EXPOSING Kamala Harris: the moderate facade of a progressive puppet

August 19, 2024

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

CEO/Founder

The spin specialists in the campaign and the media are working overtime to convince America that she’s 'just like you.' She is not.

The progressive-socialist-globalist cabal has selected Kamala Harris as its puppet of choice to usher in the new world order, and the elites are trying everything in their power to convince you that she’s a moderate. Do not fall for it.

This is the same Kamala Harris who did so terribly in the 2020 presidential race that she had to drop out a month before the Iowa caucuses without ever earning a single pledged delegate. But in their current pecking order, it’s her turn. She has the proper left-wing extremist record, and more importantly, she’s a compliant team player with the cabal.

In the aftermath of the 2020 George Floyd riots, Harris used every possible euphemism for “defunding the police” without saying the word “defund.”

The Democratic Party’s showrunners know they’ve got time to figure out how to spin Kamala’s extremism because the mainstream media is doing all the smoke and mirrors work for them. White House officials recently told Politico that Harris’ reputation as a far-left-wing crusader is an unfair holdover from positions she took when she ran for president in 2019. They say those positions don’t really represent who she is. One senior White House official said, “That [2020] primary was a distorting experience for a lot of people.”

Politico just accepted that and moved on instead of asking the obvious question: Does this mean Harris was simply lying about everything during that campaign?

During those debates and primaries four years ago, Harris clearly favored decriminalizing border crossings and even providing illegal aliens with taxpayer-funded health care.

She sponsored the No Ban Act, which would have limited the president’s ability to keep specific immigrants from entering the United States. It’s clear that Harris had a very left-wing position on immigration that would have essentially established complete open borders.

Then she became vice president and Biden dumped the job on her that no one wanted: trying to figure out what to do about the border. She royally failed that assignment. That’s not my assessment — though I agree with it. That was the official assessment of Numbers USA, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that monitors border security policies and grades members of Congress on their immigration voting. They gave Harris an F-minus.

It has now been two and a half years since Harris’ last visit to the border. During the Biden-Harris administration, at least 7.3 million illegal immigrants have been allowed into the country. Meanwhile, according to a recent House Judiciary Committee report:

Under the Biden-Harris administration, of the more than 250 illegal aliens on the terrorist watch list who were encountered by Border Patrol at the southwest border between fiscal years 2021 and 2023, DHS has released into American communities at least 99, with at least 34 others in DHS custody but not yet removed from the United States.

The report found that Border Patrol has encountered migrants on the terror watch list from 36 different countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, but soon as Harris took over Biden’s campaign, the media went into damage control mode for her on the border issue — to the point of trying to convince us she was never really Biden’s border czar. It is such blatant gaslighting because it’s so easy to disprove, yet the media did it anyway.

Nowhere near the center

Of course, running interference for Kamala Harris is not new. The media did the same thing in 2020 when Joe Biden announced Harris as his running mate. George Stephanopoulos said, “Harris comes from the middle of the road.” The Los Angeles Times called her “centrist.” The New York Times called her a “pragmatic moderate.” But the Washington Post took the cake, calling her a “small-c conservative.”

Here are Kamala Harris’ true colors. According to GovTrack, Harris’ Senate record was to the left of socialist Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). GovTrack also found that Harris joined bipartisan bills the least often compared to other Senate Democrats. Harris and the media may not want you to know what her positions and agenda truly are, but there is the historical record.

She was the first senator to co-sponsor Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All bill to end private health insurance. In the aftermath of the 2020 George Floyd riots, Harris used every possible euphemism for “defunding the police” without saying the word defund, but everyone knew what she meant. Harris went on to co-sponsor the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020, which would have limited legal protections for police officers.

In 2004, when Harris was district attorney of San Francisco, she refused to pursue the death penalty against the man who murdered a San Francisco police officer. At the officer’s funeral, then-Senator Dianne Feinstein gave a eulogy during which she criticized Harris, who was in attendance, and hundreds of police officers gave a standing ovation in agreement. You must be an extremist when Dianne Feinstein of all people slaps you for being too far left on an issue.

Harris was a “proud” original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal in the Senate, the most authoritarian legislation in U.S. history. She co-sponsored a bill to ban oil exploration across 1.5 million acres of federal land. She has made “environmental justice” a central part of her climate plans for America. She sponsored legislation to set up a committee exploring reparation payments for black Americans. She is against voter ID requirements. She wants to pack the Supreme Court and eliminate the Senate filibuster.

She bragged about gaining access to gender reassignment surgeries for California prison inmates when she was the state attorney general. She champions the Equality Act, which would allow men to compete in women’s sports.

