MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Phony Feminism of Kamala Harris

Harris only cares about other women's rights when those rights don't conflict with her career ambitions.

Us Senate/ZUMA Press/NewscomUs Senate/ZUMA Press/NewscomKamala Harris has long positioned herself as a feminist crusader. But both as attorney general of California and now as a member of the U.S. Senate, she has actively championed policies that deny women's agency, ratchet up female incarceration, and endanger those most vulnerable to sexual abuse. Along the way, she has shown an utter disregard for civil liberties and constitutional law—a tendency she will now get to take to the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.

Harris' most prominent crusade in recent years has been against the classified advertising platform Backpage, which inherited much of the digital sex-ad market after the federal government forced MyRedbook.com to close and bullied Craigslist into shuttering its adult-ad section. Sex workers credit online advertising platforms with allowing them greater independence, reducing the need to rely on "pimps," and significantly curtailing risks to their safety by allowing for better screening of clients. But these platforms have become a big bulls-eye for grandstanding politicians, who have used the new visibility of prostitution ads to peddle sex-trafficking hysteria and make a name for themselves in the process.

In October of 2016, just before she faced voters in her Senate bid, Harris spearheaded the arrest of current and former Backpage executives on charges of pimping and conspiracy, under the (ultimately unsuccessful) theory that providing an open online platform for user-generated content made them responsible for any illegal activity committed by users who connected through the site. Federal law explicitly says otherwise—something Harris certainly knew, as she had petitioned Congress a few years earlier to change the law so that she and other prosecutors could target Backpage (and its deep assets) through state criminal justice systems. What's more, myriad federal courts have affirmed that prosecutions like the one Harris attempted are illegal.

A Sacramento County Superior Court rejected Harris' case against Backpage, ruling that "Congress did not wish to hold liable online publishers for the action of publishing third party speech and it is for Congress, not this court, to revisit." Undeterred, Harris—as one of her final acts as California's top prosecutor—filed nearly identical charges against Backpage in another California court, a move the First Amendment Lawyers' Association called "a gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion" and part of Harris' pattern of disrespecting due process and constitutional rights.

Meanwhile, an actual underage sex-trafficking scandal implicated dozens of police officers and other local authorities throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Oakland went through two police chiefs trying to address it*, with a third doing only questionably better. People were pleading for the state to step in and oversee an independent investigation, since local governments seemed more motivated to quash a PR nightmare than punish public officials. Harris and her office refused to intervene.

Now, on Capitol Hill, Harris has joined such colleagues as Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) in attempts both to shut down Backpage and to amend federal communications law so that state prosecutors can punish websites for user-posted content or illegal actions arising from that content.

The whole episode fits with two oft-exhibited Harris habits: a willingness to skirt constitutional protections when it suits her agenda, and a public orientation toward high-profile "social justice" causes that masks behind-the-scenes moves that betray them. (From the beginning of her career, she's portrayed herself as a tough-on-crime progressive.) These habits are easiest to see when the issue involves sex work, but they extend far outside that realm.

Take the time Harris fought back against a California court ruling saying the state couldn't keep prisoners in overcrowded conditions and deny them medical care. Her reasoning? The state needed the slave labor provided by mass incarceration.

How about the time she sponsored legislation to ban sex offenders from using all social media? Or when she went to bat to keep Lonny Leon Rivera on the sex offender registry? Rivera's crime: In 1989, when he was 19, he had sex with the 17-year-old who is now his wife.

For all her big talk now on criminal justice reform, Harris fought to keep marijuana criminalized in California and resisted efforts to deprioritize the arrest of nonviolent drug offenders. She also pushed to send high school students to jail for having more than three unexcused absences in a year, intervened myriad times on behalf of dirty prosecutors, and lobbied to keep using an execution method that the courts had deemed unconstitutional.

Still, much of Harris' worst work has come from her fake-feminist agenda to "help" women and girls by throwing them in jail for having sex. For at least a decade, she has fought against campaigns to decriminalize consensual adult prostitution in California, ignoring the ardent lobbying of sex workers, criminal justice reformers, and human rights advocates.

Meanwhile, under the guise of keeping marginalized women safe, she has spearheaded raids on immigrant-owned massage parlors in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, an effort that failed to uncover the imagined "modern slavery" rings but did bring many undocumented workers into contact with people who can deport them. She also instituted a statewide program to get truckers to report suspected sex workers to police.

Harris' career exemplifies the worst of carceral feminism, and it demonstrates an enduring commitment to solve social problems like an old white dude in the 1980s would. Anyone who truly cares about protecting women's well-being and safeguarding civil rights should fear her ascension to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

*Correction: This article originally said mayors here when it should have been Oakland police chiefs.

Photo Credit: Us Senate/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm deeply satisfied by all the hate being thrown at Kamala lately.

  • Rhywun||

    I hope it sticks. History has been very kind to corrupt prosecutors, though.

  • Quixote||

    This article is based on two fake premises: 1) that there is something wrong with viewing the constitutional "rights" of people who really have no such rights to begin with, in a way consistent with one's career interests, and 2) that so-called corrupt prosecutors don't have an important role to play in our society. If this kind of silly attitude were the law in America, we would never be able to prosecute and punish certain individuals who everyone knows deserve to be jailed. In this regard, it is a real outrage that 21 convictions have been thrown out in our nation's leading criminal "parody" case for phony "constitutional" reasons;

    (see documentation at https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/)

    but on the other hand, without those charges, we might never have been able to get anything to stick at all, so it's a good thing we have such tools available when we need them. Hopefully with Harris in the Senate, we can expand some of our prosecutorial resources and go after more of the "back-page" trolls and "satire" crooks who twist words and stir up unwanted controversy on our college campuses.

  • LarryA||

    I sure hope that's satire.

  • Quixote||

    And I hope you would not dare to defend the "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated, so-called judge in our nation's leading criminal "parody" case, or inappropriate "editorials" such as this:

    https://forward.com/opinion/385050/

  • Jayburd||

    A Jew didn't do it for financial gain? Oh come on.

  • colorblindkid||

    She's still going to be president. Ugh.

  • Libertymike||

    Not if those who are not colorblind have any say.

  • DJK||

    Colorblind, huh? Yet you refer to her color below....

  • Citizen X - #6||

    He said NOT colorblind, implying that the duskiness of her complexion ought to be sufficient reason by itself to vote against her.

  • DJK||

    Good call. That's just a really weird thing to say, then.

  • Libertymike||

    Why? My statement is predicated upon some reality. Do you doubt that?

  • JoeBlow123||

    Three articles in 24 hours though? Did she not send a Christmas Card this year to Reason or something? Seems excessive.

  • Ron||

    she clearly hates sex workers, I think maybe she's jealous

  • Libertymike||

    If she knocked on my hotel suite door, I wouldn't answer and I would call the agency and chastise them for their negligence and / or disregard for my specific instructions as to the type of adult entertainer I wanted. I would never, ever request such an ugly negress.

  • DJK||

    "Negress", really? Dipshit comments like this are why many outsiders associate libertarianism with racism. There was absolutely no need to use a racial pejorative (or ad hominems about her appearance) when her record is so atrocious. Grow up.

  • Libertymike||

    Stop with the paternalistic politically correct nanny-state admonitions.

    In other words, stop being a cuck. It is okay to refer to the color of a racist black person. She believes in affirmative action. She believes that there is such a thing called white privilege. She believes in collectivist justice.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    In other words, stop being a cuck.

    Quit whining, beta cuck.

  • Libertymike||

    If I were to be a cuck, I would be an ALPHA cuck.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    That's exactly how a beta cuck thinks.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    When someone offered Libertymike the red pill, he grabbed the bottle and ate them all.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I reaffirm my previous statement that "cuck" is the sound it makes when a single, lonely neuron fires pointlessly into an otherwise empty skull.

  • Libertymike||

    You are reaffirming the obvious - libertarians who posit that liberty means an absence of race realism.

    Cuck is spot-on. It is a perfect descriptor of such libertarians and a great many conservatives as well. The types who think that racism is a one-way street: nasty whitey against the oppressed black man.

