Like Her Campaign, Kamala’s 2024 Platform Is Largely About Nothing
Harris is running a 'vibes' campaign that focuses more on her personality than on her (very radical) policies.
Kamala Harris has been less than forthcoming about what she would do if elected president. Democrats and her boosters in the liberal media apparently believe that when it comes to cluing Americans in on what exactly they might be voting for, less is more — and have now said so publicly.
Although it has been several weeks since President Joe Biden was unceremoniously retired from the race, his replacement's campaign website remains devoid of a policy agenda. Rather than detail what Harris stands for, the site merely notes where she has stood, adding only, "She will make sure the doors of opportunity are wide open for all to follow."
While the Harris campaign has highlighted the vice president's record, that record effectively belongs to a candidate who no longer exists. After all, the New York Post noted that Harris has reversed her stances on health care and energy issues in recent weeks and has gone so far as to re-imagine herself as tough on the border, abandoning her pledge to decriminalize illegal border crossing.
It is difficult to discern amid her many flip-flops what she still stands for apart from expanding abortion access, adopting President Donald Trump's policy of eliminating federal income taxes on tips, giving $25,000 taxpayer-funded handouts to first-time homeowners, and slapping Americans with various new taxes, including a tax on unrealized gains.
Michigan Rep. Dan Kildee (D) recently let the cat out of the bag, intimating to CNN that policy is irrelevant and that the election is ultimately just a personality contest.
'I don't think there's a real, strong reason for her to try and weed out any points of view.'
"I actually think the way the American people think about this choice is less about the minutiae of policy and more about the direction of the country, number one, and secondly, about the person. Character, it does matter," said Kildee.
"If it turns on character, this election is over. That's what people are looking for," added Kildee.
"This election will clearly be won or lost on vibes, and Democrats right now are winning in the vibes department after the DNC," claimed a Democratic aide. "We don't need to focus on the nitty gritty. Right now we just need to focus on winning."
Rep. Annie Kuster (D-N.H.), the chairwoman of the New Democrat Coalition, told CNN that Harris "doesn't need to negotiate against herself."
"You know, we've got the biggest possible tent right now," said Kuster. "I don't think there's a real strong reason for her to try and weed out any points of view right now."
Georgia Rep. Nikema Williams (D) said, "What I'm hearing from voters is they're looking for that candidate to bring us together. I haven't heard from many voters looking for white papers and policy papers."
Techno Fog indicated in a recent op-ed for Align that:
She is known, weighed down by the policies and mistakes of the Biden administration: inflation, lagging wages and a slowing labor market, the Afghanistan withdrawal, illegal immigration, the wars in Ukraine and Israel. She has zero significant achievements as vice president.
It may be a losing game to distinguish herself from her shared failures with Biden. By instead remaining silent on questions of policy, Techno Fog indicated Harris can instead "campaign on platitudes: diversity and liberalism, freedom, democracy, whatever."
By conveying "joy" and good "vibes" rather than detailing possible shifts in policy, Paul Gottfried indicated last month Harris also avoids alienating "her radical left, woke base, which adores those positions she's held over the years."
According to Politico, Harris' ambiguity on policy prescriptions is part of her "secret power" — namely that "she is whatever you want her to be."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Agenda 2030 is like a perfectly wrapped, enticing present with trash on the inside. It is presented as a humanitarian effort to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure peace, but what’s underneath that guise is the sinister intention to depopulate the earth and violate virtually all human rights via totalitarian control.
In order to fight back against Agenda 2030, which the Biden Administration openly supports, here are three practical things you can do, according to documentarian and Epoch Times reporter Roman Balmakov:
“When the government comes to you and says, ‘Hey, that's a nice piece of land you got there; it would be nice if we put a conservation easement on it, and we'll give you a tax break,’ you don't accept it because … what happens is you become a part of this federal nexus, and once you're accepting federal dollars, you're beholden to a lot of other rules and regulations,” Roman tells Pat Gray.
The second tip is to “watch ‘No Farmers, No Food,”’ Balmokov’s documentary that teaches people to see beyond what politicians are touting regarding Agenda 2030. While their words may “sounds nice on paper … underneath the science probably doesn't back it up, [and] it's part of this agenda to actually take over 30% of the land.”
Finally, “be extremely critical and vote accordingly to what these politicians are saying,” says Balmakov.
“And probably go to your local meetings” to understand how these initiatives are “being implemented in your local towns and counties,” adds Keith Malinak.
“It really all comes down to the same thing – more government control … of our families and our kids’ lives,” says Balmakov.
To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
First, it was called Agenda 21. Then, it became Agenda 2030. Then, that turned into 30 by 30, and now the Biden Administration has renamed it yet again to the America the Beautiful initiative.
Regardless of what fancy name they assign it, the plan is still a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Documentarian and Epoch Times reporter Roman Balmakov joins Pat Gray to discuss the harrowing reality of how the government is using local powers to control what you eat by destroying farms.
“Can you give us an example, Roman, of how this is already being put into action?” asks Pat.
“I think it was six days after Biden took office he instituted the agenda 30 by 30,” explains Balmakov, “[which is] the federal government's plan to put 30% of America's land into conservation by the year 2030. That's the plan that was recently rebranded to America the Beautiful.”
“They use the existing laws in the books” including, “the Waters of the U.S Act, ... the Endangered Species Act, ... the ability for the president to set up national monuments, ... [and] something known as conservation easements” in order to “lock up this land,” continues Balmakov.
“This has serious consequences, giving this kind of authority to governments over your food,” says Keith Malinak.
“That's one of the things that I really am hoping to achieve with this documentary,” says Balmakov in reference to his new documentary, “No Farmers No Food,” which seeks to “lift the veil of all these acronyms and all these obscure and arcane sounding names that obfuscate what's really happening.”
Balmakov explains that too many people have been tricked by the media into “taking the side ... of the environmental policies,” but they don’t understand what that means for the future of food production.
To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.
A number of recent articles on Black Lives Matter raise questions about how the group’s leaders have spent more than $60 million in donations.
Stories about fiscal mismanagement make for good social media fodder, but the much bigger lesson to be learned from the downfall of BLM is the ease with which radical activists preyed on the emotions of weak leaders and a sympathetic public to execute a self-serving, destructive agenda.
To paraphrase a powerful scene from the movie “Malcolm X,” “We’ve been had, we’ve been took, we’ve been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok.”
We allowed committed ideologues to use America’s painful racial history and small number of high-profile deaths to transform our society and upend our civil order. Elected officials, academics, journalists, athletes, and leaders in big business justified stealing, toppling monuments, burning buildings, and harassing diners in the name of an alleged “racial reckoning.”
Our leaders wanted to tie themselves to a popular movement, but none of them seemed to realize the final destination. Mayors of large cities joined with radicals who characterized the police as agents of systemic racism. Some commissioned “Black Lives Matter” murals to be painted on city streets, although never in the neighborhoods where black people were getting gunned down on a nightly basis.
It was all good until the people walking in lockstep with radicals got mugged by reality. Homicides rose by 30% between 2019 and 2020, the largest increase in a single year ever recorded. Countless videos show criminals robbing pharmacies, clothing stores, and cargo trains.
Some of the same people who demanded we “reimagine” a new world with fewer cops and more social services had to abandon their utopian dreams in order to deal with the chaos and disorder they helped to unleash.
In many ways, the rise and fall of BLM started with the left’s elevation of Colin Kaepernick from mere quarterback to black liberation icon. The problem with the media’s treatment of Kaepernick starting in 2016 reared its head again years later as BLM gained national prominence.
Journalists turn into advocates when they stop asking difficult questions or challenging dubious claims.
Kaepernick’s ultimate destination was a full-throated call for the abolition of police and prisons in a series of posts demanding a completely new approach to crime and punishment. He also chose to compare the NFL combine to a slave auction in his Netflix series that exposed the depths of his intense racial identity issues.
Anyone paying attention could have seen this coming. A person who complains about injustice in America while upholding Fidel Castro as a champion of freedom and liberation is looking for full-scale revolution, not a few incremental policy changes.
There were also obvious red flags with BLM.
The organization’s “Black Villages” principle stated its commitment to “disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, and especially ‘our’ children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.”
This paragraph alone should have disqualified BLM as a legitimate civil rights organization. Every person who interviewed Patrisse Cullors and Alicia Garza – two self-described Marxists – should have asked why a group that advocates on behalf of black Americans would ever commit to disrupting the nuclear family.
Journalists committed to informing the public would have asked why a movement that gained prominence after the death of Michael Brown never used the words “police” or “brutality” in any of its 13 guiding principles.
