Archive for the ‘Kamala Harris’ Category

Joe Biden made it official just moments ago. Biden picked Kamala Harris as his running mate. According to Axios, “Joe Biden announced Tuesday that he has chosen Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) as his running mate, the first Black woman to be named to a major-party U.S. presidential ticket, and potentially the first woman vice president if Biden defeats President Trump.”

The question now turns to whether the Harris pick will help the Biden-Harris ticket with African-American voters or if it’ll hurt the ticket. This Vox article, first published on Jan. 23, 2019, was updated today to reflect Biden’s picking of Sen. Harris as his running mate. The original article, though, was about Harris’s record as California’s Attorney General. According to the article, “A close examination of Harris’s record shows it’s filled with contradictions. She pushed for programs that helped people find jobs instead of putting them in prison, but also fought to keep people in prison even after they were proved innocent. She refused to pursue the death penalty against a man who killed a police officer, but also defended California’s death penalty system in court. She implemented training programs to address police officers’ racial biases, but also resisted calls to get her office to investigate certain police shootings.”

This is a major issue within the Democratic Party. It’s a major problem with this ticket. Biden was the chief author of the 1994 Crime Bill. Then-State Attorney Gen. Harris was ordered by a judge to release prisoners who were determined by the courts to have been not guilty of the crime they were convicted of.

Opposite the Biden-Harris ticket is the Trump-Pence ticket. Trump-Pence passed the First Step Act, the first bill to correct the mistakes made in the Biden 1994 Crime Bill. Check out Alice Marie Johnson’s reaction to the signing of that bill:

The biggest speculation before today’s announcement was that Biden’s running mate would shoulder the load of doing the majority of interviews. That sounds nice but it isn’t related to the truth. People want to size up the presidential candidates. Further, whatever Sen. Harris says during confrontational interviews will reflect back on the entire ticket.

If she goes as radical as the activists want, she’ll hurt the ticket with moderates. If she isn’t willing to go hardline for the activists, the activists won’t turn out to vote. Honestly, the race just got more entertaining for me. I’m popping the popcorn and opening a beer. All Y’all are invited to my home to watch this unfold.

Dan Bongino’s tweet has started a firestorm of controversy over what Democrats will do with regard to Joe Biden. For over a month, I’ve said that Democrats will use Biden as a Trojan Horse candidate so they can pretend that they’re moderates until the election is over. Within a month after the inauguration, Democrats will use the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to permanently remove Biden from office.

There hasn’t been any doubt that Biden’s cognitive abilities have precipitously declined since he was last in office. Joe Biden is said to be gaffe-prone. That’s the MSM’s spin but it’s BS. These aren’t gaffes. They’re proof that Joe isn’t all there. Period. Full stop.

Democrats will keep Joe front and center (in his basement or in an empty union hall) until after the election. If he wins, he’ll become the first president to get run out of office using the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. This isn’t the mind of a man who’s all there:

This might be worse:

The thing people need to emphasize is that Biden’s running mate will quickly become president. Does anyone think that any of the mayors on his short list are capable of being president? Can you picture how quickly the economy would tank if Susan Rice or Kamala Harris became president? These aren’t just nightmare scenarios. They’re virtually guaranteed of happening if Biden wins.

Some outrageous things were said by Democrat senators when they attempted to demolish then-Judge Kavanaugh’s family. Elizabeth Warren, later a Democrat presidential candidate, made some disgusting statements regarding then-Judge Kavanaugh. In a speech from the Senate floor, Warren said “Republicans want to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and they will ignore, suppress, or shout down any inconvenient facts that might give the American people pause about this nomination. Republicans are playing politics with the Supreme Court, and they are willing to step on anyone — including the victim of a vicious sexual assault — in order to advance their agenda.”

The biggest thing missing from Sen. Warren’s diatribe was the truth. Christine Blasey-Ford’s best friend, who was supposed to corroborate Dr. Ford’s testimony, testified that she didn’t know Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford’s testimony was riddled with inconsistencies, including the misstatement that Dr. Ford doesn’t fly. We found this out after-the-fact:

Senate Democrats and the legal team for Ford forced multiple delays of the hearing because Ford was allegedly unable to fly due to extreme anxiety. He pivoted to Ford’s statements to Senators that she couldn’t come to Washington D.C. by Monday because she’s “afraid to fly on airplanes” and that her fear is directly connected to her alleged assault by Kavanaugh.

“But wait, is this true?” Carlson asked. “Ford has relatives on the east coast. According to published accounts, she’s been here recently. Did she drive back and forth to California every time she visited? We don’t know. Then last week, The New York Times reported that Ford did graduate work at the University of Hawaii. That’s on an island thousands of miles in the Pacific. How exactly did she get there?”

Apparently, telling the truth isn’t one of Sen. Warren’s priorities.

Apparently, protecting creepy old senators is one of Sen. Warren’s priorities. She hasn’t said a thing about VP Biden’s alleged sexual assault of Tara Reade. Sen. Klobuchar provided some odd opinions of Dr. Ford, too:

2018: “She was so graceful and so dignified, went through every question you could imagine… What she was doing was basically laying out the fact that you have so well articulated during the show, is that she actually has talked about this in the past, she said it to a therapist, her husband had remembered the name Brett Kavanaugh, she has with some detail remembered the assault. And all she’s asked is that the FBI figure out when Mark Judge was working at this Safeway when she saw him later because that would help her get the exact date.” – Sept. 27, 2018 to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow

Sen. Klobuchar pretends to be a warrior for women. Selective accountability seems more her style:

Fox News reached out to Klobuchar for comment after the “Larry King Live” video resurfaced, which occurred after the interview with NPR, but did not receive a response.

This is hilarious:


Then there’s Kamala Harris’s opinion:

2018: “Ours was not a search to determine whether a crime occurred. Ours was not a search to determine whether we had enough facts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had occurred. No, ours was an investigation to figure out enough about what happened to determine if Brett Kavanaugh is fit to serve on the highest court in our land. Is he fit to be a jurist in the place where we have said justice in our country occurs? In the house where we listen to evidence and truth and make determinations based on the veracity and truthfulness of what has occurred. That is our role when it comes to Dr. Ford’s allegations, and we fell short. We fell short. We did not do her justice. We did not do the American people justice.” – Oct. 5, 2018, in a floor speech opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation

Notice that Harris used the term allegations. She didn’t vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh. Harris, like the other Democrats in the Senate, voted against Justice Kavanaugh. After praising VP Biden, the Tara Reade accusations came out:

Fox News reached out to Harris for comment after the “Larry King Live” video resurfaced, which occurred after her interview with “It’s All Political,” but did not receive a response.

Apparently, selective accountability is the Democrats’ strategy.

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.