Posts

The Debate Was So Biased It Was Divorced From Reality. Trump Should Refuse to Do Another

/0 Comments/in , /by

Tuesday night during the presidential debate between former President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the fact-checks were flying, but only in one direction. As expected, ABC News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis were criminally biased, making the debate effectively three-on-one against Trump and practically amounting to an in-kind donation to the Harris campaign.

The lying and gaslighting were so brazen from Harris, and the “fact-checking” from Muir and Davis so lop-sided (they failed even once to push back or correct any of Harris’ obvious falsehoods), that the entire spectacle eventually took on an air of unreality. It was bizarre to see it happening live on the air. By the end, my main takeaway was that the purpose of these debates, besides the media’s obvious goal of boosting Harris and hurting Trump, is to confuse and demoralize the American people by distorting reality and flooding the internet with lies, making it impossible to know what’s true and what’s not.

At one point, Harris recited a litany of the most obvious, thoroughly debunked lies about Trump, from the “fine people on both sides” comment on Charlottesville, to the “bloodbath” remark about the auto industry, to claiming he “incited” the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6. Anyone can go online and check for themselves that these things are all hoaxes; they never happened. But the moderators said nothing.

They again said nothing when Harris lied about her views on fracking, gun control, and defunding the police. Nor did they say anything when she erroneously claimed there are no American troops in combat zones (three U.S. soldiers were killed in a drone attack in Jordan earlier this year, and seven were injured in a raid against ISIS in Iraq last month), that police officers died on Jan. 6, that third-trimester abortions never happen, or that the Trump tax cuts disproportionately benefited the wealthy. On and on, lie after lie.

With Trump, it was of course much different. Muir and Davis routinely inserted themselves into the debate under the guise of “fact-checking” the former president, even on trivial matters, to the point that at times it devolved into a side debate between Trump and the moderators. (Read more from “The Debate Was So Biased It Was Divorced From Reality. Trump Should Refuse to Do Another” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

ABC Should Be Prosecuted for Illegal Contributions to Harris in ‘Debate’

/0 Comments/in , /by

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.

The moderators wasted time rehashing the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol and pressed Trump on whether he really believes he won the 2020 election, at times putting words in his mouth. They barely touched on the economy, a top voter issue, and not once did the moderators acknowledge the attempted assassination of Trump. Nor did they question Harris about the lax security the Biden-Harris administration provided for Trump on the campaign trail that contributed to the shooting.

In broadcasting, where advertising is sold by the second, time really is money. A 30-second commercial in the February Super Bowl cost $7 million. (Read more from “ABC Should Be Prosecuted for Illegal Contributions to Harris in ‘Debate’” HERE)

Kamala Harris’ Debate Earrings Trigger Theories Among Trump Supporters

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By the New York Post. Some conspiracy-minded supporters of former President Donald Trump have claimed that Vice President Kamala Harris got secret — and unfair — help in her Tuesday night debate against the Republican nominee.

The theory goes like this: Harris’ earrings contained a clandestine Bluetooth device that enabled her to be coached by unseen aides during the ABC News forum in Philadelphia, in flagrant violation of the rules set out by the Disney-owned network.

One X user dubbed The Maverick Approach, a self-described “alternative news source,” peddled a claim early Wednesday that Harris had been fitted with a pair of smart earrings developed by NOVA, a German company.

“There’s a major issue with this debate,” they posted. “I told myself she was fed what to say during the debate and my hunch was right. Nova is the world’s first and only wireless earphone earrings.” . . .

The clip-on NOVA H1 Audio Earrings sell for about $625 apiece and are able to “project sound from inside the pearl straight into your ear canal,” according to its Kickstarter page, which appears to have been dormant since last year and includes comments suggesting people hadn’t received the product despite chipping in cash.

(Read more from “Kamala Harris’ Debate Earrings Trigger Theories Among Trump Supporters” HERE)

_____________________________________________________

Company says Kamala Harris’ debate earrings strikingly similar to its Bluetooth device, offers to make ones for Trump

By Emily Crane. A [German] tech company has added fuel to the Kamala Harris earrings conspiracy theory after quipping that her debate night jewelry is strikingly similar to the Bluetooth devices it makes — and has even offered to design “orange” ones for Donald Trump. . .

“We do not know whether Mrs. Harris wore one of our products. The resemblance is striking and while our product was not specifically developed for the use at presidential debates, it is nonetheless suited for it,” Icebach’s managing director, Malte Iversen, said in a tongue-in-cheek statement to tech outlet Tom’s Guide.

“To ensure a level playing field for both candidates, we are currently developing a male version and will soon be able to offer it to the Trump campaign. The choice of color is a bit challenging though as orange does not go well with a lot of colors.”

Meanwhile, the company has also vowed to clear up the “rumors and myths surrounding our wonderful products” during a forthcoming appearance on “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. . . . After thorough discussions we have decided that we will grant one live interview . . . our chosen interviewer is Jimmy Fallon, a trusted Bavarian in heart.” (Read more about Harris’s debate earrings HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

It Only Took 20 Seconds for Black Immigrant Caller to Unravel Charlamagne’s Defense of Harris’ Role in Border Crisis

/1 Comment/in , , /by

A black immigrant caller on Wednesday quickly dismantled radio host Charlamagne Tha God’s defense of Vice President Kamala Harris’ handling of the border crisis.

Harris is campaigning on solving the border crisis, but since the beginning of her administration with President Joe Biden, over 7 million migrants have attempted to cross the U.S. southern border, according to data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The caller, Al from Queens, New York, argued on “The Breakfast Club” that Harris bears significant responsibility for the surge, while Charlamagne contended that the crisis is driven by factors beyond the vice president’s policies.

“Let me start off by saying I love you guys, man. I listen to you guys every morning. And I’m also a black man, I’m also an immigrant. But there are certain things that you guys are saying that Kamala wasn’t supporting or she wasn’t answering these questions, man,” Al said. “I watched the same debate. When they spoke about immigrants, she’s half the reason that all these immigrants are in the state of New York or any state for that.”

“Listen, I don’t know why we put the blame on one person as if the border hasn’t been an issue for years under every administration. That’s why they were able to create a bipartisan bill that [former president] Donald Trump didn’t want to push through, because he knew it would give the Democrats a win,” Charlamagne responded. “So I don’t understand why we act like one person caused the border to be a problem.” (Read more from “It Only Took 20 Seconds for Black Immigrant Caller to Unravel Charlamagne’s Defense of Harris’ Role in Border Crisis” HERE)

Voters Were Asked Who They Are Voting for Post-Debate, Here’s What They Said

/0 Comments/in , /by

Although Democrats quickly declared Vice President Kamala Harris last night’s presidential debate winner, voters didn’t necessarily agree.

According to a Reuter’s focus group, which was supported by The New York Times, six in ten undecided voters suggested that former President Donald Trump won Tuesday night’s debate, citing the biased ABC News moderators who repeatedly fact-checked and argued with the 45th president.

Before the debate, the Harris campaign said the evening would allow voters to learn about the VP, her positions, and her policies. However, because of Harris’ “vague” answers, voters said they “trust” Trump more.

The outlet polled ten people, all of whom previously voted for Democrat and Republican candidates, before the debate. They said they were unsure of who they would vote for in November. However, following the 90-minute event, more than half of the respondents indicated they would now either vote for Trump or were at least leaning toward voting for him.

Five of those people said Harris left them more unsure about her positions and how she would improve the economy— a top concern for voters. Four of the respondents polled said Harris did nothing to convince them she would do anything differently from President Joe Biden, who has been blamed for the U.S.’ failing economic health. (Read more from “Voters Were Asked Who They Are Voting for Post-Debate, Here’s What They Said” HERE)

Kamala Harris’s Debate Drama: A Hollywood Production?

/0 Comments/in , /by

During Tuesday’s presidential debate, Kamala Harris’s theatrical performance left many viewers scratching their heads and laughing in disbelief. The Democratic nominee’s over-the-top facial expressions seemed to be part of a carefully orchestrated display intended to capture the spotlight from former President Donald Trump.

According to former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Harris’s dramatic debate antics were no accident. In a recent Fox News interview, Gabbard revealed that Harris had been receiving acting lessons and was coached by Hollywood insiders in preparation for the debate. “She’s locked herself in a hotel room, taking extreme acting lessons,” Gabbard said. “She’s got Hollywood advisers, stages, the Hollywood lights in the hopes that her friends in ABC and propaganda media declare her the winner.”

Gabbard, who has recently endorsed Trump and is serving as an advisor to his campaign, expressed skepticism about Harris’s approach. She believes that Harris’s theatrical performance might be an attempt to manipulate voters rather than offer substantive policy proposals. “But I don’t think American people are going to fall for this,” Gabbard added.

The debate’s social media reaction to Harris’s antics was mixed. Her exaggerated facial expressions, especially when Trump was speaking, were widely ridiculed online. This spectacle has only fueled suspicions that Harris’s performance was part of a larger strategy to sway public opinion through media manipulation rather than genuine political debate.

The connection between Harris and Hollywood elites, who have fervently supported her campaign, has also drawn scrutiny. Disney executive Dana Walden, a key figure overseeing ABC News, has been a significant supporter of Harris. Walden’s donations to Harris’s political campaigns and her close personal ties to the Harris family—she is friends with Kamala Harris and her husband, entertainment lawyer Doug Emhoff—raise questions about potential conflicts of interest.

Harris once credited Dana Walden and her husband, Matt, for her successful marriage during a 2022 fundraiser, underscoring the deep connections between the Harris campaign and Hollywood’s power brokers. This cozy relationship between Harris and Hollywood insiders only adds fuel to the fire of concerns about media bias and influence.

Google’s Pro-Kamala Harris Bias Exposed: A Disturbing Look at Tech Giants’ Political Manipulations

/0 Comments/in , /by

An undercover video has exposed Google’s covert support for Vice President Kamala Harris and her leftist agenda. This insider leak not only confirms long-held suspicions but raises serious questions about the integrity of search engine advertising and the influence of tech giants on the 2024 presidential election.

Dakota Leazer, a Google growth strategist, has been caught on tape admitting that Google has been actively promoting Kamala Harris through its ads. This revelation comes courtesy of James O’Keefe and his team, known for their investigative reporting and hidden-camera exposures. According to Leazer, Google’s ad strategy has been strategically skewed to favor Harris, with ads masquerading as impartial news content to manipulate public perception. “Google was essentially promoting through its ads rhetoric that was very pro-Kamala,” Leazer confesses in the video.

This disclosure confirms what many conservatives have long suspected: tech behemoths like Google are not neutral arbiters of information but are instead engaging in political machinations to sway public opinion. Leazer’s comments reveal a disturbing trend where Google’s ads were designed to look like genuine news reports from reputable sources, such as PBS, when in reality, they were promotional materials for Harris’s campaign. This deception aimed to create a façade of unbiased reporting, thereby manipulating users into believing they were receiving fair and objective information.

Moreover, Leazer’s comments shed light on Google’s broader strategy of capitalizing on fear to drive ad revenue. According to him, Google’s primary objective is to attract and monetize users who are most fearful, a demographic Leazer claims is currently dominated by the left. “I think right now the left is more fearful than the right is,” he asserts, explaining that this fear-driven approach has led Google to push pro-Harris narratives. This strategy not only undermines the integrity of search engine advertising but also raises ethical questions about exploiting users’ anxieties for financial gain.

The implications of these revelations extend beyond just Google’s practices. Reports have surfaced indicating that Harris’s campaign has been engaging in questionable tactics, such as manipulating news headlines and descriptions to make it appear as though major news outlets like Reuters, CBS News, CNN, NPR, and the Associated Press are endorsing her. These tactics involve creating misleading ad headlines that distort the actual content of news stories, thus misrepresenting the support of established media organizations.

The fallout from these manipulative practices is already being felt. A family-run broadcasting outlet, which was targeted by Harris’s campaign, is reportedly considering legal action after their reputation was potentially damaged by the deceptive ad practices.

Trump Spars With Harris, Moderators During Heated Presidential Debate: ‘She Doesn’t Have a Plan’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris faced off in a heated debate Tuesday night, sparring about abortion, immigration, Israel, the economy and a range of other issues—but Trump also battled the ABC News moderators, who were quick to challenge and “fact check” the 45th president, while leaving Harris’ numerous distortions untouched.

Trump and Harris engaged in their first, and possibly only debate of the 2024 general election cycle at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pa. Tuesday night—a highly-anticipated ninety-minute showdown as they traded jabs, and repeatedly, accused each other of lying.

The two met for the first time Tuesday night on the debate stage, with the vice president introducing herself as “Kamala Harris” to the former president as they shook hands–before making it a top priority to attempt to get under his skin and bait him throughout the debate.

The debate got underway with questions from ABC News’ David Muir and Linsey Davis, who challenged Trump throughout the debate.

Shortly after it concluded, Trump told Fox News Digital that he thought it was his “best debate ever, especially because it was three on one.” (Read more from “Trump Spars With Harris, Moderators During Heated Presidential Debate: ‘She Doesn’t Have a Plan’” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Trump One-Liner: ‘I’m Talking Now … Sound Familiar?’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former President Donald Trump mocked Vice President Kamala Harris during Tuesday night’s debate after she attempted to interrupt him, turning her infamous “I’m speaking” moment against her.

During the debate, Trump gave the audience a brief overview of how Harris has continually changed her positions on key subjects for the sake of political expediency, beginning with fracking.

“She’s been against it for 12 years. Defund the police. She’s been [for] that forever. She gave all that stuff up, very wrongly, very horribly, and everybody’s laughing at it. Ok? They’re all laughing at it. She gave up at least 12 and probably 14 or 15 different policies — like she was big on defund the police in Minnesota; she went out,” Trump said as Harris shook her head and mumbled something, prompting Trump to address her.

“Wait a minute. I’m talking now. You don’t mind, please. Does that sound familiar?” Trump asked as Harris stood with her mouth open, muttering another phrase in his direction.

In other words, Trump took Harris’s “I’m speaking” moment — gleaned from the 2020 vice presidential debates between herself and former Vice President Mike Pence — and used it to his advantage. During that debate, she spoke over Pence as he interjected, condescendingly stating, “I’m speaking,” with a grin across her face.

(Read more from “Trump One-Liner: ‘I’m Talking Now … Sound Familiar?’” HERE)

RNC Spokeswoman: Election Matter of ‘Life or Death,’ U.S. Faces Same Threat as Israel Without ‘Strong Leadership’

/0 Comments/in , /by

The 2024 presidential election is a matter of “life or death,” argued Republican spokesperson Elizabeth Pipko, who noted that the U.S. and Israel share the same “evil” enemy while warning that “weak leadership” could lead to an October 7-like tragedy on American soil.

In a conversation with Jewish News Syndicate (JNS), published Tuesday, Pipko, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee (RNC), emphasized that the 2024 election is not just political but a matter of “life or death,” arguing that the current threats against the Jewish State reflect a shared danger for both Israel and the U.S. under what she describes as “weak leadership.”

“People are being slaughtered by an evil that’s not just an enemy of Israel, but it’s an enemy of ours, too,” she said.

According to JNS, Pipko, a former model and founder of a movement encouraging Jewish Democrats to switch parties, explained that Republican support for Israel symbolizes broader values, such as strength and security.

“Support for Israel against an enemy like Hamas is everything that we believe in and stand for as a country,” she said, adding that Israel’s security concerns should resonate with Americans at large. (Read more from “RNC Spokeswoman: Election Matter of ‘Life or Death,’ U.S. Faces Same Threat as Israel Without ‘Strong Leadership’” HERE)