In view of the cliché, “A LEOPARD DOES NOT CHANGE ITS SPOTS,” however, a chameleon will change to match the surroundings, let us examine the resent statements of Kamala Harris on the subjects near and dear to her core beliefs and investigate the length of past positions judge of the future re-flip.
Climate change negatively impacting environment, her core belief is that petroleum products utilization contributes a great threat to the environment by vast production of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), yet recent statements give support to fracking (no doubt to win voters in the fracking state of Pennsylvania). To keep faith with her core beliefs, common sense tells us that she would of necessity decrease other forms of petroleum production to maintain the desired balance of energy production involving the least CO2 production. In summary, what is the Democratic Platform position on oil production effect on the environment, and does she support that position?
Regarding “Electric Vehicle Mandates” as the answer to petroleum consuming motors, the removal of the word “mandates” lessens the severity of approach to the approval of EV production and use. It makes common sense that consideration of the environmental impact of such vehicle production and the extent of CO2 emissions related to production of electricity has yet to be fully experienced. Yet again the environmental impact raises the question, “what are the unchanged basic values?”
Concerning her statement that the borders are secure, if so, why the change to support further construction of a wall the supplies for which lay unused during the Biden-Harris administration. Her core values are supportive of a position of amnesty for all current illegal entrants through our borders, thus inviting further violation of existing laws which the Biden – Harris administration has consistently failed to enforce in clear dereliction of duty on a national level, a shameful characteristic of one having prior prosecutorial dedication at the state of California level. Amnesty endows recipients of attendant rights to health, safety, education and welfare, the expense of which is the burden of current taxpayers, for indeed how else would such benefits applied? Common sense asks the question, if values have not changed why do we not see massive federal prosecution of the same type of border violators at state levels? Even now, why has the border patrol and ICE not been proportionally increased to keep up with the flood of immigrants? Could it be another policy of not funding or defunding law enforcement?
As to pull back from mandated buy back of assault weapons, the common sense view of Kamala’s core belief is the entire removal of all firearms from any other than military and law enforcement is a legitimate means to reduce victims of gun shootings, a clear attack on the constitutional right to bear arms that fails to remove guns from criminals leaving law abiding citizens defenseless against assault by armed assailants. Yet again we ask, “Why the change?”
And as a last straw, what is the straw vote on banning plastic straws? Yes, it is nice to have reuseable collapsible or not, metallic straws in pocket but how to clean and maintain them becomes a problem. But as to core position based on real unchanged values, what does she have in mind? Sorry I am not a mind reader.
As for you as a voter, join ivotemyvote.com, unite with us and give your real core value answers to our issues questions. Stand strong and support the candidates fitting your values and vote for them in every stage of the election cycle.
1. Q: What does the phrase “A leopard does not change its spots” mean in the context of political positions?
Ans: This phrase suggests that individuals or politicians tend to stick to their core beliefs and values. However, unlike leopards, some may adapt their positions to suit changing political landscapes, similar to how a chameleon changes its colors.
2. Q: How do Kamala Harris’s recent statements on climate change reflect her core beliefs?
Ans: Kamala Harris has historically emphasized the dangers of petroleum products on the environment. Recent support for fracking raises questions about her commitment to these beliefs, especially in light of the Democratic platform on energy production and climate impact.
3. Q: What is the Democratic Platform’s stance on oil production and its environmental effects?
Ans: The Democratic Platform generally advocates for reducing reliance on fossil fuels to combat climate change. Questions arise about whether Harris aligns with this stance while supporting fracking, particularly in key electoral states.
4. Q: What are the implications of changing terminology regarding electric vehicle mandates?
Ans: The removal of the term “mandates” could signal a shift in commitment to electric vehicle adoption. It invites scrutiny on the environmental impact of EV production and the broader context of CO2 emissions, raising concerns about whether core environmental values are being compromised.
5. Q: Why has there been a change in the administration’s approach to border security?
Ans: While Harris has claimed that the borders are secure, her support for further wall construction contradicts this statement. Questions arise about the administration’s enforcement of existing laws and the implications of proposed amnesty for undocumented immigrants.
