My Case Against Kamala

Despite two attempts to murder him, multiple civil and criminal trials intended to bankrupt and imprison him, coordinated efforts by the federal government and Silicon Valley to censor him, an unconstitutional attempt to throw him off the ballot in several states, two partisan impeachments, and dozens of fabricated narratives framing him as everything from a white supremacist to a traitor who’s secretly working with Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump has made it to Election Day.

In any other modern presidential election, this wouldn’t be worth remarking on, much less celebrating. But this election is different. For years, the most powerful interests in the country made an unprecedented attempt to prevent today’s vote from taking place. They were unsuccessful. That’s not to say these people don’t have other plans in mind to prevent Donald Trump from returning to the White House. We’ll probably find out what those plans are very soon. But for now, they’re not in charge. Today, voters have the power to hand Trump a decisive victory.

On Monday, I made a straightforward argument for why Donald Trump deserves to win this election. What I didn’t do is explain in depth why Kamala Harris deserves to lose. In part that’s because, regardless of politics, everyone knows the answer to that question. As recently as March of this year, The Washington Post — which basically functions as an arm of the DNC — published an opinion piece entitled, “For the country’s sake, Kamala Harris should step aside.” It made the point that Kamala is extremely unpopular, in addition to being highly unqualified for the vice presidency — much less the presidency. In response to this article, there was no meltdown among the Post’s Left-wing readers. Hundreds of thousands of subscribers didn’t cancel their subscriptions. That’s because even the readers of The Washington Post — some of the most partisan Democrats on the planet — understood that Kamala is indeed a terrible politician.

To the extent that these Democrats are supporting Kamala today, for the most part, their reasoning is pretty clear. Democrats see a vote for Kamala primarily as a vote against Donald Trump. They’ve concocted a parade of horribles that will supposedly happen if Trump is elected, and they see Kamala — as unintelligent and unimpressive as she may be — as a bulwark against that outcome.

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

What they’re actually voting for is something else entirely. A vote for Kamala isn’t simply a vote for passive incompetence. It’s a vote to upend the procedures and systems that this country has had since its founding. These are procedures and systems that haven’t always produced the ideal outcome. But they’ve always provided the framework that’s necessary for self-correcting and improving this country — to get us to the place we are today.

A vote for Kamala is a vote to suspend the First Amendment, to begin a campaign of religious and political persecution, to empower warmongers in the Pentagon and the defense industry, to implement unprecedented price controls and taxes that will cripple the American economy, to further undermine the rule of law, to quash American technological innovation at companies like Tesla and SpaceX, to demonize men (particularly white men), and to double down on deranged procedures like child sex changes, which have ruined so many young lives.

Let’s take these points in turn, beginning with Kamala’s flagrant disregard for free speech.

The last time she ran for president, in 2019, Kamala thought she had a “gotcha” moment during one of the primary debates. You can tell that she rehearsed it, and that she thought she was doing something really profound. But all Kamala actually accomplished was demonstrating that she’s to the Left of Elizabeth Warren on the First Amendment, which is no small feat. Watch:

This went on for several more minutes. Elizabeth Warren kept refusing to take the bait because what Kamala was proposing was obviously insane. She wanted Warren to join her in calling for the censorship of the sitting president of the United States. The pretext was that Trump had supposedly tweeted mean things about Democrats’ attempts to impeach him. And so Kamala wanted Trump to be banned on social media as a result.

This was a recurring theme of Kamala’s 2019 presidential campaign. That same year, she promised to double the number of bureaucrats who would “hold social media platforms accountable.” Watch:

It was moments like this one that led Democrat primary voters to reject Kamala’s entire campaign. By October, Kamala’s poll numbers lagged behind Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders by double digits — even in her own home state of California. 

We all know what happened next. She became Joe Biden’s running mate, because he needed to pick a black woman in the summer of BLM. And when the Biden-Harris administration took power, the social media censorship commenced immediately. The White House press secretary even admitted that the Biden-Harris administration worked with Facebook to censor posts that they deemed to be “misinformation.” Watch:

The Biden-Harris administration didn’t want you to talk about where COVID came from, or whether masks worked, or whether the COVID shot worked, or whether social distancing worked, or whether lockdowns worked. If you did any of those things, then they tried to get you banned on social media, along with Donald Trump. That’s how this kind of crackdown always works. They don’t just target Donald Trump. It begins with him, and then they work their way down.

And that’s exactly what’s been happening. Under the Biden-Harris administration, a 69-year-old woman (and breast cancer survivor) was sentenced to two months in federal prison for the nonviolent offense of “demonstrating, parading or picketing in the U.S. Capitol building.” This is a woman who actually tried to prevent other people from entering the Capitol when she heard that Trump told everyone to go home. She also has gone on the record apologizing for even participating in the protest. But the DOJ threw her in prison anyway — at around the same time the DOJ was dismissing dozens of cases against Antifa rioters who sieged a federal courthouse in Portland. Some of those rioters had allegedly assaulted federal officers, which is a lot more than the elderly grandmother with cancer did. But they were never punished.

Things might’ve been different if — instead of throwing Molotov cocktails and assaulting police officers — those rioters had decided to peacefully pray in front of the courthouse instead. That would’ve been a problem, especially if they obstructed access to the building. And we know that because, under Kamala Harris, the DOJ has gone out of its way to target pro-life demonstrators for peaceful demonstrations at abortion clinics. One of those demonstrators was a 75-year-old woman named Paulette Harlow. She was sentenced to two years in prison for participating in the blockade of a Washington abortion clinic, along with nine other “co-conspirators.” According to court documents, Harlow “sat in the chairs they had placed to obstruct passage into the Clinic’s treatment area and chained and roped themselves together.”

In other words, there was no destruction of property. There was no arson. No one attacked a police officer or vandalized anything. All of those things happened in Portland, and across the country during the BLM riots. But they didn’t happen in this case. All this elderly woman did was block access to an abortion clinic, in violation of a federal law that’s specifically written to protect access to abortion clinics (and only abortion clinics).

But this time around, Kamala Harris’ DOJ didn’t drop the charges, or let this woman go free with a warning. Instead, after the police removed her, Kamala Harris’ DOJ decided to send her to federal prison in order to send a message. And that message is clear: If you riot for Left-wing causes, Kamala Harris will raise bail money for you. She’ll make sure you’re not prosecuted. But if you demonstrate peacefully for pro-life causes, you’ll be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This is often described as “anarcho-tyranny.” It’s the defining aspect of the legal system under Kamala Harris. Laws don’t apply to party loyalists. Meanwhile, tyranny applies to anyone who opposes the party. 

And to be clear, when I say “the party,” I’m talking about a party that’s completely unrecognizable from what it was just a decade ago. Democrats — who once warned about the potential abuses of secret surveillance courts, and who used to call Dick Cheney a Nazi for what he did to Iraq — are now fully onboard with empowering the FBI and waging foreign wars. 

That’s why Tulsi Gabbard and Elon Musk are for Trump, while Kamala Harris is out campaigning with Liz Cheney. A vote for Kamala is a vote for the defense industry and the Pentagon. Inside the Democrat Party, there’s no sense of shame or self-awareness about this.

Instead, they’re talking about promoting Liz Cheney to run the DOJ or the FBI or the CIA if Kamala Harris wins. Watch:

This is what a vote for Kamala would accomplish. There’s a very good chance that Kamala Harris would put a Cheney back in control of the security state and the CIA. And we all know what that would mean. It would mean a lot more money flowing into the defense industry and, inevitably, a lot more warfare. It would be the exact opposite of what we all experienced during four years of Donald Trump in the White House, when we didn’t start any foreign wars — and when we prevented wars from breaking out all over the world.

Donald Trump often likes to say that, when he was in office, he was able to prevent wars by convincing foreign leaders — from Putin to Kim Jong Un — that war wasn’t in their interests. And Democrats often mock him for saying that. But consider the fact that, prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Kamala Harris was dispatched to Europe in an effort to alleviate tensions. We all know how that worked out. And then consider the fact that Kamala Harris isn’t even capable of doing a short, friendly internet show without a script. Imagine what she must be like in front of foreign leaders.

To give just the latest example of this problem: Kamala was recently booked for an internet show called “Subway Takes.” The premise is that the host, a guy named Rahma, interviews a guest about some controversial take they have on a subject. For example, a guest might say that it’s fine to ghost people, and then they’ll go back and forth arguing it out. It’s all very light stuff. It should be impossible to screw it up. But according to the New York Times, somehow, Kamala Harris managed to screw it up.

First, Harris’ team prevented Rahma — who’s a Muslim — from asking any questions about the war in Gaza. Then, when it came time for Harris to defend her “controversial take,” things got even worse:

What happened was a dispute over Harris’s take. Rahma said he had been told that the vice president would be taking a stand against removing one’s shoes on airplanes. When they sat down, however, Harris had surprised him with a different take: “Bacon is a spice.” (Two senior campaign officials said this topic had been raised in advance. Rahma and his manager dispute this.)

Rahma, who doesn’t eat pork for religious reasons, was taken aback. “I don’t know,” he says, in an unpublished video recording of the interview, his voice rising to an unusually high pitch. Harris elaborates that bits of cooked bacon can be used to enhance a meal like any other seasoning. “Think about it, it’s pure flavor,” she says.

