Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t JoNova; Kamala has already been very active promoting green narratives, aligning herself with green firebrands like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
From Kamala Harris’ website;
July 29, 2019
Harris, Ocasio-Cortez Announce Landmark Legislation to Ensure Green New Deal Lifts Up Every Community
Climate Equity Act will hold government accountable to interests of communities who have faced historic, systemic environmental injustice
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris (D-CA) and U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) on Monday announced the Climate Equity Act, a draft legislative proposal to ensure that the United States government makes communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis the foundation of policy related to climate and the environment, including the policies to build a Green New Deal. To that end, frontline community leaders will have an opportunity to provide feedback on this legislative proposal prior to its formal introduction this fall.
At its core, a Green New Deal must be based on three principles: First, fighting climate change by ending the use of fossil fuels; second, building a clean economy with good jobs of the 21st century, and third, ensuring that no community gets left behind.
The Climate Equity Act is a legislative proposal to achieve that third key principle of justice for frontline communities to guarantee that the policies comprising a future Green New Deal protect the health and economic wellbeing of all Americans for generations to come.
Kamala Harris was also part of the notorious 2016 AGs United for Clean Power effort to “Defend Climate Change Progress Made Under President Obama“, by promoting AG green activism, using the executive powers of their office to attempt to frustrate the will of voters who put President Trump into office.
The AG for Alabama had this to say about the AGs United for Clean Power group.
… this investigation inescapably implicates a public policy debate and raises substantial First Amendment concerns. As our colleagues must know, a vigorous debate exists in this country regarding the risks of climate change and the appropriate response to those risks. Both sides are well-funded and sophisticated public policy participants. Whatever our country’s response, it will affect people, communities, and businesses that all have a right to participate in this debate. Actions indicating that one side of the climate change debate should fear prosecution chills speech in violation of a formerly bi-partisan First Amendment consensus. As expressed by Justice Brandeis, it has been a foundational principle that when faced with “danger flowing from speech … the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Here, the remedy chosen is silence through threat of subpoena. This threat distorts the debate and impoverishes consumers and the general public who may wish to better educate themselves by hearing and evaluating both sides. …
This is not the first time Harris has acted with apparent disregard for the constitutional rights of the American people, or the proper exercise of the powers of her office.
In 2010, according to SF Gate, Judge Anne-Christine Massullo ruled Kamala Harris’ office had violated the constitutional rights of defendants, by trying to conceal a crime lab scandal from the courts and defence attorneys. The judge ruled Kamala Harris’ office had displayed “a level of indifference.” to the judge’s demands for an explanation.
Instead of apologising for this grievous error, and taking vigorous steps to investigate and correct the problems which led to the coverup and systematic violation of defendant’s constitutional rights, Kamala Harris’ office went on the attack, claiming the judge had a conflict of interest because the judge’s husband is a defence attorney with a keen interest in Brady disclosure issues. Brady disclosure is the absolute requirement for prosecutors to disclose information in their possession, even if it helps the case of defendants.
Can you imagine what a Kamala Harris presidency would be like, if you are opposed to any part of her deep green agenda, or seek to criticise her actions? Because that would be the likely outcome of a Biden victory. Even CNN thinks Biden could “step aside” for his VP.