andresen /



Today, Tuesday, March 28th from 7 to 9pm EST on American Political Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss Losing the War Because of Numbers Uncounted, Exploring Liberals Utter Lack of Fundamental Principles, and important news of the week. 

Hope you can tune in at:

One thought on “The Liberals Utter Lack of Fundamental Principles

  1. I understand the “human” element of all things “legal”. Honest, I sincerely believe I do, and my heart goes out anytime there is an injustice, real or perceived–but I don’t blame judges who follow the law, only those who legislate from the bench do I hold with contempt.

    If we are to be a Nation of laws then laws must be executed without prejudice or squishy subjectivity. If the law is bad, or outright wrong and damaging, we have the power to change or dissolve the law. But to suggest, even demand, that Judges, federal or otherwise, ought to allow their own emotions and subjective biases to dictate their jurisprudence is akin to saying we need a dictator so she/he can do anything she/he wishes; you know, so as to not have to be beholden to Congress, which is to say no longer beholden to the people, however ignorant and disengaged they may be from politics and government/governance.

Comments are closed.