Kamala: A Political “Kamaleon” or Political Hyena Tries To Hide His Far-Left Positions From Voters
Kamala Harris is trying to hide her far-left, neo-Marxist positions in order to appeal to a more diverse audience. All politicians try to show a more centrist face in election campaigns with the aim of captivating the largest number of voters, however, when this transformation is so crude that it hides behind murky smiles, concerns arise about the authenticity and transparency of the political figure. Such is the case with Kamala, whom many label a disastrous political chameleon and others an abominable political hyena whose efforts to hide her true far-left positions from voters have sparked debate and scrutiny over her ideology and moral qualities. This article delves into the intricate web of Kamala's political persona, unmasking her tactics and examining the implications of her strategic camouflage employed in her election campaign, managed by renowned advisors of sound neo-Marxist ideology and globalist financiers of the worst kind who seek to destroy the United States from within.
1. Introduction to Kamala Harris, a Chameleon Politician or Political Hyena
Analysis of the Figure of Kamala in the Political Arena
Kamala, a politician we can classify as a chameleon or as a political hyena, has demonstrated abilities to adapt to different political environments, appearing to change her far-left positions like the typical chameleon that changes colour or like a hyena that eats any ideological policy regardless of the degree of decay or corruption.
Origin and Evolution of Kamala's Chameleon Strategy
Kamala's chameleon-like strategy has evolved throughout her career, adapting to the political demands of the moment to hide her true ideological stances behind a hyena smile.
Since then, Kamala's chameleon-like strategy has evolved to hide her true ideological stances behind a hyena smile.
2. Analysis of Kamala's Far-Left Political Positions
We transcribe the most salient changes described by "The New York Post" in its 11 August 2024 edition.
Identifying and explaining the far-left positions of Kamala Chameleon today by comparing the truth of her previous approaches, seeking to decipher her actual position on the political spectrum.
What is her real position on the political spectrum?
Kameleon: "We know our immigration system is broken, and we know what it takes to fix it," Harris said in Las Vegas last weekend.
The truth: Harris has never wanted to fix it before, she wanted to throw it all away. She was all for getting rid of ICE, and even said that crossing the border illegally was not a crime. "We're not going to treat undocumented people who cross the border as criminals," she said.
It's not even fair to call this a change of position; it's a flat-out lie. Harris's only clarification of what was "broken" was that we needed an "earned path to citizenship" that will reward people who came here illegally.
Turned "border czar", Harris did nothing to strengthen the border or address the "root causes" she talked so much about.
Kameleon: Back in 2020, Harris' press secretary blatantly stated: "Joe Biden and Kamala Harris do not support defunding the police, and it is a lie to suggest otherwise".
The truth: Except that she did support it outright. In the summer of 2020, Harris said that "we need to take a look at these budgets," suggesting that the police were overfunded. She "applauded" Eric Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, for defunding the Los Angeles Police Department.
Kameleon: Last week, a spokesman for Harris told the Washington Examiner that Harris "no longer supports a federal jobs guarantee, an idea championed by some on the left and Green New Deal advocates."
The truth: She not only supported the Green New Deal, she wanted to break up the Senate to get it passed. "I'm willing to get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal," she once said.
Kamaleon: Harris has claimed that she now stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel.
The truth: except when she refuses to attend the prime minister's speech to Congress or criticises the way Israel has responded to Hamas terror attacks.
Harris has been a vocal supporter of Israel's response to Hamas's terrorist attacks.
Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East peace negotiator, told the Wall Street Journal: "There is the inner Kamala, of a different generation than Biden, whose empathy and sensitivity run deeper than the president's when it comes to Palestinian suffering. Then there is the outer Kamala, the moderate pro-Israel Democrat who, for political reasons, when it comes to Israel needs to colour between the lines."
Where is the Kamala who simply stands up for principle?
Yet on so many issues, Kamala Harris is an indecisive one, taking whatever position suits her best at the time.
Indecisive
When she ran against Joe Biden, he was the backward white man who opposed busing to end segregation. When she became his running mate, he had an "unmatched legacy".
Also last weekend, Harris suddenly endorsed not taxing tipping, a policy previously proposed by Trump.
Harris has changed her position on so many issues that the real question is: Does she stand for anything? Or is her only ambition to say and do whatever it takes to get elected, and then let the left wing of the party rule the nation?
That is the question the press is not asking. No, more than that. It's a question the media is trying hard to avoid asking.
Generally, when pundits refer to a "media bubble", they suggest that a candidate only reads and sees what he or she wants to hear and see.
But it's a bubble created for Harris by some of the country's leading media, to protect her not only from tough questions, but also from the truth: she's too radical to be elected and needs to be carefully hidden, like a chameleon from voters.
3. Kamala’s Strategies To Hide Her True Ideological Positions
Use of Ambiguous Rhetoric and Generalisations
Kamala uses ambiguous rhetoric and generalisations to conceal her true ideological positions, confusing voters, and maintaining her chameleon-like image.
Manipulation of Information and Avoidance of Direct Questions
Kamala employs a strategy of manipulating information by avoiding answering direct questions about his political positions, thus maintaining a veil of mystery about his true beliefs. Although you don't have to be an expert political scientist to notice her true objectives, as she is so clumsy and inept that she comes across more like a poorly wrapped tamale and not an expert chameleon.
4. Impact on Voters and Democracy
Consequences of the Lack of Transparency in Politics
All the changes she pretends to show will bring her dire negative consequences as they show a politics devoid of ethical and moral principles due to the lack of transparency in her policies, especially with regard to the trust of the voters who support her, her political leaders in the DemocRAT party and the globalist elite who fund her election campaign.
5. Criticism and Controversy Surrounding Kamala and Her Political Transparency
Analysis of Kamala's Criticisms
Kamala Harris has been criticised by her political opponents, some sections of society and even members of her own party for what they see as a lack of total transparency about her political positions, describing her as unethical, politically and morally unprincipled. Many have realised that she is trying to hide her extreme left-wing positions in an attempt to appeal to a more moderate electorate. This has generated controversy and led to questions about the honesty and consistency of the Democratic candidate.
Debate on the Ethics and Accountability of Politicians in Communicating Their Ideological Positions
The debate around Kamala Harris's political transparency raises fundamental ethical questions about the responsibility of politicians to communicate openly and honestly about their ideological positions and their ethical and moral principles. Politicians have an obligation to be transparent with voters about their beliefs and policy proposals, even if they are allowed to use a degree of strategic reserve. This dilemma between ethics and political strategy is a recurring theme in the political arena and raises questions about the trust and authenticity of political leaders.
Conclusions
Kamala's case is a pathetic example of how little importance she attaches to transparency and honesty in her vaunted political leadership that conceals her true neo-Marxist doctrine in a crudely chameleon-like disguise. As voters try to decipher and analyse the ideologies and qualities of candidates, the need for clarity, honesty and authenticity remains paramount for any politician with shame and respect for the voters and the party they represent. By shedding light on the nuances of political manoeuvring and the impact of hidden positions, we are better equipped to defend the integrity of our democratic principles and hold our leaders accountable to the true values they profess.
We hope that voters will discover that the election is not just a matter of political manoeuvring, but also of political manoeuvring and the impact of hidden positions.
We optimistically hope that voters will discover the true objectives of such political vermin so that we can return to a time when we can proudly say:
We are Making America Great Again, we are One Nation Under God!! and God Bless America!
