Since Kamala's entrance into the 2024 presidential race, she has frequently referenced the importance of "freedom" in her attempt to elevate herself as the self-proclaimed freedom fighter. From the title, you already know that I profoundly disagree with Kamala's false bravado when it comes to the way she flirts with and flaunts her version of "freedom". Nevertheless, there's no denying that her campaign platform centers around freedom and civil liberties, and she believes that she is the answer to restoring freedom to the masses.
In the release of Kamala's initial campaign ad, Beyonce's Grammy nominated song Freedom was featured and became the official song for her 2024 presidential campaign. The ad itself reads as follows:
"I'm Kamala Harris, and I'm running for President of the United States. In this election, we each face a question: What kind of country do we want to live in? There are some people who think we should be a country of chaos, of fear, of hate. But us, we choose something different. We choose freedom."
Ok, I get it...the song, the campaign theme: the connection is obvious in that two high-profile women are celebrating America's foremost value that has influenced American history from the Revolutionary War, to slavery and the Civil War, to today. Freedom in America has been a battleground for centuries with countless lives lost only to result in the triumphant restoration of human dignity and the fulfillment of our premier guiding documents, the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution. In the immortal words of the late, great Martin Luther King Jr., Let Freedom Ring, and yes indeed, American freedom is truly the prize and envy of the world.
Interestingly, however, when you listen to Freedom by Beyonce, which again is Kamala's official presidential campaign song, the following lyrics are ironic and jaw-dropping, I'MA RIOT, I'MA RIOT, THROUGH YOUR BORDERS. In today's vernacular, we call this Foot in Mouth Disease and rightly so due to our current catastrophic situation at our southern border, especially given Kamala's status as the presiding "Border Czar". That said, do these lyrics serve as code for Kamala by signifying "freedom" for illegal immigrants crossing over to the U.S.? After all, she is on record for being a staunch advocate for the decriminalization of illegal immigration(1). Similarly, do these lyrics become marching orders for illegal border crossers, and if so, is she responsible for any rioting or violence that occurs hereafter along the U.S.-Mexico border? Time will tell as we watch and wait with these lyrics ringing loudly in our ears like a bad case of tinnitus.
In all seriousness, with all the celebratory freedom talk by "team Kamala", I find her approach flippant, misguided, and egregious. The freedom flaws are evident to the naked eye and detrimental to a proper and historically accurate understanding as formulated and treasured by America's founding fathers.
Joseph Loconte's timeless article Faith and Freedom: The Missing Link, written in 2000, exposes Kamala's flawed handling of the essence of America's founding and greatness. In the follow-up to his unpacking of the importance of faith and political liberty to a post-Revolutionary War America, Loconte brilliantly makes the following deduction:
The reason goes back to the Founders' view of democracy. Freedom depends on citizens who can govern themselves, which means freedom requires virtue. But it takes more than laws to sustain morality. It requires religion - not the enfeebled variety of an established church, but the muscular faith of individual believers and congregations exercised in the public square.
John Witherspoon, one of America's most inspiring and influential founding fathers, also a signatory to the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, gives historical context and meaning to Loconte's claim in this pithy but remarkable quote, "God grant in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both." This from a man who carried the tiles of statesman, minister, and president of the College of New Jersey, which later became Princeton University. He was so honored and respected that John Adams once said that John Witherspoon was "as high a son of liberty as any man in America." (2)
Lastly, David J. Gowdy's excellent article reinforces what I have expressed thus far, but he goes one step further. Gowdy provides a historical backdrop that captures the prevailing faith-freedom sentiment of the early colonist.
John Adams stated it this way, “Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” In this regard, the revolutionary war was as much a battle against “the corruption of 18th century British high society,” as it was against financial oppression. While the Founders and American colonists were very concerned with their civil liberty and economic freedom, demanding “no taxation without representation,” they were equally concerned with their religious liberty, particularly in preserving their rights of individual conscience and public morality. With respect to the vital need for virtue in order to establish and maintain a republic, the Founders were in complete harmony:
George Washington said: “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government,” and “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.”
Benjamin Franklin said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”
James Madison stated: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [imaginary] idea.”
For brevity's sake, I only provided three quotes from Gowdy's list, but you can go to the link below to read the full article and see all thirteen names and quotes, which is an impressive and compelling list. His Compilation successfully defends his argument and the crux of my position which is that freedom is not reducible to some flimsy, shallow, political talking point driven by electoral popularity or political posturing. This is the case with the Harris-Walz freedom fallacy and is why Gowdy's argument from history is still applicable and highly relevant to today's body politic. Theirs is a flagrant hijacking and misuse of freedom by liberal ideologues and a shameful ignoring of the historical foundation and all-important intersect between the indispensable ideals of faith and virtue as necessary conditions for the proper use of freedom so that our democratic republic endures "forever". From her official campaign ad to her campaign speeches, Harris fails to capture any of this and thus poses a serious risk to effectively promoting freedom in America in the spirit and intent of the founders. We can only hope that well-informed and well-intended citizens challenge her conceptualization as a corrective to Kamala's Freedom Fallacy for the common good and the preservation of American exceptionalism so as to honor freedom's heritage and Christian foundation without compromise.
________________________________
1. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/88623/what-is-kamala-harris-position-on- decriminalizing-illegal-entry
2. Minister to Freedom, Loconte, J. Ph.D., 2001
Comments