Kamala Harris Is Far Worse Than Hillary Clinton

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Indeed so, she'd be a total disaster

Making someone as extreme as Kamala Harris a president-in-waiting is a bone-chilling prospect. No conservative or moderate should support it. I part company with some of my colleagues in that I don’t find Kamala Harris personally irritating. She’s attractive, youthful (she looks 15 years younger than her actual age, which is 55), and presentable. Her voice is neither a hectoring Midwestern drone (like Hillary Clinton’s) nor does it have the prissy professorial condescension of Elizabeth Warren’s. Her voice is fine, albeit a bit nasal.

It’s Harris’s policies that repel me. While I tend to view “Flight 93” thinking as hyperbolic, she does present a major threat to the constitutional order, to the economy, and to established norms. Moreover, she stands an excellent chance of succeeding Biden to the presidency should their ticket be elected in November. Kamala Harris poses a far greater danger to the Republic than Hillary Clinton. Anyone who calls himself a conservative should recognize this.

Harris’s platform is so far to the left of the mainstream that she makes Mrs. Clinton, a hero to the Left for several decades, look moderate. Clinton, for instance, said that illegal immigrants should be allowed to purchase health insurance on the Obamacare exchanges but without subsidies, which is Joe Biden’s position (according to his platform, though Biden himself often seems confused about this when publicly discussing the issue). Kamala Harris backs a single-payer federal health-care plan and did not equivocate when asked whether illegal immigrants would be covered: “Let me just be very clear about this. I am opposed to any policy that would deny in our country any human being from access to public safety, public education or public health, period.” This would mark an end to the distinction between people who are here legally and illegally and would signal to the world’s poor that it’s time to make their break for the United States. Harris also compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to the Ku Klux Klan and said we should decriminalize unauthorized border crossings. (“I would not make it a crime punishable by jail. It should be a civil enforcement issue but not a criminal enforcement issue.”)

So: a parking ticket for coming in illegally? How is that to be seen as anything other than an engraved invitation to would-be migrants? In a Senate hearing, Harris suggested ICE should be more of a welcome wagon than an enforcement agency: “Are you aware,” she said to Ronald Vitiello, acting director of ICE, “that there is a perception that ICE is administering its power in a way that is causing fear and intimidation, particularly among immigrants? And specifically among immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America?” Neither the culture nor the federal fisc is prepared for the massive disruption likely to be unleashed if an American president so encourages illegal migration. Way back in 1994, when the Democratic Party was still concerned with what the center of the country thought and felt, Mrs. Clinton said in a House hearing that her Hillarycare plan would not be available to illegal entrants: “We do not want to do anything to encourage more illegal immigration into this country,” she said, adding that “we know now that too many people come in for medical care, as it is.”

Kamala Harris laughed uproariously at Joe Biden’s suggestion that a president is constrained by the Constitution from ruling by executive fiat. This clip ought to nauseate any constitutionalist: Even Hillary Clinton would not have gone so far as to treat the Constitution as a joke. Harris, moreover, has the most extreme position on abortion imaginable. And when an undercover journalist, David Daleiden, made the abortion lobby look bad by accurately exposing the inner doings of Planned Parenthood executives, she brought the full force of the state down on his head, raiding his home and launching a vendetta that would result in nine felony charges against him. Former Obama speechwriter and leftist pundit Jon Favreau calls it “hilarious” that anyone thinks Harris is a moderate because “she has one of the most liberal records in the U.S. Senate.”

And as a senator, she fully backed the Green New Deal, which is so important to her that she would destroy the filibuster tradition to enact it. This is a breathtakingly extreme piece of legislation that aims to rewire the U.S. economy along social-justice lines. Harris would end fracking and quickly zero out carbon-based fuels, leading to catastrophic energy-price hikes and dizzying costs. One aspect of the proposal, to convert the 83 percent of the U.S. energy supply that is carbon-based to renewables, would cost $2.9 trillion all by itself — nearly a full year’s federal tax revenue. The cost of the whole package is estimated at anywhere from $18 trillion to $93 trillion — enormous sums that would require comparably enormous tax hikes. That a President Harris would ram this disastrous bill through with only 50 Senate votes (plus, presumably, a tie-breaking vote from her own vice president) is more alarming than anything Hillary Clinton ever proposed.

The Democrats’ guiding strategic precept is: Never let a crisis go to waste. In their minds, the personality and behavior of Donald Trump constitute a crisis, and they may find broad agreement on that point from the electorate. But Biden’s selection of Harris indicates that the party is prepared to overstep any mandate it receives yet again, as it did in 2009–2010, the period of unasked-for Democratic hyperactivity that led to the election of a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate and the famous “shellacking” in the midterms. Making someone as extreme as Kamala Harris a president-in-waiting is a bone-chilling prospect. No conservative or moderate should fail to recognize the danger.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/kamala-harris-far-worse-than-hillary-clinton/
 
Is that a serious question or are you 'aving a laugh?

Nope. A serious question. According to you, if Hillary was elected. it would have been a mess. So your unasked question is will Kamala be worse than Hillary if Biden wins?

What do you think will happen if Biden is elected?
 
Where to start?

Which one do you prefer?

15025996.jpg
 
Which one do you prefer?

This, just for starters!

Kamala Harris’s Fracking Record Scares Big Oil But Attracts the Left

Less than two hours after Kamala Harris was named Joe Biden’s running mate, President Donald Trump had cast the California Democrat as an oil industry and fracking foe.


