America Doesn’t Hate Kamala Because She Is A Foreign Female, They Hate Her Because She Is A Self-Centered Elitist Zealot 1%-er Insider Manipulator Who Only Cares About Power!
Kamala cares more about buying purses and shoes and decorating her office than she cares about people.
Kamala cares about sleeping her way to the top.
Kamala came up with the plan to fill America with foreign immigrants in order to ‘destroy white male control‘ , as she says; but she never even considered the consequences of the crime, hate, inequality and social wars she was creating!!!
Kamala cares more about her PR than she does about ever reading the facts in her daily briefings. She sounds like an uninformed idiot in every interview she does.
Kamala went from screwing her way into her job by giving Willie Brown blow-jobs and ruining his marriage to screwing her way into a white privilege household full of rich spoiled brat kids so she could get ‘good optics’.
The Bay Area elite scumbags have a system. Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris each snagged a venture capitalist and got him to buy them a Senate office and rig democracy to benefit the venture capital funds of those husbands. It is so sleazy, corrupt and sinister that slime drops from each of their high heels with every step. Kamala was chosen by the San Francisco elites to be the next Grand Bitch Duchess of Bay Area Political Control once Nancy and Dianne finally die!
The San Francisco ghosts in Kamala Harris past show that she knows which sausages to orally embrace
Few outside of California know or care who Willie Brown is. But that may be about to change.
Brown spent around a quarter of a century as de facto royalty in California, first serving more than three decades as a member of the California Assembly (15 years as its speaker), and then eight years as mayor of San Francisco.
He also once carried out an open extramarital affair with a young prosecutor named Kamala Harris, currently a U.S. senator and leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Now, we’re far beyond the point that a personal past like that disqualifies a candidate. Harris, after all, is vying to challenge a thrice-married man who once graced the cover of Playboy and publicized his infidelity on the cover of the New York Post. Candidates’ personal lives no longer warrant deep investigation, unless they tell us something about their professional and political lives.
Unfortunately for Harris, the Willie Brown story is not strictly personal. It’s also professional.
When Harris was barely 30, she began dating Brown, then in his 60s and speaker of the California Assembly. To be clear, an ambitious woman dating a powerful man is not alone any cause for concern. Strong women are attracted to success, and a 30-year-old assistant district attorney is hardly, say, a 21-year-old intern. But the story doesn’t end there.
For one thing, Brown was married at the time. He wound up dumping Harris and returning to his wife as he became mayor. (Again, in the era of President Trump, few will clutch their pearls over this.)
More questionable than the romance is the relationship’s apparent effect on her finances and her career. Brown, according to contemporary news accounts, gifted his then-girlfriend two government jobs with ample salaries — while she was just getting her start as an assistant DA.
As the San Francisco Weekly reported in 2003:
(That’s more than $150,000 in current dollars.)
Even after they broke up, Brown, a San Francisco kingmaker, continued to support Harris’ career, boosting her district attorney run and years later calling on Antonio Villaraigosa to stay out of the Senate race, thus clearing the field for Harris.
Just two years into her tenure as senator, Harris now wants to reach the White House.
The facts are messy, but most in California politics are. If she earned few hundred thousand dollars in taxpayer-funded patronage thanks to a personal relationship, that undermines some of her good-government cred. Or at least it requires her to explain how she’s changed.
Barack Obama wisely fessed up about his drug usage long before he was a presidential candidate, and he alluded to his personal growth and past mistakes enough that it created a satisfying narrative, one that couldn’t be used against him. Donald Trump was a womanizer and a brash braggart, but that was his entire brand for more than two decades. The first real instance where his past came to haunt him was when he seemed to confess to sexual battery on the now-infamous Access Hollywood tape. The allegations of consensual affairs never really mattered.
Harris doesn’t talk about Brown. She says that it’s not relevant. But part of her prosecutorial persona is a posture of toughness on corruption. But the Willie Brown story, with those big paychecks, gives off at least a whiff of cronyism. She’s got to address the charge she was profiting personally off connections to power — at least if she wants us to believe she actually stands for the people.
Kamala Harris was grandstanding again as she tried to bully Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Capitol Hill. Sessions, with his smooth southern drawl, outsmarted and outclassed Harris, who came off as a screaming shrew, and it’s no wonder with her tawdry past. Harris has a dirty little sex secret that is coming back to haunt her, but that’s not all. She has a long line of corrupt deals, one with Maxine Waters, that helped her get power and stay in power.
If there ever was a swamp creature in Washington, D.C., it is Kamala Harris. In fact, she is the poster politician for all swamp creatures. Harris has been trying to make a name for herself by screaming and bullying two of the good guys left in D.C., Admiral Mike Rogers and Jeff Sessions. Well, the junior senator from California didn’t come out unscathed, as her dirty little sex secret has come out.
Harris got her start in 1994 by having an affair with slimy Willie Brown, who was serving as the California Assembly Speaker and then became the mayor of San Fransico. Brown was 60 years old and Harris was 29 when their affair began. Harris was so brazen that she came out publicly as his date at his 60th birthday party, despite his wife of 36 years being in attendance.
Says the woman who began her political career as Willie Brown’s mistress.
— Daryl N. Davis (@dndavis57) January 28, 2017
Harris slept with Brown for one reason; she used the corrupt San Francisco mayor to launch her rise to power. Daily Caller reports, “As Brown’s time as speaker drew to a close in 1994, he named Harris to the California Medical Assistance Commission, a job that came with a $72,000 annual salary. Brown had previously appointed her to the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.”
Did she fuck Gavin Newsom, as the rumors say? Either way, she is a mirror of Gavin, with or without his sausage in her butt!
She “was described by several people at the Capitol as Brown’s girlfriend,” the Los Angeles Times reported at the time. Although that job paid nearly $98,000, Harris’ term was set to expire in five weeks when Brown tapped her for the Medical Assistance Commission slot. That body met only monthly, and the $72,000 position was not considered a full-time job.
— TheTruthIsOutThere (@LuciHoneychurch) June 13, 2017
Willie Brown is a sleaze-bag who led one of the most corrupt mayoral offices ever seen in San Fransico, but that was fine with Harris, who went on to steal the election for California’s Attorney General in 2010. “Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley led Harris by 34,000 votes after more than 7 million were counted. But after provisional ballots were counted, she was declared the winner by approximately 50,000 votes,” reports Daily Caller.
At one point, Cooley was up by 62,000 votes, and in panic mode, Harris reached out to her good buddy California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, whose role was to certify the votes. That’s when thousands of Cooley’s votes just disappeared.
Lol. Kamala Harris. Corrupt Willie Brown’s ex-GF. He “helped” her up the ranks. Shady 2010 election result.
— Falcon-watcher, etc. (@JamesManniello) February 24, 2017
Kamala Harris’ path to power is strewn with illicit affairs and fraudulent elections, and in desperation, she paid Maxine Waters’ daughter Karen $63,000 dollars to appear on mailers with Auntie Maxine. Washington Free Beacon reports, “The payments were made from Harris’s campaign committee and transferred to Waters’s campaign committee through a lucrative ‘slate mailer’ operation run by Waters’s daughter, a program that has proved profitable for both her daughter and the campaign.”
Liberal loons are grasping at straws on social media, hailing Harris as the savior they need, and anyone who questions their new “it” girl gets called a racist and a misogynist. Harris is nothing that any little girl should aspire to be; she is just another swamp creature who got there by having sex with a 60-year-old buffoon.
But, the biggest travesty is this D.C. swamp creature questioning an honorable man like Jeff Sessions; she isn’t fit to carry his shoes, let alone question his patriotism. She wouldn’t know patriotism if it hit her in the face, so we say bring it on in 2020 as the liberals call for Harris to run against Donald Trump. We’d love to see the president come up with her nickname. If you thought Crooked Hillary was good, you haven’t seen anything yet.
Kamala Harris: I Forgot My AG Deputy Sexually Abused Women
Sen. Harris is as slimy as a Democrat can be. Now she is caught giving one million dollars of taxpayer funds to pay off the sexual harassment of her Deputy when she was Attorney General. Oh, when asked, she could not remember the harassment or the payoff SHE authorized.
“Kamala Harris, who’s running for president on a vehement #MeToo platform as a Democrat, sure has a lot of memory problems.
It’s not just the $400,000 the state had to shell out based on the disgusting sex harassment behavior of her top lieutenant, Larry Wallace, her handpicked director for the division of law enforcement at the state attorney general’s office, which is quite a whopper in itself. It’s the $700,000 in more California taxpayer payout money for the sex-harassing activities of her other lieutenants. The Los Angeles Times reports that it did a search of public records and found that the total payout tally was $1.1 million. I am going to assume that includes the $400,000 payout from Harris’s wingman Wallace, although the report doesn’t say. Here’s the L.A. Times opener:”
Apparently she also overlooked the abuse of women by her Deputies—more proof she is a true Democrat.
By Monica Showalter, American Thinker, 3/1/19
Kamala Harris, who’s running for president on a vehement #MeToo platform as a Democrat, sure has a lot of memory problems.
It’s not just the $400,000 the state had to shell out based on the disgusting sex harassment behavior of her top lieutenant, Larry Wallace, her handpicked director for the division of law enforcement at the state attorney general’s office, which is quite a whopper in itself. It’s the $700,000 in more California taxpayer payout money for the sex-harassing activities of her other lieutenants. The Los Angeles Times reports that it did a search of public records and found that the total payout tally was $1.1 million. I am going to assume that includes the $400,000 payout from Harris’s wingman Wallace, although the report doesn’t say. Here’s the L.A. Times opener:
The California Department of Justice paid more than $1.1 million to settle claims with employees who alleged they were sexually harassed or retaliated against by co-workers during the tenure of then-state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris from 2011 to 2017, according to documents obtained by The Times.
The cases, which were disclosed this week in response to a California Public Records Act request, come weeks after Harris launched her presidential bid, bringing new scrutiny to her record. The incidents included allegations that DOJ employees sexually harassed and retaliated against co-workers, including claims involving inappropriate touching and cases in which workers felt uncomfortable with the comments and actions of others.
Harris says there were only 5,000 employees in that office, so that’s quite a payout record for that number of employees over a mere six-year period.
And again, the Times reports her claim, via a spokesman, that she never heard of it. She was the state’s top law enforcer, and she knew nothing. Did she go to her job?
This is the second time she’s claimed to know nothing about all the sex harassment claims going on in the outfit she says she ran. I wrote about the earlier instance, here.
What’s more, it’s part of a string of things — all reflecting very badly on her — that she claims to have been completely in the dark about. She defended planted false testimony in one prosecution, she sought to keep convicts in jail because of their use to the state for fighting forest fires, she tried to squelch exonerating DNA evidence in the case of one man in jail for a crime he didn’t commit, and other forgetfulness. What’s more, she misrepresented her stance on reporting to ICE underage illegal aliens, probably gang members, accused of crimes, in a bid to look good to leftists.
Now we learn that the sex harassment payouts from her state office were nearly three times what they had been reported earlier, and she says she knew nothing.
What kind of office did she run? And was she so busy sleeping her way to the top that she had no time to hire decent people?
What’s particularly galling about this is her now belated claim to take “full responsibility” for the office perverts she supposedly supervised:
“As the chief executive of a department of nearly 5,000 employees, the buck stopped with me,” Harris said in a statement. “No one should face harassment or intimidation in the workplace, and victims of sexual misconduct should be listened to, believed and protected.”
It’s nonsense. She didn’t take responsibility, the taxpayers took responsibility — she was the one who was asleep at the wheel.
If this isn’t more proof positive that she isn’t ready for higher office, what is?
Kamala Harris Is Big Techs Bitch. Her Family Makes Millions Off Of Google And Facebook Spying
New Emails Reveal Warm Relationship Between Kamala Harris And Big Tech
Though it has been lost in the mists of other scandals, back in 2014, Facebook was in the middle of what was then the biggest public relations debacle in company history. That June, a Facebook data scientist and two academics released a paper demonstrating that users could be emotionally manipulated based on the information Facebook’s engineers fed into their accounts.
The conclusions of the study were alarming. But even more shocking was the means by which researchers had reached them. Facebook had used 700,000 of its users as social science guinea pigs without their consent. Not only could Facebook manipulate its users; it had manipulated them, without any regard to the ethical implications.
A firestorm of bad press and user fury ensued. Then, in December 2015, The Guardian reported that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had harvested “psychological data” from millions of Facebook users for his presidential campaign, relying on a small firm known as Cambridge Analytica.
These were the days before Facebook had been weaponized to incite genocide in Myanmar or livestream mass shootings in New Zealand or proliferate the far-right propaganda that helped elect Donald Trump. But there were plenty of indications that something was amiss with the world’s most popular social network ― which was already under a November 2011 consent order from the Federal Trade Commission requiring the company to take better care of user data and privacy.
At that time, Kamala Harris was the top state law enforcement official overseeing Facebook and every other major tech company in Silicon Valley. As attorney general of California, she possessed sweeping powers to restrain the growing power of those tech platforms.
“There’s a lot that attorneys general across the country could have done to rein in Big Tech,” according to Sally Hubbard, director of enforcement strategy at the Open Markets Institute, an anti-monopoly think tank. “Most notably, challenging the Instagram and WhatsApp mergers.”
Harris, like federal regulators in the Obama administration, never confronted these metastasizing threats to American democracy from either an antitrust or a consumer protection perspective.
Those acquisitions took place in 2012 and 2014, during Harris’ tenure as AG. And yet Harris, like federal regulators in the Obama administration, never confronted these metastasizing threats to American democracy from an antitrust perspective, nor brought legal action against them on consumer protection grounds. Even well into her 2020 presidential campaign, she pursued a soft touch with Big Tech, issuing vague promises to secure consumer privacy protections as her rivals for the Democratic nomination ― particularly Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) ― vowed to break up Facebook and implement ambitious new regulatory regimes.
More than 1,400 pages of emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request help explain this inaction, showing that Harris generally viewed Big Tech as a partner rather than a threat. At times, she even teamed up with tech companies to market herself as a rising star in American politics ― a depiction that proved correct with her election to the Senate in 2016.
Today, Harris is a leading contender for the Democratic Party’s vice presidential nomination. One of the most pressing questions for the next administration will be how it chooses to grapple with the corporate behemoths that have come to dominate American culture. This look inside Harris’ record with Big Tech suggests a politician who identifies with the tech elite and is wary of substantive reform.
Leaning In, Leaning Out
In February 2013, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg wrote to Harris asking for a glossy photograph of the AG and a personal anecdote demonstrating how Harris had “leaned in.” Sandberg was looking for stories of powerful women proving their mettle in the male-dominated upper echelons of American power, from boardrooms to statehouses. As the top law enforcement official in the biggest state in the country, Harris was a natural target.
Sandberg was asking Harris to participate in a massive PR rollout for her soon-to-be-released book ”Lean In.” The ”Lean In” marketing campaign was intimately connected to Facebook itself. Ordinary women who wanted to follow the Lean In movement had to sign up through a Facebook account and “like” Lean In to receive further career advice.
Harris passed along a headshot and her own “Lean In” story ― a tale of how she got her start in electoral politics running for district attorney of San Francisco in 2003 as a long-shot upstart who defeated several well-connected male challengers.
Harris was far from the only public figure to join in the marketing splash. When Lean In came out in March 2013, Sandberg’s memoir was celebrated as a women’s rights triumph ― a road map to everything women could aspire to be in the corporate hierarchy. “Sandberg is not just tough,” wrote Anne-Marie Slaughter in a glowing New York Times review. “She also comes across as compassionate, funny, honest and likable” ― everything an ambitious young woman could hope to be. Slaughter was a former State Department official about to be named head of the New America Foundation, a liberal think tank.
So nobody made a fuss about a state law enforcement official joining a PR push for a top official at a company she ostensibly policed. The idea that either Sandberg or her company represented any kind of public policy problem was beyond the scope of what most politicians considered political.
But there were rumblings that the platforms ― Google, Facebook, Twitter ― were losing control of what they had created. In 2013, public fury began to mount over revenge porn, a practice in which men posted nude or compromising photos or videos of ex-girlfriends hoping to humiliate them. Revenge porn specialists were typically isolated grifters, but the tech giants gave them public reach. A website in a lonely corner of the internet wouldn’t get much traffic if Google, Facebook and Twitter never directed anybody to it, or refused to host such images on their platforms.
As AG, Harris made revenge porn a signature issue, eventually broadening the scope of her crackdown to include all “cyber exploitation” ― efforts to profit from abuse, particularly of women, online.
But she didn’t go after the tech companies themselves. In 2013, she brought a case against Kevin Bollaert, the 27-year-old founder of UGotPosted.com, a site that invited misogynists to post photos of their exes. Bollaert was also the founder of ChangeMyReputation.com, a site that charged people a fee to take down those damaging photos. It was a clever scam: letting bad actors post material without consent on one site and then forcing victims to pay him to take it down through another site.
Harris threw the book at Bollaert, who was eventually sentenced to 18 years in prison. For women’s rights activists, it was a victory ― free speech claims online didn’t include efforts to humiliate people sexually without their consent.
“She took on cyber exploitation,” says Danielle Citron, a law professor at Boston University who received a MacArthur Foundation “Genius” grant in 2019. “No other AG in the country did that.” Citron is a vice president at the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, which has received funding from Facebook and Twitter.
Harris’s arguments in the case explicitly shielded Silicon Valley from any potential implications of a guilty verdict. Bollaert was responsible for what happened on his site because he was a publisher, not a neutral platform.
But as it became increasingly impossible to ignore the role Big Tech was playing in the revenge porn problem, Harris sent company representatives a note on Jan. 9, 2015, inviting them to her San Francisco office for a Feb. 4 meeting. The emails don’t indicate much about what occurred during that discussion, but six days later, Harris appeared onstage with Sandberg at Facebook’s Menlo Park headquarters, smiling and waving to the crowd before giving a talk about cyberbullying.
The emails show that Harris convened private meetings for her cyber exploitation program throughout most of the year, finally launching the initiative as a public campaign in October of 2015. Tech companies committed to changing the way they monitored abusive content on their platforms. Harris praised their efforts in a June 2015 Marie Claire profile, which her office repeatedly emailed out to representatives from the firms over the months ahead of the October launch.
“I asked some online companies to come in for a meeting about how we could create a safer environment online,” Harris told Marie Claire. “They were wonderful. Many companies really want to lead on this issue.”
According to a February 2019 Politico profile, Harris relied on an advocacy tactic known as “interest convergence theory,” which maintains that activists have better success with reform projects when they align their goals with the interests of powerful institutions. Showing Facebook and Google that revenge porn was hurting their bottom line would help bring them along.
The problem with this reasoning is that in many cases, Big Tech directly profits from socially destructive policies.
“Revenge porn, election integrity, the destruction of journalism ― you can’t fix any of these problems at Facebook without changing the way Facebook makes its money,” notes Open Markets’ Hubbard.
On the day of the launch, Harris’ office described it as a “nine month collaboration between Attorney General Kamala Harris’s office, major tech companies, law enforcement and victims’ advocates.”
For Harris, tech companies were part of the solution, not the problem. “I cannot emphasize enough how leaders in technology have stepped up,” she said during a press conference.
It was hard to miss the different approaches Harris had taken with powerful political actors and small-time crooks. Bollaert got 18 years, while Google and Facebook got a private meeting and public praise.
A Soft Touch And Big Checks
Harris’ initiative was not totally fruitless. “Within a month of our task force launching, Google took action to de-index the names of people from their platform,” notes Citron ― meaning the search engine would not direct queries for individual names to revenge porn sites.
But many victims’ advocates maintain that Google is still a serious problem. Whatever its formal guidelines, the search engine lets a lot of harmful material slide.
Facebook is even worse. In 2017, a nonprofit military journalism outlet reported that veteran and active-duty Marines had been using Facebook to share nude photos of ex-girlfriends and strangers without their consent ― including dozens of active-duty female servicemembers. Four years after its meeting with Harris in San Francisco, Facebook was still a breeding ground for revenge porn.
By 2017, Harris was no longer in state government. She was elected to the Senate in 2016, backed by roughly $214,000 in campaign contributions from Big Tech, including the maximum individual donation allowed under California law from Sandberg herself.
Two days after the election, Sandberg wrote to congratulate Harris.
CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!! We need you now more than ever.
I just did a Facebook post about you and all the women.
Cheering you on!
As a top contender for Joe Biden’s VP slot, Harris’ record with Big Tech is more than a historical curiosity.
For most of her tenure as California AG, Harris was aware that something was going wrong at the most powerful and profitable institutions in her state. But she chose not to pursue them, training her sights instead on bad actors who didn’t carry political influence.
Meanwhile, the tech giants matured into a grave threat to American democracy. Today, Facebook is not merely a hotbed for cruel sexual vendettas, but a vector for Russian propaganda, white nationalist organizing and even terrorism.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has developed a close relationship with Trump and is bending the platform to fit far-right proclivities. Sandberg has made a point of attending photo ops with Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.
As a senator, Harris has been mostly quiet on policy-making issues that carry implications for Facebook and Google. She sat out the debate on a 2018 sex trafficking bill ― once her signature issue ― only entering her name as a co-sponsor after it was clear the bill would pass by a wide margin.
Last year, as other contenders for the 2020 presidential nomination called to break up Facebook and Google, Harris again suggested a lighter approach.
“I believe that the tech companies have got to be regulated in a way that we can ensure and the American consumer can be certain that their privacy is not being compromised,” Harris told The New York Times in January 2019.
When pressed on whether that included break-ups, Harris dodged. “My first priority is going to be that we ensure that privacy is something that is intact.”
For most tech experts, that approach is simply unrealistic.
“All of the problems with Facebook all come down to two things,” notes Hubbard. “Its business model and the fact that it’s a monopoly power. You can’t fix that with better privacy standards alone.”
Who are the criminal mobsters of Silicon Valley’s democracy manipulation millionaires and billionaires? Who are the elitist tax evader, sex freak, money-laundering, Senator bribing, off-shore cash hiding, election rigging insiders who manipulate the system for their own insider trading schemes: Reid Hoffman, Larry Page, Sergy Brin, Elon Musk, Dustin Moskovitz, Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Laurene Powell Jobs, Steve Spinner, Steve Westly, Vinod Khosla, Andy Bechtolsheim, Brian Goncher, Cheryl Sandberg, David Drummond, Andy Rubin, David Plouffe, Tim Draper, Jeffrey Epstein, Gilman Louie, Ira Ehrenpreis, Tim Cook, McKinsey Consulting, Deloitte, Goldman Sachs, Jerry Brown, Richard Blum, James Breyer, John Podesta, Joe Lonsdale, John Doerr, Keith Rabois, Marc Andreesen, George Soros, Mario Rosatti, Martin LaGod, Michael Moritz, Viktor Vekselberg, Larry Summers, Pierre Omidyar,Tom Steyer, Steve Jurvetson, Steve Rattner and their CARTEL! They have “command and control and exclusive beneficiary positions in ongoing, coordinated, criminal and anti-trust activities involving government and stock market funds…”. The sex crime victims of Cartel member Jeffrey Epstein reported him to the DOJ a decade ago, yet nothing was done. We reported this Cartel in 2008, STILL, nothing has been done! These people are Ponzi Scheming State and Federal funds “stimulus” after “stimulus”! They use free government money, stock valuation pump-and-dump and black-lists to make certain that no competitor can ever operate against them in any market. How much of this will the public stand for?…”