Archive for the ‘Kamala Harris’ Category

This LTE contains its fair share of contradictions.. Perhaps, the biggest contradiction is the one found in this paragraph:

Imagine how we could lower gun deaths by requiring a license to purchase or use a gun! By requiring background checks for every gun sale? By limiting ammunition purchases? By making firearms inoperable by anyone except the original owner? This would stop killings by children and gun thieves. The National Rifle Association uses money to prevent Congress from passing such common-sense solutions, and — guess what — the NRA is funded by gun manufacturers. They would lose money if reasonable and constitutional limits were placed on weapons.

This is the ultimate contradiction in my estimation. How do you place restrictions on guns that pass constitutional muster? First, let’s start with the text of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It’s important to notice why the Second Amendment was written — for “the security of a free state.” Further, it’s worth noting that the people who wrote the Bill of Rights said that it’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The person apparently doesn’t know much about this subject because we already have a system of background checks. Some of the recent mass-shooters have shot people after passing background checks. The problem isn’t whether there should be background checks but whether these background checks should include mental health data or whether juvenile arrests should be wiped clean.

The talk about implementing “common sense solutions” is just that — talk. House Democrats don’t just want “common sense” restrictions. They want an assault weapons ban, red flag laws, etc. An assault weapons ban is worthless. If you specify which weapons are classified as assault weapons, it’s easy for the manufacturer to get around that. What they did with the initial assault weapons ban, a month after the ban went into effect, the manufacturers changed the model numbers. The new model wasn’t part of the list so it wasn’t classified as an assault weapon.

If the legislation defines assault weapon by caliber, muzzle velocity of the round, physical characteristic, etc., then the definition is too broad. In their Heller decision, the Supreme Court said that firearms “in common use” can’t be prohibited. That doesn’t stop Biden, Beto or Harris from wanting to confiscate guns:

Beto’s ‘Buyback’:

Sen. Harris’ executive order:

Democrats don’t want to pass “common sense” restrictions on guns. They want to confiscate our weapons. The people making these threats aren’t back-benchers. They’re the Democrats’ presidential candidates. Their fidelity to the Constitution is limited at best.

Thursday night’s debate showed just how much contempt Democrat presidential candidates have for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Kamala Harris said that she’d issue an executive order to confiscate (my word, not hers) AR-15s and AK-47s if Congress didn’t act on banning assault weapons. I quoted from the DC v. Heller case in this post why she’d get slammed 9-0 in the Supreme Court:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

The Supreme Court has ruled that guns that are in common use are beyond Congress because they’re protected by the Second Amendment. Period.

Harris isn’t the only Democrat that thinks they’re above the Constitution. Robert Francis O’Rourke, the rich brat from El Paso, went on this tirade during the debate:

O’Rourke himself is just a punk who won’t be president. With that tirade, he took himself out of the running for being a serious challenger to Sen. Cornyn, too. That’s why I couldn’t care less about Robert Francis. What I’m bothered about was the applause he received from the audience at the Democrats’ debate in Houston. Those idiots are our neighbors, co-workers and friends.

This is what happens when our schools don’t emphasize civics in the classroom. Increasingly, our society thinks that they’re beyond the law and the Constitution. Chief of those that think that way is AOC. Harris apparently thinks that she can ignore the Constitution, too:

Harris responded, “I would just say, hey, Joe, instead of saying, no, we can’t, let’s say, yes, we can. And yes, we can. Because I’ll tell you something, the way that I think about this is, I’ve seen more autopsy photographs than I care to tell you. I have attended more police officer funerals than I care to tell you. I have hugged more mothers of homicide victims than I care to tell you. And the idea that we would wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just — it is overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills.”

To Sen. Harris: I’ve read the Bill of Rights. It trumps the autopsy pictures that Sen. Harris has seen. It trumps the attempt to play on victims’ emotions, too.

Perhaps it’s just me but Sen. Harris sounded like she was high when she said “Hey, Joe, instead of saying ‘no, we can’t,’ let’s say ‘yes, we can.’ That laughter made her sound like she was high.

Whether Sen. Harris was high or not, she’s definitely wrong on the Constitution.

Of all the stupid things to say, Kamala Harris told a CNN townhall audience that she would ban fracking. In her effort to win the Democrat presidential nomination, Sen. Harris attempted to pander to the heart of the Democrats’ base, aka the hard-left environmental activist wing of the party.

“There is no question I am in favor of banning fracking,” Harris said during an all-night CNN town hall event focused on climate change.

Given her track record of flip-flopping on the biggest issues to Democrats, there’s little question that she’ll tell voters in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania that she misspoke and that she loves blue collar workers. The truth is that Sen. Harris leaves herself plenty of wiggle room to extricate herself from tight positions. For example, the article notes that “Harris’ formal climate plan, published earlier Wednesday, does not explicitly call for Congress to ban fracking.” Gee. How handy that is. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

Unless Sen. Harris turns things around fast, she’s history. I’ve said for a month that this is essentially a 3-4 candidate race, with Biden leading, trailed by Bernie, Warren and finally by Harris. The thing that’s getting obvious to voters who pay attention is that Sen. Harris’s initial statements on each issue is quite strong, followed by less firm statements as she fields criticism for her most forceful statements. Look how forceful her initial statement is:

It’s difficult to picture Sen. Harris standing out from standing out from any of the other Democrats’ presidential candidates on this subject. Still, it’s difficult to see Sen. Harris not participating in this townhall. To skip such a townhall might be seen as having something to hide.

Finally, Sen. Harris’s statement will doom her in the general election if she’s the Democrats’ presidential nominee. Banning fracking is one of the best ways of losing in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio.

Much ink has been spilled over why Joe Biden’s lead in the Democratic primaries is holding. Some rightly point out that he’s a weak frontrunner. That’s definitely true. Another theory on Biden’s lead holding is that each time a new ‘flavor-of-the-month candidate’ pops up, they put in a poor debate performance.

Let’s be realistic, though. There are only 4 candidates with any sort of a shot at winning the nomination. That short list is Biden, Warren, Bernie and Kamala Harris. The rest are pretenders, potential cabinet secretaries or unserious people. Marianne Williamson, Pete Buttigieg, Corey Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Seth Moulton, Tim Ryan, Bill de Blasio and Tom Steyer fit into that category.

Kamala Harris’s campaign is virtually dead. She had a strong first debate, which caused her stock to rise briefly. By the time of the Detroit debates, she’d lost her momentum. Then Tulsi Gabbard utterly demolished her:

Right now, Elizabeth Warren has some momentum. Will her apology to Native-Americans stop that momentum? I think it will. She’s the so-called ideas lady but her ideas are far outside the mainstream. And who can forget this moment?

If I were asked what word or term I’d use to describe that cringe-worthy moment, I’d say “Almost life-like.” Like she’s gonna come off as a regular Jane with legitimate blue collar credentials? Right!

The truth is two-fold. Biden is a weak frontrunner. Still, he’s the strongest candidate in a weak class. The rest of the candidates are essentially pretenders.

Democrats just threatened the US Supreme Court through a friend of the court brief.

Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to “heal” the court in the near future.

The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court’s conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.

“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

The last part was quoting language from a Quinnipiac University poll, in which 51 percent favored such restructuring. In the same poll, 55 percent believed the Supreme Court was “motivated by politics” more than by the law.

Restructured? Packing the court by Democrats is what they’re threatening. In fact, I’d argue that these Democrats are telegraphing what they’ll do the next time they control the White House, House and Senate. Let’s remember what the courts are to Democrats.

Without the courts, many of the Democrats’ ‘victories’ (Roe v. Wade, gay marriage) would have happened. As the Supreme Court has gotten more conservative, Democrats have ‘won’ less and less.

Further, the Q poll reports that a majority of the people polled (55%) think that the Court was “motivated by politics.” Democrats haven’t explained how packing the courts with more far left politicians (think RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan) would make the court less “motivated by politics.”

The goal of these Democrats isn’t to make the courts less “motivated by politics.” It’s to pack the courts so the Court’s rulings are friendlier to Democrats. That’s what raw partisanship looks like. This is too:

The Democratic senators’ brief was filed in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which dealt with legal limitations on where gun owners could transport their licensed, locked, and unloaded firearms. They are urging the court to stay out of the case brought by the NRA-backed group, claiming that because the city recently changed the law to ease restrictions, the push to the Supreme Court is part of an “industrial-strength influence campaign” to get the conservative majority to rule in favor of gun owners.

In New York, Democrats apparently think that you have the right to keep and bear arms but only in parts of the city that the government approves of. How does that comply with the text of the Second Amendment? Here’s that text:

Notice the final part of the Amendment, which says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s indisputable that the NY law infringes on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the Democrats’ goal is to threaten and intimidate Supreme Court justices. Larry Holmes could figure that out. That’s what Democrat machine politics looks like. It’s all about exercising raw political power. It doesn’t have anything to do with doing what’s right for the people.

It’s more than a little strange to read that Joe Biden won the debate, then find out that, for the second debate in a row, Biden didn’t make himself available to the press in Spin Alley. That isn’t what winners do. Confident people want another round of publicity to get their message out to another potential group of voters.

The question that can’t be ignored is the one I’ll ask here. Mr. Vice President, if you’re the winner of tonight’s debate, why aren’t you acting like the winner of tonight’s debate? Why are you employing the strategy that Hillary used in 2016? If you didn’t notice, she lost. Mr. Vice President, did you skip Spin Alley because you won only because the others on stage were more mediocre than you were?

Certainly, Kamala Harris had a difficult night after Tulsi Gabbard dismantled her:

Sen. Harris’ statement might’ve been fine as part of a stump speech. It’s foolish to think that a candidate who just attacked you will let you get away with an evasive answer like that.

Whoever wins the Democrats’ nomination won’t face John McCain or Mitt Romney on the debate stage. They’ll face a guy who smells blood in the water like a great white who hasn’t eaten in awhile. Any sense of weakness will be seized upon immediately.

Tuesday night’s debate stage didn’t have anyone on it that has a realistic shot at the nomination. Crazy Bernie and Pocahontas have no chance at the Democrats’ nomination. Tonight’s candidates had a bunch of wannabes that don’t have a chance. Watch the idiotic reply Julian Castro gave on immigration:

If Castro thinks that he’s auditioning to be someone’s running mate, he’s foolish. Anyone pushing an open borders policy is kidding himself.

At the end of the day, though, Joe Biden’s hiding strategy is foolish. He might or might not win the Democrat nomination. If he wins the Democrats’ nomination, he’ll get eaten alive by the human shark known as President Trump.

David Avella, one of the most astute political observers out there, made some shocking statements in this article. According to Avella, Steyer’s entry likely ends Joe Biden’s chances of winning the nomination. Steyer has promised to spend $100,000,000 of his own money on the race.

That won’t get him closer to winning the nomination. It just means that he’ll be one of the loudest complainers on stage and campaign trail. I’m betting that he’ll be Nancy Pelosi’s worst nightmare. While she’s insisting that impeachment is foolish politically, Steyer insists that it’s the only moral choice for anti-American progressives. How that fight will end is anyone’s guess. Let me modify that last statement. The winner will be President Trump.

This infighting won’t stop anytime soon. This isn’t just about dumping Trump. Already, these carnivores are starting to devour themselves:

The progressive-socialist party has absorbed what is left of the old Democratic Party. Its iconoclasts are not satisfied with erasing the images or commemorations of old white public enemies of the past—Father Serra, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson—but have quite logically turned their identity politics venom on all old white people of the present, including some of their own left-wing brethren.

At first, the progressive Old Guard in Congress, like good Girondists, found the revolutionary carnivores useful in reducing the ranks of the Trumpians, the Tea Party, Reagan Democrats, old Perot voters, and the white working class to the inanimate status of “deplorables,” “irredeemables,” “clingers,” and “dregs”—and with them, the bigoted, racist, sexist, nativist, classist, homophobic, and xenophobic Republican Party. Certainly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and a few geriatric sympathizers, such as Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), enjoyed the progressive feasting on the Ancien Regime—especially the unity offered by shared hatred of the obviously soon to be impeached, deposed, exiled and discredited Donald J. Trump.

This story most likely is about who gets eaten last. If anyone thinks that AOC and Ilhan Omar will be satisfied with taking down old farts like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, I’d offer members of the CBC as proof that the Justice Democrats have a lengthy target list.

The bloodbath has started. What stops it is anyone’s guess. What’s most likely to happen is to have Steyer’s ego trigger a definitive Trump victory in 2020. Steyer isn’t a serious presidential candidate. He’s a serious fundraiser but he isn’t a serious policymaker. Possibly the best description of him is that he’s a wealthy back-bench bomb-thrower. BTW, he’s got tons of liabilities:

Steyer’s notoriety comes from donating the billions he has made investing in fossil fuels, private prisons and subprime lending companies into progressive activism for impeaching President Trump and reckless environmental policies.

The minute he steps onto the stage is the minute he becomes a piñata for self-righteous lefties like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. He’s a hardline lefty environmentalist who made his money investing in fossil fuels and as a subprime lender. What Democrat (other than Hillary) will put up with that? Can anyone picture AOC giving him a pass? At minimum, Jonathan Karl didn’t give him a pass in this interview:

I’m being charitable when I say that Steyer’s argument is ridiculous. Don’t bet that Nancy Pelosi won’t convince the moderators to attack Steyer, with the argument being that she needs impeachment off the table to maintain the Democrat House majority.

This article highlights the predicament that Democrats are in on immigration. Recently, Kamala Harris appeared on The View to be interviewed by the ladies there. It didn’t go well for her, though you wouldn’t know that from the silence of the MSM, aka Agenda Media.

When it was her turn, Meghan McCain “pressed Harris on her hand-raising at the first Democrat debate, which appeared to indicate that she was in favor of ‘decriminalizing border crossings.’ McCain also asked if the candidate stood in solidarity with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s idea of abolishing the Department of Homeland Security.” Those are a pair of fairly straightforward questions that a polished presidential candidate should be able to handle in her sleep.

Apparently, Sen. Harris isn’t coherent when she’s asleep. According to the article, there were more questions at the end of her explanation than there were at the start of Sen. Harris’s explanation:

What the hell is she babbling about? Here’s the transcript from that little exchange:

“We have to have a secure border, but I am in favor of saying that we’re not going to treat people who are undocumented across the border as criminals. That’s correct. That is correct. And what we have got to do is we cannot have anymore policy like we have under this current President that is about inhumane conduct, that is about putting babies in cages, that is about separating children from their parents, and we have got to have policy that is about passing comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway towards citizenship, shutting down these private detention facilities-“

Please tell me if you know what she’s talking about. I got whiplash half a dozen times listening to that short piece of the interview. That’s worse than word salad. That’s like word salad that’s sat on the counter the entire week and is now rotten. I wouldn’t want it.

Democrats apparently want new immigration laws. They just don’t want those laws enforced. Today is the start of ICE’s sweep through 10 major cities while rounding up illegal aliens who applied for asylum, had their day in court, got rejected, then exhausted their appeals. Last week, Nancy Pelosi explained to illegal aliens how to avoid deportation:

There’s only one thing to do with lawmakers who don’t want the laws they passed enforced. That solution is to throw them out of office so that law-abiding lawmakers can take their place. Democrats are famous for talking about cherry-picking through evidence and taking things out of context. This is simple. Families broke the law in coming here or overstaying their visas. After they applied for asylum, a judge ruled against them. They then appealed their ruling, only to be rejected again.

There’s only one legitimate option left. That option is to enforce the law. That’s what ICE took an oath to do. If Speaker Pelosi thinks that illegal aliens should be allowed to stay as long as they’d like, let her write that legislation, then get it a committee hearing. Here’s my prediction on that — Good luck selling that one.

Why anyone would think that the Democrats’ presidential nominee has a fighting chance 16 months from now is beyond me. Don’t tell me about the latest polls showing Sleepy Joe Biden, Crazy Bernie Sanders or a handful of other Democrats defeating him at this point. Each of those polls comes with a fatal flaw. That fatal flaw consists of 6 words that change everything. The fatally flawed words are “if the election was held today.”

Unfortunately for Democrats, and luckily for the nation, the election won’t be held until Nov. 3, 2020. Another thing that will work in President Trump’s favor and in the GOP’s favor is what’s happening beneath the public’s radar. What’s happening beneath the public radar is Brad Parscale, President Trump’s campaign manager, building a machine. During a recent interview with FNC’s Martha MacCallum, Parscale told her that he’ll have a volunteer army of 2,000,000 people to knock on doors and man the phone banks. That’s in addition to having already built out the campaign headquarters in Washington, DC and New York City. That’s in addition to the RNC already staffing field offices in all 50 states. Newt Gingrich put it perfectly in this interview:

But I digress. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Kurt Schlichter’s latest article highlights just how foolish Democrats are:

You gotta hand it to them – it’s an innovative strategy to run for President by taking the position that your country is garbage and that its are people deplorable monsters. It’ll be interesting to see how the Democrats fare on their “America sucks!” platform. The last week has seen Team Donkey take brave stands against the flag and celebrating our military, and you would half expect them to next advocate for something insanely suicidal, like taking your health insurance or forcing you to pay for illegal aliens’ doctors. Oh wait, that happened too.

Let’s see how this is adding up. Democrats have told Americans that they’re for taking away these Americans’ employer-provided health insurance and replacing it with government-run health care. Democrats also told Americans that they want American taxpayers to pay for illegal aliens’ health care.

Joe Biden, the Democrats’ leading idiot, justified taxpayer funding of health care for illegal aliens this way:

Biden is right that a significant portion of illegal aliens came in legally. The fact that the Obama-Biden administration didn’t even attempt to fix that crisis the last 5+ years of their administration speaks to how unserious the Obama-Biden administration was on this issue. That being said, conditions at the border have dramatically changed.

Remember Larry Tribe insisting that the 2 tanks and the 2 fighting machines reminded him of the Chinese forces who mowed down peace protesters in Tiananmen Square?


Remember AOC telling dishonest reporters that CBP put “women in rooms without running water”, then telling those same dishonest reporters that those same women stuck in a room that didn’t have running water were drinking water out of toilets? If you don’t, this should help refresh your memory. Make sure to watch the video of AOC lying through her teeth.

Please explain to me why we should ever let any of these Democrats within 1,000 miles of America’s levers of control. I’d argue that AOC, Biden and Harris in charge would be a total disaster for the US. They’d be worse than Obama. PS- That’s something I didn’t think I’d hear myself say, especially with the bitter memories of the Obama-Biden administration so fresh.

Anyone that saw the videotape of Kamala Harris dismantling former Vice President Biden likely cringed when they saw it. Biden looked that discombobulated. It stripped away the veneer that Biden was the most electable candidate the Democrats could nominate in their attempt to retake the White House.

As inept as Biden looked in that exchange, he looked worse in his interview with CNN. In that interview, Biden said “While Putin is trying to undo our elections, he is undoing elections in Europe. Look at what’s happening in Hungary […] look what’s happening. You think that would happen on my watch, on Barack’s watch? You can’t answer that, but I promise you it wouldn’t have, and it didn’t.”

It’s breathtakingly astonishing to hear that. Can you imagine what would happen if that idiot had to negotiate a trade deal with China? Can you imagine that idiot negotiating a nuclear disarmament treaty with Kim Jung-Un? The term ‘raked across the coals’ keeps running through my mind for some reason.

This crop of Democrat presidential candidates is lacking in political talent to begin with. With nonentities like Eric Swalwell, Robert Francis O’Rourke, Marianne Williamson and John Hickenlooper on the debate stage, it’s difficult to take Democrats seriously. Throw in Bill de Blasio and Joe Biden and it’s virtually impossible to take them seriously.

It almost makes me yearn for the competence of John Kerry or the charisma of Al Gore. Remember Sen. Kerry’s global test moment:

It’s frightening to think that Biden and Kerry composed part of President Obama’s national security team. But I digress.

The Biden administration would be a disaster. The Obama administration knew that Putin planned on hacking into the 2016 election way back in 2014. That’s what’s in the Mueller Report so it isn’t opinion. The Obama administration didn’t do anything. In fact, it’s possible that they looked away while Russians tampered with our election system.

While it’s uncertain what type of effect the latest Biden gaffe will have in the short term, it’s certain that it would have a negative impact on his competitiveness against President Trump, if he gets that far.