Liberal Arguments Collapse Under their Own Weight: Just Take Renee Good and ICE

On the issue of Renee Good, ICE, the border, and on so many other issues, there's a point where liberal mental gymnastics becomes impossible to ignore.

When someone finds themselves defending criminals or excusing blatantly criminal behavior—not because they believe in it, but because it helps them attack something else they dislike—while simultaneously preaching about "law and order," that's the moment the alarm bells should go off for them. That's when something should click. Because it's a contradiction so loud even a deaf person could at least feel it.

But that's the core problem, isn't it? These arguments don't make sense because they're not built on anything solid. They're built on slogans. On feelings. They only fit on bumper stickers. On whatever sounds good in the moment. And it doesn't stop at one issue—it's woven into their entire worldview (that is, if you can accept, they actually have a view on anything, truly). They literally live in a constant state of contradiction.

Take a few examples.

Women must be defined clearly and biologically if we're talking about equal pay or opportunity—but the definition suddenly shifts when the conversation turns to say, sports, and someone needs to be "protected." Rather than conjoin the two arguments, they simply separate the two and make a new one, using an entirely new basis and premise to try and bring it home.

Abortion must be celebrated as a right, yet we must also accept that executing a convicted murderer is immoral. They can't define the two things as separate, very different things.

The pattern is unmistakable. These aren't positions. They're oppositions. The stances themselves need not be coherent or cohesive. They only need to resist something else. And it's the age-old response you get—that's not what we're talking about right now—when you try to check them on it.

Once the opposition is chosen, everything around it is bent, stretched, or redefined to fit—even when it defies logic, consistency, basic common sense, or paints them into a corner on another topic.

They're not arguments based on principle. They're arguments based on reflex. When that becomes the guiding force, nothing can make sense.

In order to accept Good was right and ICE was wrong, you have to bend and twist the narrative in remarkable ways to make it all come together, and inevitably...

Contradict yourself.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Want to support this blog to keep commentary like this coming? Consider switching to Bing and get paid to search.

© 2026 Jim Bauer

The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Going into the interview I had some concerns, even though I have great confidence and faith in Brett Baier to ask the hard questions, that he might go a bit light on Vice President Kamala Harris, or even allow her to close question segments with the final word with no clear rebuttal.

He didn't do that. He challenged her on claims. He presented her former and current positions and gave her the opportunity to explain the contrast. He presented polling outlining voter sentiment on a variety of issues that are not favorable to Kamala Harris on the economy, the border and other issues and point blankly asked her why, if she has a better path forward, the majority of the American people seem to be indicating they disagree with her.

Look, I am going to give Kamala Harris at least some credit for sitting down with Brett Baier. She easily could have said no, and I am sure that she was prepared to be in an interview situation that would be unlike anything that she would ordinarily be accustomed to.

But she didn't pass the smell test. She didn't answer the questions, and I think a lot of her combativeness during the interview was more to stall it, present less time for real questions, and control the interview than to display a sense of command.

What she ultimately did was spend the bulk of the interview taking shots at Donald Trump and dismissing the dismal results of the administration she was part of for the past four years, taking no responsibility, acknowledging no mistakes, yet at the same time trying to distance herself from Joe Biden.

As you would expect, Harris was armed with an arsenal of talking points, and she wanted to get them all out in rapid-fire as best she could.

In the end, I don't think the interview did any good for the Kamala Harris campaign, but at the same time I am not sure if this close to the election, it changes any minds either. But it did present a glaring example of why a Kamala Harris presidency poses more danger to the American people than she wants to claim a Trump administration would be.

Again, we have results to go by. We have Trump's first four years, and we have Biden's last four years, and she is correct to point out that there is a stark contrast between the two choices, only all of the problems that have happened in the last four years were partially under her command.

Over and over again she lobbed accusations against Trump about the dangers he poses, from threats to democracy to weaponizing the military against the American people, yet at the same time completely dismissing the fact that 79% of the American people in polls say that we are headed in the wrong direction as a country.

That's her problem to own and explain, by the way, because Trump wasn't there to steer the country anywhere. And actually, Harris' attempt at an answer to the question why was actually a bit bizarre, if you ask me. "It's Trump's rhetoric for the past decade," she tried to assert. But as Brett pointed out, "You were in the White House. Not Trump."

The bottom line is that we are in the final throes of this election. I think we have all the information we, as voters, need in order to make a final decision. I tend to believe that decision is Trump. But of course, it's hard to tell when the media seems to want to point us in a different direction. 

Like I have said before, I think any popularity or lead Harris has ever had has largely been driven by media spin much more than voter sentiment. Will the race be close? Who knows? It shouldn't be. But again, who knows?

All in all, I am going to give Brett Baier a thumbs up for a hard hitting, on point interview that I think touched on key issues and questions that gave us a better picture of the real Kamala Harris, unfettered by the usual media drooling over her or the left that we are used to.

We got to hear the right questions asked, and the American people got to see her unable to answer them with any conceivable substance. The left wing media will of course say Brett attacked Kamala Harris or was rude to her. But I'll just say that's because he didn't ask her what her favorite color is or what she plans to serve on her table at Thanksgiving.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL OF THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Harris Into a Deer In Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Three: Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan

Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan

One of the most frustrating things about Kamala Harris' repeated assertions during the Brett Baier interview, was this notion she was trying very hard to convey that Donald Trump is not putting the interests of the America people first in his campaign. 

What? Where have you been?

Trump has talked about the devastating blow to American families that inflation has caused. He has talked about the border. He has talked about the economy. And he has talked about the need to reduce high prices at the gas pump.

"Donald Trump has no plans," she kept saying.

Only the reality is that Trump has had plans all along, including many of which he had already implemented during his first four years. Policies and plans that were mostly effective and worked, by the way, no matter how badly Harris wants to convince the American people they didn't.

Brett asked her specifically regarding the economy, "Why do you think most people say they trust Donald Trump more than you when it comes to the economy?" And once again she skirted the question, instead bashing Trump as well as citing Nobel laureates and the Wall Street Journal as sources to say, "They trust our plan."

Which is essentially, the same plan the Biden administration was wanting to pursue—Harris is really just an extension of that even if she somehow wants to try to separate herself from it, while at the same time telling The View she wouldn't change anything the Biden administration did during their four years in office.

Again, am I the only one completely confused here?

I go back to what I have said before. Who was in office these past four years? Was it Donald Trump? Or was it Joe Biden and Kamala Harris? She acknowledges we have all these challenges and problems that need to be fixed. But it wasn't Trump who was in the White House when they happened and now, she's the one with the better ideas to get us out of it?

Brett asked her another very poignant question about her saying over and over again that her presidency would turn the page. "You've been vice president for the past four years. What are you turning the page from?"

Where I find her "answer" is remarkable is how she framed it, basically trying to suggest we are needing to get away from divisiveness, pointing fingers and passing blame, and trying to take people down instead of lifting them up.

Wait a minute. Would that be like accusing a political opponent of crimes? Of insurrections? Of trying to jail him? Of having wall to wall endless negative coverage comparing Donald Trump to Marxists and fascists and Adolph Hitler himself? 

She says Donald Trump's rhetoric instills fear in people's minds. So, what does saying that he will become a dictator, wanting to use federal law enforcement agencies to jail dissenters, take down democracy or whatever other evil plans he supposedly has—all of which are patently untrue, by the way—do to not instill fear in people's minds?

She is basically saying that we need to turn the page ahead against all the things her administration has been front and center of for the past four years, orchestrating all along.

At the end of the day, the fact is, Harris has nothing new to offer the American people and she's trying as hard as she can to erase the last four years and somehow pin all of America's woes on Trump. There's no other way of putting it. 

The question is, who's really buying it?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Harris Into Deer in Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Four: The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Brett Baier Puts Kamala Into a Deer in Headlights Mode with Immigration Question

If you ever wanted to know what a deer in headlights looks like, it was Vice President Kamala Harris as she was squarely trapped by a question brilliantly framed, that she thought she nailed the answer to.

"There's a lot of people that look back at what you said in 2019 when you first ran for president," Brett began. He reminded her that she supported allowing immigrants who were in the country illegally to apply for driver's licenses, that she supported free tuition for illegals at universities, as well as offering illegals free healthcare.

"Listen," Kamala Harris said, almost seeming irritated by the question by her body language. "That was five years ago."

She went on to convey her regard for the law and asserted she didn't advocate for these things while she was vice president. But of course, we all must remember, she was the vice president. Biden would have had to sign off on these things, and I contend even for him, these ideas would have been considered far too radical to take seriously.

Because of course, they are radical, and I think most Americans, including many Democrats, would be opposed to them.

She basically tried to throw out the notion that she would ever go back to her former position. But it was Brett's follow up question that was the gotcha moment. "If that's the case, you chose a running mate, Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, who signed those very things into state law. So, do you support that?"

Her pause was nearly 3-seconds long, which may not seem like a very long time. But clearly, she was taken aback by the question and immediately the wheels were spinning in her head. One could have pictured a sudden appearance of Will Robinson's robot in "Lost in Space" entering the frame warning, "Danger! Danger!"

The problem with her ultimate answer is the same as is the problem she has with most of her answers. She didn't answer it. She said her and Tim Walz are committed to following federal law. Yet clearly, Tim Walz had different interests as governor. So, which is it? She changed her position on the position and now Tim Walz has too?

How much more confused can the American people be made trying to figure out what Harris is actually for or against? Why didn't she condemn Walz' law or have further comment on it? Will she now, if elected, go to the courts to ask to challenge Walz' law on the grounds that it violates federal law? And will Walz, who enacted it, now side with her in the challenge?

Does this make sense to anyone?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Three: Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan
Take Four: The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Harris Wants to Ban Price Gouging on Groceries: Clearly, She's Out of Touch with Reality

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting the passing of the buck on inflation that has been dealt time and time again by the Biden administration, and now Harris, as she campaigns following Biden dropping out of the race?

She wants to propose a federal ban on "corporate price gouging" on food and groceries if she is elected.

Sure, some grocers, namely meat packers, have enjoyed record profits. But is that a result of price gouging and greed? The fact is that inflation is here because of the policies that Joe Biden put into effect that caused prices on everything to skyrocket.

You can even pin the damn timeline!

Within hours of Biden taking his oath of office he signed executive orders reversing Trump's energy prices and in March of 2021 he signed the American Rescue Plan into law, and by December 2021 inflation jumped to 10% and has risen year over year since well beyond the desired 2% rate the Fed prefers.

This inflation is not because of corporate greed. It is because of Biden's policies, which presumably would become Harris' policies if she is elected. What it should tell voters is that her eye is not on the ball. If she won't admit responsibility for the inflation, how can we expect her to have the right ideas to solve the issue?

To my mind, it's just the wrong focus and someone needs to call her out on this, and hard and fast. Perhaps Trump will do that and lay out exactly why we have inflation, which is for reasons other than the now Harris campaign is trying to sell us on.

I think the silver lining is that most Americans do know where the real blame lies. Based on the polls, Trump is still winning handily on the economy. But the problem is that there are enough haters of the rich who will side with Harris and give her a pass and agree with her.

But it won't solve the problem, of course, because it doesn't get at the heart of the cause. Beyond that, this will only put more restraints on businesses to operate profitably and effectively, and who does that hurt?

It hurts the consumer, and it hurts the workers.

It hurts the consumer because if suddenly a business is accused of gouging, it's going to have to adjust the way it makes its products. Quality may be compromised as recipes are tweaked. Packaging may change to adjust for the accusation.

And of course, if businesses make less profits, they can't pass any of that along to workers in terms of benefits and wages—or even new job creation.

You don't encourage a strong economic environment by stifling growth and progress in business. You encourage it by fostering growth and progress. Beyond that, you have to first prove gouging is happening, and I question how on Earth you do that?

What measure will be used to determine what a fair price is and what isn't? What method will be determined to decide whether a profit is good or exaggerated? How do you tell a business, "This is how much you can legally make on this item?"

It's more dictation and control over things the government has no business controlling or even deciding, for that matter.

The thing is that Harris really has no plan to tackle inflation at all, but because inflation is still here and it's a major concern to Americans, she has to say something. She has to at least look like she is interested in doing something about it.

Even Biden said price gouging was happening. If they truly believed it was, they'd have already done something about it. They haven't because, of course, it is something that only lives in their imagination and they are hoping the American people will join them on their fantasy trip.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer