Advertisement

I’ve made it pretty clear what I think about Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy and, now, the choice of Kamala Harris for the #2 slot. In case there’s any doubt, check out my monologue as guest host on Wednesday’s INGRAHAM ANGLE.

In fact, keep watching after that, for an examination of her candidacy with guests Sara Carter and former California Rep. Darrell Issa, who shared with Harris quite a number of years of service in the California delegation.”

Sara Carter pointed out that Biden himself has intimated that, considering his age, Harris would be the one to end up running the country. And she would do it by bringing a radical agenda, Carter rightly said, pointing out what a “chameleon” she is. “She transforms herself whenever she wants, into whatever she wants.”

Just one example: Harris has actually brought up, with Don Lemon on CNN, the issue of prison inmates being able to vote. Well, I guess some would consider that fair to all the small-time dope smokers (I think about 1500) she put in prison for breaking minor drug laws when she herself has admittedly smoked marijuana.

The Green New Deal, open borders, everything on the radical left’s extensive wish list: she’s for it.

Since Issa had worked with her so long, even back when she was attorney general of California, I asked him what, specifically, about a Kamala Harris vice presidency would keep him up at night. “The fact that the President might need to be replaced,” he said. She made great speeches as the attorney general, he said, but then was “completely hopeless” in that role.

She was so bad, he went on to say, that when she ran “as a progressive” for the Senate, he endorsed and campaigned for her DEMOCRAT opponent. That was “not an easy thing to do for a seated Republican congressman,” he said, “but the fact was, we had a moderate Democrat in Loretta Sanchez by comparison.” The far-left Democrats prevailed, though, and Harris went on to the Senate.

"She will change what she says she stands for,” he said, “at the drop of a coin. But at the end of the day, this is somebody owned by the ‘progressive’ left.” He pointed out that right now, she’s backing away from some of her actions that might be perceived as pro-law and order, but “if that’s gone, she has nothing.”

We also talked about what House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said Wednesday on CNN, that the country really is moving to the left and is exactly where Biden and Harris are. Consensus: OH, NO IT ISN’T.

We really are at a crossroads, and I believe most Americans understand this.

Issa cited a statistic we’ve mentioned here: that surveys show at least 80 percent of Americans want law and order; they want to restore the law and have the same or greater police presence in their neighborhoods. That includes black neighborhoods. (Of course, this is where Harris will play “chameleon” and tout her so-called law-and-order credentials. It’s bunko.)

Be sure and watch the rest of the show if you haven’t seen it, for a great segment with Democrat pollster Doug Schoen about “warning signs” within the Democrat Party concerning the success of “The Squad” in their primary vote. The far left –- the activist, “progressive” wing –- has been quite successful, he says. But they support “policies that are out of step with the broader American electorate.” He would advise Democrats not to campaign so hard on confiscation of weapons, etc. (I didn't have time to ask him, but would that really fool anyone? I think at this point we're all wise to them and know they’d do just that, given half a chance.)

Later I discussed something with Rudy Giuliani that you might not have heard: Harris’s claim, in June of 2019, that if she were in the White House, the Justice Department would pursue “criminal charges” against President Trump. She told NPR, “I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes.”

Recall that Attorney General Bill Barr has made it clear he’s against using the DOJ as a political weapon and has refrained from going after Obama and Biden personally. Obviously, that would be out the window if Harris came to power. “We would be a banana republic,” Rudy told me Wednesday night. He proceeded to go into her record as a prosecutor; it’s shocking to see the extent to which she selectively applied justice and screwed up big cases. She went after “the little people,” he said. “...She is mean, and she is an incompetent lawyer, and she was an incompetent DA.”

As I said later in the show, Harris “comes into this with more baggage than Delta Airlines on Thanksgiving weekend.” Open those bags, expose her radical views on the issues and her past incompetence, and it’s clear: we do not want this person anywhere NEAR the seat of power.

In the Washington Examiner, Hannah Cox writes that she would love to celebrate a woman of color being picked for a veep running mate, but...

“Kamala Harris’s career ascension was built with the bricks of injustice, misfortune, and the corruption of the prison industrial complex...In between advocating for harsher penalties (including some truly bonkers repercussions for truancy), privacy violations like familial DNA searches, and civil asset forfeiture, Harris even found time to block new DNA evidence from being tested for a potentially innocent death-row inmate, Kevin Cooper. It should not go without comment that California’s justice system is one of the biggest hot messes in the country, highlighting the fact that Harris’s policies were both punitive and unsuccessful at producing better public safety outcomes. They also greatly harmed communities of color.”

On the other hand, one of the liberal news sites hailed Harris as the “most progressive” Attorney General California ever had.

If you’re wondering how someone can be that “progressive” and yet turn her state into a “hot mess” of injustice with policies that punished innocent people, violated civil rights, reduced safety and “greatly harmed communities of color,” then you haven’t been paying much attention to what “progressivism” really means these days.

Reaction to Kamala Harris

August 13, 2020

Here’s a handy list of four things to know about Sen. Kamala Harris, the VP running mate picked by Joe Biden, or whoever picks Joe Biden’s running mates for him these days.

And just to be helpful, here is my pick for the best serious social media comment on Harris.

David Daleiden, who was charged with felonies in California for exposing Planned Parenthood’s body parts business, tweeted, “Kamala Harris is the greatest threat to civil rights our country has ever seen. I know because she had my home raided for speaking the truth about her political patrons at Planned Parenthood.”

…And the second best

…My pick for the most surprising criticism of Harris: some African-American activists are furious that she’s being called “African-American” when she’s actually of Indian and Jamaican heritage:

…And for the funniest, this uncredited Facebook post that claims Stacey Abrams has declared herself Biden’s real running mate and wants to know the procedure for demanding a VP nomination recount.

There are two new books out about the Trump Administration, one by a former White House insider and the other co-written by a black political activist. But before you brace yourself for whatever mud the authors have agreed to peddle for a fat advance, you should know these are not the kind of back-stabbing books we’ve come to expect.

The first is by former Trump Director of Oval Office Operations, Madeleine Westerhout, and it’s called “Off the Record: My Dream Job at the White House, How I Lost It, and What I Learned.” She has some harsh words, but not for Trump. Westerhout saves her criticism for the media, and with good cause. After a dinner at Trump’s golf resort in New Jersey, she had a few drinks with some reporters she thought were her friends and who assured her their conversation was off-the-record. She made some catty jokes about Trump’s daughter Tiffany’s weight and his relationship with his daughters. Of course, the “off the record” comments were immediately reported, and she was quickly invited to resign. She now believes they reported those stories just because they hate Trump so much and want to hurt him in any way they can. She learned the hard way not to trust the media.

Westerhout says her comments weren’t true and it “broke her heart” to hurt Trump and his family. But she has talked to him on the phone twice since and he forgave her, which she says “just goes to show how gracious he is.” In fact, she was surprised to discover that he was nothing like what she expected. And she was hardly a Trump sycophant.

Until she went to work for him, all she knew about him was the horrible things she’d heard in the media, so she hadn’t even voted for him in 2016 (although she stresses that she did not vote for Hillary.) She was surprised to discover that he was nothing like how he had been painted. She says he’s actually a kind and friendly boss, he reads constantly, works very hard, relies heavily on female aides and is very warm toward friends, family and staffers.

Westerhout said one of her goals with her book is to counter the relentless false negative stories about Trump. I wish her luck, although I suspect that’s like trying to put out the Chicago Fire with a flyswatter.

The other new book is called “Coming Home: How Black Americans Will Re-elect Trump.” It’s by African-American conservative political activist Vernon Robinson III and Bruce Eberle of the Eberle Associates political fundraising firm.

