Harmeet Dhillon: The Shocking Origin Story of Kamala Harris and All the Crimes She’s Committed

Added: Oct 12, 2024

Who Really Is Kamala Harris?

Dhillon describes Harris as a "shape-shifter," emphasizing her diverse upbringing. Born in Oakland to two university professors, Harris's early life was marked by her parents' divorce, which led her and her mother to move to Canada. After returning to the U.S., she attended Howard University and later UC Hastings in San Francisco for law school. Notably, Harris registered to vote for the first time at age 29, coinciding with her relationship with former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. This late registration raises questions about her self-portrayal as a lifelong activist, as she had not engaged in the most basic civic duty until much later in life.

Kamala and Willie Brown

Dhillon delves into Harris's relationship with Willie Brown, a powerful figure in San Francisco politics, which significantly impacted her career. Their public relationship lasted about two years, during which Harris benefited from Brown's connections and influence. Dhillon points out that Brown helped Harris secure a position in the District Attorney's office, providing her with patronage jobs and financial support. Even after their breakup, Brown continued to endorse and support her political ambitions, indicating the lasting influence he had on her career trajectory.

How Does Kamala Pronounce Her Name?

The podcast also touches on the pronunciation of Harris's name, noting that she has pronounced it in various ways, including "Kamala" and "Camella." Dhillon explains that the correct pronunciation is "Kamala," derived from Sanskrit, meaning "lotus." This inconsistency in pronunciation is highlighted as unusual, especially for someone with a non-Anglo name, suggesting a potential disconnect in her identity presentation.

Kamala’s Crimes

Dhillon explores Harris's early career and the controversies surrounding her actions, recounting how she allegedly broke campaign finance laws while working for Amos Brown's campaign. She was paid without registering as a political consultant, which is required by law. This initial disregard for legal requirements set a precedent for her later political conduct. When running for District Attorney, Harris violated campaign finance limits by raising and spending significantly more than allowed. Despite these infractions, she managed to avoid serious repercussions, thanks in part to her connections with the San Francisco Ethics Commission, which was influenced by Willie Brown.

Harris's claims of extensive courtroom experience and a high conviction rate were also scrutinized. Dhillon notes that Harris's actual trial experience was minimal, with only a handful of cases tried during her tenure as a prosecutor. This discrepancy between her public persona and her actual record is a recurring theme in the discussion.

How Has Kamala Changed?

Reflecting on Harris's evolution in the political landscape, Dhillon suggests that her rise has been marked by a series of strategic moves rather than genuine merit. She argues that Harris has often relied on shortcuts and the support of the Democratic machine in California to advance her career. This reliance on political connections has led to a perception that Harris is unqualified for the positions she has held, resulting in a pattern of exaggeration and misrepresentation of her accomplishments. Dhillon posits that Harris's history of legal violations and questionable practices has contributed to a sense of impostor syndrome as she navigates her political ambitions.

Corporate Media Covering for Kamala’s Gaffes

Dhillon criticizes mainstream media, particularly programs like 60 Minutes, for allegedly misrepresenting Harris's statements during interviews. She claims that the media has been complicit in covering up Harris's incoherence and missteps, suggesting that this is part of a broader trend of media bias favoring Democratic politicians. Dhillon argues that this pattern of media manipulation has allowed Harris to maintain her public image despite a history of questionable decisions and policies, particularly regarding crime and public safety.

Kamala Protecting Criminals

Dhillon discusses Harris's record as District Attorney, highlighting her leniency towards certain criminals while being tough on others, particularly legal gun owners. She claims that Harris's policies created a double standard, where criminals felt emboldened to commit offenses in San Francisco due to the perception that they would not face serious consequences. Dhillon points to specific instances where Harris's approach to crime led to increased violence and a rise in gang activity, arguing that her tenure was marked by a failure to effectively address crime and protect the public.

What Kind of Attorney General Was Kamala?

As Attorney General, Harris is portrayed as having a mixed record. Dhillon notes that while Harris had some high-profile consumer protection cases, she was criticized for violating the rights of the accused and failing to address issues of wrongful convictions. A significant scandal involving a drug lab technician who mishandled evidence led to the dismissal of numerous cases, and Harris's office was slow to respond to these violations, demonstrating a lack of accountability. Additionally, Dhillon highlights Harris's failure to comply with federal court orders regarding prison overcrowding, suggesting that her priorities were misaligned with the needs of justice and civil rights.

Kamala’s Hatred for the Pro-Life Movement and Free Speech

Dhillon emphasizes Harris's antagonism towards the pro-life movement, particularly in the context of her prosecution of David Daleiden, who conducted undercover investigations into Planned Parenthood's practices. She argues that Harris's actions represent a broader trend of silencing dissent and protecting powerful interests in the abortion industry. Dhillon expresses concern over Harris's stance on free speech, noting her support for censorship and her attempts to limit journalistic freedom. She warns that Harris's approach to governance could threaten the fundamental rights of citizens to criticize the government and hold public officials accountable.

Kamala’s “Minority” Status

Dhillon critiques the concept of minority status in California, particularly in relation to Kamala Harris. She argues that Harris has leveraged her identity as a woman and a minority to gain political advantages, suggesting that the culture of identity politics allows her to evade scrutiny regarding her Marxist ideologies. Dhillon points out the irony of calling oneself a minority in California, where there is no longer a white majority, and questions the meaningfulness of such labels. She highlights the cognitive dissonance in how identity politics operates in California, where individuals can claim minority status regardless of their actual demographic representation. Dhillon also references Harris's past actions, such as her campaign finance violations and her trip to Ghana, suggesting that these actions reflect a broader pattern of prioritizing certain narratives over accountability.

Voters Don’t Like Kamala

Dhillon expresses surprise at the unpopularity of Kamala Harris during the 2019 Democratic primaries, noting that she lacks the charisma and charm that other politicians possess. She contrasts Harris with past California politicians like Jerry Brown and Dianne Feinstein, who, despite their liberal views, had a certain level of competence and public appeal. Dhillon argues that Harris's rise in politics is a result of machine politics in California, where political figures are often anointed for higher office without necessarily earning it through public support. She emphasizes that Harris's lack of likability and her perceived mediocrity contribute to her unpopularity among voters, despite her identity as a woman of color.

What Happens If Kamala Wins?

Dhillon speculates on the implications of a potential Kamala Harris presidency. She warns that the Democratic Party has shifted towards being aligned with big business and pharmaceutical interests, which could lead to increased militarism and the imposition of controversial health mandates, such as forced vaccinations. Dhillon expresses concern about the erosion of free speech under a Harris administration, citing her calls for censorship of dissenting viewpoints. She fears that fundamental rights, such as those guaranteed by the Constitution, would be undermined, leading to a more authoritarian governance style. Dhillon concludes that if Harris were to become president, it would mark a significant departure from the principles that have historically defined America, and she emphasizes the need for resistance against such a regime.