Swing Voters Reveal How Kamala Harris Helped Drive Them to Trump During Debate

H/T Western Journal.

The thought of Joe Pee Pads Biden as president scares me and a lot other people.

But the thought of Kamala Knee Pads Harris as president scares us even more.

This is why I fell President Trump will win big in November. 

A conversation with swing voters in Michigan has revealed that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s decision to add Sen. Kamala Harris to his ticket might be driving many of them to vote for President Donald Trump in November.

Rich Thau of the analytics group Engagious spoke with 13 Michigan voters who cast ballots for Trump in 2016 but previously voted for former President Barack Obama.

During a remote conversation Thursday following Wednesday night’s debate between Harris and Vice President Mike Pence, the voters weighed in with the Engagious Swing Voter Project.

The small group dissected the debate performances of both candidates with Thau, and many of them indicated they were skeptical that Biden would complete a full term as president.

That’s where Harris came in with the voters, as the far-left senator from California would take the reins in the White House if Biden were unable to serve.

TRENDING: Undecided Focus Group Found Kamala Harris ‘Abrasive and Condescending’ During Debate

Eight of the 13 Michiganders who spoke to Engagious watched the debate, and 11 of the 13 said they are committed to voting for Trump.

In one group session, five of six voters who were asked if they thought Biden would be pushed out of office during his first term said they believed he would.

What bothered the Michigan swing voters about Harris, though, was her debate performance — and not for the reason you might think.

The majority of respondents were ultimately fearful that Harris was successful in portraying herself as a candidate worthy of being president.

While many said they thought Harris did well against Pence, they described the emotions of “fear,” “anger” and “indifference” when watching her during the debate.

One voter said she was outright “scared” with regard to the Democrat’s performance, which she said was strong enough that it could lead other voters to choose the Biden/Harris ticket on Nov. 3.

A woman identified as Shelley D. told Thau, “Biden’s not going to make it four years, so Kamala Harris is going to be president and I have zero trust she can be president, so I’m just picking the lesser of two evils at this point.”

The other respondents agreed with Shelley.

There was a near-consensus that Harris did well.

Some respondents told Thau they thought Pence could have done a better job but what bothered them was how other voters might perceive the debate.

As a man identified as Matt T. put it: “I’m fearful of this woman because she knows how to strike chords with the people of America.”

It seems Biden’s head-scratching pick of Harris, one of the most far-left senators in Washington, could be a double-edged sword: She impressed the Michigan voters while leaving them deeply concerned.

Her debate performance, which they felt was strong, did not win them over to Biden.

The takeaway is that they are afraid Harris will convince other swing-state voters that she is worthy of being president.

Adam M. in the group concluded: “I’m going to have to stick with [Trump] because I don’t know if the left will make due on the promises they’re saying right now.”

The Michigan voters essentially are decided — 11 of 13 of them, anyway — that they will vote again for Trump next month.

But Harris worries them, as she should.

Her voting record in the Senate is among the most liberal, according to GovTrack, and she and Biden continue to dodge questions about packing the Supreme Court and their support for a modified Green New Deal, which would put millions of people out of work.

Additionally, she’s not likable, she seems unlikely to unite voters in an already-divided country and she exited the Democratic primary without nabbing a single delegate.

As pollster Frank Luntz found out Wednesday when he conducted a focus group of 15 undecided voters in eight battleground states during the vice presidential debate, Harris is not relatable.

“The complaint about Kamala Harris was that she was abrasive and condescending,” Luntz said Wednesday, according to Fox News.

Harris is a liability who is among the party radicals using Biden to champion ideas that were inconceivable even for Democrats not long ago.

The 2020 rhetoric is out of the ordinary for Biden, who spent a long career in the Senate as a man who was relatively moderate and often worked with Republicans in a bipartisan way.

His Achilles’ heel seems to be Harris, who might be a deal-breaker with swing voters opposed to her radical views on taxation, energy, health care and gun rights.

The conversation between the voters and Thau was not scientific, but it gives us a look into the perspective of voters in one of the swing states that could decide the upcoming election.

Liberal Reporter Brutally Gashes Kamala Harris’ Disastrous Debate Performance

H/T  Town Hall.

Joe Pee Pads Biden picked Kamala Knee Pads Harris as his VP the worst possible choice he could have made.

Harris dropped out of the DemocRat contest before one vote was cast.

Well, he’ll probably piss off the Left again, but that’s what he’s done so well over the past three or so years. Liberal reporter Michael Tracey absolutely ripped into Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and her debate performance Wednesday night. Tracey is no fan of Harris and said that she was an “awful” VP pick from the get-go. So are we shocked her debate performance was equally disastrous? It was a train wreck. 


Harris came off unprepared on a host of issues, avoided the court-packing question, and seemed incapable of delivering a solid blow against Vice President Mike Pence, who was prepared and lethal. Vice President Pence did well mounting a defense of the Trump-Pence record, whereas Harris couldn’t land any of the zingers Pence quietly doled out like an assassin. COVID was the highwater mark for Harris. She came off strong, but even that was torched when she peddled an anti-vaccine line regarding the coronavirus. These debates are about who we can trust should any situation arise when the president cannot perform their duties. Pence passed that test. Harris, not so much; you have to be more than just a machine that peddles talking points from MSNBC. That bubble landed her in trouble as there were a couple of points where she literally had nothing to say.

As Tracey noted, “Kamala was hyped as the ‘front-runner’ in the 2020 Dem primaries, flamed out in spectacular fashion partly due to her terrible debate performances, and only became VP nominee thanks to an extensive lobbying effort by the Dem professional and donor class.”

Indeed, the media did treat Harris as someone who was a solid candidate when Biden picked her as his running mate, despite her not lasting as long as Tom Steyer, Andrew Yang, Cory Booker, or Deval Patrick—and none of those guys had a shot at winning the nomination let alone this election. Her 2020 campaign was a mess. She had no message, no direction, and no plan. That was the rudderless circus act that was Kamala 2020. And let’s not forget that her presidential ambitions were shot out of the sky when Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) highlighted her top cop record, where she went heavily after the Black community. Harris is trying to be social justice warrior and top cop at the same time. Maybe there’s a way to thread that needle regarding selling that message or neutralizing the fallout, but we know that Harris doesn’t have the goods. She doesn’t.

Tracey also delivered more blows, calling Harris’s answer on China “embarrassing.” Oh, and the Russian bounties story that the Left tried to weaponize against Trump as evidence he was a bad commander-in-chief was tossed around. It’s not corroborated. And that story died eons ago because it’s straight trash. The same way The Atlantic story about Trump denigrating our war dead is fake news. No one went on the record. No one. And that story died as well.

“The ‘Russian bounties’ story was manufactured by intelligence community leaks and a credulous partisan media,” wrote Tracey. “So, it’s only fitting that the Democratic nominees would be constantly harping on it.”

It was not a good night for Democrats.

Biden Told Voters Second Amendment, DOES NOT Protect Individual Right

H/T AmmoLand.

Joe Pee Pads Biden will be a disaster for gun owners and the Second Amendment.

Kamala Knee Pads Harris is as bad if not worse.

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- During a September 2019 “town hall” hosted by New Hampshire ABC affiliate WMUR, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden made clear that he does not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was incorrect.

During the event, Biden was asked, “Do you agree with the D.C. v. Heller decision in regards to protecting the individual right to bear arms that are in common use and which are utilized for lawful purposes?”

Biden responded in part, “If I were on the court I wouldn’t have made the same ruling. OK, that’s number one.”

Later, the noted resume padder and law school plagiarist boasted,


And I taught for years Constitutional law and separation of powers, I taught the Second Amendment. And the Second Amendment is not absolute. And we can argue, the fundamental argument is well-regulated militia and all those things, I won’t get into that. I think that the fundamental argument is the reason that was given as a right because we needed to be able to muster people to deal with an enemy called Great Britain we were fighting in a war.

Aside from his denunciation of Heller and denial that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, Biden also displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was not “given as a right” by the U.S. Constitution. Rather, as the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Heller, the Second Amendment protects a right that pre-existed the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Biden’s position on Heller and the Second Amendment is in line with that of his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).

As District Attorney of San Francisco, Harris signed on to an amicus curiae brief in Heller that argued the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Advocating against the individual right to keep and bear arms, the brief argued,

courts have consistently sustained criminal firearms laws against Second Amendment challenges by holding that, inter alia, (i) the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms, (ii) the Second Amendment does not apply to legislation passed by state or local governments,

According to the document, the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but rather, the lower court in Heller “create[d]” this right. The brief stated,

The lower court’s decision, however, creates a broad private right to possess any firearm that is a “lineal descendant” of a founding-era weapon and that is in “common use” with a “military application” today.

Biden’s position on the Second Amendment is also in alignment with recent versions of the Democratic Party Platform. The 2004, 2008, and 2012 editions of the party platform recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Such recognition of the Second Amendment was conspicuously absent from the 2016 and 2020 versions of the platform.

The Democratic presidential ticket’s rejection of the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment helps to explain the pair’s advocacy for blatantly unconstitutional gun control measures. Both Biden and Harris have called to ban and confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Biden has made clear that his desired ban would extend to arguably the most popular firearms in America – 9mm pistols. The Heller decision made clear that the Second Amendment protects the right to own firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes like self-defense.

It is hard to overemphasize the extremism of the Democratic presidential ticket’s position on the Second Amendment. A February 2008 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted prior to the Heller decision, asked those surveyed, “Do you believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, or do you believe it only guarantees members of state militias such as National Guard units the right to own guns?”

The response was unambiguous; 73-percent responded that the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, while a mere 20-percent limited that right to state militia members.

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted shortly after the Heller decision, in July 2008, mirrored these results. This poll asked respondents, “Would you support or oppose amending the United States Constitution to ban individual gun ownership?”78-percent opposed such a measure, while only 17-percent were found to be in favor.

And in May 2009, CNN and ORC conducted a similar poll that asked “Which of the following comes closer to your interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? In addition to addressing the need for citizen-militias, it was intended to give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. It was only intended to preserve the existence of citizen-militias, and does not give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” Once again, the American public made their position clear; with 77-percent choosing “individual gun ownership” to 21-percent answering “only citizen-militias.”

Knowing that Biden’s true position on the Second Amendment is political poison, the Biden campaign and its surrogates have done their best to hide the candidate’s views.

In March, when a pro-gun Michigan autoworker accurately confronted Biden about the candidate’s attacks on the Second Amendment, a visibly defensive Biden responded that the worker was “full of s***.”Biden went on to falsely claim “I support the Second Amendment.”

More recently, longtime gun control activist John Rosenthal made the ludicrous claim that “a vote for Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress will…protect gun rights for law-abiding gun owners…” Rosenthal didn’t address how Biden will go about protecting a right that the candidate does not acknowledge exists.

The importance of Biden’s radical view of the Second Amendment cannot be overstated. The fate of the Second Amendment literally hangs in the balance of this election.

Kamala Harris Protected by Rifles She Wants to Ban Americans from Owning

H/T Breitbart.

Kamala Knee Pads Harris thinks it ok for her body guards to carry AR-15’s but the average American should not have them.

During a recent trip to Miami, Florida, Democrat vice presidential hopeful Kamala Harris was protected by Secret Service agents using variants of the very rifles she wants to ban Americans from owning.

The Daily Mail published an article showing at least one Secret Service agent with a AR-platform rifle. The rifle is outfitted with optics, a flashlight, and a greater-than-10-round magazine.


On August 31, 2018, Breitbart News reported more than nine million AR-platform rifles were manufactured for U.S. sales during Barack Obama’s presidency.

By the late summer/early fall of 2019, when Robert “Beto” O’Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Joe Biden pushed a mandatory buyback of such rifles during the Democrat primary campaign, the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated there were 16 million-plus privately owned AR-15s in the United States.

Besides buying back ARs that Americans already possess, Harris and Biden support banning future sales of the wildly popular rifles. To that end, both have voiced support for an “assault weapons” ban.

Yet Harris is protected by good guys carrying the same guns she wants to ban average Americans from owning for their self-defense.

The fact that Biden is protected by good guys holding the very guns he wants to ban is no moot point either. On May 4, 2020, Breitbart News reported Biden was enjoying the benefit of armed protection while campaigning on a platform of disarming his fellow Americans.

When Biden began receiving Secret Service protection in mid-March 2020, a source told Breitbart News agents would protect Biden with pistols, semiautomatic rifles–perhaps ARs and/or Sig Sauer MCX platform firearms–as well as fully automatic firearms that would most like be part of the equation too.

The full-auto firearms often consist of submachine guns on a sling, which allow them to be carried out of sight under a jacket or coat.

Ironically, Biden is campaigning on banning the average man from owning rifles such as AR-15s, AK-47s, and Sig Sauer MCXs.

Harris Claims Russian Interference Could Cost Her the White House

H/T  The Washington Free Beacon.

Is Kalama Knee Pads Harris setting the stage for their loss in November?

Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris said Sunday that Russia could block her and Joe Biden from winning the November presidential election.

“I do believe that there will be foreign interference in the 2020 election and that Russia will be at the front of the line,” the California senator said.

“Could it cost you the White House?” asked CNN’s Dana Bash.

“Theoretically of course, yes,” Harris replied.

While Harris argued that Russia could compromise the election, she also criticized President Donald Trump for “trying to convince the American people not to believe in the integrity of our election system and compromise their belief that their vote might actually count.”

Harris’s comments echoed twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who said at the Democratic National Convention last month that Trump is engaged in an effort to “steal” the election. Harris and Clinton also spread the conspiracy theory that Trump tampered with the U.S. Postal Service to rig the election in his favor, a claim that numerous Democrats and members of the media have pushed in recent weeks.


Poll: Trump’s Approval Rating Rebounds to Pre-COVID Level

H/T Western Journal.

This is bad news for Joe Pee Pads Biden and Kamala Knee Pads Harris.

A new poll reveals strong support for the job President Donald Trump is doing as new measures show positive developments in the battle against the coronavirus and the drive to restart America’s economy.

Rasmussen Reports’ Friday tracking poll of likely voters showed that Trump is polling higher than Barack Obama was at the same point in the former president’s administration.

Fifty-two percent of respondents said they approved of Trump’s job performance, compared to 48 percent of respondents who said the same of Obama on Sept. 4, 2012.

Trump last achieved a 52 percent approval rating in late February, just before the impact of the coronavirus led to vast lockdowns to slow the spread of the disease.

The survey showed that Trump continues to evoke a strong reaction among his supporters and opponents: 42 percent of those polled strongly approve of Trump, while 42 percent strongly disapprove.

The Rasmussen daily survey of approval ratings, which polled 1,500 people, has a margin of error of plus- or minus-2.5 percentage points.

On Friday, Trump noted that Americans have reason to be pleased because the U.S. has battled the coronavirus better than many other nations

“[O]n the China virus front, the nations of Europe have experienced a 38 percent greater excess mortality than the United States — 38 percent more greater excess mortality than the United States. A lot of you don’t want to report that,” Trump said, according to a White House media pool report. “And if we took New York out of the equation, there’s nobody even close. The job we’ve done is incredible. And we don’t get any credit for it, but we’ve done an incredible job.”

Among Trump’s signature issues in office has been the economy, which on Friday reported an increase of 1.37 million jobs in August as the jobless rate fell to 8.4 percent — the lowest since lockdowns began to impact the economy in March, according to CNBC.

“These jobs numbers reflect a big win for American workers, and are a welcome surprise considering the unemployment insurance claims have barely been budging in recent weeks. Unemployment breaking the 10 percent barrier so decisively is a big psychological lift as well,” Robert Frick, corporate economist at Navy Federal Credit Union,” told CNBC.

“We are still moving in the right direction and the pace of the jobs recovery seems to have picked up, but it still looks like it will take a while – and likely a vaccine – before we get back close to where we were at the beginning of this year,” added Citizens Bank’s head of global markets, Tony Bedikian.

“We continue to be optimistic that the economy has turned a corner and that we’ll continue to see steady progress.”

The numbers showed a stronger economy than the experts had predicted.

“It’s another great day for American jobs and American workers,” Vice President Mike Pence told CNBC.

The jobs report is “real evidence that the American comeback is underway,” he said.

During his Friday news conference, Trump said that could end if the November election goes the wrong way

“We’re witnessing the fastest labor market recovery from any economic crisis in history, by far,” Trump said, later adding that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s support for potentially shutting down the nation could make heard-earned gains evaporate overnight.

“Joe Biden’s blanket shutdown would collapse our economy. It would cause countless deaths from suicide, drug, alcohol abuse, heart disease and more. You know, shutdowns cause a lot of problems — a lot of very serious problems — more so than the virus itself. Biden’s plan is not a solution; it’s a virtual surrender,” he said.

“And our country is doing so well. We’re starting to do so well. I think we’re going to have a great third quarter. I mean, you’re going to see for yourself because the numbers will be announced sometime prior to the election on Nov. 3.

“And as you know, Joe spent his entire career sending American jobs to China and other faraway countries,” Trump added.

“For 47 years, people were pillaging our country — taking our jobs, taking our companies. And that’s never going to change with that mindset and with that group. Biden is not going to be standing up to these foreign countries. He’s not going to be standing up — maybe more importantly — to the people that run the Democrat Party. He doesn’t have the strength to do that.”

St. Louis Gun Couple, Warns What Happened to Them, Coming Soon to Americans Everywhere

H/T Western Journal.

Multiply what happened to the McCloskey’s by millions if Joe Pee Pads Biden and Kamala Knee Pads Harris get elected in November.

The St. Louis couple who held off a mob of Black Lives Matter protesters by brandishing their legally owned firearms warned Americans during Night One of the Republican National Convention that families “will not be safe in the radical Democrats’ America.”

Mark and Patricia McCloskey became controversial figures in June after video footage showed them holding their weapons as a crowd of protesters that was headed toward the home of St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson ended up in front of the couple’s house.

The McCloskeys later had their home searched by police, at which point the AR-15 that Mark McCloskey was seen holding in the video was confiscated.

Patricia McCloskey’s pistol was eventually turned over to police as well.

The husband and wife have each been charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner’s office.

In a video that aired Monday during the Republican National Convention, the McCloskeys said Democrats care about protecting criminals from law-abiding citizens, not the other way around.

“What you saw happen to us could just as easily happen to any of you who are watching from quiet neighborhoods around our country,” Patricia McCloskey said.

“Whether it’s the defunding of police, ending cash bail so criminals can be released back out on the streets the same day to riot again, or encouraging anarchy and chaos in our streets, it seems as if the Democrats no longer view the government’s job as protecting honest citizens from criminals, but rather protecting criminals from honest citizens,” her husband added.

“Not a single person in the out-of-control mob you saw at our house was charged with a crime. But you know who was? We were.”

If Democrats’ policy goals come to fruition, then expect trouble ahead, according to the couple.

“They’re not satisfied with spreading the chaos and violence into our communities. They want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family home zoning,” Patricia McCloskey said.

“This forced rezoning would bring crime, lawlessness and low-quality apartments into now-thriving suburban neighborhoods. President Trump smartly ended this government overreach, but Joe Biden wants to bring it back

“These are the policies that are coming to a neighborhood near you,” she added.

“So make no mistake: No matter where you live, your family will not be safe in the radical Democrats’ America.”

The McCloskeys’ case took a bizarre twist last month as a report claimed that a prosecutor tampered with Patricia McCloskey’s gun so that it would work.

The pistol was actually inoperable when she pointed it at protesters, the couple has argued.

But according to KSDK-TV, which cited a crime lab document, a member of Gardner’s staff ordered it to be stripped down.

The gun was then reassembled by crime lab workers so it would work, the document said.

Under Missouri law, in order for a person to face a charge of felony unlawful use of a weapon, the gun would need to be readily operable.

“It’s disheartening to learn that a law enforcement agency altered evidence in order to prosecute an innocent member of the community,” an attorney for the couple told KSDK.

Meanwhile, GOP Missouri Gov. Mike Parson has said he will strongly consider a pardon if the couple is convicted.

‘President’ Kamala Harris is Coming for Your Guns – Constitutional or Not!

H/T Town Hall.

President Kamala Knee Pads Harris will try by whatever means she can to grab our guns.

It will trigger a civil war.

Let’s be honest, a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for Kamala Harris to be president. Ironically, she was literally the least popular Democrat among Democrats in the primary, dropping out before the Iowa Caucus, but she is the correct gender and genetic makeup. In certain circles of the upper echelons of the Democrat Party the rapid cognitive decline of Joe Biden is being whispered about. Perhaps, it is the pressure of the national stage, which he has largely avoided, but his decline is worsening. When he does venture out in public and opens his mouth it is painfully obvious…something is not right with old Joe. He’s slipping and fast.

Many strategists and even Joe himself have said that he would only be a one term president due to his advanced age. For the purposes of this article, I will submit that I don’t think Joe Biden will make it through even a first term. I will take it so far that I doubt he would last three months, and he’ll step down due to medical reasons.

Make no mistake. If Joe Biden wins the presidency…we will have a President Kamala Harris within months not years. Count on it.

A President Harris is a terrifying thing if you are a freedom loving American. She has many shortfalls and a history in both word and deed displaying her disdain for the freedoms and rights of the average American. As a prosecutor and attorney general she was found easily corruptible and wanting. She was and is a power-hungry woman willing to say and do who or whatever it takes to move up the ladder.

What will be one of President Harris’ first orders of business? How does she feel about your second amendment rights? Kamala Harris has told us exactly what she plans to do with your guns. She has unequivocally stated she is coming for your guns and that is not just political hyperbole.

Mark Oliva of National Shooting Sports Foundation said in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon“During her short-lived presidential campaign, she demanded gun-control legislation within 100 days and threatened executive action if Congress didn’t deliver. Senator Harris was clear when she said gun control would be an administration priority. Her platform included entertaining forced confiscation of lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles, redefining ‘sporting purpose’ for lawful firearm possession, criminalizing private firearm transfers and repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In fact, she supports politicizing the Department of Justice and using the weight of the federal government to harass a constitutionally protected industry in a series of frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt manufacturers.”

She also stated during a public policy forum that she was for a mandatory buyback program.

“We have to have a buyback program, and I support a mandatory gun buyback program,” she said. “It’s got to be smart, we got to do it the right way. But there are 5 million [assault weapons] at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.”

Since she made that statement about a year ago American’s have purchased record numbers of weapons in response to the uncertain times created by the pandemic and the rioting in the streets while liberal politicians are demanding to defund the police. The average citizen clearly realizes in the future their defense may increasingly fall upon themselves. In June 2020 alone the FBI stated there were more than 3.9 million background checks completed. In just the first half of 2020, millions upon millions of new firearms have been privately purchased, and in most cases to first time gun buyers. Most commonly these new weapons are semiautomatic handguns and AR style rifles and no they aren’t for hunting. They are for self-protection in an increasingly dangerous world.

Kamala Harris says she supports a Mandatory Buyback Program. What exactly is that? As the word mandatory implies…it is not an option. It will be required and enforced. It’s a fancy political way to say we’re going to confiscate your weapons against your will.

It will most likely be focused on AR style rifles as they have proven to be the liberal politician’s nemesis mostly because they are so scary looking! FYI…AR rifles are simply semi-automatic rifles nothing more. But when President Harris outlaws them and demands that all “Assault Weapons” be turned in, she won’t be asking. She will be demanding.

Enforcement of her mandatory buyback program would likely be sporting. This is what she means when she says, “we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.” The truth is there is no smart way about it, and if you do it the wrong way you might just spark a civil war with the most heavily armed people in America.

The phrase made famous by Charlton Heston; you can have my weapon when you pry it from my cold dead hands would likely be on many American’s lips…millions more than even six months ago. Enforcement of a mandatory gun buyback would likely be accomplished by other means than the direct conflict created by sending officers house to house. She would use crafty tactics such as listing people through gun registration, or using the power of the IRS or voting rights perhaps? I’m sure there will be many smart means at her disposal all with the same end goal, disarm legal gun owners and confiscate your weapons in spite of your constitutional right to own them.

I guarantee that a vote for Joe Biden will mean Kamala Harris will be making a criminal of all legal gun owners who refuse to surrender their weapons to the government. I’m simply taking her at her word. She’s promised if Congress won’t do it, then she’ll do it by executive fiat in her first 100 days.

A President Kamala Harris is coming for your guns, there’s just no other way to say it. Vote accordingly.

Kamala Harris Choice Creates Most Anti-Gun Presidential Ticket in History

H/T AmmoLand.

Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden and Kamala Knee Pads Harris are a deadly combination as far as the Second Amendment.


Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have lengthy histories of hating guns and the Second Amendment. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Between presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s calls for firearm confiscation and the draft Democratic Party Platform, the 2020 Democratic ticket was already shaping up to be the most anti-Second Amendment in history. With Biden’s, or his team of able-minded handlers’, choice of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) for the vice-presidential slot, the Biden campaign, and the Democratic Party have cemented this ignominious distinction.

Biden’s advanced age and visible decline make this vice presidential decision even more concerning. A Harris presidency would be an existential threat to the Second Amendment and gun owners.

Harris Does Not Believe the Second Amendment Protects an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

As District Attorney of San Francisco, Harris signed on to an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller that argued the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Heller case concerned a complete prohibition on the civilian ownership of handguns within the District of Columbia.

Advocating against the individual right to keep and bear arms, the brief argued,

courts have consistently sustained criminal firearms laws against Second Amendment challenges by holding that, inter alia, (i) the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms, (ii) the Second Amendment does not apply to legislation passed by state or local governments, 

According to the document, the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but rather, the lower court in Heller“create[d]” this right. The brief stated,

The lower court’s decision, however, creates a broad private right to possess any firearm that is a “lineal descendant” of a founding-era weapon and that is in “common use” with a “military application” today. 

Anticipating the U.S. Supreme Court’s move in the next landmark Second Amendment case (McDonald v. Chicago), Harris’s brief reiterated that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should not be incorporated to the states. Had this thinking been adopted, state and local governments would be empowered to curtail or even extinguish gun rights without restraint. State and local governments would have been able to bar their residents from owning any firearms whatsoever.

Harris’s extreme views on the U.S. Constitution were again born out in her votes against President Donald Trump’s pro-Second Amendment nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court. On September 4, 2018, Harris delivered a speech to the Senate where she cited Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s fidelity to the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment as a reason for her opposition to his confirmation.

With this track record, gun owners could expect a president Harris to nominate U.S. Supreme Court justices and lower court judges that share her discredited view of the Second Amendment.

Harris Intends to Ban and Confiscate Commonly-Owned Firearms

Harris has repeatedly supported a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

Harris is a co-sponsor of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 (S.66). During the previous Congress, Biden’s VP pick supported Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 (S.2095) Sold as a reinstatement of the failed 1994 Clinton semi-auto ban, S.66 is, in fact, a far more sweeping attack on Second Amendment rights.

The bill would ban the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms like America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15. The 1994 ban prohibited firearms capable of accepting a detachable magazine that were equipped with two items from a list of enumerated features –such as a collapsible stock, pistol grip, or threaded barrel. S.66 would prohibit firearms capable of accepting a detachable magazine that have only one of the offending features. Moreover, the list of features has been expanded to target a wider array of firearms.

The bill would also ban the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. This measure would prohibit the standard magazines of the most popular handguns in the country.

However, Harris has made clear that Feinstein’s broad attack on the Second Amendment does not go far enough for her liking. S.66 would grandfather firearms and magazines currently possessed by American gun owners. Harris wants gun confiscation.

At a campaign event in Londonderry, N.H. in early September, then-presidential candidate Harris told reporters that confiscation of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was “a good idea.” Elaborating on her support for a compulsory “buyback” program, the senator added, “We have to work out the details — there are a lot of details — but I do…We have to take those guns off the streets.”

On the September 16 edition of the “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, ”Harris reiterated her support for gun confiscation. During a question and answer session, an audience member asked Harris “Do you believe in the mandatory buyback of quote-unquote assault weapons and whether or not you do, how does that idea not go against fundamentally the Second Amendment?”

The candidate responded, “I do believe that we need to do buybacks.” Making clear that she believes America’s Second Amendment is for sale, the senator added “A buyback program is a good idea. Now we need to do it the right way. And part of that has to be, you know, buyback and give people their value, the financial value.”

Further demonstrating Harris’s commitment to gun confiscation, the candidate called for a “mandatory buyback program” during an October 3 MSNBC gun control forum and again during a November interview with NBC Nightly News.

Harris Would Abuse Executive Power to Illegally Attack Gun Rights

In their eagerness to burden gun owners, the Barack Obama administration stretched existing federal law to its limits. In late 2015, White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Shultz told reporters that Obama “has asked his team to scrub existing legal authorities to see if there’s any additional action we can take administratively,” adding, “The president has made clear he’s not satisfied with where we are, and expects that work to be completed soon.”Put another way, the Obama administration exhausted the legislative branch’s authority to unilaterally control guns.

Harris has proposed to use executive power to enact gun control in a manner that even the Obama administration understood was illegal.

According to Harris’s 2020 campaign website,

If Congress fails to send comprehensive gun safety legislation to Harris’ desk within her first 100 days as president – including universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and the repeal of the NRA’s corporate gun manufacturer and dealer immunity bill – she will take executive action to keep our kids and communities safe 

In other words, if Congress refuses to legislate in the manner she demands, Harris would break the law to legislate by decree.

Among her proposed executive actions would be a cap on the number of firearms an individual could privately transact in a year.

Present statute, 18 U.S.C. §922 requires that an individual “engaged in the business” of selling firearms register as a Federal Firearms Licensee and perform a background check prior to transferring a firearm to an unlicensed individual. “Engaged in the business” is further defined in 18 U.S.C. §921 to mean, 

a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

This language was explicitly adopted to avoid a numerical cap on the number of firearms an individual could privately transfer, instead of focusing on whether the person was engaged in the activity “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit.”Harris’s proposed executive action would violate the clear language of 18 U.S.C. §921.

The Obama administration explored this avenue of gun control and determined it was outside their authority. Rejecting a hard cap as untenable, the Obama administration opted to release a guidance document elaborating upon the circumstances under which a person must obtain a Federal Firearms License.

Harris has also made clear that she intends to abuse ATF’s firearm manufacturer and dealer licensing function to circumvent the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and attack the gun industry. Other proposed executive actions include an illegal expansion of the prohibited persons categories and further restrictions on the importation of firearms.

With her rejection of the Second Amendment, advocacy for gun confiscation, and intent to ignore existing firearms law, Harris is a singular and despotic danger to gun owners. Devoid of any respect for the U.S. Constitution, the legislative process, and the rule of law, Harris has proven herself unfit for office.



James Woods, Digs Up Embarrassing Kamala Harris Tweet That Shows She’s a Horrible Judge of Character

H/T Western Journal.

Kamala Knee Pads Harris is a lousy judge of character is beyond any question.

If you’re ever looking for an antidote to the left’s constant, utter nonsense, there’s no better place to find it than the Twitter feed of James Woods.

The actor and conservative commentator had an especially hilarious takedown of California Sen. Kamala Harris, who was just tapped as the vice presidential candidate alongside presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

Woods shared a 2019 tweet Harris had published in support of Jussie Smollett, the actor who was found to have perpetrated a hate crime hoax.

“Jussie Smollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery,” the senator wrote.

“This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.”

“How soon before she deletes this?” Woods said.

Given what we know now, it looks like Biden’s running mate isn’t exactly the best judge of character.

In an unbelievable story that the liberal media fully gobbled up, Smollett claimed that he was attacked in the early morning in Chicago by two white men who had told him he was in “MAGA country.”

As it turned out, the two “attackers” were a pair of Nigerian brothers that Smollett knew personally. The three men had reportedly rehearsed the attack a few days prior.

Smollett is currently facing six felony counts of disorderly conduct for allegedly misleading a police investigation into charges that he knew were false.

In addition to that, the actor is also being asked to reimburse the Chicago Police Department for $130,000 it spent investigating the “attack.”

In total, that investigation cost taxpayers nearly $500,000.

Despite the ridiculous nature of Smollett’s story, Harris backed him up without question.

This is far from the only lapse in judgment that is coming back to bite the Democratic senator, however.

During her time as San Francisco district attorney, Harris’ office reportedly stopped working with the victims of sex abuse by Catholic clergy and buried the records pertaining to their cases despite pushback from victims’ groups.

In addition to that, her office blocked important DNA evidence that could have freed a death row inmate. According to PolitiFact, it wasn’t until The New York Times wrote about the case that Harris said “I feel awful about this” and called on the state to allow for the test.

No wonder Trump said Harris was his “No. 1 pick.”