Joe Biden has decided not to run for re-election in November. Or rather, the decision was
made for him by people with more political power. This leaves Kamala Harris as the presumptive
candidate to represent her party in November 2024. But unfortunately, Ms. Harris is
very unpopular, is not the brightest bulb in the candelabra, and carries more baggage than a
Greyhound bus. I predict the press will be instructed to dredge up that baggage
until the socialist Democrats hold their convention, at which time the delegates (if their opinion
matters) will no longer put up with her, and somebody like Michelle Obama will be
installed in her place. Nothing about this process is really democratic.
There is simply no way that an incompetent DEI hire will be elevated to President of the U.S. without
massive voter fraud, the political leverage of the anonymous oligarchy, and blatant bias in the news media.
The last factor is the subject of this page.
MSNBC
Claims It Had No Idea Kamala Paid Al Sharpton $500K Before On-Air Interview.. MSNBC
claims it was initially unaware of Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign payments to network host
Al Sharpton's National Action Network non-profit before his interview with the 2024 Democrat
presidential nominee. The group received $500,000 through two payments from the Harris
campaign on September 5 and October 1. The donations were made public weeks before
his interview with Harris on October 20. During the interview, which many have described as
softball, Sharpton praised Harris and criticized now President-elect Donald J. Trump. The
timing of the contributions has drawn criticism from journalists questioning the network's
journalistic integrity.
MSNBC
makes an eye-opening admission about the $500,000 Kamala Harris gave to host Al Sharpton's
non-profit. Cable news network MSNBC claims it was blindsided to learn that a
non-profit founded by longtime on-air personality the Rev. Al Sharpton received half a million
dollars from Kamala Harris' campaign just before he interviewed her. The donations that
flowed in just before the New York activist's conversation with Harris have brought up questions
about the news outlet's credibility. The National Action Network, a civil rights non-profit
that was founded by Sharpton in 1991, received $500,000 from the Harris campaign just weeks before
the MSNBC host conducted a highly-anticipated sit-down with the Democrat. Campaign finance
records from the 60-year-old's campaign reveal that two separate payments went to National Action
Network. One payment for $250,000 was sent to the non-profit on Sept. 5 and another for
the same amount was sent on Oct. 1. The softball interview with Sharpton occurred on
Oct. 20, just weeks after the second payment.
MSNBC
on Kamala Payment to Sharpton: Huh? Ho hum, nothing to see here, just a little
payola between friends. One has to wonder at MSNBC's identity as a news and current affairs
channel. It had been well over two weeks since the Washington Free Beacon's Chuck Ross first
revealed that Al Sharpton's nonprofit National Action Network received $500,000 from Kamala Harris'
campaign. The money came in two separate $250,000 remittances, one on September 5 and
the other on October 1. [Advertisement] Just coincidentally, Sharpton then
gave Harris airtime to wish him a happy birthday on October 3, and then conducted an
infomercial on MSNBC's air disguised as a news interview: [...] Paying a show host for air time has
a particular term in broadcasting: payola. Technically, MSNBC isn't a broadcast
channel, so the law may not apply, but that's debatable. What's not debatable is that
Sharpton conducted a corrupt act with this undisclosed personal benefit for his organization after
taking a cool half-million bucks in donor money from Team Kamala for this infomercial. And
MSNBC still holds itself out as a news organization, operating for the moment under the purview of
NBC News.
With
an Honest Press, Democrats Wouldn't Have Been Shocked at the Election Results. An
honest press would have reported that Kamala Harris was ducking key questions, botching interviews,
and offering word salad responses. Worse, she learned nothing from one interview to the next,
and she was unprepared to address fundamental issues while her handlers ignored these deficiencies.
All the while, the mainstream press touted her as a skillful leader who would carve a new
path forward, fight for the middle class, and unleash an "opportunity economy." If the press had
cited her glaring deficiencies in running for the highest office in the land, she and her team
might have been able to make course corrections and thereby exhibit a better showing.
Instead, the mainstream press propped her up, along with inauthentic pollsters, strongly suggesting
that it was a tight contest between Harris and Trump and that Harris was the superior
candidate! Likewise, reporters failed to offer balanced reporting on her running mate, Tim
Walz and generated countless features about what a great VP he would be.
Kamala
Harris' campaign paid Oprah Winfrey's production company nearly $2.5 million for celeb-packed
town hall — over double initial estimate. Vice President Kamala Harris'
campaign shelled out nearly $2.5 million to Oprah Winfrey's production company for the
celeb-packed town hall it hosted — more than double the initial estimate reported.
It was originally surmised that Winfrey's company Harpo Productions had been paid around
$1 million for the talk show legend's September town hall with Harris, but a new report shows
that the dollar amount was greatly underestimated. Two people familiar with the matter told
the New York Times that Winfrey's company had actually been paid closer to
$2.5 million — still a mere fraction of Harris' estimated $1.5 billion
campaign spending.
MSDNC
on Hot Seat After Revelations on Harris Campaign Donations to Sharpton Organization.
One big area of focus in the various post-mortems of Vice President Kamala Harris' second failed
presidential campaign has been on the piles of money (one billion dollars) she spent trying to win
the support of voters in key battleground states. For instance, there were the stories about
the million dollars the Harris campaign spent on the "Unite for America" live-streaming event in
Michigan that took place on September 19th which was hosted by TV talk show host/producer
Oprah Winfrey. Though Winfrey's production company, Harpo, has denied that she was paid any
personal fees whatsoever from the Harris campaign or Harpo, the questions continue to swirl.
The list just goes on and on. [...] And now, hot on the heels of the Winfrey allegations comes news
of what the Harris campaign gave to the racist "Reverend" Al Sharpton, a former Democrat candidate
for president himself and longtime host on MSNBC. According to a new Free Beacon report, the
Harris campaign donated to Sharpton's organization, the National Action Network (NAN), two times
prior to her October 20th interview with him, which was broadcast on MSNBC. What did she
donate? $500,000.
Kamala
Harris Campaign Gave $500k to Al Sharpton's Nonprofit Weeks Before Glowing Interview With
Anti-Semitic MSNBC Host. [Scroll down] On Oct. 3, Sharpton aired a
video of Harris wishing him happy birthday on his MSNBC weekend show, PoliticsNation with Al
Sharpton. "Happy birthday, Rev," Harris said, using Sharpton's nickname. "You have
been over all of your years such an extraordinary leader. You have been a voice of truth, a
voice of conscience." Sharpton, 70, conducted a glowing interview with Harris on Oct. 20
in which he touted her "extraordinary historic campaign" while referring to Trump as "hostile and
erratic." His questions lined up closely with messages that Harris sought to highlight on the
campaign trail. Sharpton addressed concerns among black voters — especially black
men — about Harris's record as a prosecutor in California, where she was given the
nickname "Kamala the Cop." [...] Sharpton did not disclose payments from the Harris campaign during
either segment with the candidate. National Action Network did not respond to requests for
comment. MSNBC also did not respond to comment requests.
How
media fails. Of all the institutions that have failed us in past years, none has been
worse than the media. [...] Fast forward to the obvious cognitive decline of President
Biden. This was fairly evident even during the 2020 election but became more obvious during
his term. Where was the investigation and reporting? Instead, the media basically
covered up for him until it became undeniable to the entire population after the debate this past
June. Had the media done its job, it is likely that Democrats would have insisted on a proper
primary where multiple candidates would have been vetted. Kamala Harris would not have been
the choice of Democrat primary voters. Harris would have had to better delineate her
positions and her rationale for changing so many of them. Even Tim Walz didn't get properly
vetted by the press. They jumped all over J.D. Vance's old comment about cat ladies but
didn't pursue many of Walz's radical positions and clear falsehoods regarding his résumé.
The
reason Kamala Harris lost. Whatever you think of Donald Trump, watching the mood
change in the BBC's election studio has been delicious. It was like a New Orleans funeral in
reverse — a carnival turning a corner and transforming into a wake. This was
supposed to be a historic night. But then it wasn't just the BBC. The liberal media have been
at it for days. There was supposed to be a last-minute surge in support for Kamala Harris,
driven by record turnout of women coming out to fight for their rights. This was pure
hubris. To think that the US election was going to turn on the touchstone liberal issue of
abortion (sorry, 'reproductive rights') was nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the
many commentators and academics wheeled out to make that point.
Say,
What Happened To 'Closest Election In History'? For months running up to the Nov. 5
election, the "experts" told us that this would be the closest in history. Over and over again they
said it. Always with great certainty.
"This could be the closest presidential election since 1876"
"Uncertainty reigns in an election closer 'than any I have ever seen'"
"Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump is the closest presidential race of the century"
"2024 Election Is The Closest Presidential Race In At Least 60 Years: Polls"
"Coping with election-related anxiety in a razor-thin race"
"Razor-thin race between Harris and Trump should motivate Democrats ahead of Election Day"
"Dead-heat poll results are astonishing — and improbable, these experts say"
"America's dead-heat Trump-Harris election"
"Poll shows presidential race in dead heat"
Turns out, it wasn't close at all. Trump is currently ahead by 3.5 points in the
popular vote. That will tighten as the millions of votes in deep-blue states such as California,
Washington, and Oregon continue to be counted, but if it holds it will be the first time since 2004
that a GOP candidate won the popular vote and only the second time since 1988. But unless you
failed civics class, you'd know that we don't elect presidents by national popular vote. And
if Nevada, Arizona, and Michigan end up in the Trump camp — he's currently leading in all
three states plus Alaska — Trump will end up with 312 electoral votes.
So
NBC Broke Election Law And Will Get Away With It; UPDATE: Forced to Give Trump Equal
Time. Kamala Harris made a surprise appearance on Saturday Night Live. It was a
surprise both because it hadn't been telegraphed and also because NBC had previously said neither
candidate would appear due to laws requiring equal time for all candidates running. There is
nothing obscure about those laws, and NBC specifically referenced them earlier this year to explain
why they wouldn't host either candidate. [Advertisement] [Tweet] But there are two close
races NBC wanted to influence: the presidential race, and also the Virginia Senate race in which
Tim Caine faces a difficult reelection battle against a strong Republican Hung Cao. So NBC
decided to break the law. To protect the rule of law, our democracy, and American political
norms, you see. Sometimes you have to break some eggs to make an omelet, and if using the
public airwaves, provided by the American taxpayers for free in the public interest, means tipping
the scales for a favored candidate, they will do their duty. [Tweet] Saturday Night Live
knows that they can do this because, whether Kamala wins or loses, they will face little
punishment. Perhaps a fine, and I doubt that NBC Universal cares that much, and because they
are catering to the transnational elite the virtue signaling benefit will, in their eyes, outweigh
any minor cost to their shareholders.
The Editor says...
The FCC doesn't deter broadcasters from doing anything. The broadcasters have read the FCC rules
over and over. It doesn't matter. In an election year, FCC fines are just part of the cost
of doing business. TV news readers insist no one is above the law!
But if the law gets in their way, they step over it, pay the fine, and go about their business.
CLAIM:
NBC Broke FCC 'Equal Time' Rule with Kamala Harris Appearance on SNL. NBC violated
the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) "Equal Time" rule by inviting Vice President Kamala
Harris onto Saturday Night Live on the last weekend before the election, leaving no time for
former President Donald Trump. Harris appeared in the show's opening scene, known as the
"cold open," opposite Maya Rudolph, who impersonates her on the program. (The setup copied
Trump's 2015 appearance on NBC's The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon.) [Advertisement]
[Tweet] However, NBC had previously announced that it would not invite either candidate on
the program.
ABC
affiliate 'mistakenly' airs election results sparking conspiracy theories. An ABC
affiliate has sparked wild conspiracy theories after mistakenly airing election results for
Pennsylvania. The results appeared on the ticker along the bottom of the screen during a
broadcast of the Formula 1 Mexico Grand Prix by ABC local affiliate WNEP-TV on Sunday. It
showed Kamala Harris taking the state with 52 percent of the votes, while Donald Trump's share
was 47 percent. It instantly prompted claims of election rigging on social media, with
one person tweeting: 'The cheat is on.' WNEP-TV said that the numbers came up on the screen in
'error' and that they had been 'randomly generated' as part of a test ahead of election night on
November 5.
The Editor says...
As I've probably mentioned a few times already, I worked in broadcasting for 48 years, and incidents
like the one described above are rare, but they happen, especially in the week before an election.
However, it's odd that when text is keyed (superimposed) over program video, with "randomly generated"
election results, they always show the Democrat winning. That makes it hard to believe it was
accidental. Here's a pro tip for the ABC affiliate: If you want to see whether your
Master Control switcher can put a super over network video, start with a blank bracket, "The quick
brown fox," or a single punctuation mark in the corner of the screen — not with an
advertisement for the socialist Democrats. You can play with the character generator off-line
as much as you want.
The
Media Coverage of Kamala Harris and Her Marxist Father. We're only days from Election
Day, and the question remains: How well do you really, truly know Kamala Harris? Did
you know that Kamala and her father, Stanford professor Donald J. Harris, live just a mile apart in
D.C., but never speak? Did you know Professor Harris is her only living parent, but didn't even
appear at the Democratic National Convention to watch his own daughter accept her party's nomination
for president? (The New Yorker describes them as estranged.) Did you know Professor Harris
was a trailblazing economist and the first black scholar to earn tenure at the Stanford Department of
Economics? Did you know that the Economist described Professor Harris's work as "more unashamedly
Marxist than anything in modern American politics"? Did you know the Stanford Daily (Stanford's
student newspaper) described Professor Harris as a "Marxist economist" and said he's teaching "radical
political economics"? Did you know that the last time Professor Harris said anything particularly
noteworthy about his daughter, it was to condemn her for perpetuating the "all-Jamaicans-are-potheads"
stereotype? Furthermore, did you know that he's written economic papers criticizing the
open border policy espoused by the radical left?
The
Pravda Press Still Won't Ask Harris If She'll Accept The Results Of The Election If She
Loses. The Pravda press has asked former President Donald Trump over and over again
whether he'll accept the results of the election if his Democrat opponent, Vice President Kamala
Harris, wins. Trump's running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, has heard the question ad
nauseam as well. CBS News political correspondent Caitlin Huey-Burns peppered the former
president with the question in late August, as the Democratic National Committee was installing
Harris as the party's nominee following President Joe Biden's forced exit from his reelection
campaign. "Will you accept the results of this election?" the reporter asked.
"Absolutely. I assume it's going to be a fair election. If it's going to be a fair and
free election the answer is absolutely I will," Trump said. [...] In other words, if leftist
activists and Trump-hating elections officials don't rig this election like they did the last one.
Kamala's
Inane Talking Points. As Vice President Kamala Harris slips in the polls, the
Democratic National Committee/Harris Campaign/mainstream media fusion talking points become even
more absurd. [Advertisement] Claiming that J.D. Vance and Donald Trump were "weird" did
not work — especially given the genuinely odd behavior of vice presidential candidate
Tim Walz and would-be First Gentleman Doug Emhoff. [The same advertisement again]
[Unrelated video clip] Nor was the next Harris meme convincing that the frenetic and non-stop
Trump was somehow "exhausted," "senile," and "confused." Voters know the workdays of the younger
Harris are usually far shorter — or sometimes not workdays at all. But Harris also
falsely claimed the physically and mentally challenged Biden was, in her words, "absolutely
authoritative" and "very bold and vibrant." [Advertisement] Now Harris asserts that Trump
is a "fascist," a "dictator," and "unfit" for office. But this new talking point will also
not stop the Harris campaign's hemorrhaging — and for a variety of reasons.
Facing
FCC Investigation CBS Finally Responds to Accusations of News Manipulation. The FCC
is investigating CBS for blatant manipulation of news. CBS really has no defense. CBS
has been caught producing, via editorial manipulation, two entirely different responses to the same
question. Everyone has been asking CBS to just simply release the full transcript. CBS
has refused. The assumption is now about the manipulative content of the broadcast being so
extreme that to release a transcript would be even worse than what is already known. The FCC
complaint is simple and accurate, which is likely why CBS has never attempted to defend itself,
until today.
Paging
David Muir and ABC News. Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC News delivered
a frankly disgusting performance during the September presidential debate between Kamala Harris and
Donald Trump. The network had agreed that there would be no fact checks and no interruptions,
yet the partisan duo proceeded to do exactly that. In fact, Trump was fact-checked at least
five times, while Harris was left to say whatever the heck she wanted (much of it lies).
Perhaps the most infamous moment came when Muir, using his most arrogant, self-important tone,
interrupted Trump on crime statistics. Yes, the former president fought back and tried to
explain why Muir was wrong, but the mission had already been accomplished: they wanted to interrupt
Trump's flow, have him go off on some sideline that wasn't germane to the argument he was
making — and they succeeded. If this were Kamala Harris using these tactics, that
would have been fine — she's supposed to be trying to trip him up — but to
have the supposedly unbiased neutral "moderators" join forces with Kamala was quite simply unethical.
CBS
named in federal complaint over its decision to make Harris look coherent. CBS has
been named in a federal complaint for its decision to make Kamala Harris look coherent following
its taping of a recent interview. To do that, the network recorded an answer she made early
in the recording, then subbed it in for the word salad she actually delivered to a later
question. Fox News said the complaint accused CBS News of "significant and intentional news
distortion." The filing was from the Center for American Rights and was submitted to the
Federal Communications Commission.
Harris
abruptly bars press from student meeting after protesters show up. Vice President
Kamala Harris' campaign on Thursday abruptly barred the press from her meeting with students at the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, as pro-Palestinian protesters marched on the campus amid the
news that Hamas' leader was killed by the Israeli military. Ms. Harris was said to be
working on a statement about the developments in the Middle East. The Democratic nominee was
scheduled to briefly take questions from the press ahead of what the campaign billed as a "meet and
greet' with the UWM students.
4 Years
After The Biden Laptop Coverup, Media Election Interference Is Worse Than Ever. Just
last week, CBS News used deceptive video splicing to replace one of Democrat presidential candidate
Kamala Harris' answers on "60 Minutes" with one that sounded less awful. A preview clip
of the interview showed Harris responding to a question with nonsensical babble, but when the full
interview aired, that answer was nowhere to be seen, having been replaced by a completely different
response. The original answer was also missing from the transcript released by the network,
and CBS continues to refuse to release an undoctored transcript. The most outrageous election
interference from the press this cycle might be the pile-up on Trump by ABC News "moderators" when
Trump met Harris for a singular presidential debate in September. They lobbed "fact checks"
at Trump left and right while refusing to question Harris' many falsehoods. Throughout the
debate, the format resembled ABC's David Muir and Linsey Davis asking Trump to explain how he could
possibly be so horrible and then giving Harris a chance to opine on whether she thought Trump was
horrible and why.
The
impenetrable arrogance of the left media. As the 2024 presidential campaign edges to
a close, the arrogance of the left, especially those in the media, is escalating to a fever
pitch. The best example of their tone-deaf hysteria is Martha Raddatz's attempt to humiliate
J.D.Vance over what she called lies about FEMA and Tren de Aragua. People like Raddatz never
learn from their egregious, foolish mistakes. She tried to assert that the reports of FEMA
failures were false when everyone with a pulse has heard the hundreds of horror stories from the
victims on the ground. She tried to stop Vance from speaking, so determined was she to push
the government-promulgated lie that FEMA has been on the job. She really stepped in it when
she brought up the overtaking of "several apartment complexes" by the Venezuelan gang Tren de
Aragua in Aurora, Colorado, cities in Texas, and Wisconsin. Raddatz suggested that
commandeering these "few apartment complexes" was just a minor annoyance. She tried to stop
Vance from speaking again by saying "I know exactly what happened." But she hasn't a clue and she
clearly has not given the issue any thought. She has no empathy for the hundreds of people
who live in those apartments suffering under these thugs from Venezuelan prisons. They are not a
problem in her neighborhood so it's not a problem. Therefore, Vance and Trump must be lying.
Calls
for CBS to Release the Kamala Interview Transcript Grow Deafening As Their Reputation
Burns. We've seen so much malpractice from the corrupt media, especially since Donald
Trump descended that golden escalator in 2015, that it's hard to be surprised anymore. We've
seen them bury the Hunter Biden laptop story right before an election, we saw them prattle on for
years about a fake Russia Collusion narrative, and witnessed them lie endlessly about Joe Biden's
obvious mental decline. Still, CBS' deceptive editing of Kamala Harris' "60 Minutes"
interview marks yet another low. As we reported, they issued two separate clips showing
Kamala answering a question from interviewer Bill Whitaker — but her answer is different
in each one. Clearly, then, one of those edits is a lie. The network, which Dan Rather
already humiliated back in 2004 when he accused then-President Bush of illicitly conspiring to
avoid the Vietnam War but could only back up his claim with documents that appeared to be obvious
forgeries, is taking immense heat from all sides for their duplicitous edits. One common
refrain: come clean and release the transcripts.
Kamala
Harris: The Manufactured Candidate? Why CBS's "60 Minutes" Edit Betrays The Larger
Problem. In the landscape of American political journalism, a troubling trend has
emerged this election season: the selective editing of the news. The latest case study
comes courtesy of "60 Minutes" of CBS News, whose apparent need to repackage Vice President
Kamala Harris' words into a neatly clipped soundbite is raising skepticism about the intent behind
it. What makes the whole thing even more troubling is that they've withheld the full,
unedited transcript of Kamala's interview. They should have released it not because the Trump
campaign labeled it "deceptively edited," but because journalistic ethics demanded nothing
less. Former CBS reporter Catherine Herridge points out that there's precedent for the
network releasing a full, unedited transcript: they did so for her interview with then-President
Donald Trump in 2020. This raises the question — why not now?
'60 Minutes'
Editing Kamala Harris Is the Ultimate Deep Fake. Kamala Harris, the Democratic
nominee for president, sat down for a taped interview with CBS' Bill Whitaker for 60 Minutes
which aired Monday night. The network then released what is called "teaser" clips consisting
of elements from the interview before it aired that evening, one of which aired on CBS' "Face the
Nation." In that clip, when Whitaker asked her why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "isn't
listening" to the administration, Harris delivered one of her typical word salads, a nervous mashup
of words that led to no real meaning or clarity saying, "Well Bill, the work that we have done has
resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a
result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region." But
apparently, the folks at CBS aren't into word salad, so they changed it. When the program
aired on Monday night, Whitaker asked the question, but this time Kamala's answer was different:
"We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where
we stand on the need for this war to end." More concise, more understandable, and maybe even
presidential. But that's not the answer she gave in the earlier clip. Many have noted
that CBS replaced her gibberish with a comment given earlier in the interview. Like an
old-fashioned cut-and-paste job, but without the glue stick. Multiple outlets have reached
out to CBS asking for an explanation for the creative editing which changes the response of a
presidential candidate to a national security question.
Were
the CBS Moderators Instructed to Affirm Climate Alarmist Talking Points?
[Scroll down] The moderators, or CBS, immediately showed their bias. After an
opening question about Israel and Iran, a perfectly logical lead-in topic as missiles were
literally raining down on Israel as the debate got underway, climate change was the second question
offered, before the economy and illegal immigration, despite it ranking dead last or near the
bottom in polls of voters as an issue of concern. Climate change ranks far below inflation,
health care, education, crime, and illegal immigration in every poll taken. But because it is
a liberal cause célèbre, it matters more to the left-leaning media than issues more
important to voters. Thus, its prominence in CBS' moderators questioning and their behavior
after. In the wake of Hurricane Helene, O'Donnell framed a question about climate change by
asserting that climate change makes hurricanes "larger, stronger, and more deadly because of the
historic rainfall." The data demonstrate that this is false, of course, but her handlers felt
the need to make sure she used the tragedy to apply pressure on the Republican vice presidential
candidate and emotionally charge the question.
The
'Basement Campaign' Isn't Going to Cut It. Kamala Harris was a local prosecutor for
twelve years, San Francisco district attorney for eight years, California attorney general for six
years, and a U.S. senator for four years, and she's closing in on four years as the U.S. vice
president. (Her last private-sector job might well have been that gig at McDonald's.*) That's a lot
of time in the public eye; over the years, and during her campaigns, she must have done hundreds of
interviews, perhaps thousands. [Video clip] [Advertisement] And yet,
since becoming the Democratic nominee, Harris has appeared terrified of doing them.
[Advertisement] When Harris has agreed to take questions, her campaign has chosen interviewers
who either are friendly and prone to softballs or who have already formally endorsed
her — Stephanie Ruhle on MSNBC and Oprah to start. We're told that Harris is doing
a so-called media blitz this week: The View, The Howard Stern Show, and The
Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Ana Navarro, a co-host of The View, was one of the
hosts at the Democratic convention in Chicago. Four years ago, Howard Stern endorsed Biden
and encouraged Trump supporters to drink bleach and "drop dead."
Media
Maintains 'Wall of Silence' on First Gentleman #MeToo Scandal. Doug Emhoff, Kamala's
powerful lawyer hubby, admitted to impregnating his nanny during his first marriage. The
status of the child is unknown, but there are allegations that she suffered a miscarriage. A
recent report described Emhoff hitting an ex-girlfriend in public. The media refused to
report on the allegation and only reported on Emhoff's denial of the allegation. [...] It's
striking that "half of the political world" is focused on an allegation the media won't report on.
One
Simple Way to Tell That the Dems Are Full of It Regarding FEMA Money. We have spent a
lot of time over the years discussing the never ending awfulness of the people in the mainstream
media who call themselves journalists. Bias for the Democrats has been a problem since I have
been politically aware, which has been quite some time. Of course, they've all gotten worse
since Donald Trump rose to power in the Republican Party. Now they are running interference
for the worst people to ever be in charge of the Executive Branch of the United States government.
It's really ugly out there, especially in this most contentious of election years.
CNN's
Brian Stelter Claims Kamala Harris Will Face 'Sharp Questions' on 'The View'. CNN's
resident potato Brian Stelter is defending Kamala Harris's media schedule this week, claiming with
a straight face that Harris will face sharp questions when she appears on 'The View' this
week. That would be like saying that Donald Trump will face tough questions during his next
appearance on the Sean Hannity show. Harris is trying to do more media after facing criticism
for hiding from the press, but her choices for which outlets to appear on are very telling.
She is only going into very friendly territory.
The
Propaganda Press at Work: Shielding Doug Emhoff and FEMA's Failures. If you
have been awake these last several days, you will know all about how the aspiring First Gentleman,
Doug Emhoff, publicly slapped a former girlfriend so hard she spun around. I believe, but am
not sure of the chronology, that that was after Emhoff inseminated the nanny he and his former wife
had engaged to, well, possibly to help him in his task of "redefining masculinity."
[Advertisement] Let us draw a veil. It is impossible to distribute air-sickness bags
through the internet, and I do not want my readers left with so nauseating a spectacle as Kamala
Harris's repulsive husband. [Advertisement] [Unrelated video clip] I realize,
though, that, should you be so unfortunate as to acquire your news from the Propaganda Press —
from The New York Times or The Washington Post, say, or from CNN, MSNBC, or the other
legacy media outlets, it is doubtful that you will have run across the true story about Emhoff.
The reason is that telling that story would violate The Narrative that the Propaganda Press exists to
support — whatever that Narrative happens to be today. [Advertisement]
Heroes
and Zeroes. I didn't watch the debate and like the great Iowahawk (David Burge) I
consider this one of the worst lies told concerning them, "here is our panel of undecided voters."
If you are undecided at this stage, you are a moron and shouldn't vote, or a liar. The
second lie about them is that the moderators are informed and neutral and will keep their promise
not to "fact check" the Republican or stack the questions to promote the Democrats' agenda rather
than exploring the issues voters in survey after survey indicate are their priorities. Paul
Sperry, to take one example, reveals that CBS moderator Margaret Brennan, who was rude to J.D. Vance,
had been a strategic advisor to the anti-Trump Lincoln Project. Her husband, Yado Yakub,
donated to the project, and was a foreign policy adviser to Biden in 2000 and 2001.
Complaints
Ask FEC, FCC To Investigate ABC For Breaking Broadcast And Donation Rules In Debate.
Remember that brazenly biased presidential debate on Sept. 10, hosted by ABC television?
The one where ABC moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis "fact-checked" former President Donald
Trump five times and Vice President Kamala Harris, not at all? The one advertised as a
legitimate debate that felt more like a 90-minute campaign commercial for Harris? The Center
for American Rights has filed complaints with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the
Federal Elections Commission (FEC), asking these agencies to hold ABC and its local affiliate
accountable on two matters: an alleged campaign donation violation, and a concern about its
television broadcast license. Unlike print media, broadcast airwaves belong to the
public. While anyone can find some paper, start their own newsletter, and say whatever they
want, there is a finite number of airwaves across the broadcast spectrum, so they belong to
everyone. That is why the FCC licenses segments of the airwaves to broadcasters with the
condition that they must use a certain amount of their broadcast time to serve the public.
The Editor says...
Ahem. Yes, there is a finite bandwidth available for broadcast TV, but the FCC apparently
doesn't see any shortage, because the UHF-TV band used to extend to Channel 83, and has been
gradually pared down as
the FCC sold some of the bandwidth (that's right, the frequencies that "belong to everyone") to the
highest bidder. (When did we vote on that?) Now the UHF-TV band stops at Channel 36,
although some stations may have a "virtual channel" number higher than that. What happened to all
the money that the FCC raked in when the upper UHF-TV channels were sold to cell phone companies?
I suspect it either evaporated or went into several money pits, like NASA, Amtrak, football stadiums,
Ukraine, ethanol subsidies, windmill subsidies, solar panel subsidies, and hotel rooms for illegal aliens.
Kamala
Harris Is Playing 'Pretend President' Already And She's Horrible At It. Since the
Democratic Party establishment shoved Grandpa Joe Biden down the proverbial flight of stairs,
Kamala Harris has played the President in public more frequently. With that came footage of
her walking up and down the stairs for Air Force Two. Something struck me as odd the other
day while watching her pretending to be on a phone call as she ran away from the press: She's
saluting and being saluted by the military members at the bottom of the stairs. She's not
President. Whoever the President is at any given moment is the Commander-in-Chief of the US
military, but a vice president has no military rank whatsoever; they're not in the chain of
command. I don't know if former VPs were routinely saluted or not, as there isn't a trove of
footage of them leaving planes, but I couldn't help but wonder if the military has been ordered to
salute Harris as part of the campaign to make her come off as presidential?
Hilarious
job numbers from the Bureau of Labor. As the media campaign so vigorously for
Democrats and cheer how great the Biden-Harris policies have been, suddenly, the Department of
Labor comes out with an unemployment report that blows away expectations. Biden and Harris
were out bragging as a significant number of people still can't pay their bills without running up
new debt or going delinquent on the debt they already had. Supposedly, 254,000 jobs were
created in September. Isn't that amazing, that this report came out one month before the
election? Of course, the media gave the headline number and never got into the details.
Here is one important detail: government jobs showed a gain of 785,000 because of the second
biggest seasonal adjustment on record. (It is easy to manipulate numbers when you have
"seasonal adjustments.") This would mean that private-sector employment declined 531,000 with
seasonal adjustments. I would say that is not too much to brag about. Somehow, the
voters don't get to see that number, but they know that the economy has sucked the past four years
because they can't pay their bills.
#MeToo
Is Dead, and Doug Emhoff Killed It. Once upon a time, Democrats pretended to care
what happened to women. In 2017, following the revelation that film producer Harvey Weinstein
was a serial sexual predator, Hollywood and all their fellow liberals did a thorough
housecleaning. They named and shamed men who had been abusing women for years. It was
#TimesUp for toxic masculinity. Or so we were told. And told. And told.
Again and again and again. Fast-forward seven years. The president of the United States
is a dementia-addled basket case, and his even more inept VP is the Democratic candidate.
Most of the "news" industry is frantically trying to convince you she'll make a good president,
because they don't care about anything but keeping Donald Trump out of office. So, what do
the journos do in 2024 when a woman comes forward with a story of abuse by a powerful man?
The first thing they do is check whether there's an (R) after the guy's name. If not, he's
off-limits. They'll ignore the story as long as they can. And when they're finally
forced to say something about it, they'll minimize it as much as possible. They'll even
transform the powerful Democrat into the victim.
MSNBC
Producer Admits Network is 'Doing All They Can' to Help Elect Kamala Harris. O'Keefe
Media Group (OMG) on Thursday released undercover video of Basel Hamdan, a producer for MSNBC,
admitting the network is doing all they can to elect Kamala Harris. Hamdan also told the OMG
undercover journalist that MSNBC has made their viewers "dumber over the years." [...] Hamdan said
MSNBC is tied to the Democrat party. "They just are way too cozy with the Democratic
politicians," Hamdan said. "If you watch an interview with a Democratic politician they just finish
each other's sentences. The anchor and the politician are in total agreement about everything."
