EXPOSING Kamala Harris: the moderate facade of a progressive puppet

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

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.\

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.