Rahma asks Harris if he can use beef or turkey and what kinds of dishes would benefit from bacon. He then pauses the interview and tells her that he doesn’t eat it. He asks if they can do the airplanes take instead. But, on the advice of a staffer, Harris decides to declare her love of anchovies on pizza — an alternative the campaign had floated earlier in an email. Rahma wraps the discussion one minute later.

To be clear, this is not satire. This is an article that was published in a paper that just endorsed Kamala and that is extremely friendly towards her campaign.

To recap: She didn’t want to talk about the war in Gaza, because she might offend someone. So, instead, she tries to convince this Muslim influencer that bacon is a spice that’s “pure flavor.” And then when she realizes that she’s ticked him off, she panics and turns to her staff, who tell her to start talking about maybe the most cliche and boring take imaginable, which is that anchovies go well on pizza. And then the host scrapped the entire interview, and didn’t air it, because it was so unwatchable, dull and fake. Also for the record, bacon is obviously not a spice. It’s a protein. That’s like if someone asks what kind of spice you put in your chili and you say ground beef. It makes no sense.

MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+

Anyway, again, imagine this person sitting across from Vladimir Putin for ten seconds. There isn’t a person on the planet who thinks he’d take her seriously. Nor would he have any reason to take her seriously. 

Of course, Kamala’s inability to string together a coherent thought isn’t just a liability on the international stage. It’s a liability here as well. A few weeks ago, Kamala Harris was asked about how she’d vote on Proposition 36, which is a California ballot initiative that would allow for enhanced sentences for people who commit retail theft or drug crimes. As a voter who’s registered in California — not to mention the Democrats’ nominee for president — it stands to reason that she’d have some opinion on this particular proposal.

At the time, she said she was considering her vote carefully, and she’d have to get back to the reporter. Watch:

Fast forward more than a week, and Kamala Harris was again asked for her position on Proposition 36. Again, this is not a complicated question.

But again, she didn’t answer it. This time, she just refused entirely. Watch:

The word “disqualifying” is thrown around a lot in politics. But if the word applies to anything, it’s this. Kamala Harris is refusing to comment on a Proposition that’s polling extremely well in California because it’s obviously necessary. Specifically, Prop 36 would roll back some criminal justice “reforms” (so called) from a decade ago. It would make it a felony for people with two or more previous theft-related convictions to steal more than $950 from a store. Currently, it’s only a misdemeanor. Additionally, if someone has two or more drug convictions, and then gets charged with possessing fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or meth, then they could be ordered to get treatment under this new Proposition. And if they fail to comply, they can go to prison for up to three years.

These are extremely basic, barebones provisions. The fact that Kamala Harris can’t be bothered to voice support for something so basic is a clear indicator that, if elected, she would allow lawlessness to prevail in major cities across the country. It’s also a sign that she’s completely incapable of answering a question where her answer hasn’t been scripted in advance, which is also disqualifying.

And that’s not even getting into Kamala’s plan to implement price controls on groceries, or to tax unrealized capital gains for the first time in this country’s history. These are proposals that Kamala Harris’ campaign pitched in a document dump on a Friday, but Kamala Harris herself has never actually elaborated on any of them. That’s probably because she has no idea what the implications of any of these policies would be. We’re talking about massive, unprecedented government meddling in the economy — and the president can’t even articulate how she’s going to do it without destroying everything. What happens when the government tells a grocery store what price to charge? What happens to your 401K when the government tells rich people to pull hundreds of billions of dollars out of the markets to pay for some new tax? Kamala Harris has no idea. She’s hoping you don’t mind finding out.

So far, I’ve only been covering Kamala Harris’ stated policy positions in the current campaign. I’ve given her the benefit of the doubt that she’s really reversed all of her positions from a couple of years ago. But we all know that’s not true. We all know she fully supports a ban on fracking, mandatory gun confiscation, defunding police departments, opening the border and decriminalizing border crossings, eliminating private health insurance, permitting child mutilation in the name of “gender affirming care,” and so on. But even if you pretend that Kamala Harris doesn’t believe any of this anymore — even if you choose to look only at the policy positions she’s gone out of her way to promote in the last couple of months — she’s still the single most radical and incompetent presidential candidate in modern history.

This is the closing argument against Kamala Harris. Even Democrats know that everything I just said is accurate. The only question left is whether Democrat voters simply don’t care. These people know Donald Trump isn’t calling for a national abortion ban. They know he didn’t praise white supremacists, and they know he didn’t say Liz Cheney should be shot. Those are all pretexts. The question is whether this woman, who nobody really likes and nobody really believes in, will end up becoming the most powerful person in the world anyway. I feel confident that the answer will be no. But very soon, we’ll know for sure.