Kamala Harris has been accused of bussing in people by the thousands to fill seats at a rally, this time in Charlotte, North Carolina on Thursday.
There were buses as far as the eye could see outside the Bojangles Coliseum.
There is a debate over whether these buses brought people from outside the city, or if they were merely shuttle buses ferrying people from the city centre to the venue, a distance of around 4 miles.
Tuesday night’s presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris has predictably spawned several viral moments dominating the news cycle this week.
What’s even more predictable is that while the mainstream media will run damage control for Harris’s performance, they will blast Trump’s to no end. On Wednesday, TIME Magazine found themselves all too willing to do the latter in praising Harris and informing their readers that Trump was outshined.
Notably, Trump called out Harris for supporting transgender surgeries for illegal immigrants in 2019. TIME found this to be absurd. How could Trump spew such falsehoods about his opponent? There’s just one major problem: Harris did support this in 2019. TIME was forced to issue a correction the same day.
The reader will find the following at the bottom of the TIME article’s page:
“The original version of this story mischaracterized as false Donald Trump’s statement accusing Kamala Harris of supporting ‘transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison’ As a presidential candidate in 2019, Harris filled out a questionnaire saying she supported taxpayer-funded gender transition treatment for detained immigrants.”
This isn’t some fringe right-wing talking point.
It’s something Harris is actually on record for supporting.
Moreover, it isn’t something Trump himself brought to light; CNN did that on Monday.
Erin Burnett — host of CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront” — spoke to Andrew Kaczynski, CNN’s senior editor for their KFile investigation team that day and reacted with shock as he confirmed Harris’s position on transgender surgeries for illegals through a questionnaire she filled out for the American Civil Liberties Union in 2019.
“She actually said she supported that?” Burnett asked in a clip that was posted to the social media platform X.
It is being claimed that an insider at ABC News is going to come forward with proof that Kamala Harris was provided Tuesday’s debate questions ahead of time, allowing her team a distinct advantage in preparing to go head to head with Donald Trump.
The whistleblower will reportedly release a signed affidavit via a lawyer with details of how the Harris team got hold of the questions before the debate and details of communications between her team and ABC News.
Throughout the debate and afterwards many people suggested Harris knew what the questions were going to be judging from the way she reacted to them compared to when she had to answer off the cuff.
A former top adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton says ABC News should hire an external law firm to conduct an internal investigation into whether the network was involved in “rigging the outcome” of the presidential debate.
The demand was made by political strategist and pollster Mark Penn, who was a chief strategist for Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign.
“I actually think they should do a full internal investigation, hire an outside law firm. I don’t know how much of this was planned in advance,” Penn told the John Solomon Reports podcast.
“I don’t know what they told the Harris campaign. I think the day after, suspicion here is really quite high, and I think a review of all their internal texts and emails really should be done by an independent party to find out to what extent they were planning on, in effect, you know, fact-checking just one candidate and in effect, rigging the outcome of this debate. I think the situation demands nothing less than that,” he added.
Vice President Kamala Harris has finally released a policy platform on her official campaign website.
The policy platform, titled “New Way Forward,” seeks to align her campaign more closely with the mainstream political views while addressing key issues that have defined her tenure and political identity. (Related: Kamala Harris working with Tim Walz to create federal Department of GROCERIES – food price controls and empty shelves won’t be far behind.)
In a section labeled “safeguard[ing] our fundamental freedoms,” Harris declared her opposition to a national abortion ban, pledging to sign any bill that restores reproductive freedom nationwide.
She also disclosed her commitment to pushing for the passage of the “Equality Act,” a controversial measure that mandates legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals across various sectors, including business, education and public spaces. The act would also require employers and educators to use the preferred pronouns of every person, allow transgender athletes to compete in sports based on their gender identity and obligate health care providers to offer so-called “gender-affirming” care, even for minors.
Harris’ platform also endorses the “John Lewis Voting Rights Act” and the “Freedom to Vote Act,” which seeks to strengthen voting rights protections, expand vote-by-mail options and increase early voting opportunities.
The Democratic presidential nominee also proposes a range of economic measures under the theme of creating an “opportunity economy.” These include expanding child tax credits, increasing government spending on affordable housing, providing direct payments to first-time homebuyers and taking legal action against corporations for price gouging. She also calls for supporting the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), strengthening Social Security and Medicare through higher taxes on the wealthy and investing in infrastructure, education, child care and clean energy.
Moreover, the Harris campaign agenda outlines plans to “ensure safety and justice for all,” advocating for stronger gun control measures, immigration reform through a “bipartisan” border security bill and the elimination of presidential immunity. The platform also supports “common-sense Supreme Court reforms,” including imposing term limits on justices and requiring them to adhere to ethics rules that govern other federal judges.
On foreign policy, Harris promises to maintain the strength and security of America by standing firm against dictators, pursuing peace efforts in conflict zones such as Gaza and investing in future-facing industries like semiconductors, so-called “clean” renewable energy and artificial intelligence.
It’s a fair question. Why? Because it’s happened before. It’s not some tin foil hat, pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theory: Democrats hired by major news networks have fed debate questions to their party’s presidential nominees. While many analyses and polls are being discussed about the ABC News debate on Tuesday, what about the possibility that Harris got the questions in advance?
To tee this up, let’s not forget that Donna Brazile gave the Clinton campaign the questions before the CNN debate:
Former Democratic National Committee interim chair Donna Brazile acknowledged sending town hall topics to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, calling it a “mistake I will forever regret.”
Brazile wrote in an essay for Time magazine that she shared potential topics for a CNN town hall with the Clinton campaign in her role as a Democratic operative and the DNC vice chair.
“My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen,” she wrote. “But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret.”
WikiLeaks posted emails from Brazile to the Clinton campaign that tipped it off that a woman from Flint, Michigan, would ask Clinton about the situation there for a town hall. Brazile also told the campaign that Clinton would be asked about the death penalty at a separate town hall.
CNN dropped Brazile as a contributor after the revelations. When the email alerting the Clinton campaign about the death penalty question was released, Brazile suggested the documents were “misinformation.”
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” — Abraham Lincoln
It is both apt and ironic that the anniversary of 9/11, which paved the way for the government to overthrow the Constitution, occurs the week before the anniversary of the day the U.S. Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787.
All sides are still waging war on our constitutional freedoms, and “we the people” remain the biggest losers.
This year’s presidential election is no exception.
As Bruce Fein, the former associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, warns in a recent article in the Baltimore Sun, “In November, the American people will have a choice between Harris-Walz and Trump-Vance. But they will not have a choice between an Empire and a Republic.”
In other words, the candidates on this year’s ballot do not represent a substantive choice between freedom and tyranny so much as they constitute a cosmetic choice: the packaging may vary widely, but the contents remain the same.
No matter who wins, the bureaucratic minions of the Security/Military Industrial Complex and its Police State/Deep State partners will retain their stranglehold on power.
Neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris have the greatest of track records when it comes to actually respecting the rights enshrined in the Constitution, despite the rhetoric being trotted out by both sides lately regarding their so-called devotion to the rule of law.
Indeed, Trump has repeatedly called for parts of the Constitution to be terminated, while both Harris and Trump seem to view the First Amendment’s assurance of the right to free speech, political expression and protest as dangerous when used to challenge the government’s power.
This flies in the face of everything America’s founders fought to safeguard.
CNN’s Jake Tapper unusually criticized Kamala Harris’ debate performance, pointing out a number of examples where she dodged actual question being asked.
The presidential debate was noteworthy for its clear bias towards Harris, who received zero fact checks from the moderators despite making a number of false claims.
On the other hand, Trump was fact checked at least four times and faced numerous ‘follow up’ confrontations with the moderators compared to Harris who faced barely any.
CNN also noted Kamala’s repeated prevarications when questions were lobbed her way.
When Harris was asked, “Do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?” she responded by saying, “I was raised as a middle class kid.”
The first presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump presented a bleak picture of the future of U.S. foreign policy no matter who wins in November. On the most urgent and important foreign policy issue of the year, the war and genocide in Gaza, Harris repeated empty platitudes about a “two-state solution” and Trump fell back on tired “pro-Israel” rhetoric. Neither candidate offered voters any hope that there would be a meaningful change from Biden’s policy of unconditional support for the slaughter and starvation of Palestinians.
Trump absurdly said that Harris hates Israel, but aside from her perfunctory expression of support for Palestinian self-determination there was unfortunately very little to distinguish the two of them on this issue. Like Trump, Harris backs Israel to the hilt, and the main difference is that she pays lip service to Palestinian rights while doing nothing to protect them. She says some of the right things about the need for a ceasefire, but the Joe Biden administration isn’t willing to use its leverage to secure one and Harris refuses to call for the halt to U.S. arms transfers that U.S. law requires.
Harris has had many opportunities in the two months since Biden dropped out to separate herself from the president on this issue. She squandered them all by sticking to the official administration line. The vice president would rather tout her support from the likes of Dick Cheney than try to win the support of antiwar voters across the country. Harris has been catering mostly to hawks this summer, and she prefers attacking Trump for being “weak” instead of using his policy failures against him.
Kamala Harris won the debate. People being bombed in Gaza did not.
The banner headline across the top of the New York Times home page – “Harris Puts Trump on Defensive in Fierce Debate” – was accurate enough. But despite the good news for people understandably eager for Trump to be defeated, the Harris debate performance was a moral and political tragedy.
In Gaza “now an estimated 40,000 Palestinians are dead,” an ABC News moderator said. “Nearly 100 hostages remain… President Biden has not been able to break through the stalemate. How would you do it?”
Vice President Harris replied with her standard wording: “Israel has a right to defend itself. We would. And how it does so matters. Because it is also true far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. Children, mothers. What we know is that this war must end. It must when, end immediately, and the way it will end is we need a ceasefire deal and we need the hostages out.”
“End immediately”? Anyone who isn’t in fantasyland knows that the only way to soon end the slaughter of Palestinian civilians would be for the U.S. government – the overwhelmingly biggest supplier of Israel’s armaments – to stop sending weapons to Israel.
Meanwhile, a pivot to advocating for a cutoff of weapons to Israel would help Harris win the presidency. After the debate, the Institute for Middle East Understanding pointed out that the need to halt the weapons is not only moral and legal – it’s also smart politics. Polls are clear that most Americans want to stop arming Israel. In swing states, polling has found that a large number of voters say they’d be more likely to cast a ballot for Harris if she would support a halt.
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.