NYT Wonders If 'Former Prosecutor' Two Tier Keir Starmer Can 'Show' Kamala 'the Way'

Peter Byrne/PA via AP

When they tell you who they are, believe them.

That's pretty much where the New York Times was yesterday, in a dreamy, gooey little number, waxing rhapsodic over the ascendency of "former prosecutor" Sir Keir Starmer to Prime Minister of England.

Advertisement

Could Starmer, the dewy-eyed scribblers of drivel dreamed, lead former prosecutor Harris to victory by example?

Once these deep thinkers started pondering, a parallel political universe emerged. It began to seem as though it might be possible as they realized how much the two former prosecutors had in common.

When Vice President Kamala Harris said last week in Chicago, “you can always trust me to put country above party,” it struck a familiar note in Britain, where the new prime minister, Keir Starmer, used much the same phrase throughout the Labour Party’s relentless march to power earlier this summer.

It’s not the only parallel between Mr. Starmer and Ms. Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee. Both have shaken off or soft-pedaled some of their earlier positions as they try to broaden their party’s appeal. Both are former public prosecutors, who declare a ringing commitment to the rule of law. Both are operating in a volatile environment, where law and order is threatened by extremist elements.

Oh, what soaring prose right out of the starting gate!

BOTH DECLARE A RINGING COMMITMENT TO THE RULE OF LAW

Yes, Kamala Harris's "ringing commitment to the RULE OF LAW" has always been an obstacle to her advancing herself politically, hasn't it? She is known for her integrity.

Advertisement

Her reverence and respect for "the law," state or federal.

...She then ranted about how "powerful voices" were sowing hate and division to distract us from the Mueller investigation—the CIA-DNC-media-backed hoax that President Trump colluded with Russia. 

Lastly, she reminded everyone she was a prosecutor before exclaiming, "That wall ain't gon' stop them!" 

Fast forward to today, after over 10 million people have illegally entered the country under Kamala Harris's watch as Border Czar, and with the presidential election just two months away, she announced that if elected, she's going to build that wall!

Law and order are threatened and under assault in both countries, asserts the NYT, by nebulous "extremist elements." We've all been treated to over three years of how the Biden-HARRIS administration deals with those they dump into their own very specific classification of "extremist elements."

Advertisement

Even criticizing Kamala is verboten in the Biden-HARRIS administration.

I can't imagine what she will do if she gets to be queen.

Sir Keir is covering himself with the same sort of misplaced glory after becoming the titular head of the British government. He's not going after the guys doing the raping or running the grooming gangs or even setting villages on fire.

That's a protected class.

The former prosecutor has no interest in physical crimes and protecting law-abiding Bruts. He's going after the "far-right," aka "working-class white people."

Advertisement

The Notting Hill Carnival was in full swing, and so were arms with knives. Weird, though - no arrests.

I guess because the arms swinging the knives weren't pasty white.

It could be that UK coppers are too wrapped up, sitting with bated breath next to their phones and computer screens, waiting for the next snitch tip on a neighbor to come in. That sort of policing isn't cheap. It takes time, a sincere commitment of assets...

...and when the NYT is right, they're right. Starmer and Harris could be a matched set of real creepers.

Any snitch line has "President Kamala Harris" written all over it. We'd have more illegal and unconstitutional surveillance than we suffer from already under Biden-HARRIS to look forward to. As intrusive as what the Brits now are living with - monitoring internet, phone, and private conversations for anything smacking of dissatisfaction with the regime or that could be construed as "hate speech" or misinformation, particularly if it was true. Complete with knocks on front doors, sidewalk arrests for standing quietly, and raids dragging you outside thanks to tips from the neighbors.

Advertisement

Almost sounds like Minnesota [FIXED! Beege] under Tim Walz, doesn't it? What's there for a wannabe fascist not to love?

Amazing how they find each other.

The Times, ever fond of dictators and authoritarians, can't help themselves speculating just the teensiest, naughty bit at the end about a violent, right-wing "what if"?

WHAT WOULD PROSECUTOR KAMALA DO?

...To some observers, the shared background of Ms. Harris and Mr. Starmer as prosecutors raises questions about whether she would respond to any postelection unrest like he did. Encouraged by the prime minister, British authorities arrested more than 1,000 people who took part in the riots and have charged more than 700.

Although Ms. Harris shares Mr. Starmer’s left-of-center political instincts, she presented herself in Chicago as an unyielding protector of the rule of law. She accused Mr. Trump of sending “an armed mob to the U.S. Capitol, where they assaulted law enforcement officers,” and painted him as a serial lawbreaker.

What if, instead of another Jan. 6, we have a series of right-wing riots around immigration?” said Harold Hongju Koh, a professor at Yale Law School and a former legal official in the Obama administration, who has taught at Oxford. “It’s really about what Kamala Harris would do.”

That's an easy answer either way - the Times' amnesia prevents it from remembering we've seen this act before.

Advertisement

Two-tier smears and justice aren't an exclusively ugly British national disgrace.

It's imperative we show our former prosecutor the door on 5 November, leaving her British doppelganger all alone to destroy what's left of his own island.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement