Kamala Harris: Behind the mask
Harris appears more intelligent, caring, and above all younger than Trump. She knows how to put on a good show in front of the TV cameras
Published: 08:08 AM,Aug 18,2024 | EDITED : 12:08 PM,Aug 18,2024
A person takes a picture of U.S. Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris
Kamala Harris may well be the US’s next President. Certainly, the money men are backing her.
Compared to Trump she appears more intelligent, more caring and above all younger. She knows how to put on a good show in front of the TV cameras. She’s a person of colour.
This latter accident of birth didn’t harm Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and for some unknown reason many, Americans consider the colour of a Presidential candidate’s skin to be important.
I didn’t get that with Obama and I don’t get it with Harris. Who cares whether someone is the first black, white, yellow, green or purple President in American history?
Or whether the future President also happens to be a black (or brown?) Native American woman? It’s her policies that count and in particular her policy towards the Zionist genocide taking place in the State of Palestine. So let’s forget the colour of her skin, her gender, her ability to look good in front of TV cameras and her designer clothes.
Her record as District Attorney and Attorney General (2003 -2010) suggests that when it comes to Harris what you see isn’t necessarily what you get. It’s worth taking a look at her record before becoming Vice-President to Biden, especially regarding the death penalty which seemed to change with the weather or depending on what was most advantageous to her career advancement at any given time.
She made her bid to be appointed District Attorney in 2004 when it was a vote winner to promise never to seek the death penalty. Consequently, she made that promise and only three months after becoming DA that promise was tested when a young police officer named Isaac Espinoza was shot dead.
Without discussing her decision with the deceased police officer’s family or other police chiefs Harris quickly arranged a press conference. Just two days after the officer’s murder and only two days before his funeral Harris announced publicly that she would not be seeking the death penalty for the murderer. To many in attendance, this smacked of a political propaganda stunt rather than an opportunity to express her sympathy for the murdered police officer’s widow and child. For many, it seemed like an opportunity to demonstrate her honesty and sincerity by keeping to her campaign promise not to seek the death penalty.
When criticised for not seeking the death penalty she stated “Throughout my entire career I have been opposed, personally opposed, to the death penalty and that has never changed.” That was until the summer of 2014 when a US District Court Judge ruled that California’s death penalty was unconstitutional thus halting all executions in the State.
Harris was by then the Attorney General and had the power to intervene to block the Judge’s ruling by filing an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals within 45 days. Knowing her earlier well-publicised views opposing the death penalty everyone expected her to do nothing.
By doing nothing the death penalty would have been abolished in California. But just two days before the 45 day window closed Harris filed the appeal thus ensuring that the death penalty remained as part of California’s penal system and that executions would continue to take place. However when California’s new Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order to put a stop to the death penalty by calling it “ineffective, irreversible and immoral” Harris was the first to praise the Governor’s decision calling the death penalty “a deeply flawed system of capital punishment.” Am I being too harsh by suggesting her change of opinion had more to do with currying favour with the Governor than to do with moral principles? I don’t think so.
These convenient U-turns on such serious legal matters haven’t gone unnoticed. However, if nothing else her inconsistency was consistent.
An innocent black man and his lawyers demanded that the newly available DNA testing should be made available to prove his innocence. Harris, who was the District Attorney at the time, refused this request and insisted that the man be executed, thus eliminating any chance of the truth of his innocence or guilt being discovered.
In a fiery democratic debate a Republican Congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard, accused Harris of blocking evidence (DNA) that would have freed an innocent man from death row. The Courts eventually forced Harris to allow the DNA testing to take place.
Harris has made a number of conciliatory statements towards those who continue to demand that the Zionist genocide in Palestine should be stopped. She has expressed sympathy for Palestinians and vowed that as President she would speak out against the slaughter of innocent Palestinian children. But in the past Kamala Harris has had no difficulty in using manipulative words to promote an image to support her ambitions and for 10 months Harris has given her unconditional support to that arch Zionist Biden.
She continues to express her unwavering support for that Zionist colony built on the homeland stolen from the Palestinian people. She refuses to consider placing an arms embargo on that Zionist colony, arms which are being used to murder innocent families in their own country.
Not once has Harris mentioned the right of Palestinians to have a State of their own. To call what is taking place in The State of Palestine a humanitarian crisis is a Zionist trick. It is much more than that.
It is a fight to give people back their country from Zionist invaders. The other Zionist trick is the proposal of a two-State solution. Surely we all know by now that the Zionists want the whole of The State of Palestine and if possible the death of all Palestinians.
Until we understand these facts we are in danger of ignoring the Zionist master plan for world domination and risking the Zionists dragging us into yet another world war.
It’s sad that the world’s only superpower has a choice of only two Presidents.
k.easterbrook@yahoo.com
The writer is School Principal from Cambridge UK
Compared to Trump she appears more intelligent, more caring and above all younger. She knows how to put on a good show in front of the TV cameras. She’s a person of colour.
This latter accident of birth didn’t harm Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and for some unknown reason many, Americans consider the colour of a Presidential candidate’s skin to be important.
I didn’t get that with Obama and I don’t get it with Harris. Who cares whether someone is the first black, white, yellow, green or purple President in American history?
Or whether the future President also happens to be a black (or brown?) Native American woman? It’s her policies that count and in particular her policy towards the Zionist genocide taking place in the State of Palestine. So let’s forget the colour of her skin, her gender, her ability to look good in front of TV cameras and her designer clothes.
Her record as District Attorney and Attorney General (2003 -2010) suggests that when it comes to Harris what you see isn’t necessarily what you get. It’s worth taking a look at her record before becoming Vice-President to Biden, especially regarding the death penalty which seemed to change with the weather or depending on what was most advantageous to her career advancement at any given time.
She made her bid to be appointed District Attorney in 2004 when it was a vote winner to promise never to seek the death penalty. Consequently, she made that promise and only three months after becoming DA that promise was tested when a young police officer named Isaac Espinoza was shot dead.
Without discussing her decision with the deceased police officer’s family or other police chiefs Harris quickly arranged a press conference. Just two days after the officer’s murder and only two days before his funeral Harris announced publicly that she would not be seeking the death penalty for the murderer. To many in attendance, this smacked of a political propaganda stunt rather than an opportunity to express her sympathy for the murdered police officer’s widow and child. For many, it seemed like an opportunity to demonstrate her honesty and sincerity by keeping to her campaign promise not to seek the death penalty.
When criticised for not seeking the death penalty she stated “Throughout my entire career I have been opposed, personally opposed, to the death penalty and that has never changed.” That was until the summer of 2014 when a US District Court Judge ruled that California’s death penalty was unconstitutional thus halting all executions in the State.
Harris was by then the Attorney General and had the power to intervene to block the Judge’s ruling by filing an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals within 45 days. Knowing her earlier well-publicised views opposing the death penalty everyone expected her to do nothing.
By doing nothing the death penalty would have been abolished in California. But just two days before the 45 day window closed Harris filed the appeal thus ensuring that the death penalty remained as part of California’s penal system and that executions would continue to take place. However when California’s new Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order to put a stop to the death penalty by calling it “ineffective, irreversible and immoral” Harris was the first to praise the Governor’s decision calling the death penalty “a deeply flawed system of capital punishment.” Am I being too harsh by suggesting her change of opinion had more to do with currying favour with the Governor than to do with moral principles? I don’t think so.
These convenient U-turns on such serious legal matters haven’t gone unnoticed. However, if nothing else her inconsistency was consistent.
An innocent black man and his lawyers demanded that the newly available DNA testing should be made available to prove his innocence. Harris, who was the District Attorney at the time, refused this request and insisted that the man be executed, thus eliminating any chance of the truth of his innocence or guilt being discovered.
In a fiery democratic debate a Republican Congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard, accused Harris of blocking evidence (DNA) that would have freed an innocent man from death row. The Courts eventually forced Harris to allow the DNA testing to take place.
Harris has made a number of conciliatory statements towards those who continue to demand that the Zionist genocide in Palestine should be stopped. She has expressed sympathy for Palestinians and vowed that as President she would speak out against the slaughter of innocent Palestinian children. But in the past Kamala Harris has had no difficulty in using manipulative words to promote an image to support her ambitions and for 10 months Harris has given her unconditional support to that arch Zionist Biden.
She continues to express her unwavering support for that Zionist colony built on the homeland stolen from the Palestinian people. She refuses to consider placing an arms embargo on that Zionist colony, arms which are being used to murder innocent families in their own country.
Not once has Harris mentioned the right of Palestinians to have a State of their own. To call what is taking place in The State of Palestine a humanitarian crisis is a Zionist trick. It is much more than that.
It is a fight to give people back their country from Zionist invaders. The other Zionist trick is the proposal of a two-State solution. Surely we all know by now that the Zionists want the whole of The State of Palestine and if possible the death of all Palestinians.
Until we understand these facts we are in danger of ignoring the Zionist master plan for world domination and risking the Zionists dragging us into yet another world war.
It’s sad that the world’s only superpower has a choice of only two Presidents.
k.easterbrook@yahoo.com
The writer is School Principal from Cambridge UK