Connect with us

Democrats

What Joe Biden meant when he said to Google ‘1000 prisoners free, Kamala Harris’

Published

on

What Joe Biden meant when he said to Google 1000 prisoners free Kamala Harris

During Wednesday’s Democratic debate, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris went after each other. Biden was better prepared this time. In fact, he had oppo research and invoked the Google search phrase, “1000 prisoners free, Kamala Harris.”

He wanted attention directed to articles about Harris’s quite conservative and possibly even corrupt criminal justice history as California Attorney General. There are some real damaging articles out there, including the two below. In particular, progressive outlets believe Harris’s past was far too aligned with Republicans than she’s comfortable acknowledging.

But there were other problems with her tenure as District Attorney. As SacBee notes, both Biden’s and Tulsi Gabbard‘s criticism were accurate:

Biden alluded to a crime lab scandal that involved her office and resulted in more than 1,000 drug cases being dismissed. Gabbard claimed Harris “blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until she was forced to do so.”

Both of these statements are accurate.

Longtime San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi criticized Harris’s handling of the crime lab situation during a January interview with The Sacramento Bee in January.

Among the offenses, Harris is accused of trying to keep prisoners in jail for the sake of cheap labor. Seriously.

According to the DailyBeast:

“Extending 2-for-1 credits to all minimum custody inmates at this time would severely impact fire camp participation—a dangerous outcome while California is in the middle of a difficult fire season and severe drought,” lawyers for Harris wrote in the filing, noting that the fire camp program required physical fitness in addition to a level of clearance that allowed the felon to be offsite.

Not only that, they noted, draining the prisons of “minimum custody inmates” would deplete the labor force both internally and in local communities where low-level, non-violent offenders worked for pennies on the dollar collecting trash and tending to city parks. A federal three-judge panel ordered both sides to confer about the plaintiffs’ demands, and the state agreed to extend the 2-for-1 credits to all eligible minimum security prisoners.

“Once we ridiculed and flagged them for that, they changed their tune, but that was their initial response,” Donald Specter, executive director of the Prison Law Office and lead counsel on Brown v. Plata, said.

But one doesn’t need to read about her past to know she’s actively evading it. All one has to do is ask her about it and see her stumble horrifically. Lately, she’s learned to evade the question better, but it still gets her flustered when she’s called a “cop,” which Biden called her tonight.

The problem Harris faces is excusing her criminal justice past. To do this, she’ll point to two things: Her upbringing by parents who were social justice warriors and he current policies. But in-between the two crucial times in her life was an unambiguous history of siding against the very criminal justice reforms she’s now in favor of bringing to the White House.

According to progressive news outlet Vox:

But what seem like contradictions may reflect a balancing act. Harris’s parents worked on civil rights causes, and she came from a background well aware of the excesses of the criminal justice system — but in office, she had to play the role of a prosecutor and California’s lawyer. She started in an era when “tough on crime” politics were popular across party lines — but she rose to national prominence as criminal justice reform started to take off nationally. She had an eye on higher political office as support for criminal justice reform became de rigueur for Democrats — but she still had to work as California’s top law enforcement official.

It’s telling that Kamala Harris is so ashamed of her law-and-order past that she’s doing everything she can to pretend she’s always been a social justice warrior. This is, of course, fiction. She’s just a politician with great ambitions, nothing more.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Democrats

How the left is redefining ‘quid pro quo’ to make it seem ominous

Published

on

How the left is redefining quid pro quo to make it seem ominous

Did you know you engage in “quid pro quo” every day? As you drive away from Starbucks with a latte in hand, you’re leaving the scene of your latest quid pro quo. When you tell your kids you will ground them if they don’t do their homework, you’re committing quid pro quo. When cover someone’s shift at work so they’ll work for you Saturday night, that’s blatant quid pro quo.

Literally, it’s Latin for “something for something.” It’s an exchange. You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. It’s part of literally every negotiation between any two countries ever. Without quid pro quo, there would be no treaties, no trade agreements, and wars would always go on indefinitely. It’s not a bad thing.

When something inappropriate is offered as part of quid pro quo dealings, that’s when politicians get into trouble. Accepting gifts from lobbyists in exchange for favorable votes is an example of illegal quid pro quo. Or, as House Democrats are trying to prove, if a President holds back aid to a foreign government unless they investigate a political foe so dirt can be found on them for an upcoming election, that is bad quid pro quo.

