Kamala Harris opposes voter ID laws, but requires ID to get into her modest rallies

 Credit to American Thinker contributor Jack Hellner for bringing this to my attention in his piece about the media propping up Kamala Harris as the safer bet regarding taxation policy, but this deserves a blog all on its own; from a report out at Fox News yesterday:

Kamala Harris panned for requiring ID to enter Arizona rally after previously painting voter ID laws as racist

Ahead of Harris’ rally alongside vice presidential running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz in Arizona on Friday, her campaign sent out an email advising that only confirmed RSVPs will be admitted.

The email said those on the RSVP list must present a matching government-issued photo ID in order to be admitted to the venue, KTAR reported.

Now why would Harris’s campaign feel compelled to require “government-issued photo ID” for admission? I mean, it’s just a modest political rally, and with property security measures (don’t call the Secret Service for this), who cares if someone isn’t who they claim to be? Especially considering this is a Democrat event, can’t we just excuse any identification crises as saying “they/them” feels like “identifying” as another person for the duration of said rally? Or, like Harris reasoned when she argued against photo ID for voting, requiring ID might “restrict access” for people who would otherwise want to be engaged and involved in the democratic process—this is all about “democracy” and the voices of the people, right?

Or, is it because the campaign wants to make sure the person in front of it is who he/she actually claims to be? I can understand that, especially considering the fact that somebody has encouraged and facilitated the entire bad-acting foreign world to violate American sovereignty and establish themselves on American soil to inevitably commit atrocities against American citizens... Where else but places where moderately-sized crowds or precious children gather? Now that I think about it though, crowd size might be a Harris rally’s only saving grace: they’re quite small when compared to her opponent.

Was Harris also protected by guns? The right to self-defense is a God-given right, endowed to all of mankind, so I have no problem with her choice to utilize armed protection—yet while personally enjoying the security firearms provide, she actively seeks to rob her fellow man of the same privilege. We can’t all be taxpayer leeches and outsource our personal security, most of us have to do it on our own.

Did the rally venue rely on or utilize any “dirty” energy for the lights and air conditioning, or was everything powered entirely by wind and solar? (This isn’t to suggest that wind and solar are “clean” energy or that oil and gas are “dirty” energy, it’s merely to make the point.)

Did Kamala use traditional modes of transportation to get to and from her event, or was she running lithium-battery cars/planes the whole time? That was rhetorical.

So photo ID is only “racist” and restrictive when it comes to participating in American elections, a privilege that belongs to citizens and citizens alone, but not when it’s required for Kamala to grace you with her presence (or buy alcohol, or cigarettes, or a firearm, or open a bank account, or get through TSA, etc.).

Exaggerated hypocrisy continues to be a hallmark of Democrat platforms.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/08/kamala_harris_opposes_voter_id_laws_but_requires_id_to_get_into_her_modest_rallies.html