    Besides, as you acknowledge, cuck has great onomatopoeia going for it.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    If "race realism" means judging human beings according to the melanin content of their skins, then yes, that is antithetical to libertarianism, which rightly holds that people are first and foremost individuals rather than cells in a collective.

  • Libertymike||

    Of course, individuals are first and foremost individuals.

    Race realism, as I conceive it, is understanding the race realities of life such as:

    (1) blacks are significantly more likely than Caucasians or Orientals to engage in crimes of inter-racial violence;

    (2) blacks are significantly more likely than Caucasians or Orientals to have babies out of wedlock; and

    (3) blacks are significantly more likely than Caucasians or Orientals to be high school drop-outs.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    "Individuals are individuals, except when they're black."

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Dem fukin naggers, amirite?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You are saying individuals are individuals, and then immediately treating an individual based on a group identity.

    Also, you have a big misunderstanding of statistics. If you have a data-point, such as we do with Kamala, her features are independent of the distribution you are drawing from.

    Let's say that you are drawing from a bing with 99 green balls and 1 red ball. If you draw a red ball, it isn't a green ball just because it was the more likely outcome. So you are making a fundamental mistake on application of statistics. Regardless of whether your comments are valid or not, let's not even get into that, regardless of that you are incorrect.

  • Libertymike||

    BUCS, how am I treating an individual based on a group identity?

    Is the mere fact of identifying an individual's race constitute "treating [the] individual based on a group identity"?

    Note, I did not write that I would turn away ALL NEGRESSES who knocked on my hotel door? In fact, I have actually had the experience of patronizing black woman adult entertainers.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm discussing something entirely separate from your usage of negress. Negress is weird, and is offensive due to how language works. Negro and related words are considered offensive due to many historical and social reasons. Does it necessarily make you a racist? No. But you did choose that to be offensive. Either that or you are shockingly unaware of the English language.

    I am talking about your discussion of race reality above in connection to Harris. We are discussing a single person, and you then brought up information about her race with the implication that there is a meaningful connection between the two. So at that moment you wanted us discuss this specific person based on their race. When you bring up someone's group identity, assert statements about that group identity, and use it in a discussion of an individual than you are attempting to treat an individual based on group identity.

  • JoeB||

    Restricting language, even archaic, slips down the slope into Newspeak. I mean, he didn't say n***er, did he? In your world, eventually all our posts will look like J*** **k ***********.***************.*** ***** ***********!

  • Mark22||

    Negress is weird, and is offensive due to how language works. Negro and related words are considered offensive due to many historical and social reasons.

    I find "African American" equally weird. There is nothing "African" about Harris. Both she and her "Jamaican" father look like generic Southern Europeans. She comes from a highly privileged family background.

    Now, when people refer to her as "negress", that's not motivated by racism, it's simply mocking her deplorable use of racial categories for political purposes. I agree that in the current political climate, it may not be effective mockery.

    To avoid that needless discussion, it might be better to condemn Kamala Harris in race-neutral terms as an ultra-privileged, self-righteous fraud.

  • I'm Here, for MOAR Hihn||

    Quit hiding behind "libertarianism" and just come out and be proud to be racist. Daily Stormer and other sites need clicks too. You don't have to agree with everyone here, but we all pretty much agree racism=bad. Your comment was racist. Are you still mad no one really paid attention to your tiki torch party until one of your friends ran someone over?

  • Libertymike||

    MOAR, how is it racist to opine that a particular black woman is an ugly negress?

    Is it racist to opine that Donald Trump is an orange tousled white man?

    Is it racist to opine that Larry Bird is an ugly bird looking white man?

  • Kivlor||

    If "race realism" means judging human beings according to the melanin content of their skins, then yes, that is antithetical to libertarianism, which rightly holds that people are first and foremost individuals rather than cells in a collective.

    It's this kind of anti-biology nonsense that is causing untold trouble in society.

    Race realism means accepting that biological races (or subspecies) exist. That there are observable differences between races. That some of these biological differences are general differences in cognitive ability and inclination. That biology influences individual behaviors.

    Stop being a cuck.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    There's that single neuron firing again.

  • Mark22||

    Race realism means accepting that biological races (or subspecies) exist. That there are observable differences between races.

    But "biological races" or "subspecies" do not exist. The heritable (!) correlations you observe between different traits (skin color, IQ, etc.) in the US are based on ethnicity, cultural and mating preferences, and migration history. For example, the average IQ of Indians in India is far below 100, while the average IQ of Indian immigrants in the US is significantly above 100. The average IQ of German Americans is significantly below the average IQ of Germans in Germany.

    If African American women developed a strong preference for high IQ in their mates, then African American average intelligence would be far above average within a few generations. And as white women choose mates more based on looks and sexual prowess rather than IQ, the IQ of the white population will drop.

  • Kivlor||

    It's easy to recognize that although all people are "individuals", societies aren't. Societies and demographic groups are collections of individuals. The aggregate trends in the decisions and beliefs of the individuals of a group affect society at large, affecting culture, policy, etc.

    We can't know every individual so we use heuristics to make judgements about how to proceed with our lives--we all do, no matter how "rational" you want to pretend you are. It makes sense to make some general judgements about groups if there are obvious trends in those groups.

    Ex1: If [racial group 1] neighborhoods tend to be very violent, especially toward [racial group 2] people, it is wise for [group 2] people to avoid [group 1] neighborhoods, especially because they don't know the individuals that constitute the neighborhood.

    Ex 2: If [racial group] tends to be very anti-liberty and pro-socialism and overall more likely to use welfare, and a highly capitalist/individualist nation is making aggregate decisions about importing 1,000,000 foreigners per year, they would be better served by just putting an X on that group in favor of a capitalist/individualist one as they can't know all of them on an individual level.

  • Libertymike||

    If an individual is racist, and the individual discriminates against a particular race in his personal business, how is that anti-liberty?

    The answer is: its not.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    If an individual is racist, and the individual discriminates against a particular race in his personal business, how is that anti-liberty?

    The answer is: its not.

    I don't know, we can define liberty in a lot of ways. If we only define it to be the behavior of governments, then of course it's not. It couldn't possibly be by definition. By if the concept of libertarian has any strain of individualism in it, then it is absolutely anti-individual in that you define a system to treat people based on group identity. The opposite of individualism.

  • Libertymike||

    First and foremost, let's start with the NAP.

    Yes, I concur with you in that the concept of libertarianism embraces individualism. I also concur that it is anti-individual to define an individual based on group identity.

    Please explain how I have done that with Ms. Harris. How am I defining her total being by simply calling her a negress? In essence, that is what you are asserting. That dog just will not hunt.

  • JoeB||

    So it's not ok to be forced to bake a cake with gay people on it, but it is ok to force people to bake a cake with black people on it..?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So, you are making the same fallacy discussed above. You discuss statistical distributions when we are discussing a single person. So we are talking about Kamala who has qualities that lie somewhere in a distribution of any group you put her in, but qualities exist independent of that distribution. So, you have misunderstandings of statistics here.

    One interesting thing about your example as well is your focus on race as a group. Race is a group. In fact we can make any group up we want. Men over 40. People with green eyes. People from Manhattan. You can always define a set. That set will then have some qualities. If you can quantify those qualities, then you can give aggregate information about that group. That's just how sets work.

    Why is race always the most important focus by far. For instance, we are talking about Kamila Harris here. My guess is that her being a Senator from California is considerably more predictive of her behavior than race. Or that she's a prosecuting attorney. Or one of many other categories. But race is the first, and seemingly only thing you fixate on. Putting race as the defining characteristic of individuals and using that to judge individuals is the definition of racist. All you're saying is that racism is correct, but that is still racism.

  • Libertymike||

    You are assuming facts not in evidence.

    My conception of the senator is not limited to her racial composition. Again, you appear to be taking the position that I am defining her exclusively by her race. There is no evidence to support such a proposition.

    Of course, she is a senator. She is a prosecutor and she has spent a great deal of her adult life in the public sector and she is a democrat. Those are all qualities that I do not find attractive.

    Mitt Romney is a creepy looking Mormon. (granted, I know lots of women who think he is good looking, but one can be good looking and still be creepy looking) He has been a governor and has run for president two times and after savaging the Orange one, begged him for a cabinet seat and now appears to be mulling a run for senator. Again, qualities I abhor. Would you argue that I am defining him by his religion?

  • Mark22||

    We can't know every individual so we use heuristics to make judgements about how to proceed with our lives

    That's fine. But heuristics aren't biological reality. Inferring differences in crime rate or income to racial distinctions is a useful heuristic, but it race doesn't cause those differences, it merely correlates with it and acts as a marker.

  • John C. Randolph||

    She obviously hates hookers who are lower on the totem pole than she is. Maybe she hates herself for being WIllie Brown's whore too, but I doubt she has that level of self-awareness.

    -jcr

  • Mark22||

    I thought you were speaking metaphorically, but it looks like Kamala Harris actually slept with Brown for money and career advancement.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Goodness, what a terrible person.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I have to echo what Fist said yesterday. We really need to stop electing prosecutors. They are scum and basically driven to villainy.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The problem isn't election or appointment. The problem is that they can very seldom be made to pay for transgressions in office. Make it explocit in law,that a prosecutor or LEO who lflagrantly breaks the rules is to be charged with a felony and (if convicted) thrown in prison and a lot of the worst scum (like Harris) would crawl back into the woodwork.

  • Zeb||

    I think he might have meant "stop electing former prosecutors to higher offices".

  • Lester224||

    Exactly. All of these anti-liberty biases are blasted into the group-think of prosecutors on both the left and the right.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I have to echo what Fist said yesterday

    You have reached a new low.

  • I'm Here, for MOAR Hihn||

    That said something coming from you

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Blah.

  • operagost||

    "They are scum and basically driven to villainy."

    Send them all to Mos Eisley spaceport.

  • Jerryskids||

    ENB obviously doesn't believe there's a special place in Hell for women who don't support other women.

  • Rhywun||

    No comment.

  • Rat on a train||

    How many special places in Hell are there? I want a list with the qualifications and amenities. No one should end up in the wrong section of Hell.

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    Man, an otherwise alright looking woman, manages to look like she's constipated *and* trying to pinch a loaf in 50% of her photos.

  • mpercy||

    Bitchy resting face?

  • mpercy||

    Or perhaps just the resting face of a bitch?

  • Paul L.||

    Reason's resident feminist quisling implies that being associated with or being a feminist is net positive for someone .
    I hope Kamala Harris further tarnishes feminism's brand.
    Like Marcotte, Valenti and Clinton.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    This comment is certainly something.

  • Libertymike||

    It is certainly a comment and it is certainly something. In fact, you are certain.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    This comment is certainly something.

  • mpercy||

    This is the first sentence of this comment. This is the second sentence. This sentence is questioning the intrinsic value of the first two sentences. This sentence is to inform you, in case you haven't already realized it, that this is a self-referential comment, that is, a comment containing sentences that refer to their own structure and function. This is a sentence that provides an ending to the first paragraph.

  • Zeb||

    Depends on whose definition of "feminist" you are using.

    I do agree that the brand is so tarnished that people who aren't batshit crazy radical feminists should just stop using it. Time to stop trying to save it from the crazies.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Is there any label you can't say that about?

    Maybe neoliberal, that's still fresh enough to be in the pre-crazy stage.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Is there any label you can't say that about?

    No, which is why Teams are so fun.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I dunno. From what i've seen "neoliberal" started with one foot already in crazy, and then took off running.

  • Finrod||

    What a silly bunt. (/Python)

  • mandel||

    I'm discussing something entirely separate from your usage of negress. Negress is weird, and is offensive due to how language works. Negro and related words are considered offensive due to many historical and social reasons. Does it necessarily make you a racist? No. But you did choose that to be offensive. Either that or you are shockingly unaware of the English language. I am talking about your discussion of race reality above in connection to Harris. http://audiomanager.wikidot.com/ We are discussing a single person, and you then brought up information about her race with the implication that there is a meaningful connection between the two. So at that moment you wanted us discuss this specific person based on their race. When you bring up someone's group identity, assert statements about that group identity, and use it in a discussion of an individual than you are attempting to treat an individual based on group identity.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Virtually all Democrats only care about women's issues when such issues align with their partisan identity. Democrats are only interested in policies offer an opportunity to expand the reach of government.