Abortion-obsessed

And she is borderline obsessed with abortion. She has attacked crisis pregnancy centers as vice president, calling the free help they offer women “predatory practices.” As a senator, she voted twice against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. In March, she became the first sitting vice president to visit and celebrate a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic as part of her “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour.

According to new reporting by the Daily Signal, when Harris was California’s attorney general, she had the home of pro-life journalist David Daleiden raided by state Justice Department agents who seized video evidence that potentially incriminated employees of Planned Parenthood. Why? Because Daleiden had recorded undercover conversations with these employees in which they allegedly discussed selling body parts of aborted babies. According to this Daily Signal report, the raid on Daleiden’s home happened just two weeks after Planned Parenthood officials had a meeting with Harris. Daleiden’s attorney, Steve Cooley, said:

There’s no doubt in my mind that Kamala Harris, as attorney general, personally ordered the raid on David Daleiden’s home. This was an effort to seize the videotapes that Mr. Daleiden had made during the course of his investigation. That was the primary purpose of that raid, to basically suppress his activities with respect to exposing the illegal sale of fetal body parts.

He later added, “I think a Kamala Harris presidency would be incredibly dangerous for civil rights.”

Kamala Harris is no moderate. The spin specialists in her campaign and in the media are working overtime to convince America that she is moderate and relatable to regular Americans. They’re trying to convince you that she’s “just like you.” She is not. You find out who politicians really are by what they do, how they vote, what legislation they support. You find out what their real priorities are by who they spend time with and the places they visit.

Harris’ record could not be clearer. She has never called herself a socialist, as far as my research team can find, but her record screams socialist. This is who she is. She has been immersed in America’s far-left subculture, an identity she fully embraces.\

These ‘conservative’ Glenn Beck critics are now supporting Kamala Harris

Drew Angerer / Staff, NBC NewsWire / Contributor, NBC NewsWire / Contributor | Getty Images

There’s a certain irony in how some of the loudest critics of Glenn Beck within the conservative ranks have now thrown their support behind Kamala Harris, a figure whose politics stand in stark contrast to the values they once claimed to uphold. Let's take a look back at these self-proclaimed guardians of conservatism, who once claimed Glenn Beck was a threat to the conservative movement, but are now backing the most far-left, radical candidate the Democrats have ever produced.

Adam Kinzinger

Adam Kinzinger was elected in 2010 as a Tea Party conservative, riding the wave of anti-establishment sentiment that defined the movement. However, by 2013, he was already distancing himself from the principles that got him elected. Criticizing Glenn Beck for labeling him a RINO, Kinzinger said, "The perception is, if you do one thing out of line with what is considered hard-core conservatism, or what Glenn Beck says or what Mark Levin says, then you are a RINO." Now, he’s taken his political shift to the extreme, endorsing Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention and praising her as a defender of democracy—all while claiming to be a Republican and a conservative.

Bill Kristol

Bill Kristol’s flip-flop is even more astounding. Kristol, who once took it upon himself to attack Beck for his warnings about radical Islam and creeping authoritarianism, now finds himself on the same side as Kamala Harris. Kristol’s past criticisms of Beck, comparing him to fringe elements like the John Birch Society, now ring hollow as Kristol himself becomes an apologist for the far left. His endorsement of Harris shows that his commitment was never to conservatism but to whatever political winds would keep him in the spotlight.

Jennifer Rubin

Jennifer Rubin is a prime example of how establishment figures at outlets like The Washington Post have masqueraded as conservatives while working to undermine genuine conservative voices. Rubin, who once criticized Beck by saying, "Rather than reflexively rising to his defense when questioned about Beck, why don’t conservatives call him out and explain that he doesn’t represent the views of mainstream conservatives?" was never truly aligned with conservative values. Her columns have consistently pushed establishment narratives, and now they read like PR pieces for the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to Kamala Harris. Rubin’s journey from supposed conservative commentator to one of the Biden administration’s staunchest defenders shows that her critiques of Beck were always about protecting her place within the Washington elite, not about upholding any real conservative principles.

Kinzinger, Kristol, and Rubin once posed as guardians of conservatism, warning about the supposed dangers of Glenn Beck. Now, they’ve endorsed Kamala Harris, a candidate whose policies are anathema to conservatism. Their criticisms of Beck were never about protecting conservative values—they were about steering the party back under their control. But the real target wasn’t just Beck; it was the audience he represents—everyday conservatives who challenge the status quo. These insiders have always seen that base as the real threat, and their actions make it clear who they were really trying to sideline.

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison)

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Glenn's Show Prep