Instead, the media’s ignorance, incuriosity, and ideology helped BLM use the tragic deaths of black men to advance its real priorities – police abolition, LGBTQ advocacy, and making money.
They got rich, our streets got a lot more dangerous, and a lot more black lives were lost. Their rise is a symptom of a political culture influenced more by symbolism than substance. This is a bipartisan failure.
The U.S. Department of Justice released a report on Aug. 10, 2016, that found the Baltimore City Police Department made stops, searches, and arrests without the required legal justification. The DOJ found that the BPD engaged in a “pattern or practice of conduct that violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution as well as federal anti-discrimination laws.”
I remember checking conservative websites like National Review and American Conservative to see if any of their writers would speak up in defense of Baltimore residents who had their civil liberties violated. I saw one column between the two sites on this report, and it defended the conduct of the BPD.
This stood in stark contrast to several stories both sites ran that month on Colin Kaepernick and his decision to kneel during the national anthem to protest racial injustice. Conservatives showed they will pass up an opportunity to defend the Constitution and the rights of citizens if it means an opportunity to slam liberals.
The social justice movements of the past decade have helped entrench the diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE) industry in every major American institution from K-12 education to Fortune 500 companies.
America needs leaders and citizens who can see an issue that requires public attention and find groups who are working toward a productive solution while refusing to grant legitimacy to Trojan horses dressed as allies.
We don’t have those leaders today because our culture is currently being led by people who are extremely vulnerable to emotional manipulation. Given the number of elected officials, journalists, athletes, and academics who were hoodwinked by self-serving activists, it’s clear that the next movement we need is a national embrace of discernment, wisdom, and knowledge.
Liberal publication reveals what Democrats might blame Harris' loss on
Kamala Harris could lose the election for a multitude of reasons. For starters, she has alienated a great many men, Christians, pro-life advocates, and Hispanic voters and has struggled to distinguish herself politically from President Joe Biden.
Axios suggested on Sunday that what might ultimately cost Harris the White House is her strategic lack of transparency.
The left-leaning publication indicated that Harris and her team have repeatedly dodged questions about her political positions, responding with only, "No comment."
Harris, dubbed the "'no comment' candidate," has reportedly refused to indicate whether she still supports providing reparations to black Americans; "sanctuary cities"; the restoration of voting rights for all former prison inmates; welcoming multitudes of foreign nationals supposedly displaced by "climate change" to flood into the U.S.; providing taxpayer-funded sex-change mutilations to illegal aliens; ending the detention of illegal aliens; massive restrictions on drilling for oil; giving millions of illegal aliens smuggled into the country a pathway to citizenship; ending the death penalty; forcing automakers to cease building gas-burning vehicles by 2035; decriminalizing prostitution; closing private, for-profit prisons; and abolishing the Senate filibuster.
'There's no indication that Harris needs to offer specific, potentially divisive policies on any issue.'
In an apparent effort to appeal to moderates without disenchanting radical leftists, Harris — reportedly the second-most liberal Democratic to serve in the U.S. Senate in the 21st century — has tried to run out the clock on answering questions about what she actually believes in, responding only with doublespeak and conflicting messages.
For example, when Harris finally sat down for an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in August after dodging the press for five weeks, the vice president said, "My values have not changed." This quote prompted numerous sleuths to dig into what policies Harris previously signaled support for.
After KFile highlighted Harris' radical responses to a 2019 American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire, CNN's investigative outfit asked her campaign about whether the vice president's values had in fact changed — whether she still supported decriminalizing crack nationwide, giving felons taxpayer-funded sex-change operations, and exacerbating the border crisis.
The Harris campaign responded with a lengthy non-answer about how her "positions have been shaped by three years of effective governance as part of the Biden-Harris administration."
There were hints earlier on — besides Harris' refusal to sit down for interviews — that the vice president might be noncommittal policy-wise, short on answers, and keen to prioritize style over substance.
The Atlantic's Spencer Kornhaber noted in August that Harris' "oddball charm satisfies the content demands of the moment," suggesting that it mattered less what Harris was saying and more how she said it.
The New Republic recommended in September that Harris ignore the pressure to commit to specific agenda items and to instead rely on a "vibes- and values-based argument":
It's left to be seen whether Harris' refusal to own up to her real views helped or hurt her cause electorally. However, Axios' Alex Thompson noted that "if she loses, she and her team will be blamed for leaving voters foggy about her true views and self. And President Biden will be blamed for backing a candidate with such a liberal track record."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!