    Virtually all Democrats supported Bill Clinton despite credible reports of sexual assault or harassment from numerous women. Virtually all Democrats supported Hillary Clinton despite the fact that she facilitated Bill's crimes against women, and pretty much ran the bimbo eruption team that covered up his misbehavior. The vast majority of Democrats supported Ted Kennedy, who not only mistreated the women in his life but also killed one of them. Etc., etc.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You just made some lefty list for pointing out stuff that hurts the Clintons and Kennedys.

  • Zeb||

    That list has, what, half of the country (or likely more) on it?

  • wfcollins||

    "solve social problems like an old white dude in the 1980s would"

    The author is obviously a racist and ageist.

  • Voros McCracken||

    From Twitter:

    "mostly the argument is 'prostitution should be legal and Kamala Harris disagrees, and that means she's not a feminist.'"

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Fun fact: she knows how vinegary Willie Brown's old balls are.

  • Libertymike||

    Perhaps they are apple cider vinegary?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    So, Harris makes Her Shrillness Hillary the First look like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.

    Where do the Democrats GET these repulsive women? Pelosi is't any better, and looks like a lizard-woman to boot.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    People who want to both expand the role of government in others' lives and place themselves highly within said government are universally despicable.

  • Leader Desslok||

    Its like they are all like Palpatine, the dark side corrupts the body.

  • PaulTheBeav||

    If you're a Democrat and you have good intentions then results don't matter. Also anyone who is a Democrat is automatically credited with having good intentions.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Elizabeth Nolan Brown,

    Some of us were wondering earlier what you thought of the open letter in Le Monde that 100 prominent French women signed taking #MeToo to task for being a threat to women's sexual liberation.

    There were statements made like, "Rape is a crime, but trying to seduce someone, even persistently or clumsily, is not".

    There were statements made that said men have a right to hit on women.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-42630108

    Do you agree that men have a right to hit on women and/or that trying to seduce someone, even persistently or clumsily, is not a crime?

    Enquiring (sic) minds want to know.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Some of us were wondering

    Enquiring (sic) minds want to know.

    Confirmed: Ken suffers multiple personality disorder.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There were seven different people talking about it in that thread this morning, and only one of them was me.

    That seven number wasn't counting you. You don't ever seem to have much to say about anything.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    And none of them wondered or asked what ENB thought.

  • Ken Shultz||

    So you don't comment on my posts about ENB because you're interested in her.

    You only comment on my posts because you're interested in me?

    I'd be flattered if you'd written anything interesting.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    But you were the only one who was actually curious.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, the rest of you just commented on it and where ENB probably lands for no reason at all.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    No, we all responded to you because we're white knighting... or something. I believe that's the usual response to somebody who doesn't have sufficient hate for her or her opinions.

  • BYODB||

    Women such as this want to keep the vagina 'powerful' but only in terms of making women rely on the government to receive those 'powers'. You'll note that Progressivism continues to reveal itself as the New Victorianism or New Puritanism. It's a godless philosophy, but it can't shake it's religious roots.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    The vagina will always be powerful. I mean, duh.

  • Kivlor||

    Progressivism truly is a Christian Heresy.

  • ||

    Anyone who truly cares about protecting women's well-being and safeguarding civil rights should fear her ascension to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    WTF are you talking about? She has a 100% NARAL rating, she opposes parental notification of minors wishing to have an abortion and she believes her oath of office empowers her and other agents of government to take my money and use it for Planned Parenthood to provide abortions. She is completely for a woman's right to choose.

    Until a woman wants to choose to do something she doesn't approve of. Like sell her labor below a government enforced wage. Or sell her kidney. Or sell her sexual services. Or consume certain intoxicants....Like all good progressives she is pro-choice on a grand total of one issue.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    This will do as a summary of the article for the standard Internet commenter.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    From the beginning of her career, she's portrayed herself as a tough-on-crime progressive.

    It's like she's a combination of the worst attributes of the right and left.

    Christ, what an asshole...

  • operagost||

    Kamala Harris is the blackest, most feminine old white guy ever.

  • Longtobefree||

    Yet another compelling case for the rest of the US to throw California out; we cannot wait for them to secede.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Good snapshot of a congresscritter who has crossed the line from merely mediocre into downright evil territory, ENB. Time to get ye trusty olde wood chipper out of the shed.

  • Lawn Darts||

    I feel compelled to offer two stories, even though I'm a day late to this thread (do all of you people sit poised over the keyboard waiting for a new story to drop?)

    Anyway, I cannot fathom Harris' agenda. "Tough on crime Progressive" my arse. Both my stories will illustrate the special joy it was to run a business in Kamala Harris's San Francisco. I don't even know how much money her policies (non-polices?) cost us.

    Story one: Early AM. Phone rings. Office burglar alarm is going off... yes-- please send police. A bunch of us rush down to office. Door broken open, smoke pouring out. Smoke turns out to be a discharged fire extinguisher in entry way... a diversion. SWAT arrives and storms the building. Finds no one and leaves. We go in and find, besides the fire extinguishers discharged, doors broken down, general vandalism, holes smashed in walls in order to rip out alarm system, and everyone's belongings and computers piled by the door for removal. Two of the guys are suspicious and do a search of the building themselves. They find the jerk hiding in the attic. Police return and arrest the guy, who turns out to be in the US illegally (from Europe) and in possession of an illegal pharmacopeia. Not long afterwards, Kamala Harris' office claims there is NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE and lets him go.

  • Lawn Darts||

    Story Two: The office truck is stolen. 3 times. Each time, the cops recover it, stripped of small items that cost thousands to replace. The cops know who is doing it, but say they need to catch him in the act. Great. So the guy in charge of the truck, disables it. You have to know what has been disconnected to start it now. One day, he looks out the window and sees two legs sticking out from under the truck! The thief is back and trying to figure out what's been disabled. Cops arrive and pull the guy out from underneath. The guy gets released because he HADN'T STOLEN IT YET. We had to get rid of the truck to make it stop.

    I swear, the woman is not a prosecutor or public servant of any kind. She's some kind of stooge, an evil puppet of chaos, and the spiteful enabler of a hateful agenda that only she understands. The fact she's made it to congress fills me with dread.

  • Domina Elle||

    Kamala Harris referred to herself as an 'honorary sex worker' back when she was trying to get elected to DA. How was she an honorary sex worker? It helps to be fucking a man in political office who can promote your campaign and career- eh Kamala? LOL

    She made that comment to the erotic service providers union who she spoke to during her campaign trying to 'solicit' (pun intended) votes. A member of ESPU reminded her of this during a news broadcast. Her reaction says it all......

    https://youtu.be/9ESutzy1VBk

    What a hypocrite!

  • art guerrilla||

    1. Empire loves it when reasonoids take the superficial red meat and chew on it obsessively, ignoring the the bone-deep rot...
    2. taking a step back and looking at the summary/resume as ms brown has shown, illustrates nothing more than a wannabe player who is carrying water for Empire at every turn... her 'principle' is: whatever advances her own esteemed self in the hierarchy of Empire...
    3. apparently an excellent example of the all-too-true political joke/maxim: In politics, once you learn how to fake sincerity, you've got it made.
    4. because of the majority of pathetic carpers, squabblers, know-nothings, do-nothings, and pantywaist pussyfooters as inhabit this forum, Empire sleeps soundly..

  • vek||

    What a horrible cunt this lady is. As someone said above the worst of Democrats and Republicans combined into one awful human being. I hope she slips in the shower and breaks her neck before she can do any real damage in the Senate.

  • Jayburd||

    She's not black enough to play the racist card. Does she even straighten her hair? But if one were to approach it from a racist/sexist angle they might do real damage in the electorate. Now that she doesn't have to sleep around for career advancement she has obviously let herself go. As I recall she used to be attractive and skinny. Like Meghan Markle. Stuff like that

  • Ned Netterville||

    Kamala Harris wears high heels, the most damaging form of physical abuse inflicted on women by male shoe designers to better show off their gams in order to sexually arouse men. Feminists don't wear high heels. https://kamalaharris.org/photos/10/ No woman can honestly say she likes to wear shoes that damage her toes, arch, ankles, calves, knees, hips and backs, https://kamalaharris.org/photos/10/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online