Yesterday, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney famously told the press to “get over it” when it comes to quid pro quo. His words were careless, not because they weren’t true but because in the current political atmosphere, his acknowledgement there was quid pro quo over the ongoing 2016 election corruption investigation muddies the waters. Democrats and the media have painted the common action of quid pro quo between two governments as negative by conflating their impeachment inquiry topic – Ukraine investigating the Bidens – with the other aspect of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky, the CrowdStrike’s involvement with the DNC hack in 2016.

The first is truly impeachable. The second is part of everyday business between two countries. Mulvaney admitted to the second, which is neither illegal nor impeachable. But the media pounced by conflating the two.

Democrats and mainstream media are trying to redefine quid pro quo as a negative thing worthy of impeachment. They’re doing this by confusing the language behind the action with the topic of the impeachment inquiry. Unfortunately, they’re doing this to an American public that is easy to confuse and easier to distract.

We’re witnessing a disingenuous attempt to make Americans believe quid pro quo in and of itself is bad. This is ludicrous, or course, but they’ll do or say anything to make President Trump look bad.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

The 5 biggest lies from the Democrat debate

Published

on

The 5 biggest lies from the Democrat debate

Liz Wheeler and her production team took on a very difficult task. They sifted through over three hours from the Democratic debate this week in an effort to try to identify the five biggest lies told on stage that night. We should applaud their Herculean efforts; it must have been like trying to determine which types of vegetables taste the worst when they’re spoiled. There aren’t enough Pinocchio images on the internet to cover all of the lies told at the debate.

Undaunted, the team at One America News show Tipping Point took on the challenge and came up with a list of five infuriating lies told on the debate stage Tuesday night.

  1. Elizabeth Warren’s big lie came through omission as she refused to answer the yes-or-no question about raising middle class taxes. This was around the 500th time she’s done this (we lost count at 342), choosing to redirect her answer to focus on “costs” rather than taxes.
  2. Cory Booker, Julian Castro, and Kamala Harris claimed abortion is a constitutional right. It is not. Even the majority brief from the Supreme Court admitted this in their ruling on Roe v. Wade.
  3. Beto O’Rourke pretended like his proposal for confiscation of “assault rifles” would not mean law enforcement will come to people’s homes to collect their firearms. His claim that law-abiding citizens will comply is not only false, it’s also a scary prospect. If law abiding citizens are the only ones forced to comply, what about criminals? They aren’t known for abiding by laws, especially ones that prevent them from committing their crimes.
  4. Elizabeth Warren made it on the list a second time with her claim that the wealth tax would pay for a myriad of socialist policies she intends to implement. This would be true if it weren’t for math. Unfortunately for her (and everyone else if she gets elected), the wealthy simply don’t have enough money to tax in a way that would pay for her plans. Moreover, every time a wealth tax has been tried elsewhere, it has failed miserably. But hey, at least she takes a lot of selfies.
  5. Impeachment. This is the ongoing lie of the day for both media and Democrats. All 12 candidates on stage supported impeachment (though Tulsi Gabbard was clear she only supported it if the House Democrats made a proper case for it), but only Bernie Sanders actually gave a reason why. Even his singular reasoning was false, though.

I’ll add another for the list – Kamala Harris kept saying, “When I’m President…” This is a big lie. It’s doubtful she even believes it herself judging by the direction she’s been heading in the polls.

There were enough lies told in the last Democratic debate to fill three hours of television, which is exactly what CNN did. Thanks to Liz Warren and the folks at One America News, we now know the five biggest one.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Will Texas become a blue state?

Published

on

Will Texas become a blue state

If you listen to mainstream media, you’ve probably heard multiple times over the last few months that Texas may turn blue in the next election. That’s been a drumbeat by the left for a while as an influx of people escaping California and the rising Hispanic population is supposed to mean more Democrats in the Lone Star State.

The first piece of their puzzle is true. As Californians realize their state’s policies and cost of living are untenable, more of them turn to Texas where they bring their generally progressive views. But assuming that Hispanics are going to vote Democrat is false. Studies and polls show an increased preference for Republican policies, including the border and illegal immigration policies that are allegedly turning Hispanics off.

Laura Ingraham tackled the topic last night after the President had a massive rally in Dallas. She and her panel made important points that make sense as the idea of Texas turning blue seems more like a leftist pipe dream than a real risk.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending