Search Results
40 items found for ""
- Kamala Harris's Solo Interview Fumble: A Nervous Dance Around Policy Details
In the 6ABC interview, Kamala Harris had difficulty in answering straightforward questions. During the brief interview she struggled & regurgitated the same rehearsed lines from the debate. Vice President Kamala Harris, now the Democratic nominee for the 2024 presidential election, sat down for her first solo interview since her nomination. The interview, which took place in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state, was conducted by Brian Taff of 6abc Action News. In the interview, Vice President Kamala Harris was ostensibly given the floor to detail her economic policy vision in the run-up to the presidential election. However, what viewers witnessed might generously be described as a rhetorical detour into what critics have termed "word salad." When pressed for specifics on how she plans to make life more affordable, Harris's response was telling not for its policy depth but for its meandering narrative. Watch the entire interview Harris rambled on about her middle-class upbringing, a narrative pivot that, while perhaps relatable, did little to address the immediate policy questions at hand. She spoke about her mother's hard work and the community she grew up in. She spoke of aspirations, symbolized by well-kept lawns. These anecdotes served more as a buffer than a bridge to substantive economic strategies. How does one transition from lawn care to economic policy without getting lost in the bushes? The concept of an "opportunity economy," which Harris touched upon, hints at her policy direction. She mentioned facilitating small business startups, but the how-to remained conspicuously absent besides giving a $50,000 tax deduction. She also said she would give $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, and expand the child tax credit to $6000. In general Harris intends to throw money at key issues, without saying how she’ll fund the initiatives. This vagueness does little to reassure voters looking for concrete plans on how their economic lives might improve. The lack of specificity leaves a void where policy should be. On the topic of guns, Harris affirmed her support for the Second Amendment while advocating for an assault weapons ban. When questioned about her approach to uniting the country, Harris expressed her belief in the commonalities among Americans, contrasting her vision with what she perceives as divisive tactics by her opponent. She criticized Trump's approach as one that encourages finger-pointing. In the end, the interview might be remembered less for what was said than for what was skirted around.
- Gavin Newsom & Authoritarian Democrats in California Outlaw Voter ID
California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law a bill banning local governments within the state from requiring Voter ID for local elections. This legislative action, perceived by some as an authoritarian overreach by liberal Democrats, comes in direct response to a ballot measure passed in Huntington Beach, which aimed to implement a voter ID requirement. Huntington Beach, known for its conservative leanings, had become a focal point for this debate after voters there approved a measure for voter ID, alongside restrictions on flag displays, as part of a broader push by local conservative leaders to fortify what they describe as election integrity. The measure was seen as a direct challenge to broader state policies, aiming to ensure that only eligible voters participate in municipal elections. Citing concerns over potential voter suppression, California's Attorney General and Secretary of State had previously warned Huntington Beach of legal repercussions should the voter ID requirement be implemented. The new state law effectively nullifies such local ordinances, arguing that voting rights are a matter of statewide concern, and therefore, uniform under state law.
- Gavin Newsom, California Apology for Slavery-No Reparations
OPINION : Gavin Newsom's California apology for slavery while symbolic, without reparations does not address economic disparities rooted in centuries of systemic racism. California will issue a formal apology for its role in slavery during the nineteenth century and for enforcing segregationist policies against Black residents as part of a package of new laws signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As we confront the lasting legacy of slavery, I’m profoundly grateful for the efforts put forward by Chair Wilson and the members of the California Legislative Black Caucus. The State of California accepts responsibility for the role we played in promoting, facilitating, and permitting the institution of slavery, as well as its enduring legacy of persistent racial disparities. Building on decades of work, California is now taking another important step forward in recognizing the grave injustices of the past – and making amends for the harms caused.” Governor Gavin Newsom The journey towards this apology began in 2020 with the establishment of the California Reparations Task Force , a body tasked with studying and developing proposals for reparations for African Americans, particularly descendants of enslaved individuals. Over years, this task force gathered evidence, heard testimonies, and proposed comprehensive recommendations, including financial compensation and land restitution. There was a significant push for reparations in California, with bills proposed that would have established mechanisms for reparative justice, including the creation of a Freedman's Affairs Agency. However, these bills, crucial for the actual implementation of reparations beyond symbolic gestures, did not make it to the floor for a vote. Governor Newsom reportedly played a pivotal role behind the scenes to discourage this legislation. The California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC) despite initially supporting reparations measures, was accused of not bringing the bills to a vote, ostensibly to prevent Newsom from having to veto them publicly, thereby saving him from political backlash. This decision effectively killed the reparations initiative for the legislative session. An additional bill that would have assisted Black families in recovering or receiving compensation for property that the government had wrongfully seized has also been vetoed by Newsom. The vetoing of bills that would have created mechanisms for land return or financial compensation was justified by budgetary constraints and the need for further study, arguments that conveniently serve to delay action until politically opportune. Opinion: Gavin Newsom, California Apology for Slavery- No Reparations An apology, while symbolic, without reparations does not address economic disparities rooted in centuries of systemic racism. The issue of reparations for Black Californians will fade into the background, likely not to be seriously revisited until the next election cycle when a Democrat politician will again see it as a useful tool to engage Black voters.
- NYC Mayor Eric Adams Indictment- Retaliation for Complaining About Immigration?
In a statement, Mayor Eric Adams, who is facing federal Indictment, implies his complaints about immigration made him a target. The details of the charges against Adams remained under seal as of the latest reports, but sources close to the matter suggest they are connected to an investigation into his 2021 mayoral campaign, particularly involving allegations of illegal campaign donations from the Turkish government. Update: Read the full indictment HERE Prominent figures like U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have called for Adams's resignation, citing not only the indictment but also the broader federal investigations into his administration. This has led to significant personnel changes, with high-profile resignations, including the police commissioner. Mayor Adams, known for his law-and-order approach and background as a former police captain, has vehemently denied any wrongdoing. In a video statement, he described the charges if brought are entirely false and pledged not to resign, asserting his right to due process. My fellow New Yorkers, it is now my belief that the federal government intends to charge me with crimes. If so, these charges will be entirely false based on lies, but they would not be surprised. I always knew that if I stood my ground for all of you that I would be a target and a target I became. For months, leaks and rumors have been aimed at me in an attempt to undermine my credibility and paint me as guilty. Just this past week, they searched the home of our new police commissioner looking for documents from 20 years ago, just 1 week after he joined my administration. Enough. I will fight these injustices with every ounce of my strength and my spirit. If I'm charged, I know I am innocent. I will request an immediate trial so the New Yorkers can hear the truth. New Yorkers know my story. They know where I come from. I have been fighting injustice my entire life. That fight has continued as your mayor. Despite our pleas, when the federal government did nothing as it's broken immigration policies, overloaded our shelter system with no relief, I put the people of New York before party and politics. Now if I am charged, many may say I should resign because I cannot manage the city while fighting the case. I can also understand, everyday New Yorkers will be concerned that I cannot do my job while I face accusation. But I have been facing these lies for months since I began to speak out for all of you and their investigation started, yet the city has continued to improve. Make no mistake, you elected me to lead this city and lead it, I will. I humbly ask for your prayers and your patience as we see this through. God bless you, and God bless the city of New York. Thank you. The indictment is expected to be unsealed Thursday 9/26/2024.
- Michael Eric Dyson texts Nancy Mace after calling her racially insensitive on CNN. "We Look Good Together"
Rep. Nancy Mace revealed text messages allegedly sent by Michael Eric Dyson, a noted scholar and commentator, following a heated exchange on CNN . The initial contention arose during a segment on CNN's "NewsNight with Abby Phillip," where Dyson and Mace clashed over the pronunciation of Vice President Kamala Harris's name. Dyson, known for his defense of racial and social justice, criticized Mace's mispronunciation as a sign of disrespect, tying it to broader themes of racial insensitivity. Mace insisted on her pronunciation, escalating the tension. On September 19, 2024, Mace took to the floor of the House Oversight Committee to address what she described as an attempt to manufacture outrage over the pronunciation of Kamala Harris's name. Mace revealed that Dyson, who had vehemently criticized her on national television, later sent her private text messages with a notably different tone. I would like to also enter into the record a screenshot of a text message I received from the esteemed professor from Vanderbilt, Michael Eric Dyson. After my CNN interview, begged me for photos. In this text, he says after calling me a racist on CNN, don't tell anybody we look good together and sent me a kissy emoji. The guy says I'm gorgeous (in) all these photos.- Nancy Mace Dyson responded in an X post : The ridiculous lies told by Nancy Mace in the effort to smear my name because of her anger at being checked for her insensitive disregard for @VP. I had no intent with her to do anything but be nice. And her white women’s tears and mendacity are all in the service of lies and distortions. I was wrong about one thing: she IS a bigot and racist. Dyson also posted a link to an IG reel where he further explained his side.
- Candace Owens reveals "shocking discrepancy" about Kamala Harris alleged Black grandmother
A recent claim by conservative commentator Candace Owens has sparked a new controversy around Vice President Kamala Harris's Black Grandmother. Owens, known for her provocative stances, has raised questions about the authenticity of Harris's portrayal of her family history, particularly focusing on a photograph Harris allegedly took with her grandmother. During a recent broadcast, Owens delved into what she describes as a "shocking discrepancy" in Kamala Harris's genealogical narrative. According to Owens, Kamala Harris's grandmother, as presented in various public narratives, including Harris's own book, passed away before Harris was even born. Yet, a photograph circulated by Harris and her team purportedly shows Harris with this same grandmother when Harris was roughly in her twenties. So who then is this woman? Owens presented what she claims are birth and death certificates, aiming to prove that Kamala's supposed grandmother died years before Harris was born and could therefore not be the woman in the pic. Watch - Breaking News: Kamala Harris LIED About Her Black Grandparents Kamala Harris's heritage has been a point of discussion ever since Donald Trump infamously claimed at a panel with the NABJ , that Harris somehow “ turned Black ” after promoting her career achievements as the first for an Indian woman. The discussion about the racial identity of Kamala Harris once again ignited when Janet Jackson was asked about her position on the upcoming election and the potential for the first Black woman to be elected- “Well, you know what they supposedly said?" Janet replied. "She’s not Black. That’s what I heard. That she’s Indian." Jackson faced significant backlash on social media, with some users expressing disappointment and criticism over her remarks. Some accused her of promoting right-wing conspiracy theories or misinformation regarding Kamala Harris's ethnicity. As of this writing, no official response or clarification has come from Harris or her team regarding Owens's allegations.
- Trump Aims to Dismantle the Department of Education
Former President Donald Trump has once again vowed to close the Department of Education if re-elected. U.S. Education Rankings Compared to Other Countries (courtesy TheBalance.com ) The U.S. placed 16th out of 81 countries in science when testing was last administered in 2022. The top five math-scoring countries in 2022 were all in Asia. U.S. students' math scores have remained steady since 2003. Their science scores have been about the same since 2006. The IMD World Competitiveness Center reports that the U.S. ranked 12th in its 2024 Competitiveness Report after ranking first in 2018. The Department of Education was established in 1979 during President Jimmy Carter's administration, initially as a response to growing demands for federal oversight and funding in education. The Department's mission is to serve America's students—to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. Over the years, it has become both a symbol of federal involvement in local education and a target for critics advocating for less government intervention. Trump's argument hinges on the notion that the Department of Education represents an overreach of federal power. In speeches across the campaign trail, he has criticized the department for pushing political agendas through education, particularly around issues like Critical Race Theory. He's been vocal about moving education back to state control, arguing that states can better cater to local needs without the bureaucratic layers of a federal department. The proposal has split public opinion. Supporters see it as a return to traditional federalism, emphasizing local control. Critics, however, argue that this move will jeopardize funding for schools, particularly those in underprivileged areas. If executed, Trump's plan could lead to a significant reshuffling of educational governance. While the Department of Education's direct control over curriculum is limited, its influence through funding and policy directives is substantial. Implementing this change would face numerous hurdles, not least of which is congressional approval. Historically, even when presidents have proposed significant cuts or changes to the Department of Education, Congress has often resisted these moves. The practicalities of redistributing functions like educational data collection, or student loan management to other agencies or back to states present complex logistical and political challenges.
- Kamala Harris Rhetoric on Trump Abortion Ban is Misleading
Kamala Harris continues to make statements suggesting that Donald Trump supports or would implement a nationwide abortion ban, significantly restricting reproductive rights. Vice President Harris has frequently warned that Trump would ban abortion nationwide, citing the implications of policies like those in Project 2025. Her statements often connect Trump directly to these policies, suggesting a more aggressive stance on abortion than Trump has publicly admitted to. Trump himself has repeatedly distanced himself from Project 2025 and did so during the Sept. 10 debate with Vice President Kamala Harris saying- “I have nothing to do with Project 2025,” Trump said in the ABC News Presidential Debate. “I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it purposely. I’m not going to read it.” Donald Trump has publicly stated that he believes abortion policy should be decided at the state level. This stance has been reiterated during his campaign and in various media interactions where he explicitly said he would not support a national abortion ban. While there are indeed movements within the Republican party advocating for stricter abortion laws, Trump's commitment to leaving abortion legislation to states directly contradicts Harris's narrative of a nationwide ban under his presidency. Vice President Kamala Harris's repeated claims that former President Donald Trump would or has advocated for a national abortion ban are misleading.
- Trump Lost the Debate More Than Harris Won It: A Summary of the 2024 Presidential Debate
The debate was a spectacle of personal attacks, broad strokes of policy promises, and a noticeable absence of depth in policy discussion The first presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, held on September 10, 2024, in Philadelphia, was marked by fiery exchanges, personal attacks, and significant moments that have left political analysts and the public with much to discuss. While debates are often about who "won" or "lost," the consensus suggests that Trump lost more ground than Harris gained. From the outset, the debate seemed to veer away from a substantive policy debate that many had hoped for. Instead, it became a platform for Trump to criticize Harris's record and for Harris to bait Trump into personal attacks, a strategy that appeared to disrupt Trump's focus. While both candidates touched on key issues like the economy, immigration, and climate change, their discussions rarely delved into the specifics of how they would implement their policies. Fact-Checking and Moderation : ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis were tasked with moderating what many believed would be the only head-to-head debate between Trump and Harris. From the outset, expectations were high, not just for the candidates but for the moderators to maintain a semblance of neutrality amidst a deeply polarized political landscape. The moderators' questioning style towards Trump was notably aggressive. The moderators intervened multiple times, with immediate fact-checks on air with Trump. But did not fact check the many misrepresentations of Harris, including the “fine people statement”, the bloodbath statement,” and the erroneous association of Donald Trump with Project 2025. Opinion: Why Trump Lost More Than Harris Won Trump's visible frustration and anger contrasted with Harris's relative calm. This dynamic played into narratives about temperament and leadership suitability. Trump's inability to pivot from defense mode to a more constructive dialogue might have been his undoing. Harris, by setting traps and letting Trump walk into them, managed to control the narrative more effectively. The debate was less about who won and more about who lost less. Trump's strategy, which relied on personal attacks and a defensive posture, seemed to backfire, overshadowing any policy points he might have scored. Harris, while not necessarily captivating with her vision, managed to keep her composure and use Trump's volatility against him. This debate's outcome underscores a troubling trend in modern politics where policy takes a backseat to personality. For voters looking for substantive reasons to support a candidate, this debate was a letdown.
- Freddie Owens Execution: His Heinous Disregard for Human Life
After 27 years, on September 20, 2024, Freddie Owens execution was carried out in South Carolina marking the state's first execution in 13 years by lethal injection. Owens was not only convicted of the brutal murder of Irene Grainger Graves during a convenience store robbery in 1997 but also committed another heinous act by killing his cellmate, an act that underscores the severity of his disregard for human life. Freddie Owens, born on March 18, 1978, was only 19 when he committed the crime that would ultimately lead to his execution. Alongside an accomplice, Steven Golden, Owens robbed the Speedway convenience store in Greenville, South Carolina, where Graves worked. During the robbery, Graves was shot and killed. After being convicted of Graves' murder, Owens, while awaiting his sentencing, tortured and killed his cellmate, Christopher Bryan Lee. This incident occurred within a 24-hour period following his conviction for Graves' murder. Lee, a 28-year-old construction worker, was serving a short sentence at the time. Owens' actions against Lee were particularly gruesome, involving stabbing, burning his eyes, choking, and stomping, as detailed in various reports. Owens' justification for this act was rooted in his frustration and anger over what he perceived as a wrongful conviction for Graves' murder. Owens's journey through the justice system was fraught with legal and ethical challenges. Despite his troubled background and mental health issues being presented as mitigating factors, the prosecution painted him as a cold-blooded killer, emphasizing the brutality of Graves's murder and the subsequent cellmate killing as evidence of his dangerousness. The legal intricacies surrounding Owens's execution included debates over the method of execution. South Carolina's Supreme Court had previously ruled that both electrocution and firing squad were legal methods, but Owens's execution by lethal injection highlighted the state's recent resolution to its drug supply issues, facilitated by a 2023 shield law that protected the identity of those involved in the execution process. Freddie Owens Execution and Its Aftermath The execution of Owens reignited the debate over capital punishment, especially in cases like Owens's, where new affidavits questioning the original testimony emerged. In Owens's case an affidavit from Steven Golden claimed Owens was not present during Graves's murder, directly contradicting his previous testimonies. This late revelation did not sway the court, which found Golden's statements inconsistent and unreliable. Governor Henry McMaster and the courts upheld the execution order. His execution was watched by family members of both Graves and Lee, underscoring the personal impact of his crimes. Owens execution was carried out despite last-minute appeals for clemency, including from Owens's mother, Dora Mason, who pleaded for her son's life. Owens's final moments were somber; he chose to make no statement, uttering only a simple "bye" before the lethal injection was administered. The execution has brought to the forefront ethical questions about the state's role in taking life. Critics argue that capital punishment, especially in cases like Owens', where there were claims of a troubled background and potential innocence due to questionable testimony, undermines the principle that life is sacred. This perspective posits that execution does not rectify societal wrongs but perpetuates a cycle of violence. The debate often circles back to whether capital punishment deters crime or, conversely, leads to a brutalization effect within society. Advocates for abolition argue that life imprisonment without parole serves as an effective deterrent without the moral quandaries posed by execution. However, if someone shows such a profound disregard for human life, what moral justification exists for allowing them to continue living at the expense of the public, who must bear the financial and emotional cost of their containment?
- Kamala Harris at NABJ: The Art of Dodging with a Side of Word Salad
In a recent discussion with the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), Vice President Kamala Harris aimed to connect with a demographic pivotal to Democratic support, addressing issues ranging from economic policies to international relations. However, her engagement was marked by what critics and observers have increasingly labeled as "word salad" rhetoric, a lack of specificity, and a tendency to filibuster rather than provide concrete answers. Watch Kamala Harris at NABJ During the discussion, Harris's responses lacked concrete details. When pressed on how her administration plans to address economic disparities affecting Black communities, her answers circled around general policy goals like extending the Child Tax Credit or focusing on Black entrepreneurship without diving into the how’s or the specifics of implementation. This approach likely left many in the audience and viewers at home with more questions than answers, highlighting a recurring theme in Harris's public speaking where substance is often overshadowed by style. The term "word salad" has become synonymous with Harris's public speeches, where her sentences sometimes weave through multiple ideas without clear connection or resolution. During the NABJ event, this was evident when discussing complex issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict or health disparities. Her comments, while attempting to convey empathy and understanding, often ended up as a jumble of phrases that, while emotionally resonant, lacked the policy meat.
- Democrats and Media's Role in Donald Trump Assassination Attempts
[U.S Politics] The rhetoric surrounding Trump has escalated to alarming levels, with media outlets and prominent Democrats labeling him as a "fascist" or an "existential threat" to democracy. Such language, repeated ad nauseam, doesn't just paint Trump as a political adversary but as an enemy of the state. This narrative shift has real-world implications. Democrat, Media role in Trump Assassination Attempt Trump has directly blamed Democrats after the second assassination attempt on his life, suggesting that the rhetoric from Democratic leaders and media, labeling him as a "threat to democracy," has incited violence against him. The latest information regarding Ryan Wesley Routh and the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump, as gathered from various sources: Ryan Wesley Routh was apprehended in connection with what authorities have described as an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida. Routh was spotted by a Secret Service agent with a rifle in the bushes near the golf course, leading to a confrontation where the Secret Service fired at him. Routh fled but was later detained after a witness provided crucial information about his vehicle. Charges : So far, Routh has been charged with two firearm-related offenses: possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. These charges do not directly relate to an assassination attempt but to his possession of illegal firearms. Political and Ideological Background : Routh has expressed strong political views, particularly supporting Ukraine against Russia, to the extent of traveling to Kyiv and attempting to recruit fighters. His political stance was critical of Trump, whom he had once supported but later criticized heavily. When political figures like Hillary Clinton or media personalities imply that Trump's presidency would mean the "end of democracy," they're not just engaging in hyperbole; they're potentially inciting violence. This rhetoric, especially in an era where political violence has seen a disturbing uptick, could be seen as a call to action for those on the fringes, believing they're defending democracy by any means necessary. Accusations that the media acts as an extension of the Democratic Party's agenda aren’t new, but the evidence in Trump's coverage is compelling. From selective reporting that favors Democratic narratives to outright bias in framing stories, the media's role has often seemed less about informing and more about influencing. This bias isn't just about liberal versus conservative; it's about a systemic approach where news coverage, especially on Trump, is tailored to undermine his credibility and, by extension, his electoral chances. This situation isn't just about Trump; it's about the health of democracy. When the media, traditionally a watchdog, becomes a partisan player, it erodes trust in institutions, fuels polarization, and sets a dangerous precedent. If today's media can justify its actions by claiming to save democracy from Trump, what's to stop future media from similar justifications against any political figure they deem a threat? The solution isn't simple. It requires media outlets to return to their roots of objective journalism, where facts are presented without the veneer of political agenda. For consumers, it means seeking diverse sources of information, understanding the difference between opinion and news, and demanding accountability from media giants.