Victor Davis Hanson
Already, the Harris election team has slipped a bit. It actually let Harris out unguarded for a few moments to offer off-the-cuff remarks on the release of the hostages and inflation. And the result was disastrous.
True to form, she sounds childlike and offers only deer-in-the-headlights embarrassments. She literally cannot be allowed to speak to a real journalist, deviate for a second off her teleprompter, or address anyone extemporaneously.
So, if I were Donald Trump, I would worry that I had only 90 days to expose Kamala Harris as the most leftwing and inept presidential candidate of the modern area. In the fashion of Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama, Harris in normal times advocated the most leftwing policies imaginable, often to prove her liberal purity before adoring audiences (Harris had the hardest left voting record in the U.S. Senate), and then only to run to the center in national elections—and to revert back to the hard left once elected.
So, if I were again Trump, anytime I deviated from that mission—such as commenting needlessly on her annoying cackling, weighing in on her mental ability, referring to her amorous Willie Brown quid pro quo past, or ascertaining her racial DNA—it would be a win for the Left.
Indeed, the Left will do almost anything to consume media time and attention to fixate on the latest Donald Trump cul-de-sac psychodrama—as long as it gives Harris another 24-hr. respite in her massive effort to disguise and erase her radical past, her hard-left current record, and her ultra-progressive future agenda.
Instead, in a debate or interview, I would pose a number of questions to Harris or her surrogates or her media lackeys. And I would provide context, given that leftwing “fact-checkers” are now working overtime to “contextualize” (and smear critics of) all of the Harris incriminating statements and thus explain them away.
Here are ten inquiries for Harris:
- Vice President Harris—you have boasted that you were the “last person in the room” when Joe Biden finalized his plans for the abrupt August 2021 humiliating pullout from Afghanistan. That pullout as you know resulted in abandoning some $50 billion in American munitions to the Taliban.
And you also are on record that you wished to force (“mandate”) Americans who own “assault weapons” (the nature of which was undefined) to sell them to the federal government for assumed destruction. I assume that anyone who refuses would face mandatory confiscation.
But, given such opposition to allowing law-abiding Americans to keep their own purchased semi-automatic weapons, why then did you approve such a reckless withdrawal from Kabul that left in the hands of the terrorist Taliban some 360,000 “assault weapons” (in addition to nearly 65,000 machine guns)?
Are the Taliban more careful custodians of “assault weapons” than American citizens? Why would you confiscate what Americans freely under the Second Amendment purchased but then give away even more deadly versions of such weapons for free to terrorists?
- Given the hyperinflation of your administration that saw Americans paying over $20,000 more for new trucks during your tenure since January 2021, why did you and Biden simply abandon 42,000 late-model trucks to the Taliban (along with over 22,000 Humvees, 8,000 heavy transport trucks, and 1,000 armored vehicles)? When Americans cannot afford to buy a pickup, why does the government give them away to its worst enemies?
The post <span class="ultra-flag"><i class="fas fa-lock"></i>VDH Ultra</span>Ten Questions for Kamala Harris: Part One appeared first on VDH’s Blade of Perseus.
