Not that long ago, the idea of Kamala Harris becoming the next president of the United States seemed laughable, even delusional. But things have changed. Not only is she competing with and outperforming Donald Trump in some polls, but the vice president also has the backing of the Obamas.
On Friday, July 26, Barack and Michelle Obama endorsed the vice president. "At a time when the stakes have never been higher, she gives us all reason to hope," they said.
On the contrary, Harris gives us all reason for concern.
First, her public image as an advocate for racial equality sharply contrasts with her track record, particularly on criminal justice issues. Her resistance to the early release of non-violent offenders—despite her supposed commitment to reform—reveals a disconnect between her rhetoric and her actions.
Not only is she disingenuous, Harris doesn't appear to take her role as vice president seriously. In 2020, she was tasked with managing the southern border. Admittedly, this is a challenging and often thankless role, particularly given the scale of what many consider the nation's largest crisis. However, it seems she has shown next to no actual interest in addressing the issue. As Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens recently noted, Harris has not reached out to him since his appointment in July 2023. Think about that for a second. While countless migrants were entering the country illegally, Harris couldn't even be bothered to make a phone call to Owens.
America First Legal, a nonprofit organization founded by Stephen Miller, who was a senior advisor to Donald Trump during his presidency, is currently conducting seven investigations into her tenure as California attorney general. During her time as AG, Harris actively obstructed the enforcement of federal immigration policies. She defended San Francisco's sanctuary-city ordinance and opposed California's participation in the Secure Communities program, which facilitated ICE in deporting illegals with criminal records from local communities. Additionally, America First Legal is investigating whether Harris deliberately ignored or concealed misconduct by prosecutors under her oversight, as well as potential wrongdoing by her close political aides.
But, wait, there's more.
A Harris presidency wouldn't just harm America; it would harm the world.
That's because her track record reveals a penchant for divisive politics and an unwavering commitment to military escalation. Behind the mortifying memes and cringeworthy TikToks, Harris is an absolute war hawk.
The 59-year-old's political career reveals a consistent pattern of aggressive militarism and a relentless drive to expand U.S. military influence worldwide. As The Washington Post previously reported, those who know Harris well describe her as a "Truman Democrat," acknowledging her readiness to leverage military power in the service of advancing American values and interests.
Truman played a key role in shaping the modern national security apparatus. Under his administration, the Central Intelligence Agency was established, and the War Department was restructured into the Department of Defense. This led to the establishment of the surveillance state and the orchestration of numerous coups worldwide. Since then, things have gotten progressively worse. In the contemporary geopolitical landscape, such an approach carries significant risks, particularly concerning major powers like China and Russia. The escalation of interventionist policies might heighten global tensions, bringing the world closer to World War III.
In these sensitive times, skilled diplomacy is essential—yet another area in which Harris is notably deficient.
This was on full display when she visited the Philippines in 2022. Over a three-day period, the vice president extolled the virtues of U.S. defense commitments to the Philippines while simultaneously issuing thinly veiled threats against China. Her rhetoric not only reinforced America's military presence in the region but also underscored her readiness to escalate tensions with a rival superpower, if needed.
Moreover, Harris has pledged to support Ukraine for "as long as it takes." In other words, she plans to continue funneling exorbitant sums of money into a fundamentally corrupt nation that stands no chance of winning the war with Russia. Such a feckless approach heightens the risk of nuclear conflict, dragging the world closer to an unprecedented catastrophe. Her policies and public declarations reveal a blind commitment to heightening global risks. Harris is problematic, not pragmatic.
In stark contrast, Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, offer the possibility of a very different approach. They advocate for policies focused on reducing U.S. military engagement worldwide and de-escalating ongoing conflicts. Don't let Harris' smile and social media persona fool you. She is a hawk with an insatiable appetite for conflict. Voting for her in November would essentially endorse more carnage and suffering. The race between Trump and Harris is not simply a contest of genders but a crucial decision between dropping bombs and defusing them.
On Friday, July 26, Barack and Michelle Obama endorsed the vice president. "At a time when the stakes have never been higher, she gives us all reason to hope," they said.
On the contrary, Harris gives us all reason for concern.
First, her public image as an advocate for racial equality sharply contrasts with her track record, particularly on criminal justice issues. Her resistance to the early release of non-violent offenders—despite her supposed commitment to reform—reveals a disconnect between her rhetoric and her actions.
Not only is she disingenuous, Harris doesn't appear to take her role as vice president seriously. In 2020, she was tasked with managing the southern border. Admittedly, this is a challenging and often thankless role, particularly given the scale of what many consider the nation's largest crisis. However, it seems she has shown next to no actual interest in addressing the issue. As Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens recently noted, Harris has not reached out to him since his appointment in July 2023. Think about that for a second. While countless migrants were entering the country illegally, Harris couldn't even be bothered to make a phone call to Owens.
America First Legal, a nonprofit organization founded by Stephen Miller, who was a senior advisor to Donald Trump during his presidency, is currently conducting seven investigations into her tenure as California attorney general. During her time as AG, Harris actively obstructed the enforcement of federal immigration policies. She defended San Francisco's sanctuary-city ordinance and opposed California's participation in the Secure Communities program, which facilitated ICE in deporting illegals with criminal records from local communities. Additionally, America First Legal is investigating whether Harris deliberately ignored or concealed misconduct by prosecutors under her oversight, as well as potential wrongdoing by her close political aides.
But, wait, there's more.
A Harris presidency wouldn't just harm America; it would harm the world.
That's because her track record reveals a penchant for divisive politics and an unwavering commitment to military escalation. Behind the mortifying memes and cringeworthy TikToks, Harris is an absolute war hawk.
The 59-year-old's political career reveals a consistent pattern of aggressive militarism and a relentless drive to expand U.S. military influence worldwide. As The Washington Post previously reported, those who know Harris well describe her as a "Truman Democrat," acknowledging her readiness to leverage military power in the service of advancing American values and interests.
Truman played a key role in shaping the modern national security apparatus. Under his administration, the Central Intelligence Agency was established, and the War Department was restructured into the Department of Defense. This led to the establishment of the surveillance state and the orchestration of numerous coups worldwide. Since then, things have gotten progressively worse. In the contemporary geopolitical landscape, such an approach carries significant risks, particularly concerning major powers like China and Russia. The escalation of interventionist policies might heighten global tensions, bringing the world closer to World War III.
In these sensitive times, skilled diplomacy is essential—yet another area in which Harris is notably deficient.
This was on full display when she visited the Philippines in 2022. Over a three-day period, the vice president extolled the virtues of U.S. defense commitments to the Philippines while simultaneously issuing thinly veiled threats against China. Her rhetoric not only reinforced America's military presence in the region but also underscored her readiness to escalate tensions with a rival superpower, if needed.
Moreover, Harris has pledged to support Ukraine for "as long as it takes." In other words, she plans to continue funneling exorbitant sums of money into a fundamentally corrupt nation that stands no chance of winning the war with Russia. Such a feckless approach heightens the risk of nuclear conflict, dragging the world closer to an unprecedented catastrophe. Her policies and public declarations reveal a blind commitment to heightening global risks. Harris is problematic, not pragmatic.
In stark contrast, Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, offer the possibility of a very different approach. They advocate for policies focused on reducing U.S. military engagement worldwide and de-escalating ongoing conflicts. Don't let Harris' smile and social media persona fool you. She is a hawk with an insatiable appetite for conflict. Voting for her in November would essentially endorse more carnage and suffering. The race between Trump and Harris is not simply a contest of genders but a crucial decision between dropping bombs and defusing them.