Media
Bury Woman-Battering Allegation with Doug Emhoff Puff Pieces. To no one's surprise,
the corporate media are engaged in a full-on propaganda campaign to bury the credible bombshell
news that Kamala Harris's husband, Doug Emhoff, allegedly battered a former girlfriend. On
Wednesday, the Daily Mail released a story that included statements from three friends of the
alleged victim, along with travel documents and photos to back up the claim. The claim is
this: in 2012, while attending the Cannes Film Festival, Emhoff slapped a then-girlfriend so hard
she spun completely around. Two of the alleged victims' friends say they were told of the
abuse at the time. The third learned of it in 2018.
'Fact
check' has become just another word for censorship. At the vice presidential debate
this week, the CBS moderators once again tried to show that they were the fair and impartial people
in the room[.] Except that — as with the Trump-Harris debate — they only
seemed interested in fact-checking in one direction. Against the Republican. On Tuesday
night the subject of Springfield, Ohio, once again came up. And once again Springfield
revealed one of the big problems of this media era. CBS's Margaret Brennan decided to fact
check something that JD Vance said and immediately relayed a piece of false information
herself. Following Vance's point about the number of illegal migrants Brennan announced
authoritatively that Springfield does in fact have "a large number of Haitian migrants" but that
they have "legal status [and] Temporary Protected Status." It was then down to Vance to
fact-check the fact-checker by pointing out — correctly — that what Brennan
had just described was actually a "pathway" opened up by Kamala Harris explicitly to fudge the true
levels of illegal immigration.
Walz
'Misspeaks': How the Media Are Framing the Governor's Lies. On Tuesday, Gov. Tim
Walz (D-MN) and Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) faced off for the vice presidential debate on CBS
News. Walz was reportedly feeling nervous ahead of time, and it certainly showed.
Arguably his worst moment was when he was confronted by co-moderator Margaret Brennan for lying
about being in Hong Kong for the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. It's just one of many examples
from the pathological liar, and Walz had to know it was coming. He still seriously flubbed
his response, and yet the media keep covering for him.
J.D.
Vance Will Never Be Allowed On Live TV Again After He Dominated That Debate. It's
safe to assume we're never going to see J.D. Vance on live television again, at least not until
after the election is over. The dude so thoroughly dominated the vice-presidential debate on
Tuesday night that there's no way cable news producers are going to book him again. He'd put
them out of business. If you didn't watch the event on CBS, the affair was a set-up from the
beginning. One of Trump's greatest electoral weaknesses is among suburban women.
Naturally, CBS cast two women note-card readers to "moderate" the debate for the explicit purpose
of daring Vance into a conflict with either of them. Vance never took the bait. He
parried every onslaught. He even conceded agreements to Kamala Harris's running-mate, Tim
Walz, when it was warranted. In short, the three Democrats ganging up on Vance didn't get
him. He got them. He beat them.
The
Girl Squad Moderators for the Vance-Walz VP Debate Fixated on Childcare, Totally Skipped Over
Crime. Tuesday night's Vice Presidential Debate between Republican Ohio Senator
JD Vance and Democrat Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was amazingly civil and substantive. Vance not
only set the tone, but he put the Girl Squad moderator team of Margaret Brennan and Norah O'Donnell
on their four-inch heels by checking them on their attempts to fact-check and run interference,
even though they claimed at the beginning that this would not be done.
Kamala
Harris Doesn't Care About White People. Natural disasters like Hurricane Helene, a
category 4 storm, are of course going to cause massive damage and devastation no matter what.
But it didn't have to be as bad as it has become in the absence of timely federal aid from the
Biden-Harris administration. [...] It hasn't escaped anyone's notice that the victims of the
flooding are predominantly poor white people in Appalachia. Given that fact, and the
appalling lack of concern from Harris and Biden, there's a lot more reason right now to claim that
Harris doesn't care about white people than there ever was to claim Bush didn't care about black
people. Unlike in 2005, you won't hear that from the media. You're far more likely, in
fact, to hear corporate outlets attack Trump for "making it political" by traveling to Georgia on
Monday to help distribute supplies and assist in relief efforts.
Ridiculous
'fact check' of a true statement during CBS debate. Sen. JD Vance was
accurately describing the migrant crisis fueled by Kamala Harris and Joe Biden when CBS moderator
Margaret Brennan decided to insert herself with a "fact check." "Just to clarify for our
viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status," she
said smugly. Vance was rightly annoyed by the interruption and said, "The rules were that you
guys weren't going to fact-check, and since you're fact-checking me, I think it's important to say
what's actually going on." He then proceeded to truthfully, forcefully explain what "legal
status" means: [...]
New
York Times Endorsement of Harris Continues to Be Like Their News: Superficial and
Cartoonish. Perhaps to no one's surprise, the New York Times continued an unbroken
string of endorsing Democrats for president that it began in 1960. In a hard pivot, the New
York Times joined the rest of the media in turning from extolling the "joy" of Kamala's campaign to
harping on her character. The article declares that Donald Trump is unfit to hold office.
[Excerpt omitted for brevity.] According to the editorial, "regardless of any political
disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for
president." This is as deeply dishonest as the Times's Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the
fake "Russia collusion" story. While the endorsement claims that Kamala's policies will aid
first-time homebuyers and entrepreneurs, it is really designed to be eyewash for doing
nothing. A tax credit for homebuyers does exactly one thing: It raises the cost of
homes by the amount of the tax credit. [...] We don't know what the rest of her policies are.
Our
Liberal Friends Can Tell That Something is Wrong. All the right people are responding
to the "vibe" of the Harris campaign. But I tend to look for a different "vibe": what is the
subliminal message from our liberal friends? For instance, Oliver Wiseman at the Free Press
wonders why Trump isn't running away with the election. Maybe because the regime media is pushing
Kamala Harris as Wonder Girl on us? And because the Democrats have spent the last eight years
dirtying up Trump with everything from Russia to lawfare?
Seriously,
no one trusts the media. Do you find yourself despising the nation's socialist media
even more than usual? [...] The benefit of hindsight helps us understand that the last-minute
un-democratic coup and the sudden changing of Komrade Kamala for Biden were the obvious plan.
Thus, the shortened campaign sprint is a feature, not a bug in that it helps the nation's socialist
media hide her from the people. The outlines of the plan are clear enough when you look back
over the events of the past few months, with the media playing a key role in the fraud. [...] This
could explain why this race still seems to be "close." Oliver Wiseman of the Free Press wrote that
"Trump Should Be Beating Harris by a Mile," and he chalks up part of the reason for the opposite to
the Trump campaign making mistakes. It's a fair point, but the fact is that the media are
massively distorting the press environment. Studies have shown that whereas coverage of
Donald Trump has been almost entirely negative, Komrade Kamala has been enjoying [positive coverage].
That
Wasn't An Interview. It Was A Campaign Rally. [Scroll down] [Harris]
trotted out the usual canards about the "border security bill" (that ensured the polar opposite).
The "worst economy since the Great Depression" Donald Trump supposedly left behind (a fiction
recently dispatched on these pages). Women dying because of post-Roe restrictions (as
opposed to complications from medically-induced abortions). And that the airhead who once
claimed that smaller tax refunds reflected a middle-class tax hike called Donald Trump "not very
serious" about economic issues. The real issue with the "interview" — the
individual styled as "NBC News Senior Business Analyst" seemed curiously uninterested in
analysis. Talk about "not very serious." Instead of questions, Ruhle offered up the
Democratic candidate's own campaign stump soundbites — and then re-affirmed and
reinforced her responses.
Did
Kamala Just Implode Her Campaign With Another Disastrous Interview? After reading the
tea leaves, the Harris-Walz campaign discovered that it was a problem that Kamala wasn't doing
interviews, and so they basically decided to put her out there and hope for the best. Well,
it's not going well, and I can't help but wonder if this is why Trump's been seeing momentum in
recent polling. Frankly, I expect more movement in Trump's direction after her latest
interview on Wednesday with Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC. Seriously, this interview showed us
(again) why Kamala was not the candidate that Democrats genuinely wanted to run after Joe Biden
dropped out. Ruhle pointed out that "prices are still high," to which Kamala responded,
"Yeah, I agree with you." When Ruhle pressed her on how she planned to combat price gouging
without resorting to price controls, which could raise concerns about her principles, Kamala
sidestepped the question entirely. Instead of providing a clear answer, she declared, "I am
never gonna apologize for going after companies and corporations that take advantage of the
desperation of the American people."
MSNBC's
'Interview' of Harris Shows How Left-Wing Media Are Treating Election as Coronation.
Vice President Kamala Harris completed her second whole interview of her mostly cloistered
presidential campaign Wednesday night. Frankly, it was an embarrassment for American
corporate media and gives the lie to the idea that the Harris campaign is all about defending
"democracy." The interview was exactly what one would expect if you'd followed the Harris
campaign at all. It was a series of mostly softball questions, delivered in the friendliest
of confines on left-wing MSNBC, conducted by an admiring and sycophantic host, Stephanie
Ruhle. That setup was practically telegraphed ahead of time. Five days before the
interview, Ruhle went on HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher" and claimed that Harris didn't have to
answer any substantive questions from the media. "Kamala Harris isn't running for perfect,"
Ruhle heatedly told the New York Times' Bret Stephens, another guest on the program.
Stephanie
Ruhle Plays Tee-Ball, Kamala Harris Still Swings and Misses. Every day Kamala Harris
attempts to do media, it stuns me that Julia Louis-Dreyfus isn't suing the Vice President for
intellectual property theft. At the very least, the Veep star should be legally allowed to
claim royalties from the actual Veep. Harris' Hump Day frolic through Pittsburgh consisted of
a speech to the Economic Club, followed by a 24-minute and change sit-down with MSNBC's Stephanie
Ruhle. How did Ruhle score such an exclusive? By interceding on Bill Maher's Real Time
on HBO last Friday night when New York Times columnist Bret Stephens dared to note that there is no
there, there with Kamala Harris on policy.
Kamala
Does Trainwreck Interview With Stephanie Ruhle, Who Admits Harris Didn't Answer
Questions. Stephanie Ruhle appeared on Friday on Bill Maher's "Real Time" show and,
incredibly, argued that people shouldn't demand or expect answers from Kamala Harris on the issues
since she was running against former President Donald Trump. It was a ridiculous position for
someone who claimed to be a journalist arguing against the questioning of a presidential candidate
because she supported her. So perhaps it's not surprising that Harris who has given very few
interviews then gave Ruhle an interview. Harris no doubt thought she could walk through a
softball interview with Ruhle after what Ruhle said. She knew she could count on not being
pressed, given what Ruhle said. But even with a softball interviewer who supports her, Harris
was still completely vacuous. She had no understanding what she was saying about tariffs or
anything else.
Kamala
Harris is stumped by question about crucial part of her economic policy during MSNBC
interview. Vice President Kamala Harris gave a long pause during her interview on
MSNBC when she faced a question over how she would pay for her economic plans. The moment
came early in the interview where Harris batted away slow-pitch questions such as 'can we trust
you?' Interviewer Stephanie Ruhle asked Harris, who was giving her first network TV interview
since securing her party's nomination, how she would pay for her economic plans. 'If you can't
raise corporate taxes or if GOP takes control of the Senate, where do you get the money to do
that,' her interviewer asked, after Harris outlined some of her plans like a $6,000 credit for
young couples or subsidies for new small business ventures. Republicans stand a decent chance
of taking the chamber from the narrow Democratic majority, with a Montana Democratic-held seat
growing increasingly vulnerable. 'But we're going to have to raise corporate taxes,' Harris
told her after a pause.
Uncovering
the Coverage. [Scroll down] I became less interested in accuracy and more
interested in what the writer was trying to get me to believe. Who were the people behind the
reporters? What was their agenda? Who was getting paid? And for what? Why
now? How is it they are all saying the same thing at once? Why does the message change
so often? Am I supposed to just forget what they told me five minutes ago? Yesterday,
Kamala Harris was against fracking, against ICE, against the police, against private health
insurance. Today she is in favor of all these wonderful things. Remember the Green New
Deal? Well, you shouldn't. Do you like Trump's policies? No problem. They
are now the policies of his opponents. Yesterday the Democrats slammed Trump as a threat to
democracy. But after a thoroughly undemocratic backroom deal to anoint Harris, they are now
all about "brat" and "joy" and "moving forward." At least for the moment. The Democrats
are not running on policy. They are running on memes that roll across your eyes momentarily
like a Tik-Tok video, but never sink into your consciousness, images that change faster than the
voters can comprehend.
Why
Does the Media Pretend Kamala Can Do a Single Thing She Promises? The United States
has a big housing crunch, and one of the biggest reasons (there are many) is that Biden and Harris
have let in 10 million+ illegal migrants and "refugees" over the past three years. In
other words, Harris, the Border Czar, caused the crisis to a great extent. Now, she is
promising to build three million homes during her term — a rather big boast. So
it's fair to ask: what is her record when it comes to initiatives she was put in charge
of? You know, ones like connecting rural homes to high-speed internet and getting the border
under control? How about building out half a million EV chargers? [Tweet] You know
the answer: none of these things happened. In fact, despite over $40 billion
allocated for the rural internet initiative nearly three years ago, not a single home has been
connected. Not one. [...] String fiber or cable to tens of thousands of remote locations is
frankly insane, which is one of the reasons not a bit of it has been done.
An obvious lie: Doug
Emhoff: Not Fair To Criticize Kamala Harris For The Admin's Failures. Vice
President Kamala Harris' husband, Doug Emhoff, claimed during an interview this week that it was
unfair for people to criticize his wife's performance over the last three and a half years because
she was not the president. Emhoff made the remarks during a softball ABC News interview
Friday morning on "Good Morning America," which came just days after the network's debate between
Harris and former President Donald Trump that was extremely biased against the Republican
nominee. Co-anchor Michael Strahan asked Emhoff if he thought it was fair that his wife was
being criticized for the numerous failings of the administration, even though she was named the
border czar, bragged about being the last person in the room on Afghanistan, and was the
tie-breaking vote on passing the American Rescue Plan — the legislation that triggered
the inflation crisis.
Whoops:
Did You Notice This Small Problem With Kamala's Oprah Zoom Audience? There appear to
be duplicates in the Zoom audience, despite the fact that Oprah was talking about this great
"grassroots" effort. Here's a shot from the ABC News video at 2:00 minutes in.
Check the second and third rows from the top. You see in the second row from the top,
starting from the left, there are seven people. Those same seven people are then repeated in
the third row, starting from the middle. [Tweet]
The
Vacuity of Kamala Harris. The Democrats switched her for the failing president late
in the game and hope with the aid of a partisan press and her dodging any real interviews to hide
from the public her extreme leftist views. The debate with ABC struck most of us as a
softball one-sided one — more like an interview than a debate — with both
"interviewers" (one of whom was her sorority sister) "fact checking" Trump "lies" while allowing
her to gibber on with pre-packaged blather. A whistleblower has provided a credible sworn
affidavit (which he wrote a day before the interview) in which he says she was given sample
questions similar to those which were actually asked, was promised certain questions would be out
of bounds by the interviewers and further, that Trump — but not her — would
be "fact checked" by them. ABC provided a tardy response, which is hardly sufficient. [...]
Yes, this reminds us that ABC contributor Donna Brazile fed Clinton the questions "in anticipation
of a supposedly unscripted townhall meeting" and ABC helped deflect questions about Biden's failing
mental state.
Is
Obama cash underwriting Iran's election interference? Now it is clear and
substantiated by our intelligence agencies that Iran has been funneling intelligence regarding the
Trump campaign to Kamala Harris. Like so much right now, the American people are expected to
swallow this outrage and 'move on,' while the Left shrieks louder that it isn't so. Of course
it is true and has been very arguably so since Obama got into office. The absolutely tiresome
ya-da-da about Russian interference again (concurrent with Hillary's return to the MSM main
ticket), is what the media, in the last three election cycles, is dragging out of its moldy box of
tricks. But not Iran — the MSM will stay away from Iran, as they have thus
far. They must have got the memo.
ABC
Is a Collapsing House of Cards. The latest information about ABC News is that
moderator Linsey Davis admits the fact checking was aimed at Donald Trump. This is totally
nuts. It's not acceptable for news agencies protected by the Constitution to do anything like
this. The whistleblower is a hero and we should stand by him. As reported earlier,
moderator Linsey Davis admits fact-checking was only for Trump: [...] ABC News has to get back to
reporting the news and abandon activism or they have to stop pretending they are a news service.
Will
the Republicans Really Lose — Again? Remember just a few short weeks
ago: Donald Trump's heroic defiance of an assassination attempt was grudgingly admired even
by opponents, while the Democrats were in disarray over what to do about their demented president
running for re-election — and, to compound their dilemma, his highly implausible
replacement. Trump looked like a shoe-in as the next president. All the best
commentators were saying so. Yet now the Democrat left establishment — with the
most cringeworthy candidate ever proposed by a major party — are back in the race.
Even allowing for the bias of the opinion polls, the very notion that this ludicrous woman should
be taken seriously by anyone is [an] indictment of America's politics and where it is taking the
world. That intensive coaching prevented her from making a fool of herself in the recent
debate is heralded as a remarkable achievement, which in a sense it was.
Polls
Show Kamala's Campaign Is Headed For Disaster, And The Media Knows It. While most
major polling still shows Vice President Kamala Harris up over former President Donald Trump
nationally, she is floundering in critical spots; not only does she know it's terrible, but so do
her lapdogs in corporate media. [Paywall]
ABC
responds to viral 'whistleblower affidavit' claiming Kamala Harris received debate
help. ABC News insists it did not break debate rules after a document claiming to be
from an anonymous 'whistleblower' said there was close collaboration between the network and Kamala
Harris's team before the presidential showdown. But the network still has not confirmed
whether the document was written by an ABC staffer, or where it was filed before it emerged on X.
The unverified document, said to be a sworn affidavit signed by a notary public on
September 9, has sparked controversy. The document alleges ABC News gave Harris
questions ahead of the debate, along with agreeing to preconditions to give her a leg up
on former President Donald Trump.
ABC
News hits panic button after sworn statement alleging rigged debate, David Muir does damage
control. ABC News is apparently pressing the panic button in the wake of fierce
criticism of its Sept. 10 presidential debate between former President Trump and Vice
President Kamala Harris. A sworn statement by an ABC News whistleblower exposing network bias
favoring Harris continues to be in focus regarding "assurances" to the Democrat's campaign days
before the event. Now David Muir, anchor of ABC's "World News Tonight" and co-moderator of
the debate, is defending his performance during the matchup, as ratings for his evening news
broadcast have plunged some 12% in the aftermath.
Did
the Mainstream Media K.O. Kamala? Shortly after the debate between Kamala Harris and
Donald Trump, leftist pundits began crowing on social media about how conservatives' complaints
about the bias shown by two ABC moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, are just proof that Trump
had lost the debate. [...] [{I}ndependent voters] were sold a high-stakes prize fight between
Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, and what they witnessed was the referees methodically landing
haymakers against Donald Trump on behalf of Kamala Harris in between punches. That's very
different than a referee innocently making a bad call or two in a football game. What the
average spectator witnessed in the debate was very obviously nothing less than outright
cheating. And if there's one thing most Americans hate, it's a cheater[;] and any
honest observer would surmise that ABC conspired with the DNC to cheat in that debate.
ABC
debate moderator Linsey Davis makes stunning admission about all those live Trump fact checks.
ABC News debate moderator Linsey Davis made a stunning admission about their attempts to 'fact
check' Donald Trump during his debate with Kamala Harris. Republicans were furious at ABC
News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis for refusing to fact check Harris on her lies about
Trump's views on IVF. In a new interview, Davis says that it was a conscious decision to do the
fact checks after seeing how Trump and Joe Biden performed in the CNN debate in June.
Cahoots: ABC
Whistleblower Says Harris Camp Allegedly 'Restricted the Scope' of Trump Debate Questions.
Late last week, there was word that an ABC News whistleblower was set to expose both the network and the
Kamala Harris presidential campaign for allegedly rigging the network's Sept. 10th debate in the
Democrat nominee's favor and against former President Donald Trump. The information that they said
would be revealed was that Harris was given advance notice on what questions would be asked, and that
Trump would be fact-checked live. Now, the whistleblower has released a sworn, notarized statement,
which is dated Sept. 9, 2024 — the day before the debate. They say the Kamala Harris campaign
allegedly "restricted the scope" of the ABC News debate questions, that the campaign allegedly demanded
that only Donald Trump would be fact-checked during the debate: [Tweet]
ABC
Moderator Linsey Davis Admits: 'Fact-checking' Was Only Planned for Trump. ABC News'
Linsey Davis, one of two moderators for last week's presidential debate, admitted to the Los
Angeles Times that the plan was only to fact-check former President Donald Trump, and not Vice
President Kamala Harris. As Breitbart News noted, Davis and co-moderator David Muir
fact-checked Trump seven times — often incorrectly — while never
fact-checking Harris once, even when she used hoaxes, such as the Charlottesville "very fine
people" hoax. Davis told the Times that ABC had deliberately targeted
Trump — and only Trump — because of perceptions that he had been allowed to
get away with false statements in the CNN debate against President Joe Biden in late June.
An
ABC employee's sworn affidavit claims ABC cheated to help Kamala win. The Black
Insurrectionist did the legwork and obtained what appears to be a duly signed affidavit from an ABC
employee attesting under oath to the network's staggering corruption to ensure that Kamala Harris
won her single debate against Donald Trump. Secret negotiations, bias, squashed issues,
sample questions...it's all there. Of course, we have only this unknown employee's sworn
assertion that these things happened but, if they did... oh my! Here's the tweet with the
somewhat redacted affidavit: [Tweet] The introductory material in the affidavit says that the
employee is a technical and administrative worker who is not endorsing Trump. He (or she)
simply wants what all Americans want — a fair debate allowing Americans to hear what the
candidates have to say on the issues that matter most. The key substantive allegations (which
currently have no verification other than this sworn testimony) are as follows: [...]
With
fact-checks like these, how does truth stand a chance? ABC News has been widely
criticized for the bias of the two moderators Linsey Davis and David Muir. Even liberal
outlets acknowledged that the two journalists seemed inclined to "fact check" only Trump. In
the meantime, they allowed clearly false statements from Harris go unchallenged. Three of the
unchecked claims are being widely disseminated by supporters, including some in the media.
Here are three legal "facts" that are being repeated despite being clearly untrue. [#1] "Crime
is down under the Biden-Harris administration." One of the most notable slap downs by ABC
followed Trump commenting that crime rates have drastically risen during the Biden-Harris
administration. Muir immediately balked and declared: "As you know, the FBI says overall
violent crime is coming down in this country." Harris and her allies have been repeating the
claim by ABC. But the actual statistics show that Trump was right. The Justice Department's
released survey found that, under the Biden administration, there has been a significant increase
in crime. Violent crime was up 37 percent from 2020 to 2023, rape is up 42 percent,
robbery is up 63 percent and stranger violence is up 61 percent.
Media
Bury Kamala Harris's Disastrous First Solo Interview. The mainstream media have
buried Vice President Kamala Harris's first solo interview in the eight weeks since she joined the
presidential race, either failing to report it or claiming, falsely, that it was a great
success. Harris spoke to Philadelphia's WPVI-TV, known as 6 ABC, and struggled to express a
coherent thought as she rambled through five straightforward questions from reporter Brian
Taff. [Tweet with video clip] The Harris campaign trusted a local ABC affiliate
after ABC News' moderators sided with her during last week's debate. Taff asked specific
questions, but — perhaps given time constraints — did not follow up on
Harris's answers. Asked for specific policies that would bring down costs and make life more
affordable for Americans, for example, Harris talked about her supposedly middle-class upbringing,
and how her neighbors cared about their lawns.
When
does Linsey go work for Kamala? Less than a week into the debate about ABC's
selective fact-finding at the debate, we hear this from Linsey Davis herself. [...] First, thanks
to Linsey Davis for admitting that the fact-checking was selective indeed. No more suspense
or questions about that. Second, who made the decision at ABC that the fact-checking would be
selective? Did Davis and Muir make that call? Or did the word come from up in the
newsroom, the organization, or who knows where? Mark Penn is right that we need an
investigation. Better than that, maybe someone at ABC can accept responsibility and tell us
how something like this could happen.
Not
being there. Kamala Harris sat down for a brief chat with the friendly Brian Taff of
6abc Action News Philadelphia this past Friday. Taff traveled to Johnstown to conduct the
first solo interview Harris has given. [...] This clip catches the opening of the interview.
Taff asks her, "When you talk about bringing down prices and making life more affordable for
people, what are one or two specific things you have in mind?" Harris achieves complete
vacuity. "I grew up in a neighborhood of folks who were very proud of their lawn. Ya
know?" [Tweet with video clip] As in her debate with Trump, Harris is tightly
scripted. She has been coached to say nothing, yet the nothing sounds familiar. Indeed,
at the opening of the interview, she provides the same memorized non-response to Taff that she did
in her opening nonresponse in the ABC debate with Trump. I found the transparent falsity and
evasion at the top of the interview almost shocking.
Kamala
Harris Completely Bombs Her First Solo Interview. After nearly two months of
procrastination, Kamala Harris finally did her first solo interview since shoving Joe Biden out of
the presidential race. On Friday, the vice president sat down with a local ABC News affiliate
in Philadelphia to answer questions for a whole 10 minutes. [Advertisement] Funny
enough, the reporter who conducted the interview has a history of being called in when Democrat
presidential nominees need a boost. [Tweet] Sure enough, the questioning wasn't exactly
tough, and Harris was instead asked a variety of softballs. The problem? She couldn't
answer them: [Tweet with video clip] [Transcript] [Advertisement] A
presidential nominee is not going to get an easier question than that. It's basically the
equivalent of asking, "Tell me how amazing you are."
Kamala
Harris Gives Her First Solo Interview And They Tried To Hide It. Kamala Harris gave
the first solo interview of her 2024 Presidential campaign to Brian Taff of ABC 6 local news in
Philadelphia. This interview was short, with the full video (including a brief intro and
outro) clocking in at under 12 minutes. Unlike the disaster of the CNN "joint" interview
with her VP pick, Tim Walz, there was no fanfare or marketing to promote the interview. All
signs point toward this totally solo interview being hidden, despite it being crucial as Kamala
does not usually speak to the press or do any interviews. As far as the ABC discussion's
content, nothing new was revealed. Most of the answers (and questions) mirror what she was
already prepared for before the debate with Trump.
Kamala
Harris Gives Bizarre "word salad" Interview Highlighting Why Campaign Director Brian Fallon Tries
to Keep Her Hidden. Kamala Harris gave her first post-debate interview to ABC News6,
Philadelphia. The media outlet understood the potential risk of the interview following
public ridicule of the national ABC News debate. As a result, ABC News6 has posted the full
unedited interview, and the responses by Kamala Harris highlight exactly why Brian Fallon has tried
to keep her away from speaking without a teleprompter. Not only does Kamala Harris fail to
answer the questions, the responses she gives are ridiculous word-salad replies about ancillary
issues that are not even connected to the primary topic being quieried. [Video clip]
Kamala
Harris disaster solo interview with ABC Philadelphia was pre-taped, not live. As bad
as the softball interview went for Kamala Harris with ABC in Philadelphia yesterday, there is
another important fact to consider. This interview wasn't even live. ABC probably
spliced and edited the video to make Kamala sound as coherent as she could. And it was still an
epic disaster. [Four tweets with video clips.]
ABC
News Caught Grossly Deceptively Editing Kamala Harris' Disastrous Solo Interview. As
RedState reported, Kamala Harris' first solo interview since wresting the nomination away from Joe
Biden did not go well. The vice president seemed ill-prepared, rambling on about things
unrelated to the questions being presented by ABC News reporter Brian Taff[.] One particularly
egregious example occurred when she was asked to give just two specific things she'd do to bring
down costs for Americans. What followed was a mind-numbing word salad in which she spent
nearly a quarter of the interview (which was only 10 minutes long) rambling about being
"middle class." [Tweet with video clip] [Transcript] The above exchange can be
seen online by going directly to ABC 6's website. Guess who didn't see it? That would
be the network's television audience.
And
now it's Mark Penn. The ABC ambush of Trump, originally called the Trump-Harris
debate, keeps on keeping on. [...] My main issue for me is: was it a premeditated ambush. Who
wrote the questions? No questions about China or hostages but lots of questions about 2020.
Who decided to have all of those "fact checks" on cue? Were the moderators contacted during
the debate with information about challenging Trump on this or that? At some point, as they
do with lawfare, good people have to look at the TV and ask if this weaponization of the media is
good for the country. I have no problem with anti-Trump websites or news programs, such as
the nightly programming at MSNBC. However, this was presented to the public as a debate, not
another "get Trump" hour. ABC has a quite a bit to explain on this story.
*IF*
This Is True, ABC News Is About to Become Engulfed in a Major Scandal. I asked
yesterday morning whether Kamala Harris' camp got the ABC News debate questions in advance.
The vice president was visibly nervous for the first portion of the debate but got into a groove,
especially when she figured out that Donald Trump would take the bait she was chumming. [...]
[Tweet] Harris seemed ready for the questions, which explained her word salad responses, but
she never answered any of the questions from moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis. They did
fact-check Trump live, though these interruptions were peppered with fake news — no
shock there. Harris was never pressed for her mountain of lies, and we know why: an ABC
whistleblower is alleging that not only did the Harris camp get questions in advance, but that she
was given assurances that she wouldn't be fact-checked by the moderators either. I'm not
saying this is fact, but if this is true, it's a major scandal: [Multiple tweets]
There are bits and pieces of evidence that suggest a rigged game everywhere. In 2016,
Democrats did just that with Hillary Clinton. Donna Brazile, a CNN contributor at the time,
sent the Clinton camp advanced copies of the debate questions.
Linsey
Davis Reveals How She, David Muir and ABC News Schemed to Protect Kamala Harris. ABC
News anchor Linsey Davis revealed in a post-debate Los Angeles Times puff-piece profile how she,
ABC World News Tonight anchor David Muir and ABC producers schemed to ambush President Trump with
'fact checks' at Tuesday night's presidential debate in Philadelphia with Kamala Harris after
watching Trump crush and knock Joe Biden out of the race in their June debate. The fact
checking at the debate was one-sided, with Trump being interrupted by Muir and Davis several times
with 'fact checks' while Harris was not 'fact checked' once. Going into the debate, there was
concern about Harris' friendship with a Disney executive who oversees the ABC News division (NY
Post excerpt): ["]Dana Walden, a senior Disney executive whose portfolio includes ABC
News, is one of Vice President Kamala Harris' "extraordinary friends," according to a report in the
New York Times. Walden and Harris have known each other since 1994, while their husbands,
Matt Walden and Doug Emhoff, have known each other since the 1980s. [...] ["] After the
debate it was revealed that ABC did not disclose that Davis is an Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority sister
of Harris.
If
True, the ABC News Presidential Debate Could Be Rocked by Explosive Scandal. Anyone
who watched the presidential debate hosted by ABC News on Tuesday knows that the moderators were
biased and repeatedly fact-checked Trump while letting Kamala Harris's lies go unchallenged.
We kind of expected that to happen, as the bias and conflicts of interests of the moderators and
the network as a whole were well established. However, there are reports now that an ABC News
whistleblower is about to come forward with evidence that Kamala was given sample questions before
the debate. [Two tweets] The reports appear to originate from this post from an X/Twitter
user who says he or she will release "an affidavit from an ABC whistleblower regarding the debate."
[Tweet] "I have just signed a non-disclosure agreement with the attorney of the whistleblower,"
the post claims. "The affidavit states how the Harris campaign was given sample question which
were essentially the same questions that were given during the debate and separate assurances of fact
checking Donald Trump and that she would NOT be fact checked. Accordingly, the affidavit states
several other factors that were built into the debate to give Kamala a significant advantage."
A
forgettable Warped Debate. The September 10th presidential debate went down as
expected. [...] The ABC moderators proved they were predictably and shamelessly biased. [...]
Harris's instructions were not to explain her agenda. She never defended disowning policies
that she had embraced as a lifelong, self-confessed, "woke" "radical." Instead, Harris's
threefold strategy was simple enough — and it mostly worked. One, goad Trump as a
coward and racist. Then smile and call for unity, kindness, and an end to such name-calling.