They tell a similar story of not supporting Trump at first and only voting for him because he had to be better than Hillary Clinton (Note: he is also much better than Joe Biden.) But they came around after seeing him keep his promises about governing like a real conservative with his judicial appointments, peace through strength, cutting of regulations and more, as well as forcing new trade deals, making our allies pay more for their defense, strengthening border security and other measures that put Americans first.

But the thing that’s unusual about this book is its theory that Trump will win reelection because he’ll get a higher percentage of the black vote than any Republican in a century. Two reasons: he’s actually doing things to help black Americans (sentencing reform, job creation, rising wages, opportunity zones, protecting their churches) and unlike most Republicans, he’s actively appealing to them for their votes and not just letting the Democrats’ false claims that he’s a “racist” define him.

I don’t know if that will win him enough black votes to tip the election, although the Democrats wouldn’t have to lose that many for it to sink them. That’s why they viciously attack any black person who dares to oppose them (i.e., if you don’t vote for Biden, “you ain’t black.”) I know it can be done because when I was Governor of Arkansas, I reached out to the black community, listened to their concerns and worked with them to try to solve some problems. They were skeptical at first (they’d grown up hearing a lot of anti-Republican propaganda), but they eventually realized I was sincere. I’m proud to say that I won reelection with the highest percentage of the black vote of any Arkansas Governor since Reconstruction. But of course, I didn’t have a national media churning out a 24/7/365 river of poison accusing me of being a racist. That’s a lot to have to overcome.

November’s election will present a stark choice for African-Americans. Republicans offer proven policies that make them safer, freer and more prosperous. Democrats offer policies that have failed black communities for decades and are currently making life exponentially worse for them. But they’ve resorted to tokenism by adding a black VP candidate and they’re ramping up the false accusations of racism. I think that the choice is pretty clear. I hope enough black voters agree.

We’ve been looking at Kamala Harris from our own perspective as conservative Trump supporters. But what about those folks on the far left, the so-called “base” of the Democrat Party? Harris has THE MOST liberal record in the Senate of anybody there –- just to the left of Bernie Sanders; I am not kidding –- so you’d think they’d be thrilled with this choice. Think again.

As reported by Matt Vespa at TOWNHALL, leftist reporter Michael Tracey communicated in a series of tweets his utter disdain for this VP pick. Apologies in advance for a little rough language, but it does drive home what he thinks of her.

Vespa’s report reminds us what a major train wreck Harris’s presidential campaign was, leading to her departure from the race even before they had the primary vote in her own home state of California. That's how bad it was.

The tweets from Tracey reveal the problem not only with Harris herself but (perhaps inadvertently) with the entire Democrat Party. Tracey wrote: “Kamala’s past as a hardline prosecutor doesn’t endear her to left-wing voters, and her most recent embrace of an Extremely Online activist rhetorical style doesn’t endear her to “Law and Order” voters. So she’s in a weird political “no man’s land.” Who’s her natural constituency?”

In other words, no matter which way she goes, she alienates a major segment of Democrat voters. I would add that the Biden campaign's thinking may be that Democrats detest Trump so much that they won’t much care. That might be correct, even though what they hate is a wildly distorted abomination, an evil fictional creation, not Trump the real person. The media have done quite an effective job of demonizing him.

For Kamala, all of this is just posturing, anyway, a balancing act to use until the polls close on Election Day. How she “defines herself” during the campaign has little to do with how she’d use power if she really got it, or to whom she would be beholden.

Tracey praised Tulsi Gabbard’s evisceration of Harris at one of the debates, calling the points she made “100 percent substantive and informed by Tulsi’s sincere beliefs on criminal justice policy.” In contrast, he described Kamala’s response as “smearing her [Tulsi] with unrelated nonsense.” As I recall, that’s pretty much how it went down.

We all know who walked away the winner of that contest: Tulsi. If they were going to pick a far-leftist --- Tulsi definitely is one --- who doesn’t shy away from a fight and can beat-down even an experienced prosecuting attorney like Kamala, the congresswoman from Hawaii might have been more of a crowd-pleaser. Then again, she barely registered among Democrats during the primaries.

Anyway, Tracey's anti-Kamala tweets get more and more scathing as you scroll down. Keep in mind that he’s from the far left of the party; it makes perfect sense that one of his criticisms is this: “After all was said and done the Democratic Party donors and professional class got pretty much exactly what it wanted.” And he is right about that --- not just about Harris, but about the strange gap within the current Democrat Party, a gap that perhaps no prospective VP candidate would have been able to bridge.

AOC Is Shocked...

August 12, 2020

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims to be “shocked” to have received an Emmy nomination for “Outstanding News Analysis: Editorial and Opinion” for her part in producing a seven-minute art film promoting her horrendous “Green New Deal.” I am also shocked. Not that she was nominated, but that she’s shocked that she was.

Take a look at the other nominees. They include debunked conspiracy monger Rachel Maddow, Jorge Ramos, CNN and the New York Times. Not a single conservative commentator in the lot. Not even one of those who uncovered the truth about the Russian collusion hoax that the others promulgated for three years.

The Emmy Awards push liberal politics with their nominations and awards, they even push them from the stage during the show, and they’ve pushed so much of the audience away that last year’s show drew the lowest ratings in history.

So, yes, of course, AOC got an Emmy nomination. I’m just shocked that she hasn’t already won an Emmy for her Twitter videos of her making dinner in her apartment.

Scary moment

August 12, 2020

Scary moment at the White House Monday, as President Trump started a press conference, then was immediately escorted out by the Secret Service. Trump soon returned and explained that shots had been fired near the White House, but not on the grounds. Someone had confronted a Secret Service agent, and there was a reported exchange of fire. Both the assailant and the officer were taken to the hospital but their injuries are not life-threatening. A big Huck’s Hero salute to that Secret Service agent.

The group behind “Occupy Wall Street” is planning a 50-day “siege” of the White House until Election Day, and threatening to fill Lafayette Square with tens of thousands of Antifa-type anti-capitalist radicals hashtagging “#revolution” at each other on their Apple iPhones. If they are as smelly and lawless as the previous OWS losers, it could be an excellent incentive to drive Trump voters to the polls. In the meantime, I’m glad to see that the Secret Service is on the job and ready and willing to take whatever measures are necessary to protect the President, his family and the White House.

Must Read: Why Choose Trump

August 12, 2020

I am often challenged as to how a practicing Christian believer and former pastor can support Donald Trump with his many character flaws. First of all, it’s not my place to judge someone else’s character. I’ve also never made it a secret that I find some of the President's language, tweets and behavior to be less reverent than I would like. But God has not sent us any perfect people in the past 2,000 years. When choosing a President, you have to consider more than whether you approve of someone’s personality and temperament. You have to consider what that person will do for (or to) America and the world.

When I look at how President Trump has defended life, religious liberty and Israel, and how he has worked so hard to restore American strength, protect the innocent, end terrorism, and create jobs and rising wages for all Americans – and I compare that to the far-left, job-killing, tax-raising, government-bloating, free speech-destroying, student-indoctrinating, religion-crushing, gender-confusing, crime-condoning, border-erasing, abortion-at-all-stages agenda of the Democrats – it is simply no contest.

Wayne Grudem is a Distinguished Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona, and it’s obvious that he's heard similar arguments about how he can reconcile being an Evangelical Christian with supporting Trump. He’s written a response that is lengthy, but it’s incredibly thoughtful, well-reasoned and persuasive.

I strongly urge you to read it, bookmark it and share it with everyone you can. There are enough Christians in American that if we would just go to the polls and vote for candidates who support our values, there would be a permanent end to the government’s war on people of faith.

There’s only one change I would suggest to Prof. Grudem’s case. When he says today’s Democratic Party would “allow abortion up to the moment of birth,” I would add, “and well beyond.”