“She is against fracking. She’s against petroleum products,” Trump said at a White House news conference Tuesday. “I mean, how do you do that and go into Pennsylvania or Ohio or Oklahoma or the great state of Texas? She’s against fracking. Fracking’s a big deal.”
It’s a line Trump will surely use again and again against Harris, the former California attorney general who has vowed to fight the fossil fuel industry in court, embraced the Green New Deal and last September said there was “no question” she’d ban hydraulic fracturing. But the criticism may have limited appeal beyond Trump’s political base and is likely to boost enthusiasm for the Democratic ticket among progressive voters.
Harris’s positions on the issue put her to the left of Biden, who has made clear he would not seek an outright ban on fracking, which could only be imposed through congressional action. Nevertheless, Harris and Biden have both promised to curtail oil and gas development on federal lands and waters managed by the U.S. government. And a senior campaign official reiterated last month that Biden would block new fracking on federal lands.
The “fracking” technique is used to coax oil and gas out of some 95% of U.S. wells today, and Trump has been touting his support for the industry as he campaigns for a second term in Pennsylvania and other swing states.

Biden’s energy agenda was already “setting up to be the greenest in U.S. history,” but adding Harris to the ticket signals the Biden administration would “aggressively” pursue its policy goals, ClearView Energy Partners said in a research note to clients.

Some oil industry figures already fearful of Biden’s environmental agenda worry Harris would bolster his resolve to combat climate change and stifle fossil fuel development, including through regulations making them more expensive to produce. But industry advocates plan to emphasize the importance of oil and gas as an engine driving the U.S. economy and critical to its post-pandemic recovery.

“The oil and gas industry represents about 8% of the American economy,” and is “a very important component of our recovery,” American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers said by phone. “The world looks a lot different behind the desk in the Oval Office than it does on the campaign trail, and we’re an industry that represents 10 million American workers and will be a key part of that recovery.”

The oil and gas industry faces significant headwinds, not least from the historic drop in demand caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Gas companies seeking to build new pipelines have been stymied in court recently, and some economists have argued a more effective recovery plan would involve green-friendly policies. As California attorney general, Harris filed lawsuits against Phillips 66, ConocoPhillips and other oil companies for alleged environmental violations. Her office secured criminal indictments against Plains All American Pipeline LP for a 2015 spill in Santa Barbara, California, which resulted in convictions in 2018, after Harris was elected to the Senate.

Harris also has a history of tangling with oil refiners that have operations in California -- a pugilistic approach that could add heft to Biden’s threat to target fossil fuel executives and “put them in jail.” For instance, Harris opposed Chevron Corp.’s planned expansion of a refinery in Richmond on grounds it risked accidents and would exacerbate climate change. And Harris criticized a bid by Valero Energy Corp. to receive rail shipments of crude at its Benecia refinery, emphasizing the risk for spills and explosions along an expected Northern California route.

Nevertheless, some environmental activists have complained Harris didn’t do enough to pursue oil companies for misleading the public on the risks of climate change. Though Harris’ office was reported to have investigated Exxon Mobil Corp. on climate accusations, it never filed a suit -- an approach later pursued by other attorneys general in Massachusetts and New York. Harris has since been supportive of the efforts and last year joined other senators in an amicus brief supporting a climate lawsuit against oil companies by San Francisco and Oakland.

“Her activity on climate change litigation will continue to drive away the energy industry,” said Kathleen Sgamma, head of the Western Energy Alliance that represents oil producers. “While most of that work is rhetoric, her accusations against an industry that provides 70% of the energy Americans use every day belies the narrative that Biden/Harris would govern in a moderate way.”

Harris was one of three dozen Democratic lawmakers who in May backed an effort by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to shut down the Dakota Access crude oil pipeline, which was greenlighted by Trump in his first few days in office but has since had a major permit vacated by a federal court.

The company behind the project, billionaire Trump donor Kelcy Warren’s Energy Transfer LP, is seeking to continue operating the line while a more robust review is conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. But policy analysts have warned that the November election remains a serious overhang for Dakota Access.
Harris would bring “a prosecutor’s zeal for confrontation” to Biden’s climate agenda, said Dan Eberhart, a Trump donor and chief executive of drilling services company Canary Drilling Services LLC.

“She has a distorted view of capitalism that is interventionist in nature,” Eberhart said by email. “That’s going to result in more government interference, more regulation and more conflicts with energy producers who don’t produce the right type of energy, at least according to Harris.”

Analysts warned against overstating Harris’ influence on oil and environmental policy. If elected, Biden would face pressures to emphasize other policy proposals first and could expect resistance from moderate Democrats in the Senate. “I understand why the environmentalists will be happy because she’ll be at the table, but it’s important not to draw too much from this,” BloombergNEF’s Ethan Zindler said in an interview. “She’ll be one powerful voice influencing the administration, but not the ultimate one.”

— With assistance by Brian Eckhouse, Chris Martin, Rachel Adams-Heard, and Eric Roston


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...g-record-spooks-big-oil-but-attracts-the-left
 
Last edited:
as a senator, she fully backed the Green New Deal, which is so important to her that she would destroy the filibuster

This is a breathtakingly extreme piece of legislation that aims to rewire the U.S. economy along social-justice lines. Harris would end fracking and quickly zero out carbon-based fuels, leading to catastrophic energy-price hikes and dizzying costs.
 
as a senator, she fully backed the Green New Deal, which is so important to her that she would destroy the filibuster

This is a breathtakingly extreme piece of legislation that aims to rewire the U.S. economy along social-justice lines. Harris would end fracking and quickly zero out carbon-based fuels, leading to catastrophic energy-price hikes and dizzying costs.

This doesn't just affect the US but the price of oil worldwide. It's bloody hopeless trying to get these pig ignorant buggers on here to understand that!
 
Back
Top