[...] Two, Harris predictably once more reinvented herself. She erased entirely her
upper-middle class, privileged upbringing, as a child of two PhDs. There was no mention that
her radical political career was opportunistically gifted by her insider and paramour fixer, the
married Bay-Area left-wing politico Wille Brown, over 30 years her senior. Instead,
Harris became a middle-class child of a struggling small businesswoman. [...] Three, everything
else in the debate was outsourced to the ABC "moderators," David Muir and Linsey Davis. Both
apparently calculated that if it was a question between blatantly helping Harris or appearing
intellectually and professionally honest, then it was a no-brainer, partisan choice.
The Editor says...
Harris was installed in the office of Vice President as the result of a stolen election in 2020.
Anyone who would accept that position, knowing she doesn't deserve it, would probably not hesitate
to accept illicit assistance from the people producing a debate on TV.
ABC
Failed to Disclose Debate Conflict of Kamala Harris and Linsey Davis Being AKA Sorority
Sisters. ABC News failed to disclose that Kamala Harris and ABC News anchor Linsey
Davis, who co-moderated Tuesday night's debate between Harris and President Trump, are sorority
sisters in the influential Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. AKA formed a PAC in August after
Harris became the Democrats' presidential nominee. The sorority connection is one more
possible clue as to why the debate moderated by Davis and ABC World News Tonight anchor David Muir
was so one-sided in favor of Harris. Muir and Davis interrupted Trump numerous times to fact
check and argue with him while they did not fact check Harris even one time. While the
sorority connection was not mentioned at the debate, Davis did speak about it during ABC's coverage
of the Biden-Harris inaugural in January 2021: [Tweet]
The
Debate at the Kitchen Table. ABC staged a debate this week. A presidential
debate. Ostensibly between former president Donald J. Trump and former senator Kamala Harris,
but in actuality between Trump and the partnership of Harris and ABC. There is always media
bias. To some extent, unconscious media bias is unavoidable. But we don't expect it to
be blatant; the viewer doesn't expect antics like we saw this week, when the ABC moderators
repeatedly declared Mr. Trump's statements lies, and never called out Ms. Harris's
blatant lies. We call it "fact-checking" today, a term coined in social media for when our
high-tech overlords punish a writer for stating something with which the gurus disagree. But
it's not really fact-checking, is it? It's an invasion of a conversation, a denial of free
speech, a thumb on the scale. In the case of a presidential debate, it's electioneering.
And it virtually invalidates the value of our constitutionally protected free press in this
process. ABC's refusal even to try to act as an impartial host rendered this debate useless.
The
worst debate in the history of presidential debates. Not one question Tuesday night
about the execution of Hersh Goldberg-Polin and five other hostages two weeks ago, or about any of
the Americans murdered by Hamas terrorists on October 7? Not one question on Iran, which
is within weeks of acquiring a nuclear weapon and which is paying and perhaps precisely directing
repeated attacks by its proxies on American forces in the Gulf or Arabia, the Red Sea, Iraq or
Jordan? Not one question about the capacity of President Joe Biden to continue as
president? And not one, single fleeting question about the People's Republic of China, and
its genocide against the Uyghurs, its oppression of Hong Kong, its threat against Taiwan or the
Philippines, or its military buildup, the largest, most expensive peacetime military buildup in
history? Perhaps ABC's parent Disney put the kibosh on questions that would upset the
People's Republic of China and endanger the company's theme parks in the country or the release of
its movies in China? Who knows?
Debate
Moderators Bringing Up J6 But Not Trump Assassination Attempt Tells You Everything About Media
Corruption. Nobody was surprised Tuesday night when the first — and
likely only — 2024 presidential debate featured Donald Trump vs. Kamala Harris,
David Muir, and Linsey Davis. Yet the level of corruption never ceases to amaze, this time in
the form of Kamala's ABC cronies neglecting to bring up the recent attempted murder of their
political foe that occurred not two months ago. You'd never know that the former and likely
future president was shot in the head 59 days ago. And that it was at the hands of a
crazed gunman who was allowed to scale the roof of a building near where President Trump was
speaking even after bystanders saw him. And that the building was suspiciously left out of
the security perimeter even though it was identified as a potential threat. And that snipers
were supposedly told not to secure the roof of the building because the nearly flat roof was kind
of "sloped." And that Democrats' "Trump is Hitler" language might have had something to do
with it. No, Muir and Davis instead asked questions about a three-and-a-half-year-old (mostly
peaceful) demonstration because that's what Kamala Harris would rather talk about. Why would
moderators generate discussion about Democrats inciting a would-be assassin when they can just keep
recycling the fiction that Trump incited a violent mob in 2021?
Kamala
Harris Lies About Guns, Fracking, Private Insurance, etc. and ABC Hacks Let Her Get Away with
It. It was obvious after the first 15 minutes of the presidential debate tonight
that it was President Trump versus Kamala and two ABC hack reporters. The ABC moderators
repeatedly "fact-checked" and "fake fact-checked" President Trump during the debate. This
should not surprise ANY Trump supporters or conservatives. The mainstream media becomes more
slanted and dishonest as the years go on. The ABC moderators refused to fact-check Kamala
Harris on a number of her lies. Kamala said she would never take your guns. A lie.
[Tweets] Kamala said she supports private insurance. A lie. [Tweet] ABC
said Democrats never proposed killing babies who survive abortions. This also took place in
Minnesota. [Tweet]
ABC
Should Be Prosecuted For Illegal Contributions To Harris In 'Debate'. Former
President Donald Trump showed up for a traditional political debate Tuesday night, but he instead
found himself in the middle of a 90-minute ambush to boost Kamala Harris. Working as a team,
ABC hosts David Muir and Linsey Davis propped up Harris and repeatedly tried to vanquish Trump by
talking over him, cutting him off, and asking bizarre questions they did not ask Harris. At
one point, Davis jumped in for Harris and offered a rebuttal to one of Trump's comments on
abortion, a move beyond the scope of a moderator. They allowed Harris more time to respond
and followed her when she veered off topic, but gave Trump no such breaks. It was not a
debate, but a campaign contribution. That's not a big surprise from either moderator, as Muir
hosts the most Trump-negative network news evening broadcast and Davis has a long track record of
promoting Democrat talking points including stolen election claims from Hillary Clinton.
Democracy
Truly Does Die in Darkness. Those same people who gaslighted us about Biden's mental
acuity are now doing so about the cackling, incompetent purveyor of word salads as they present a
completely new image of Harris based on lies. The media are telling us to trust them as they
completely remake Harris and Walz as moderate, sensible leaders despite extensive records that
indicate they are the most extreme, progressive (socialist, if not communist-leaning) public
officials to ever run for high office while they hide such records in their reporting on this
critically important election. Harris makes John Kerry look like amateur hour on the
flip-flop gymnastics of her extreme policy positions. Communist China-loving Walz is a serial
liar seemingly far worse than Biden or Harris, if possible. The media is MIA. They also are
not holding Harris accountable for her complicity in the Biden mental decline cover-up let alone
all of the economic, domestic, and foreign policy disasters of her administration.
Megyn
Kelly: Dana Walden, Close Friend of Kamala Harris, Runs Disney-Owned ABC News. The
Moderators Did Her Bidding. The obvious bias shown by ABC News moderators David Muir
and Linsey Davis during Tuesday's presidential debate has put the spotlight on their
boss — Disney executive Dana Walden, who oversees ABC News and is a close personal
friend of Kamala Harris. So blatant was the network's animus against former President Donald
Trump during the live broadcast that even Megyn Kelly — not exactly Trump's biggest
fan — has called out Walden, saying she is helping lead the effort to "steal this
election. They're openly working to sink him." Megyn Kelly's post-debate roundup focused
in part on Disney executive Dana Walden, who serves as co-chairman of Disney Entertainment where
she runs numerous TV properties including ABC News.
ABC's
David Muir Lied About Crime Falling Under Biden-Harris. The ABC moderators for the
presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris couldn't have been more biased.
Not once did they fact-check Harris' long list of lies. But I will leave the fact-checking of
David Muir and Linsey Davis' lies to others. I will focus on only one of Muir's discussions
on crime. DAVID MUIR: "President Trump, as you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is
coming down in this country, ..." In fact, Trump was correct about the increase in crime
under Biden. While violent crime fell by 17 percent under Trump, Biden has seen it rise
by 43 percent. Muir doesn't understand what the FBI is measuring. The FBI counts
the number of crimes reported to police. Trump was right that less than half of police
departments are now giving that data to the FBI, but, more importantly, Trump was discussing what
was happening to total crime, not just the number of crimes reported to police.
Debunking
Kamala's Biggest Lies That the ABC News Moderators Let Slide. January 6:
"And on that day, the president of the United States incited a violent mob to attack our
nation's Capitol, to desecrate our nation's Capitol. On that day, 140 law enforcement
officers were injured. And some died." FACT-CHECK: False. Capitol Police
Officer Brian Sicknick died in the hospital the next day and not by a fire extinguisher to the
head, as falsely claimed by multiple mainstream media outlets. His official cause of death
was two strokes, occurring many hours after the Capitol riot. According to the DC medical
examiner's office's report, Sicknick suffered no injuries, internal or external. He also
didn't have a reaction to bear spray, which national news outlets had fallen back on, claiming that
the mace used by the rioters caused the officer's pair of strokes. Specifically, Sicknick
succumbed to "acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis," the
coroner said.
Fact
Check: ABC Moderators Silent As Kamala Harris Repeats Hoaxes About Trump and
Race. CLAIM: Kamala Harris claimed that Donald Trump "refused to rent property to
black families" and called for the "execution" of the Central Park Five. VERDICT: FALSE.
These are both inaccurate claims, which the ABC News moderators allowed to stand uncorrected.
ABC News' Linsey Davis and David Muir frequently tried to fact-check former President Trump and
never once did the same to Vice President Harris — and it wasn't because she was telling
the truth. In a responding to a question about race, Harris claimed that Trump had "refused
to rent property to black families."
ABC
Moderators Called Out as Double Standard Becomes Evident: 'A Disgraceful Failure'.
Tuesday night's debate was by no means a fair fight. The debate marked the first time that
former President Donald Trump clashed with Vice President Kamala Harris. Many supporters of
both candidates — as well as moderates still making up their minds on who to vote
for — were looking forward to seeing the two candidates go head-to-head[.]
Unfortunately, Tuesday night's debate didn't provide us with a one-on-one debate. Instead, it
was three-on-one. ABC's two moderators, news anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis, constantly
attacked, fact-checked and pressed Trump to answer questions. When it came to Harris, the kid
gloves were on; they barely pressed her at all, even when she refused to answer questions.
3
on 1: Trump Clashes With Harris — and the Debate 'Moderators'. ABC's
debate moderators' performance in Tuesday night's presidential debate made CNN's performance in
June look like a master class in fairness, objectivity, and balance. It was exactly the kind
of debate moderation left-wing commentators on X have been demanding for months — years,
really. They don't want anything approaching objectivity. They wanted moderators to
"fact-check" former President Donald Trump every step of the way while allowing his opponent to
pontificate on questions they think will be beneficial to Democratic Party fortunes. And
that's essentially what happened. ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis continually
"fact-checked" Trump in real time, arguing with him after nearly every answer. That makes for
a horrible debate format.
ABC
News 'Moderators' Made a Joke of the Presidential Debate. If moderators do their job
correctly, nobody talks about them afterward. Unless one becomes a legendary moderator like
Jim Lehrer, debate watchers don't remember who the moderator was. [...] Not a single sentient being
expected ABC News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis to be impartial in any way given their
history of reporting on the candidates, but the partisanship and unequal treatment of the
candidates went far beyond any expectations and set a new standard for how not to moderate a
debate. Muir and Davis repeatedly fact-checked Trump (with questionable or outright false
"facts"); jumped in to help Harris when she was floundering by switching topics or interjecting
"gotcha" questions at Trump; bird-dogged Trump to pin him down on a yes-or-no answer while not
doing the same to Harris; ignored blatant lies by Harris, and inserted their own opinions and
thoughts about Trump's answers.
Are
Harris supporters ignorant or do they just hate Trump more than they love this country?
Given everything we know about Kamala Harris by now, it is astonishing that a single American would
consider voting for her. She is clearly way out of her depth, and until she suddenly became the
designated candidate of the Democrat party, most people on both sides of the aisle considered her to
be unqualified. [...] Now we have heard the one and only debate during which the two ABC moderators
clearly sought to cover for Harris's many, many lies. To those of us who follow the campaign
closely, just about every word out of her mouth was a lie. So, one has to assume that those
people who support Kamala Harris are wholly ignorant of her plans to complete Obama's transformation
of America into a Marxist nation without any constitutional protections. If they continue to
support her after the debate, then they are so deeply indoctrinated they are unable to think
critically. David Muir and Lindsey Davis both ran interference for Harris. They did not
challenge even one of her many prevarications.
What
ABC moderators didn't ask. After watching the debate between President Trump and
Kamala Harris, what was essentially a dynamic of three-against-one as the two moderators obviously
teamed up with Harris, we're reminded that the media is one of the biggest enemies of the American
people. ABC didn't ask Kamala if she felt responsible for the Haitians overwhelming the town
or any deaths and other crimes they have committed. ABC didn't ask why Kamala spread the
false story that our border guards were whipping Haitians. Why were she and Biden, along with
so many journalists willing to destroy the guards' lives without evidence? Why didn't she
ever publicly apologize for her lies? ABC didn't ask Kamala about her responsibility in any
deaths or rapes at the hands of illegals. Why don't we know the names of all the
victims? ABC didn't ask why Joe Biden, to whom Kamala currently acts as a right-hand man,
signed so many executive orders to open the border as soon as he took office. If they cared
so much about securing the border and enforcing existing laws, why did they do that?
Media
bias machine working at full capacity for Kamala and the Democrats. It is astonishing
what the media reports on, and what they don't, as they campaign for Kamala and other
Democrats. Kamala and other Democrats are outraged about guns in certain crimes, but when we
see videos of Venezuelan gang members, who were admitted by Kamala and Joe, wielding guns in an
Aurora, Colorado apartment building, we don't hear a word; the media does very little reporting,
and the Democrat governor of Colorado says what we are seeing is not true, merely a figment of our
"imagination." That is similar to the FBI, 51 former intelligence officials, and other
Democrats intentionally lying to the public before the 2020 election that the Hunter Biden laptop,
which showed massive corruption by Joe Biden and his family, was Russian disinformation. The
Biden family crimes were all in our heads! The media and other Democrats claim they are very
concerned about the public getting misinformation before the election, but they are the ones who
spread the misinformation and intentionally hide the truth... if it damages their chosen candidate.
Is
There Election Fraud or Not? One of the most revealing memes on the internet asks:
"If the Biden-Harris administration has done such a great job, why does Kamala Harris promise that
if elected, she will fix everything on Day 1?" If everything's swell, why does everything need
fixing? Kamala isn't alone in wanting it both ways. The esteemed Wall Street Journal
has been among establishmentarians who ridiculed Donald Trump for claiming that his re-election was
foiled by a conspiracy that stole the election. Just about every mainstream media outlet has
bellowed that there was no proof of a rigged election. But if elections are on the up-and-up,
then why does virtually every Republican candidate now demand that steps be taken to "ensure
election integrity"?
Mainstream
Media Sure Isn't Demanding Answers from Kamala, Huh? [Scroll down] She's
not just "limit[ing] improvisational moments" — she's not even going on the record with
the press pool that accompanies her on the campaign trail. Politico reported a month
ago that Harris only speaks to them off the record, and those reporters have so far cooperated in
that strategy rather than demand real interaction and answers. I called it The Silence of the
Kams four weeks ago, and it continues to this day. Axios doesn't have much to say about the
how in their headline "How Harris Dodges Scrutiny," but it's clearly because the media is
complicit in the strategy. If the press pool refused to do any more off-the-record
interactions and demanded on-the-record responses, that strategy would either collapse or Harris
would shortly lose the press pool she requires for messaging. And yet the mainstream media
keeps playing along. The Protection Racket Media has been in the bag all along, just as they
were with the cover-up of Joe Biden's cognitive decline over the last three years.
Harris
Campaign Spokesman Tells CNN 'We Don't Have Time' to Talk About What Happened Over the Last Few
Years. The Kamala Harris campaign spokesman Ian Sams appeared on CNN this week and
made excuses for why they are not talking about Kamala's record from the last few years. This
gives away their whole game. Democrats and the Harris people want voters to forget the fact
that Harris has been part of the Biden administration and is directly responsible for what has
transpired over the last three and a half years. That's why they keep pushing the whole 'new
way forward' nonsense. It's a feeble attempt to erase recent history so that Harris isn't
held accountable by voters.
The
Press Finally Notice Kamala Harris Is Playing Them for Fools. Some elements of the
national press are finally starting to understand that Kamala Harris is playing them for
fools. Of course, admitting there's a problem is different than acting on it.
Seven weeks after stabbing Joe Biden in the back and entering the presidential race, the
now-Democratic Party presidential nominee has given just a single interview. That was conducted
by resident superfan Dana Bash of CNN asking the questions (and feeding the answers), and Harris
brought along her running mate, Tim Walz. The vice president has also done zero press
conferences, instead choosing to use anonymous aides to push policy position changes to the press.
Wow!
Have you listened to Alexa lately? "Alexa, why should I vote for Donald Trump?" "I
cannot provide content that promotes a specific political party or a specific candidate," Alexa
says. "Alexa, why should I vote for Kamala Harris?" "While there are many reasons to vote
for Kamala Harris, the most significant may be that she is a strong candidate with a proven track
record of accomplishment. As the first female vice president, Harris has already broken down
a major gender barrier, and her carrier in politics has been characterized by a commitment to
progressive ideals and a focus on helping disenfranchised communities," Alexa says. It's kind
of different, wouldn't you agree?
Minnesota
news station conveniently "loses connection" when state senator starts ripping them for being Tim
Walz puppets. No "state-run media" happening here folks. It's just Minnesota's
incredibly Democrat- and Tim Walz-friendly media having "technical difficulties" the moment anyone
challenges their neutrality. Check this out: [Tweet with video clip] [...] I'm not
sure that North Korean media could be this blatantly corrupt. Before the cut, Senator Jensen
got some great blows in. I can't imagine the panic going on in the newsroom when they
cut lost the feed.
The Editor says...
I worked in broadcasting for 48 years, much of the time occupied in establishing "live shot" signals
for remote pickup links, and I can assure you that live feeds of this sort, from a fixed point of
origination, NEVER fail without some advance warning (as in this case), except when someone
manually kills the feed. If a signal is about to drop, there's usually some disturbance in the
video or audio before they both disappear. Not this time. You can safely surmise this was
not a case of "technical difficulties" beyond the station's control. The feed was obviously cut
because the Republican politician was developing momentum and had to be stopped, as if the TV station
is owned and operated by socialist Democrats.
Making
it too big to rig. Kamala has tried to steal Trump's ideas such as dropping the tax
on tips and giving parents of newborns $5,000. If the latter passes, look for taxpayers to pay for
abortions in the name of equality. Kamala has yet to sign up for MSSTA — making
Social Security taxless again. The media bias of the tips exemption was delightfully
obvious. Trump's no tax on tips would impoverish the government while Kamala's would help
underpaid workers.
CNN
puts 'live' banner on pre-recorded Harris-Walz interview. CNN displayed a live banner
during the entirety of anchor Dana Bash's pre-taped exclusive Thursday interview with Vice
President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Bash made it
apparent at the start of the broadcast that the interview with Harris and Walz had been recorded
earlier on Thursday and was not airing live. It was Harris' first sit-down interview since
launching her 2024 presidential campaign on July 21 and aired exclusively on CNN at 9 p.m.,
with Bash providing live commentary on location in Georgia throughout the broadcast. [Tweet]
WaPo:
Kamala is joy, Trump is misery. [Scroll down] The progressive energy and
spending policies of Kamala Harris have caused high inflation everywhere — remember she
was the deciding vote on the Inflation "Reduction" Act. The Democrats have given Russia and
Iran the ability to finance wars and terrorism with high crude oil prices, and their open border
policies have been destroying the United States since the day they took office. But, Harris
is the "joyful" candidate: [...] Kamala's "optimistic" view consists of lying; she continually lies
that the U.S. will not survive if Trump is elected, because she continually lies that Trump is a
dictator. A nation where illegals seize control of apartment complexes? Where people
can't afford groceries? Where the prospect of home ownership for ordinary Americans is
rapidly evaporating? That's an "optimistic" future? Trump's "pessimistic" view is when
he tells the truth about the damage that Kamala has caused with her big government policies, which
would only worsen with four more years.
So
what really was witheld from CNN's 41-minute interview with Kamala Harris? Is CNN a
news network or a public relations agency? What else can one conclude but the latter, now
that we learn that CNN did a 41-minute interview with Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris,
but only released 18 minutes of it to the public, both in its broadcast and in its
transcript. That was its big news scoop, the first major interview of Kamala Harris since Joe
Biden was forced to pull out of the race last month. For a news agency to withold ... the
news ... is strange stuff indeed, given that news is supposed to be what it does, and its bread and
butter. [...] Now we get a purported leak as to the reason why: [Advertisement] [Tweet]
So we learn that Harris's undoubtedly mangled and contradictory responses to questions about fracking
were a mess, meaning, CNN was running cover for her in order to make her look better than she really
was. Worse still, CNN apparently gave Harris veto power over what went into the CNN interview and
what didn't. That's the biggest no-no in news. That's not news, that's serving a client.
CNN,
Washington Post: A Modern Press Gang. From the absurd Dana Bash "interview" of
Kamala Harris, her first since being nominated to the highest office without ever having received a
single vote, to the slavish coverage in the [Washington] Post, it's clear they cannot defend
the Democrats' unpopular policies. Instead, they work to hide them, and treat the entire
presidential campaign as if it were the selling of new and "improved" laundry soap. [...] This
week, Tim Walz's rather disgusting hotdish tater tots were featured in a very long piece with
pictures of the dish and Walz's head with tater tots swirling halo-like around it. The point
of giving this play is not because hotdish tater tots is so wonderful a dish. It's to show
readers how down to earth and "self-effacing" the serial liar and far-left vice-presidential
candidate is — at the same time allowing the sophisticates to confirm their superiority
over the rubes in the Midwest.
The
'See No Candidate, Hear No Candidate' Campaign The Media Are Forcing On Voters. It's
supposed to be a great honor bestowed upon CNN and even the American voters that Kamala Harris,
along with her crutch Tim Walz, will finally appear Thursday for an interview — a taped
interview (meaning edited), not a live one. Goodie. Outside of any debates between
Kamala and Donald Trump (assuming at least one takes place), this is how the next 68 days are
going to be, all at the insistence of the national media and to the great pleasure of Kamala.
This is a first-of-its-kind presidential campaign where you're not supposed to see either
candidate, aside from the occasional still photo and edited video, accompanied by stories relayed
by the media — the vast majority of which will be deceptive, if not outright and
blatantly false.
Commentary on Harris's softball interview on CNN: The Significance
of the Passage of Time. She was speaking, you understand, but the main thing
you noticed was the musical quality of her voice: sonorous, resonant, like one of the more obscure
woodwind instruments, an alto clarinet or a basset horn, producing a sound like unto creamy
dressing over the familiar word-salad of iceberg lettuce. It would be ungentlemanly to bang
on the particulars of Kamala Harris's CNN interview performance, so I'll proceed. The
nocturne was 18-minutes long, all that survived from the 41-minutes CNN actually recorded, so you
might wonder a little about the notes not played. The leitmotif throughout was "my values
have not changed," meaning, disregard any dissonance you might detect in the velvet honk of my
voice. Mind the significance of the passage of time, not the music, Altogether, as
nocturnes should, it had a soporific effect.
Election
Day Patriotism. Two news offerings on Wednesday caught my eye. The first was a
column by Robin Abcarian of the Los Angeles Times, "Are Kamala Harris' Democrats taking back the
flag-waving patriotism claimed by Republicans?" [...] No one buys that Democrats are suddenly
patriotic. Robin Abcarian's job is to make her readers feel good about voting for the Hyena
and the Cowardly Lion. Given her location in the heart of Narcon Liberalism, I would expect
nothing less. This is a valuable service to her readers. Almost as valuable as the poop
map in San Francisco so people know which street corners to avoid in the literal [excrement pit] by
the bay.
CNN
Delivers Kamala Harris First Interview in Three Heavily Edited Segments. In an effort
to provide as much assistance as possible, CNN heavily edited the Kamala Harris interview as agreed
between their producers and the campaign of Kamala Harris (Brian Fallon). The narrative
engineering within the interview, which includes soft guidance by Dana Bash, is transparent and
openly visible. The backlash against CNN is also very visible in all social media examples
where the interview is being highlighted. To present the post-broadcast coverage, CNN has
uploaded the interview in three segments. You will find them below. [Video clip]
Kamala
is ripped to shreds for 'word salad' CNN softball interview. Kamala Harris was last
night ripped to shreds for her 'word salad' answers in a softball liberal media interview — her
first since Joe Biden dropped out 40 days ago. The Democratic nominee appeared beside
her running mate Tim Walz for an hour-long broadcast — which in reality amounted to less than half
an hour of actual questioning by Dana Bash. The liberal commentariat claimed that she had
succeeded by following the tenet of 'do no harm' during the pre-recorded broadcast from Savannah, Georgia.
Internet
Reacts to Weird Staging of Kamala's CNN Interview and Hulking Tim Walz. Well, wonders
will never cease — Kamala Harris actually sat for a formal interview. Of course,
it wasn't live, it was taped, and it was conducted by a friendly face in CNN's Dana Bash.
Meanwhile, the VP needed the comfort blanket of her running mate and Emotional Support Governor,
Minnesota's Tim Walz, just to get through it. Many subjects were discussed, and to be fair,
Bash actually asked her some pointed questions on her frequent flip-flopping, but the internet had
a field day with something simpler: the staging. Namely, Kamala appeared to get the child's
seat, while Walz looked like he was Hagrid sitting next to her. [Tweet]
The
liberal media's gushing over Kamala Harris is an embarrassment to journalism. Yes, of
course liberal media outlets in the US are biased towards Kamala Harris. They're always
biased towards the Democrats' candidate. Nothing new there. What makes their behaviour
right now so remarkable is not that they're being partisan. It's that they're willing to be
partisan even though the object of their adulation has been giving them absolutely nothing in
return. They're cheerleading for someone who won't even speak to them. [...] If a Republican
candidate followed such an approach, these liberal media outlets would — quite
rightly — be scandalised. [...] Ms Harris's approach, however, doesn't appear to trouble
them at all. They seem perfectly happy to carry on portraying her as Mandela, Gandhi and
Beyoncé rolled into one.
Kennedy
Endorses Trump — Media Endorses Kamala. The media continues to fawn over
Kamala Harris while the latter steadfastly refuses to sit for interviews or stand for press
conferences. Her handlers know how important perception, the optics, can be —
aesthetically and psychologically — portraying her in a positive, pleasing light.
One can readily see this in her attention to apparel — towards a more "presidential"
appearance. Time magazine is a case in point. Its latest issue features a dramatic
portrait of Kamala Harris on the cover bearing the engaging caption "Her Moment." The magazine
offered minimal substance on Harris's performance as vice president. But it gushed a fountain
of ink alluding to the virtual "carnival" atmosphere which accompanies Harris's political
events. And in an almost laughable fashion an effort was attempted by the interviewer to
place Harris's performance on the same level with last year's "blockbuster summer for women of
Barbie, Beyoncé, and Swift." The Left's hypocrisy knows no limits.
Networks
Deliver Massive Media Honeymoon to Kamala Harris. Since Joe Biden exited the 2024
presidential race four weeks ago, the liberal networks have delivered an unprecedented boost of
positive publicity to his successor in the race, Vice President Kamala Harris. Not only has
Harris received 66% more airtime than former President Donald Trump, but the spin of Harris's
coverage has been more positive (84%) than any other major party nominee, even as Trump's
coverage has been nearly entirely hostile (89% negative). As always, our calculation of spin
omits so-called "horse race" assessments, but a separate count shows those statements have also
favored Harris by a whopping margin (94% positive, vs. just 43% positive for Trump). At the
same time, the network coverage has virtually eliminated any discussion of the strident left-wing
positions Harris took as Senator or during her 2020 presidential campaign. And while
Republican Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance and his Democratic counterpart, Tim Walz, have
received nearly equal amounts of airtime, the networks have celebrated Walz (62% positive press)
and punished Vance (92% negative).
Kamala's
Magical Media Makeover Masks Stunning Flaws. Poof! In a cloud of gaslit
smoke we have just witnessed the remarkable transformation of V.P. Kamala Harris with the lowest
public approval rating among registered voters of any vice president in NBC News polling history
(49% negative compared to 43% positive) a year ago to become recast as a celebrated nominee to lead
the nation and free world. And this illusory spectacle was accomplished without the supposed
convert — a merged reincarnate spirit of Harriet Tubman and Margaret
Thatcher — having received a single delegate vote. Having been first to bomb out
of presidential contention for the 2020 race, Kamala's latest revisionist version follows a
familiar Democrat Biden basement bunker strategy with a Harris reversal, reinvention and
retreat-from-press-inquiry agenda. This politically desperate disappearing act relies upon
campaign staff to walk back previous radically unpopular statements and actions to conform with a
winning majority of voter values and viewpoints.
CNN
beclowns itself and says the markets yearn for Kamala. According to most of the
media, the Democratic National Convention is so "electrifying," and pure "joy[.]" The
journalists have clearly received their talking points from the DNC, or they wouldn't all be using
the same words. The Democrats have been telling us how great Joe Biden was for
three-and-a-half years, until we saw him in the debate, even calling him "sharp as a tack."
They told us that Kamala was weak and unpopular, and an albatross around Joe's neck. Now, she
is the greatest thing since sliced bread, despite running away from her record and Biden's policies
as fast as she can, because she knows they're losers. Here is CNN telling us that Wall Street
is gravitating toward her, and it's clearly our turn to cackle when we read a headline and article
like this: ["]How Kamala Harris is winning over Wall Street [...] ["] There is
just so much to love! Let's blame corporations for greed and gouging when they make a small
profit, instead of big government spending and regulations.
Kamala
Can't Win Without Extreme Election Interference And That's Exactly What's Happening.
Everyone invested in a Kamala Harris victory in November isn't making even the faintest attempt at
taking her seriously as a presidential candidate. She's not one because she has no reason to
run for president, no vision, no interest in the job. The whole point of this herculean,
gravity-defying exercise we're in the midst of isn't to make Kamala president. It's to deny
Donald Trump the White House. The only way that can happen is for election interference on
behalf of Kamala in ways that were once unspeakable. We're already seeing it with
inexplicable poll numbers (literally, no one can explain them); a national news media that went
from acknowledging Kamala as a perpetual screw-up to heralding her as a glamour queen; and an
all-hands cleanup effort to remake her reputation from undeniably incapable to Barack Obama
redux. We're entering a new phase where Democrats and the media will not only pretend
Kamala's last three embarrassing years in office never happened, but they will lie about anything
and everything from here forward and to a degree in no way tethered to reality.
Media
Hide Biden-Harris' Huge Migrant Flood in Campaign Season. More than 170,000 migrants
crossed President Joe Biden's borders in July, but the TV networks and establishment media pretend
the inflow was just 56,048 migrants during the run-up to the 2024 election. The
July 2024 inflow of more than 170,000 migrants is triple the number touted by Biden's
pro-migration border chief and his media allies. It is also four times the 40,000 illegal
migrants who appeared at President Donald Trump's southern border in July 2020.
I
reject their normal. Tim Murphy of Mother Jones greeted the Democrat nomination for
vice president the way teen girls greeted the Beatles 60 years ago on the Ed Sullivan
Show. Murphy wrote, "Tim Walz, Normal Guy, Is Harris' Pick for Vice President." [Excerpt
omitted for brevity.] He was vetted? So everyone in the Democrat Party knew that when he
said he went to Iraq, he was lying. So everyone in the Democrat Party knew that when he said
he was a command sergeant major, he was lying. So everyone in the Democrat Party knew that
when he said he didn't suddenly retire to avoid combat, he was lying. That's their
normal. Lie, lie, lie. He worked in Red China for a year — beginning right
after Tiananmen Square — and has made 30 visits back, including his honeymoon. [...]
It's not just Murphy who is trying to sell Walz as a normal guy. All the media is.
MSNBC:
Harris [is] 'The End of White Patriarchal Society'.. The Regime sycophants at MSNBC,
consumed by their collective desire to imprint the Harris candidacy into the American psyche, have
now proclaimed Harris to be "the future". With Joe Biden vanishing in the rear-view mirror, the
"Hope and Change" nostalgia has been ramped up to 20 as the reality challenged MSNBC's 9PM host,
Alex Wagner, proclaims Obama and Harris to represent "the future". It is unclear to me
how a president who termed out 8 years ago is "the future", but MSNBC is running that in the
hopes of projecting Harris as the next avatar of Obamism. This stuff is the coverage
equivalent of the creepy Shepard Fairey poster. Everything is a contrived callback to "Hope
and Change". This includes the incessant evocation of the "coalition of the ascendant" that
would permanently transform American politics upon elevating Obama to power.
The
Press Won't Discuss Real Campaign Issues, Because They Don't Want Trump To Win. We're
now three weeks from the press hounding Biden out of the race because they looked like fools for
defending years of video clips showing him stumbling around on the international stage non compos
mentis. And with no remorse or self-awareness, the media are already back to doing everything
they can to serve Democrats' narrative. What this means in practice is that, unlike a
traditional presidential campaign, there's been virtually no discussion of actual issues such as
the economy, immigration, education, taxes, health care, foreign policy, and so on. The last
four years have been pretty disastrous. As a result, if this campaign becomes about issues
and what's happened under the Biden-Harris presidency, Trump is going to benefit greatly from that
discussion. So the press won't let it happen. Kamala Harris could not survive the
scrutiny of a real presidential campaign, and the media know this.
Kamala
Eliminating Taxes on Tips is Good, Trump Eliminating Them is Bad, According to CBS.
In the wake of Kamala Harris copying Donald Trump's plan to eliminate taxes on tips for service and
hospitality workers, mainstream media outlet CBS demonstrated obvious bias in its coverage of the
two candidates. For Harris, CBS' X description was: "Vice President Kamala Harris is rolling
out a new policy position, saying she'll fight to end taxes on tips for service and hospitality
workers." For Trump, CBS' X description was: "Former President Donald Trump's vow to stop
taxing tips would cost the federal government up to $250 billion over ten years, according to
nonpartisan watchdog group." Author Tim Murtaugh shared the side-by-side on X, joking that
"Only sharp-eyed readers will be able to spot the difference in the coverage of the two proposals."
Washington
Post Reporters Asks The Biden Regime If There Is Anything They Can Do To Censor The Musk/Trump
Interview. Did this Washington Post "reporter" just ask the first lesbian, black
press secretary if the Biden regime could INTERVENE and stop Trump's interview with Elon Musk on
X?! "I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue... it's an America
issue... What role does the White House or the President have? Any sort of stopping that, or
stopping the spread of that or intervening?" [Video clip]
Basement
Strategy Episode II. This year, it is a metaphorical basement since Walz and Harris
are barnstorming the country, but the principle is the same. Avoid scrutiny at any cost, lie
all the time, mindlessly repeat those lies, and count on the mainstream media to create a fictional
movie that reflects reality in no way at all. As things stand neither Harris nor Walz has
taken a single spontaneous question from a serious reporter. Walz is far more fluent than
Harris because he is a pathological liar without a conscience, while Harris is quite stupid and
incapable of stringing words together on her own. She is a speechwriter's dream because she
is quite good at reading others' words and is terrified of speaking her own. The key to this
strategy is simple: let the Hollywood/mainstream media/big tech and intelligence community
campaign for them.
Theater
of the Absurd, Harris-Walz Edition. Last week in this space, I pointed out the irony
of the Sudden Harris Ascendancy Syndrome. Here she was, one of the least popular figures on
the American scene — someone, moreover, whom everyone, no matter their political
coloration, regarded primarily as political life insurance for Joe Biden — and yet,
Wham!, the very moment Biden resigns, her media reconstruction begins in earnest. I almost
wrote "media rehabilitation," but that would not have been quite right. We say that
someone is rehabilitated when he has fallen from a previous state of health, competence, or
popularity. Kamala Harris has never been competent or popular. So what the media has
done to or with her these last couple of weeks is more of an outright fabrication project. In
part, as I wrote last week, it is a product of "magical thinking," the belief, or at least the hope
or pretense, that by saying something is so, you magically make it so.
Harris
Lurches Even Further to the Left. Over the last few months, we Americans have been
gobsmacked by the speed at which Team Big Left — Democrat politicians, celebrities,
hi-tech moguls with their social media platforms such as Google and Facebook, and the
MSM — can create a brand-new election zeitgeist at the drop of a hat. [...] In
addition to the pace, we are also amazed at the size of these tasks. These guys started out
the year by pushing the corpse-like Biden as "sharp and wise" and one of the most consequential
U.S. Presidents ever. Par for the course for Big Left, but then, after the Great Debate, the
degree of difficulty went through the roof when they had to take Harris, the worst candidate on
their bench, and turn her into a heroine for the ages.
Kamala
Harris Can't Articulate The Case For Voting For Her. What exactly is Harris'
appeal? She is the same unlikable, inauthentic candidate who was forced to drop out of the
2020 Democrat presidential primary before a single vote was cast. [...] What would account for
Harris' meteoric rise from political pariah to Democrat star in two weeks? "Kamalamania" is not
based on reality; it is purely a media-driven construct. The legacy media have joined with
Democrats in a full-court press to catapult Harris over the finish line — by whatever
means necessary. Americans are witnessing a real-world demonstration of the power of
propaganda and are amazed by the ease — and speed — with which it was
accomplished. The media's swooning coverage has taken a candidate once considered so weak as
to be a "drag on the ticket" and elevated her to rockstar status.
Regime-Approved
'Fact-Checkers' Rush To Downplay Tim Walz's Stolen Valor Controversy. It's another
day that ends in "-y," which means legacy media hucksters are running dishonest interference for
the Democrat Party. The latest example comes in the form of a Friday "fact-check" by The
Washington Post's Glenn Kessler. Known for his willingness to lie on behalf of Democrats, the
Post's "democracy dies in darkness" guru decided to offer his "assessment" of the controversy
engulfing Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. While lauded by regime-approved media for his
National Guard service, Walz's rollout as Kamala Harris' 2024 running mate has been marred by
reports and resurfaced clips indicating he committed "stolen valor." As Matt Beebe has detailed at
length in these pages, Walz abandoned his unit before it deployed to Iraq to run for Congress and
has inflated his military rank throughout his political career.
Tim
Walz is a Radical Leftist Who Imposed Abortions Up to Birth on Minnesota. The last
couple of days we've documented the legacy media's infatuation with Walz's Midwest cool. They
like him — okay, they adore him — because they have persuaded themselves that
the public is so dense they will take their cues not from his abysmal record but from social media
posts. We think otherwise. Here are just a few of the many steps Walz has taken to make
Minnesota, in effect, an abortion sanctuary state. [...]
Biden
2.0 — [The news] Media [are] Now Covering Up Kamala's Incompetence. The
media are scared to ask Kamala Harris questions. If you think about it, what we have here is
nothing less than another version of the years-long media cover-up of Joe Biden's lack of
competency. [Advertisement] When it came to Biden, the media were desperate to hide his
obvious, glaring, and dangerous mental deterioration due to his advanced age. [Advertisement]
With Kamala, the media are desperate to hide her obvious, glaring, and dangerous stupidity.
The media know CacklyMcNeverBorderCzar is the word salad queen. The media know CacklyMcNeverBorderCzar
loses her poise as soon as she's challenged. Most of all, the media know CacklyMcNeverBorderCzar will
never be able to explain her failure as Biden's Not-A-Border-Czar, her promotion of a bail fund to
release looters and rioters, her stated desire to ban fracking, and her wish to offer illegal aliens
free healthcare.
Is
Harris Campaign Relying On Smoke and Mirrors? The Harris campaign is showing lots of
videos of rallies and gatherings with cheering people, but is it all real or are they leveraging
CGI and the more modern AI and other tools to enhance the messaging and thereby influence you
perceptions and opinions? This image as an example, when run through a tool to measure the
possibility of AI use the poster says the tool indicates a 92% possibility of AI use. [Tweets] Add
to this the fact that they don't appear to want real questions and people are getting a quick
sense of a "smoke and mirrors" strategy being used by the campaign.
Liberal
Gaslighting Goes Global. The problem with many liberals is they can't live in their
own truth. They abandon ship as soon as it becomes inconvenient to maintain their current
persona. The most obvious and telling recent examples come from the Democrat Presidential
candidate-by-fiat, Kamala Harris. For the last three and a half years, she was 'The Border
Czar.' Everyone knew it. Biden announced it with much ballyhoo, and she was referred to
as 'The Border Czar' by the television, print, and electronic media repeatedly. As the Vice
President, she ran interference for Joe Biden. (He didn't create the huge border fiasco; she
did.) [...] Any stain of failure, especially one tied to the massive disaster of the southern
United States border, was a huge threat to her Presidential aspirations. So, the Democrat
political machine, together with their legacy media propaganda juggernaut, went full George Orwell
on John Q. Public. CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the New Yorker, Axios, and a score of
other legacy media began trumpeting: 'Kamala Harris was never the Border Czar!' Unfortunately
for the gaslighters, and thanks to the internet, there are an abundance of records of them dubbing
her with that title.
The
Press Rush to Put Lipstick on the Pig, but the Tim Walz Pick Is a Disaster for Democrats.
Who is Walz? He's a Bernie Sanders clone whose record is so left-wing that Trump could run a new
ad every single day from now until the election. That didn't stop the press from quickly trying to
put lipstick on the pig, though. In the aftermath of the news, CBS News described him as a "centrist"
who likes to cook casseroles. [Tweet with video clip] [...] That above framing is insane and
objectively false. Walz is as far-left as you can get, to the point where he competes with Gavin
Newsom as the most radical governor in the country. He let his state burn during the 2020 Black
Lives Matter riots, choosing to coddle criminals instead of taking action. He signed a bill putting
tampons into boys' bathrooms. He believes biological males should compete against females in
sports. He took the side of teachers' unions over students during COVID. He has praised
socialism as just being "neighborly." He has defended sanctuary cities. He even changed
Minnesota's flag to look like the Somali flag to appease the Islamists in his state.
The
Atlantic rebrands Kamala's weird persona as 'fun'. Kamala's history is no longer a
mystery. Willie Brown got her started on her political path when she dated this much older
man while he was still married to (but apparently separated from) his wife. Following the
political appointments he made for her, he helped her successfully run for San Francisco DA and
then for California Attorney General. Both as a local DA and as a state AG, Kamala pursued a
highly politicized, unprincipled path. In San Francisco, to look like a law-and-order DA, her
office obtained more than 1,900 marijuana convictions for low-level offenders. What hid
behind those statistics, though, was the fact that almost none of those convicted were actually
punished. It was Potemkin justice. Kamala's principles were also foul. The best
example is Kamala Harris's decision not to seek the death penalty for Edwin Ramos, who murdered
Tony Bologna, 48, and his two sons, Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16 — all totally innocent
men — as part of a gangland hit gone wrong. It was an unspeakably evil act but
Kamala didn't think the full force of the law applied. Incidentally, I know of no significant
cases that Kamala personally tried and won during her tenure.
Evidence
of Big Tech & MSM Rigging Public Opinion for Kamala Harris. We now have more evidence
that Google is rigging the election. While they say that they have nothing to hide, their
search results paint a different picture. A Google search for "Trump polling lead over
Harris" falsely suggests that Harris is ahead. Even a simple search for "Trump news" surfaces
overwhelmingly negative stories from left-leaning outlets. Meanwhile, searching for "Kamala
Harris news" highlights glowing profiles and positive coverage. Disturbingly, negative
stories about Harris, like Doug Emhoff's affair, are buried deep in search results. Search
for "Kamala Harris scandal," and you'll find a sanitized list of results, omitting key
controversies. In contrast, a search for "Trump controversy" brings up a litany of negative
headlines and damaging stories.
Lap
dogs for Democrats: Media barely shrug over Doug Emhoff's affair. Doug Emhoff's
ugly secret matters — not least as yet another example of rank media hypocrisy. On
Saturday, the second gentleman Emhoff admitted to cheating on his first wife, Kerstin Emhoff,
leading up to their divorce in 2009. Worse, it seems his mistress was his children's nanny, a
teacher at their school, who also ended up pregnant from the affair, though no one's saying what
came next — and Emhoff and his wife's campaign desperately want the scandal to end with
no more questions asked. And major media are eager to help: The New York Times made
sure to emphasize in a headline that this was a "long-ago affair"; The Washington Post helpfully
pointed out that "the affair ended years before he began dating Vice President Harris." The
double standard is glaring: The press spent years breathlessly covering the tale of Donald
Trump's alleged 2006 dalliance with Stormy Daniels; no news is too old if it embarrasses Republicans.
Now
Kamala is being allowed by the press to run from the basement just like Biden did in
2020. Kamala Harris hasn't done any press conferences or sit-down interviews.
She says she will debate Trump any time, yet when he offers a debate with the nearly same rules, on
September 4, she runs and hides[.] [...] Sadly, most of the media and many voters don't care
how extreme, destructive and radical that Kamala and other Democrats are. They seem willing
to have the United States commit suicide from within.
Don't
be surprised if Kamala shoots ahead in the polls. [Scroll down] Vice
President Harris will also get a big bump from the Democratic National Convention. Most all
the major Hollywood stars will be there. I wouldn't be surprised if Taylor Swift showed up,
wrote a song, and sang it before the whole country. Harris will also get a bump when she
chooses a vice president. The press is already going gaga trying to figure out whom she will
pick. [...] Another advantage Harris has is that her position as vice president might allow her to
mitigate any responsibility for what happened during the Biden/Harris administration. Trump
will not let her get away with this, but the elites and the media will. They will claim she
has a completely spotless record since she didn't do it. Biden did. The eight million
illegal aliens who came into this country by land, air, and sea are not because of anything Vice
President Harris did, the press will claim.
Trump
Campaign: CBS Poll Skewed to Help Harris. The Trump campaign on Sunday blasted
a CBS News/YouGov poll, saying it manipulated its latest poll to inflate results that help Vice
President Kamala Harris. Poll results announced earlier Sunday showed former President Donald
Trump and Harris, who are expected to oppose each other in the November election, are tied in key
battleground states. However, the CBS News/YouGov results showed Harris with a 1-point edge
(50% to 49%) in a head-to-head matchup. The Trump campaign said the poll's methodology and
breakdown of respondents were changed from those used for a July 18 survey to benefit
Harris. For example, the share of participating liberal voters increased from 28.5% of the
respondents on the July 18 poll to 30.2% in the Aug. 4 poll. A lower share of
moderates (31.8% on July 18 to 30.3% on Aug. 4) participated. Also, self-identified
conservatives comprised 36.7% of the 2,247 respondents for July 18 and just 35.5% of the 3,102
respondents for Aug. 4.
Kamala's
claim of border success is a sociopathic lie — but media abets it.
[Scroll down] A politician less certain that the media would swallow any set of
absurdities deemed in her interest might hesitate before making such facially preposterous
claims. The idea that Harris has been a tough-minded success on the border while Donald Trump
was a failure is sociopathic in its dishonesty. It's tiresome and apparently beside the point
to recite the basic facts, but after experiencing what was a migrant crisis by the old standard
that now seems quaint, the Trump administration implemented a series of measures that all but
brought illegal crossings to a halt. Then, the Biden administration reversed them all, and
illegal immigration quickly accelerated to record levels. This is a matter of record that
isn't in dispute. Millions of illegal immigrants have entered the country and strained the
resources of big cities across America.
CNN
Stunned as a Group of Black Men at Harrisburg Barbershop in Pennsylvania [State] 'Kamala Ain't
Black'. A group of Black men at a barbershop in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, voiced
their skepticism on Kamala's racial identity. [...] As the leftist media continues to promote her
as a Black American figure, a recent visit to a barbershop in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, revealed
that many local Black men are not convinced. When asked about their views on Harris, the
overwhelming response was clear: 'Kamala ain't black.' In a segment aired on CNN, a CNN
reporter noted that callers on an XM radio program quickly dismissed the opinions of the barbershop
patrons. "When I played that audio on XM radio program on Thursday, many callers who
self-identified as African-American were quick to tell me that those men were the exception, not
the rule. Some described them as low information voters, no different than you'd find among
Whites." [Tweet with video clip]
The Editor says...
The people who are quick to call a radio station (and get through the screener) to promote a Democrat are probably
political activists. The people "randomly" encountered in an all-black barber shop were probably expected
to support the Democrat, which is why they were interviewed in the first place. Blacks who care about race and
politics don't appreciate a mostly-Indian opportunist calling herself black and putting on a phony black dialect
when it suits her needs. If you disagree with the Democrats, they'll call you stupid: "Low-information voters."
Media
Completely Ignores 'Blacks Against Harris' Zoom Call Event. This week, a large Zoom
event called 'Blacks Against Harris' took place and was attended by thousands of people, but the
media ignored it. Apparently, 'White Dudes for Harris' and 'White Women for Harris' are fine,
but 'Blacks Against Harris' is unacceptable. Why do you suppose that is? If Democrats
and their media allies want to live in this divisive world of identity politics, they should not be
allowed to pick and choose which groups deserve attention and praise. [Tweet with
video clip] There has been a lot of talk in this election cycle about the increasing
amount of support for Trump among black voters, particularly black men. Rep. Jim Clyburn
(D-SC), one of Biden's biggest boosters, is dismissing this as a non-starter.
Kamala
Harris has been identified as Indian, Black and Asian American by newspapers.
Newspapers across the country have historically made issue of the race of Democratic presidential
candidate Kamala Harris since her first days in public office. Newspaper stories now more
than 20 years old have referenced Harris as an Indian-American and as a Black woman.
More recently, they have described the vice president also as "Asian American." Race has become
an issue because former President Donald Trump said he didn't know Harris was Black "until a number
of years ago."
Kamala
Harris Continues to Avoid the Media, They Continue to Be Okay With It. As RedState
reported Wednesday, despite the fact that it has been eleven days since Vice President Kamala
Harris effectively became the presumptive 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, she hasn't given
one press conference or had any media interactions where she's actually taken any questions from
reporters. She has done other things, though, things that I think most people would describe
as "weird." Interestingly, that is what many on her side have taken to calling Sen. JD Vance
(R-OH), Donald Trump's vice presidential running mate, even though — last I checked —
it wasn't JD Vance who pretended to have a southern accent and who campaigned and laughed at a
funeral while claiming a title he did not yet hold.
Media
Gaslighting About Kamala Harris Nears Totalitarian Levels. Ever since Kamala Harris
became the Democratic Party's presumed presidential nominee, the news media have worked to correct
what it calls "misinformation" about her. Harris was not a "DEI hire," they say, meaning
Biden did not choose her for his Vice President because she's a black woman. Harris was never
border czar and wasn't responsible for the quintupling of migrants crossing the border. And,
no, say the media, Harris does not support a ban on fracking. But in the media's so-called
fact-checking, they have spread misinformation. Biden explicitly said he would choose a black
woman as Vice President after black Democratic activists and the media urged him to; as such,
Harris was indeed a "DEI hire." The media in 2021 widely referred to Harris as "border czar," and
her responsibilities were to deal with the so-called "root causes of migration." And Harris had
supported a ban on fracking when she ran in the Democratic primary in 2019 and only changed it a
few days ago in response to Trump's attacks.
Mockingbird media: The
short, strange life of 'weird'. For a brief moment, every Democratic talker in the
United States was calling former President Donald Trump and running mate Sen. J.D. Vance
(R-OH) "weird." They're still doing it now, but in the last 24 hours or so, the vogue of
"weird" appears to be dwindling. And that leaves the question: What was that about?
The
Joy of Conspiracies As They Go Mainstream. Kamala went from dingbat to superwoman in
about 24 hours. If she ever looked like this, it was decades ago. She's nearly 60!
[Tweet] Her history is erased. Of course, she wasn't the border czar and doesn't want
to end fracking, oil, gas, and coal, and you can keep your little gas guzzlers, too. The only
problem is we see the truth, and we can't unsee it. We all see it, and we know what they
are. The media just out and out lies now. They used to be subtle and simply lie by
omission or make little nasty or biased comments here and there.
Something
Shady Is Going on Surrounding Kamala Harris. A new audit reveals a disturbing bias in
Google and YouTube search results. When users search for negative news about Kamala Harris,
they're met with overwhelmingly positive or neutral content. For example, on Google, searching
for "Kamala Harris negative news July 2024" predominantly returns positive articles.
Similarly, on YouTube, searches for "Kamala Harris negative videos July 2024" show supportive
content. If the fix is not in at the ballot booth, it certainly seems to be online.
After
Years Of Regaling VP As Border Czar, Media Claim Harris Was Never In Charge Of The Invasion.
Years after acknowledging and even praising President Joe Biden for naming Vice President Kamala Harris
"border czar," corporate media claimed the presumptive 2024 Democrat nominee was never charged with
overseeing the logistics of the record-breaking invasion. Biden first charged Harris with leading
"our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to
need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border" in
March 2021. At the time, he claimed the former California attorney general and senator was
"the most qualified person to do it." Harris didn't do much with the title and task. Yet,
even her delayed first and only (and heavily staged) visit to the border received celebration from her
allies in the press. This kid-glove treatment intensified recently when corporate media accused
those critical of Harris' failure to do anything but exacerbate the Biden administration-incentivized
invasion of making the VP a "convenient scapegoat."
Narrative
Killer: NY Times Reports Show Kamala Harris Had Bigger Role Than 'Border Czar'.
This week, as they were eager to elevate Kamala Harris into the political stratosphere, we saw yet
another attempt by the news outlets to set their already smoldering reputations on fire anew.
The latest has the press attempting to claim that Kamala Harris was never Joseph Biden's Border
Czar, and this is due entirely to the recognition that the immigration crisis is an anchor on her
campaign. With this reality comes an attempt at rewriting not just the past but their
publication history. There are dual efforts with this latest lie: Kamala was never
given the job of Border Czar, and the claim that she was is a fiction created by Republicans.
To dispel the second point first, here is a handy montage, courtesy of Newsbusters, showing the
various press outlets that dubbed Harris as the Border Czar: [Tweet]
Fact-Checkers
Slap 'False' Labels On Claims Harris Was 'Border Czar'. The nitpickers, who style
themselves as fact-checkers at PolitiFact and USA Today, have rushed to Vice President Kamala
Harris's defense by slapping "false" labels on those who seek to label her as the Biden
Administration's "border czar" in order to claim that her failure to stem illegal immigration
proves she is unqualified to be president. On Wednesday [7/24/2024], PolitiFact's Maria
Ramirez Uribe gave the Republican National Committee a "mostly-false" rating. For Uribe,
calling Harris the border czar is wrong because "Biden didn't put Harris in charge of overseeing
border security." Rather, he "said Harris would lead U.S. diplomatic efforts and work with
officials in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to stem migration to the U.S." Uribe
also objected to the "czar" title because "Managing the border 'has always been' the Homeland Security
secretary's role, [Migration Policy Institute communications director Michelle] Mittelstadt said."
Kamala
Harris Was Biden's "Border Czar" — But Axios and DC Media Want to Rewrite History to
Benefit Democrats. After President Joe Biden announced that he would be dropping out
of the presidential race, Vice President Kamala Harris has emerged as the new presumptive 2024
Democratic presidential nominee — and her ascension has brought about a
remarkable — Orwellian, even — shift in coverage from mainstream corporate
media outlets. In 2021, President Biden very publicly tapped Vice President Harris to take
charge of the growing criminal and humanitarian crisis at the southern border — a move
that garnered significant media attention at the time.
Yes,
Kamala Harris Was the Border Czar. Now that Vice President Kamala Harris is the
leading contender for the Democrat party's presidential nomination, the corporate media are
gaslighting the public to a degree many of us never thought possible. The latest Orwellian
history rewrite is whether Harris was President Biden's "border czar." One example is left-wing
Axios, called out via real fact-checking and X community notes, now denying that Harris was Biden's
border czar. As Fox News reported, in the spring of 2021, Axios said, "The number of
unaccompanied minors crossing the border has reached crisis levels. Harris, appointed by
Biden as border czar, said she would be looking at the 'root causes' that drive migration."
Now this week, Axios did a 180, rewriting history with this revision: "The Trump campaign and
Republicans have tagged Harris repeatedly with the 'border czar' title — which she never
actually had."
Kamala's
Ministry of Truth. Did I just fall out of a coconut tree? How else to explain
the dizziness so many of us are feeling at the speed of Kamala Harris's coronation — and
at the contortions now being performed to present her as the saviour of the beleaguered Democrats,
if not of American democracy itself. Within 48 hours of Joe Biden's withdrawal from the
US presidential race on Sunday, Vice-President Harris had clinched enough delegates, donors and
Democratic power-brokers to ensure her an unchallenged, uncontested path to becoming the Democratic
nominee to face Donald Trump this autumn. [...] As Jenny Holland wrote on spiked earlier this week,
the media are eager to present Harris as 'Martin Luther King, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Taylor Swift and
Beyoncé, all rolled into one'. We need to remember who we're talking about here.
The newly anointed Democratic nominee was someone few believed could win the presidency, only a few
weeks ago. Indeed, this is widely understood to be behind the Obamas' hesitancy to back
her — and Biden's own reluctance to hand over the baton to his veep.
Media's
Version of Harris is Unburdened by History. Once again, the Democrats are offering up
a woman candidate for president. And once again, it is an unlikeable candidate who owes her
career to a far more skillful male politician. In Hillary's case, it is her husband, Bill, a
charismatic personality adept at the game. In Harris's case, it was her lover Willie Brown
who boosted her up the ladder and showered her with expensive gifts. ["]To say that
Kamala Harris had an affair with a man more than twice her age, leveraged his fundraising prowess
and connections to launch her political career, and once in office did his corrupt bidding isn't
sexist. It's well-grounded in fact.["] When in 2019 Harris ran for president, she
was highly promoted by the media but drew little support and dropped out quickly. The Los
Angeles Times said she never should have even entered the race.
CNN
and rest of MSM conspire to promote Kamala Harris. Watching CNN and reading much of
the rest of the mainstream media in print and online since last Sunday, when Joe Biden announced
that he's not running for reelection, is like a nightmare vision of a dystopian future. True
to the Marxist playbook, it's nonstop historical revisionism, coupled with the retooling of Kamala
Harris as a messianic Obama-type figure. [...] As painful as it is, watching CNN (and MSNBC, which
arguably is even worse) provides essential insights into the fast-growing propaganda campaign that
the political establishment and the MSM will be employing to get Harris elected.
The
Mainstream Media Is Deleting Previous Reporting About Kamala Harris. Barring yet
another shocking moment in a rollercoaster campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris will be the
Democratic Party's nominee for the 2024 presidential election. Although Harris has been in
the limelight as Vice President, the media attention towards her has increased substantially given
that there's a possibility she could become the 47th President of the United States. Of
course, when something is published on the internet, it can remain online indefinitely. As
deleting stories is generally frowned upon, editors may choose to amend a story years after initial
publication if they no longer agree with the original copy — but in the case of Harris,
many are trying to simply pretend their past repotting on Harris never existed in the first place.
Legalized
Press-titution: Media Coverage of Kamala Has Reached Shameless Fangirl Levels Already.
This article is not made from the standpoint of surprise, but more of a sense of awe at the
audacity of it all. [...] Her ascendancy since meant that not only would she be treated with kind
hands, but the media have been overflowing with gushing praise for the woman to an unseemly
level. The first indicator you might see of how hands-off the press will be with her record
is the claim that Kamala has "already been vetted." This is sheer garbage. During her attempt
at the presidential run in 2020, Harris managed to gain no traction, earning zero delegates and
polling in fourth place in her home state of California, thus dropping out ahead of that promised
embarrassing result. She was properly vetted in the debates by Tulsi Gabbard, who kneecapped
Harris in an effective fashion. But how about Harris' record during her term as VP? As I
recently covered, there is nothing but a resume of failures on her CV.
After
Years Of Regaling VP As Border Czar, Media Claim Harris Was Never In Charge Of The Invasion.
Years after acknowledging and even praising President Joe Biden for naming Vice President Kamala Harris
"border czar," corporate media claimed the presumptive 2024 Democrat nominee was never charged with
overseeing the logistics of the record-breaking invasion. Biden first charged Harris with leading
"our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to
need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border" in
March 2021. At the time, he claimed the former California attorney general and senator was
"the most qualified person to do it." Harris didn't do much with the title and task. Yet,
even her delayed first and only (and heavily staged) visit to the border received celebration from her
allies in the press. This kid-glove treatment intensified recently when corporate media accused
those critical of Harris' failure to do anything but exacerbate the Biden administration-incentivized
invasion of making the VP a "convenient scapegoat."
The
Beatification of Kamala Begins. The manufactured enthusiasm for Kamala Harris has
begun, and the first 48 hours of the marketing blitz are exactly as we should expect.
The next few months are going to be ridiculous at a level beyond The Lightbringer.
Fortunately, a person who was perhaps not paying attention in '07/'08 will now get to witness
something they missed before, and the ears might not be as deaf as they were 16-years ago. We
also have the ego of Teh One which might come into play if he feels slighted witnessing a higher
level of adulation than he received.
By
The Way, Kamala Harris Is A Dangerous Authoritarian. With some hard work, pluck, the
right boyfriend, and a bit of genetic luck, Kamala Harris has found her way onto the presidential
ballot without having to secure a single primary vote. Don't tell me the American Dream is
dead. Sure, Harris is a demagogue who speaks in cringy, swirling, impenetrable
platitudes. And sure, according to Joe Biden, Kamala was an identity hire. But "Morning
Joe" says we're not supposed to talk about any of that. So, let's discuss her record and
stated positions. It seems like a lifetime ago that Biden named Harris his running
mate. What you may not recall is that the media tried to gaslight us into believing the
California senator was another apolitical dealmaker. Former Clinton fixer George
Stephanopoulos said Harris was "the middle-of-the-road, moderate wing of the Democratic Party."
The New York Times called her a "pragmatic moderate," while the Associated Press focused on her
"centrist record." And so on. A "small c conservative," one Washington Post columnist
wrote. The only problem was, according to GovTrack, Harris' record in the Senate was to the left of
red-diaper baby Bernie Sanders. She was least likely of any senator to join in any bipartisan bills.
Fact-Checkers
Slap 'False' Labels On Claims Harris Was 'Border Czar'. The nitpickers, who style
themselves as fact-checkers at PolitiFact and USA Today, have rushed to Vice President Kamala
Harris's defense by slapping "false" labels on those who seek to label her as the Biden
Administration's "border czar" in order to claim that her failure to stem illegal immigration
proves she is unqualified to be president. On Wednesday [7/24/2024], PolitiFact's Maria
Ramirez Uribe gave the Republican National Committee a "mostly-false" rating. For Uribe,
calling Harris the border czar is wrong because "Biden didn't put Harris in charge of overseeing
border security." Rather, he "said Harris would lead U.S. diplomatic efforts and work with
officials in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to stem migration to the U.S." Uribe
also objected to the "czar" title because "Managing the border 'has always been' the Homeland Security
secretary's role, [Migration Policy Institute communications director Michelle] Mittelstadt said."
Kamala
Harris Was Biden's "Border Czar" — But Axios and DC Media Want to Rewrite History to
Benefit Democrats. After President Joe Biden announced that he would be dropping out
of the presidential race, Vice President Kamala Harris has emerged as the new presumptive 2024
Democratic presidential nominee — and her ascension has brought about a
remarkable — Orwellian, even — shift in coverage from mainstream corporate
media outlets. In 2021, President Biden very publicly tapped Vice President Harris to take
charge of the growing criminal and humanitarian crisis at the southern border — a move
that garnered significant media attention at the time.
CBS
Implies Kamala Harris Should Be Exempt From Criticism. The bitter Sunday afternoon
announcement that President Joe Biden would end his reelection bid spurred hours of live network
television coverage. [...] The news wasn't two hours old before Robert Costa warned the Republican
attacks were going to be "rough and tumble like we've never seen it." He received a text from
Donald Trump Jr. "already attacking Vice President Harris, saying she owns the entire policy of
President Biden, even more liberal, and he's saying she's not competent!" Stop. What in
that statement is rougher than we've ever seen? The Democrats and their staunch media allies
compare Donald Trump to Hitler and other mass-murdering dictators. They explicitly call him
an "existential threat" to democracy. How is it then "rough" to say Harris is ultraliberal
and incompetent?