EXPOSING Kamala Harris: the moderate facade of a progressive puppet

August 19, 2024

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

CEO/Founder

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.\

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep