February 11, 2013
I spoke with Harmeet last night and this morning.
The ACLU comments in the CRA letter are a misrepresentation of who she is. She is a Sikh. She believes all men should be treated equal. She joined the ACLU from 2003-2005 to defend Sikhs whose unalienable rights were being violated as a result of 9/11. History was repeating our nation’s mistake with the Japanese during WWII. Any one of us claiming to be a Patriot should have done so as well.
She does not agree with all that the ACLU does and has not been part of them for nearly ten years.
She was familiar with the ACLU because they defended her at Dartmouth when she was a student and Editor of their paper. She was not in the wrong for challenging a teacher. Patriots do that. We call it Free Speech. Don’t forget our 2nd President, John Adams, defended the British in the Boston Massacre, because he believed Law is King (Lex Rex).
Where is the Patriot who would not have voted for John Adams because he defended the British and upheld rule of law?
The CRA statement that she supported Democrat Kamala Harris is a falsehood. Her business partner did, Peter Smith.
I agree with Harmeet on a number of areas and disagree on two.
Agreements first.
First let me state that I wholeheartedly stand with the Republican Party on their desire to reach out to groups that have not voted with us in the past and after some due diligence on Ms. Dhillon find much common ground.
I agree with her desire to protect the liberties embodied in our founding documents for minorities and those unable to defend themselves.
Agree with her desire to focus more on fiscal issues and less on social (I believe social issues are best addressed by families and churches, institutions government is destroying).
Agree with her that the war on Libya was unconstitutional. (No congressional declaration of war . . . as usual)
Agree with her statement that we cannot run our state on income tax from the wealthy.
Agree with her lack of sympathy for the college students protesting against hikes in tuition at California State and UC campuses.
Agree with her participation in SLAPP, an organization combatting government harassment of citizens desiring to use free speech to challenge tyranny.
Agree that government does not have a right to be in our bedrooms and I agree with her stand against the Affordable Health Care Act. Bravo.
Agree with her support of 2nd Amendment and all the Bill of Rights. (most legislators do not understand them)
These are all Constitutional positions I can stand next to her on.
I DISAGREE with Harmeet’s position on Abortion and Same Sex Marriage.
Here I think she becomes inconsistent and separates the healthy principles of her faith from her influence on the ethics of government. Like myself, she holds that the State should not regulate, nor does it have jurisdiction, in our personal lives. But unlike the ethics of our Framers, she doesn’t protect the right to life of one of our greatest minorities, the child, a constituency with very little voice in San Francisco.
Abortion
Although she is personally against abortion and same sex marriage she does not see them as transcendent principles to be upheld by a just legal system. I am concerned when we disconnect unalienable rights and the transcendent values from the ethics of government. Like the Framers, and Reagan, I believe the state should not protect us from ourselves but these two issues encroach on the lives of others and society as a whole. LIFE is an UNALIENABLE RIGHT and not a social issue.
Marriage
While I do not see marriage as a federal issue in the Constitution, the citizens of California (10th Amendment) have a compelling reason to see that the institution of marriage be defined as one between a male and female for the purpose of procreation and raising self-governing and healthy members of society. The health and future of our state depends upon such.
I disagree with her on the marriage issue because the health of this institution is the future of our nation. Marriage is historically/biblically defined by the ‘laws of Nature and Nature’s God’. As the definition of marriage goes so goes that which is closely linked with it – the family. Our legislators and the state have a compelling interest that the definition of marriage remain has it biblically, historically and philosophically has been throughout history(see Henri de Bracton, Blackstone and Locke)
Same sex marriage is not natural and violates the laws of nature and Nature’s God.
The purpose of marriage is procreation and a healthy environment to raise self-governing and productive children.
If Harmeet would have left same sex marriages to civil contracts I would have been okay. But she has gone past that point wanting to use the State and the coercive power of law to place an immoral behavior on par with that which is moral and traditional and also the extension of benefits for such. I do not mind homosexuals doing what they wish in their own lives. I have sin problems too, but I do not wish to live in a society that places my immoral behaviors on par with traditional and moral ones. My opinion.
Of course, in order to make an informed decision, we must not only have a true understanding of Harmeet but of her opponent. Unfortunately, her opponent was either not invited or refused an invitation to a meeting of our Central Committee.
I have tremendous respect for Harmeet's understanding of the Bill of Rights in an era when few candidates or legislators do. I also understand how tough it must be to be a Republican leader in the San Francisco community.
Each of us must come to our own conclusions about candidates but let us do so from facts not hearsay. Although Harmeet and I agree personally on abortion and marriage, we disagree on the proper role of government here. In an era when it is hard to find candidates and legislators that truly understand our Bill of Rights I have great respect for Harmeet.
Eric
Eric is a co-founder of im2moro, the San Diego Republican Liberty Caucus and on the Executive Committee of the San Diego County Republican Party and the Rock Church’s Citizen of the Year.
