Let’s get one thing straight from the start: when it comes to choosing who’s best for America’s military and foreign policy, you need someone who isn’t afraid to shake up the establishment.
Donald Trump did that. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, is like a cocktail mixed from the leftovers of the Democratic political machine—she’s all optics, no substance.
She has the personality of HRC without the flair.
Sure, you could slap a title on her like “commander-in-chief,” but when you dig deeper, it’s clear she’s more interested in chasing polls than making tough decisions. And let’s not pretend she isn’t being propped up to inherit Biden’s fading coattails.
Trump’s Record: No New Wars and Peace Through Strength
Trump’s foreign policy approach was a breath of fresh air for those of us who have seen our friends sent off to war with no end in sight. Under his administration, he became the first president in recent history to not start a new war.
He leaned on diplomacy where needed (North Korea and “Rocket Man”, anyone?) but wasn’t afraid to flex America’s military muscle when it counted—like when he greenlit the airstrike that took out Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. That wasn’t just sending a message; it was sending a crater to Tehran’s doorstep, telling them to think twice before targeting American interests.
Contrast this with Harris, who has zero experience in national security and a voting record that shows more concern with advancing progressive social policies than protecting America’s interests abroad. In her time as a senator, Harris had one of the most liberal voting records, often siding with positions that would weaken military readiness, cut defense spending, and hobble our ability to project power globally.
Trump’s “America First” Isn’t Isolationism – It’s Smart Strategy
When the media howled about Trump pulling troops out of places like Syria and Afghanistan, they conveniently forgot to mention that he did it while negotiating deals that kept our enemies at bay. We weren’t abandoning our posts, we were restructuring our priorities.
Let’s get one thing straight from the start: when it comes to choosing who’s best for America’s military and foreign policy, you need someone who isn’t afraid to shake up the establishment.
Donald Trump did that. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, is like a cocktail mixed from the leftovers of the Democratic political machine—she’s all optics, no substance.
She has the personality of HRC without the flair.
Sure, you could slap a title on her like “commander-in-chief,” but when you dig deeper, it’s clear she’s more interested in chasing polls than making tough decisions. And let’s not pretend she isn’t being propped up to inherit Biden’s fading coattails.
Trump’s Record: No New Wars and Peace Through Strength
Trump’s foreign policy approach was a breath of fresh air for those of us who have seen our friends sent off to war with no end in sight. Under his administration, he became the first president in recent history to not start a new war.
He leaned on diplomacy where needed (North Korea and “Rocket Man”, anyone?) but wasn’t afraid to flex America’s military muscle when it counted—like when he greenlit the airstrike that took out Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. That wasn’t just sending a message; it was sending a crater to Tehran’s doorstep, telling them to think twice before targeting American interests.
Contrast this with Harris, who has zero experience in national security and a voting record that shows more concern with advancing progressive social policies than protecting America’s interests abroad. In her time as a senator, Harris had one of the most liberal voting records, often siding with positions that would weaken military readiness, cut defense spending, and hobble our ability to project power globally.
Trump’s “America First” Isn’t Isolationism – It’s Smart Strategy
When the media howled about Trump pulling troops out of places like Syria and Afghanistan, they conveniently forgot to mention that he did it while negotiating deals that kept our enemies at bay. We weren’t abandoning our posts, we were restructuring our priorities.
Why keep draining resources in endless wars when we can shift our focus to the real threats like China and Russia? Trump’s “America First” strategy was more than a slogan—it was a tactical move to keep America strong while putting our adversaries on notice.
Now, take a hard look at Harris. She’s tied to the same group that got us mired in these conflicts in the first place. If we’ve learned anything, it’s that the Democratic establishment loves nation-building (Ukraine anyone?), endless engagement, and playing the world’s policeman while our soldiers pay the price. I’ve seen first hand how this has brutally destroyed the SEAL community’s morale.
Under her, don’t expect any bold moves. Expect more of the same soft-weak-touch approach we’ve seen with Biden: appeasement over action, and red lines that usually evaporate when crossed.
Kamala’s Global Inexperience vs. Trump’s Real-World Results
Let’s not sugarcoat this: Harris has never served in the military and has zero experience negotiating with foreign leaders. She’s never had to make a call that puts American lives on the line. Trump? He has a record of talking to our enemies—sometimes with a fist behind his back—and walking away with results. The historic talks with Kim Jong-un, though criticized by the mainstream media, de-escalated a potential nuclear flashpoint that no other administration could touch.
What’s Harris got? A disastrous trip to Central America where her “do not come” speech did nothing to curb illegal immigration or address the root causes of the crisis. Her lack of understanding on global issues is stark, and when faced with seasoned world leaders, she’s likely to be outplayed. Just watch her latest interviews which lack any sort of intelligent substance, just political grandstanding which I think most of us have grown weary of.
The “Bought and Paid For” Myth: Trump Has His Own Money, Kamala Has Corporate Backers
Here’s a myth worth debunking: Kamala and her crowd like to paint Trump as corrupt, bought off, and out of touch. But let’s be real—Trump’s personal fortune means he doesn’t have to bow to lobbyists and special interests. In fact, he was one of the few to call out both parties for being controlled by corporate interests. Kamala, on the other hand? She’s knee-deep in the same swamp she claims to want to drain.
Her campaign has been funded by Silicon Valley and big pharma, and let’s not forget her ties to Wall Street. She’s no outsider ready to fight for the average American; she’s a cog in the Democratic Party’s well-oiled machine.
Trump, love him or hate him, doesn’t owe anyone any favors. That independence is exactly what America needs on the world stage—someone who will make decisions based on what’s best for the country, not what’s best for their donors.
Conclusion: America Needs Trump’s Bold Leadership
Kamala Harris may look good on paper to the media and the coastal elite, but when it comes to protecting America’s interests and keeping our military strong, she falls flat.
Trump, with his “no new wars” record, his strong stance on America’s enemies, and his refusal to be bought and sold by the political class, is the clear choice. The world doesn’t respect weakness, and unfortunately, Kamala Harris represents exactly that.
In a time where China is flexing its muscles, Russia is pushing boundaries, and the Middle East remains a powder keg, we need a leader who knows how to navigate these dangers with a mix of strength, strategy, and swagger. Trump’s the man for the job—again.
COMMENTS
There are
You must become a subscriber or login to view or post comments on this article.