KAMALA HARRIS IS A CASE STUDY OF ONE WHO HAS SPENT HER LIFE SUCKING BRIBES; NOTHING MUCH COMES OUT OF HER FAT MOUTH.
TO BE A DEMOCRAT POL, IT ONLY MEANS YOU MUST SERVE BANKSTER FOR BAILOUTS, WALL STREET CRIMINALS AND HIGH TECH BILLIONAIRES FOR OPEN BORDERS. THEN YOU GO SUCK BRIBES AND INSIDE TRADE RAKING IN MILLIONS AS YOU DO!
George Soros, the Obamas, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, and many other wealthy, elite, no-borders, one-world Marxist climate zealots have an iron grip on the Democrat Party from bottom to top. Are the elites deliberately choosing weak people so as to control them from behind the curtain? We know they have done that with Biden, Kamala, and Fetterman. Is this their new modus operandi; choose the weak who will bow to the strong because the weak are more palatable to voters than the strong? M.B. MATHEWS
Are Democrats Deliberately Choosing Impaired Candidates?
Once could be excused. Twice is suspicious. Three times seems like a strategy. Are Democrats choosing infirm, intellectually challenged, feeble people to run for office so that they can be easily manipulated?
Joe Biden was and is clearly infirm, physically, psychologically, and cognitively.
John Fetterman is also clearly infirm due to two things: He has had a recent stroke which seems to have left him cognitively impaired, and he also has a rather prominent swelling on the back of his neck, which could be the sign of several very serious conditions.
Kamala Harris is intellectually suspect, linguistically incontinent, and verbally incoherent. Why are these people being chosen by the Democrat Party for the highest offices?
My observation leads me places I would rather not go. With Joe Biden in the White House, he is clearly doing what he is told by others. This much is clear; he simply does not have the stamina, the wisdom, or the political acumen necessary to be an effective President of the United States. His gaffes, his verbal dyslexia, his delusional prevarications, his garbled verbiage, and his ability to reliably make statements his handlers have to mop up afterward, are all deeply troubling. No political party would run such a candidate unless two things were happening: One, the election would be guaranteed to affect a win for the candidate, and two, the candidate would simply be a figurehead for the real powers behind the throne. Biden would have to know that others would be running his presidency. Were he and Jill that easy to roll?
If someone offered a Democrat the most powerful position on the planet and told him, “Don’t worry, we will do all the hard work, you just relax and sign the papers,” wouldn’t most Democrats close the space between them and a pen at the speed of light? Biden would have to have assumed that his old buddy, Barack Obama (and his underlings) would be doing the heavy lifting, allowing Lunchbucket Joe to cruise, basking in the reflected glory without lifting a finger.
The bulb in Kamala Harris' attic is also known to be a little dim. She is supremely arrogant, lacking in leadership and a decent work ethic. She is lazy, entitled, and is unable to keep staff due to her abrasive and very ambitious personality. She was not even able to get enough votes from her own party in 2020 to get on the ticket for POTUS and is so impaired on so many levels that no one wants much to do with her. So imagine our surprise when she was chosen by the Democrat Party as Biden’s running mate. The most unpopular Democrat candidate gets to be vice-president without having a single thing to offer except her well-documented pliability. Kamala’s myriad word salads and bizarre rants about “working together” and the “passage of time,” to name just two, reveal a vapidity that is hard to explain unless her intellectual betters viewed her as malleable in return for the perks of being Veep. She is a mental cipher now a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
John Fetterman’s candidacy seems to be another cruelty perpetrated on the American public in the name of winning at all costs. The candidate for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania has physical and mental problems that preclude coherent statements and reactions to the pressures of running for office. He has already revealed he is not up to the job.
Yet Fetterman is another case where the Democrat Party has chosen the weakest, not the strongest, candidates. It is almost as though the party has made a decision to deliberately choose impaired, malleable, but ambitious people who have failed in their past attempts at wielding power or who are recognized as those who might sell their souls for some power. Were the candidates told, “Don’t worry, we’ve got this"? Were they told, "We’ll handle the voting aspect of this, you just do what you’re told and you’ll cruise your way to power”?
It would make sense if this were indeed the case, because we already know that the Democrats’ insatiable lust for power creates new cynical methodologies: Choose the weak to represent the stronger powers behind the thrones. A malleable winner is preferable to a strong, self-sufficient winner who may not take orders from the real powers behind the thrones. That the Left has an agenda is clear; it involves weakening the populace through policies such as a national gun registry. But they cannot put those policies in place unless the selected leaders promote those radical agenda items which further the leftist cause.
George Soros, the Obamas, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, and many other wealthy, elite, no-borders, one-world Marxist climate zealots have an iron grip on the Democrat Party from bottom to top. Are the elites deliberately choosing weak people so as to control them from behind the curtain? We know they have done that with Biden, Kamala, and Fetterman. Is this their new modus operandi; choose the weak who will bow to the strong because the weak are more palatable to voters than the strong?
After all, why run candidates with minds of their own when you can run a candidate who has a mind that can easily be hijacked for radical leftist causes?
Image: Governor Tom Wolf
Kamala Harris Delivers Word Salad, Again: ‘Community Banks Are In the Community’
Vice President Kamala Harris delivered another word salad on Tuesday as she incoherently explained where “community banks” are located.
“We invested an additional $12 billion into community banks because we know community banks are in the community, and understand the needs and desires of that community as well as the talent and capacity of community,” Harris said.
The vice president’s nonsensical remarks were made at Claflin University in South Carolina at an event with Education Secretary Miguel Cardona during a roundtable discussion with student leaders.
Harris was then mocked on social media as footage of her gaffe went viral.
“Kamala Harris, the greatest orator since Winston Churchill, on community banks,” said Clay Travis, founder of OutKick
“Kamala had to give another book report on a book she didn’t read today… this time the title was, “Community Banks,”” wrote comedian Tim Young.
“Thanks to @vp Kamala Harris for making it clear that: ‘Community banks are in the community,'” tweeted former White House press secretary Sean Spicer.
This was not the first time the vice president has struggled with her words this year, as Breitbart News has documented.
While speaking at the workforce summit for the American Rescue Plan regarding transportation in July, Harris rambled on the importance of getting home.
“Together, we are expanding access to transportation. It seems like maybe it’s a small issue; it’s a big issue,” the vice president said before incoherently explaining: “You need to get to go and need to be able to get where you need to go to do the work and get home.”
In June, Harris struggled to speak coherently while addressing the future of abortion following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
“The strength of our nation has always been that despite the odds and the obstacles, we push to move forward. That we are guided by what we see that can be unburdened by what has been,” she said.
In March, Harris repeated the phrase “the passage of time” four times within 30 seconds while delivering remarks on accessible high-speed internet.
Harris’s “community banks” remark is also not the first time a Democrat from California stated something that would seem obvious by its phrasing.
In June 2020, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti was asked a question in the wake of the Black Lives Matter Protests to define “systemic racism,” to which he NaN: “Systemic racism is racism that’s built into systems.”
You can follow Ethan Letkeman on Twitter at @EthanLetkeman.
No comments:
Post a Comment