Is Kamala Harris Presidential Material?


Mike Pence’s gentlemen’s applause for Kamala Harris’ selection as Joe Biden’s number two takes into account the fact that Harris would be the first female Vice-President, and potentially the first female President, in U.S. history.

There are three recent events, however, which highlight why Harris may not be the best choice for such an “historic” and “unprecedented” win.

The Shifty Cross-Examination of ACB:

Kamala Harris’s cross-examination of Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Supreme Court Judge nominee, during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings on Barrett’s suitability for the lifelong role, raised a red flag.

Following a list of Democrat-led bizarre lines of questioning, Harris committed the fallacy of equivocation. Harris covertly tried to connect Barrett’s position on facts about Covid-19 and lung-cancer, with hotly contested conjecture about “apocalyptic Climate Change.”

As The Daily Wire’s, Andrew Klavan reported, Harris was trying to pin on Barrett the label “climate denier” in order to discredit her in the same way, anyone versed in broadly noted, historical fact, a holocaust denier. Harris didn’t succeed, and ACB caught the trap and pushed back before Harris could push her into it.

The Infamous Fly on Pence’s Head:

When MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked Harris if she’d noticed the fly on Pence’s head, Harris responded in the affirmative. When Maddow asked Harris if she was tempted to move the fly on, Harris smiled, feigned laugh, then cracked a joke (pun) about ‘flying away’ from the subject.

If Harris knew there was a fly on Pence’s head, and Pence didn’t, why didn’t Harris do something about it? Even if the fly was only there for 2 minutes.

Why didn’t those in charge, such as the producers, boom operators, camera controllers etc. act on it in between shots?

It’s not a big issue, and I’ll be the first to admit, the borderline pettiness of even raising the point, but professionals knowing, and doing nothing about such a small event for a V.I.P raises as many questions about their professionalism, and opinion of Pence, as it does Kamala Harris’ character.

The Iran Deal:

In 2018, Harris issued a statement claiming that Trump pulling American out of the Obama administration’s 2015 “Iran nuclear deal”[i]  had violated the deal, jeopardizing U.S national security and isolating the Americans from their closest allies.”

Harris said, that this ‘nuclear deal is not perfect, but it is certainly the best existing tool we have to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and avoid a disastrous military conflict in the Middle East.’

While being truthful about the “not perfect” part, Harris was not completely honest about the Obama deal being the only way to stop Iran gaining a nuclear weapon.

The Iran deal only restricted Iran from enriching uranium for a short period of time.

As reported by Aljazeera in May of 2019, ‘the restrictions on Iran’s centrifuges would be lifted after the eighth year, and 15 years onwards, restrictions on its uranium enrichment and stockpile size would expire. Some critics believe it would be possible for Iran to go back on the nuclear path around the mid-2020s. Iran also negotiated the eventual lifting of an embargo on the import and export of conventional arms and ballistic missiles…’

This was also highlighted in part by Trump’s rebus sic stantibus reasonings for pulling out of Obama’s six nation contract with Iran.

The U.S. President sought to renegotiate restrictions, including ‘more intrusive weapons inspections and, what would effectively, be a permanent ban on ‘Iran enriching uranium.’ Trump, according to Aljazeera was open to a new deal, saying “‘the Iran deal must either be renegotiated or terminated.”

Trump called the deal “one-sided”, “poorly negotiated” and an “embarrassment.”

He cited Israel intelligence documents showing that Iran already had a long history of pursuing Nuclear weapons, saying ‘this disastrous deal gave this regime – and it’s a regime of great terror – many billions of dollars, some of it in actual cash – a great embarrassment to me as a citizen and to all citizens of the United States. A constructive deal could easily have been struck at the time, but it wasn’t. At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program.’

Not that Trump’s haters noted it with any fanfare, but the President’s May 2018 announcement included the promise to “stand with the long-suffering Iranian people” and that his administration would “work with allies to find a real, comprehensive, and lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat.”

Trump’s speech concluded with criticism of the Islamist Iranian regime, and the acknowledgement that “the future of Iran belongs to its people. They are the rightful heirs to a rich culture and an ancient land, and they deserve a nation that does justice to their dreams, honor to their history and glory to God.”

While Harris berated Trump for questioning the deal, she’s also on record admitting that the Iran deal “isn’t prefect”, but has proudly stated that if she were elected President she’d rejoin Americans to the flawed contract.

To add, during the Pence/Harris debate, Harris inadvertently admitted just how precarious the original deal was. Saying that Trump “walking away” from the flawed contract put the United States “in a position where it was less safe, because they [Iran] are building up what might end up being a significant nuclear arsenal.” (Transcript)

Trump pulled the United States out in May, 2018 for these very reasons. If Iran are building a significant nuclear arsenal, as Harris surmises (in an attempt to discredit the current administration) it’s not a stretch to say that Iran has been doing it long before 2018.

The Iran Nuclear deal was a costly band-aid misapplied, in the spirit of appeasement, to the wrong kind of wound.

It wasn’t going to stop Iran’s Regime from pursuing what they’ve been pursuing for decades: the ability to “wipe Israel off the map, and erase all enemies of Allah.”

There’s also the fact that Iran’s Islamist leaders are under no obligation to remain true to the agreement.

Under the guidance of the Quranic ‘taqiyya’, lying to the infidel is an acceptable practice if it ‘advances Islam. In some cases, by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.’ For example: Quran (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths…”  (ROP)

Harris’ use of equivocation in her cross-examination of Amy Coney Barrett. Harris’ falsehoods, and discourteous inaction on Pence’s behalf during the debate, and the stereotypical mean-girl responses to it. Along with her shaky, flip-flop – it’s good, but also bad – naïve positioning on the Iran deal, give good reasons to question whether Harris is the better choice, over-against Mike Pence, for the potential role of President of the United States.

References:
[i] Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) originally signed by China, France, Russia, the UK, the United States and Germany.


Disqus Comments Loading...