This Could Be Very Interesting

Yesterday The Daily Wire posted an article about a letter recently written to Vice-President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris by BLM co-founder and executive director Patrisse Cullors.

The article reports:

BLM co-founder and executive director Patrisse Cullors said members are “relieved that the Trump era in government is coming to a close,” adding, “As we celebrate his electoral demise, we also know that his political exit does not ensure an end to the intolerable conditions faced by Black people in America.”

On behalf of the BLM Global Network, Cullors wrote:

Without the resounding support of Black people, we would be saddled with a very different electoral outcome. In short, Black people won this election. Alongside Black-led organizations around the nation, Black Lives Matter invested heavily in this election. “Vote and Organize” became our motto, and our electoral justice efforts reached more than 60 million voters. We want something for our vote.

We want to be heard and our agenda to be prioritized. We issue these expectations not just because Black people are the most consistent and reliable voters for Democrats, but also because Black people are truly living in crisis in a nation that was built on our subjugation. Up until this point, the United States has refused to directly reckon with the way it devalues Black people and devastates our lives. This cannot continue. Black people can neither afford to live through the vitriol of a Trump-like Presidency, nor through the indifference of a Democrat-controlled government that refuses to wrestle with its most egregious and damnable shame.

I can guarantee that if Joe Biden ever sits in the White House, listening to the demands of Black Lives Matter will not bring the country together.

The following is from a post at rightwinggranny in September:

Black Lives Matter has recently scrubbed their website. However, on September 8, I wrote an article that included some quotes from a “What We Believe” page that was then on their website. I apologize for not taking a screenshot (it didn’t occur to me that they would take down the page)–I just copied the quotes. That page no longer exists on their website. When you read the following quotes from the page, you might make an educated guess as to why:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

Is this a voice you want creating American policy?

Unfortunately Lies Are A Part Of The Campaign Season

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about some recent lies told by Kamala Harris. The Senator told the lies to back up her accusation that President Trump is a racist. Even a casual look at President Trump’s actions before running for President show that the charge is false, but the Democrats keep making the charge anyway. Just as an aside, I would like to point out that President Trump literally fought city hall to assure that his luxury resort in Florida would allow blacks and Jews to join. That doesn’t sound very racist to me.

The article lists the lies told on “60 Minutes” by Senator Harris:

(1) [Birtherism] Trump questioned Obama’s eligibility to be president. He did the same with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who was born in Canada (and later produced evidence of his mother’s U.S. birth). Trump applies the same standard to everyone. (Proof.)

(2) [Charlottesville] Trump never said the neo-Nazis were “fine people.” In fact, he said they should be “condemned totally.” Harris knows that she is lying, because Vice President Mike Pence told her the truth to her face at their debate earlier this month. (Proof.)

(3) [“Mexicans”] Trump did not refer to Mexicans as rapists and criminals. He was referring to people who entered the U.S. illegally, making clear that he was not even talking about all illegal immigrants: “And some, I assume, are good people.” (Proof.)

(4) [“Muslim ban”] Trump never imposed a “Muslim ban.” He restricted travel from terror-prone countries identified under Obama. Most Muslim states were unaffected, and the ban was upheld at the Supreme Court. Non-Muslim countries are on the list.

Unfortunately none of these lies will be acknowledged as such by the mainstream media.

Since When?

The following exchange took place on October 9th. It is posted at The Epoch Times.

Reporter: “I’ve got to ask you about packing the courts, and I know that you said yesterday you aren’t going to answer the question until after the election. But this is the number one thing that I’ve been asked about from viewers in the past couple of days.”

Biden: “Well, you’ve been asked by the viewers who are probably Republicans who don’t want me continuing to talk about what they’re doing to the court right now.”

Reporter: “Well, don’t the voters deserve to know?”

Biden: “No, they don’t.”

Wow.

The article concludes:

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) wrote in a Twitter post on Sept. 19, “If Sen. McConnell and @SenateGOP were to force through a nominee during the lame duck session—before a new Senate and President can take office—then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court.”

Court packing would mean expanding the number of justices in the Supreme Court, which is currently nine. The term came into use after President Franklin Roosevelt proposed to increase the justices from nine to 15.

Both Biden and his vice-president pick, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), refused to clarify their stance, though they were pressed repeatedly to answer the question.

Biden also refused to release a list of his potential SCOTUS nominees before the election as Trump did in 2016 and before this election.

Biden said on Oct. 8 that he’ll reveal his position on “packing” the U.S. Supreme Court after the election is over.

“You’ll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over,” Biden told reporters during a campaign event in Phoenix.

Voters need to understand that the Bidien-Harris ticket if elected will not be playing by the same rules Washington has played by for the past two hundred plus years. They are talking about packing the Supreme Court, ending gun rights for Americans, ending the Senate filibuster, and adding Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico as states (to give them a permanent majority in the Senate). Just for the record, adding Washington, D.C. as a state requires a constitutional amendment. America as we know it would not survive their election.

Why Not To Elect Joe Biden

Dan Bongino shared an article on his website yesterday that lists 15 reasons not to vote for Joe Biden. Here is the list:

1) Joe Biden is 77 years old, seems to have difficulty working a full day, and has rather famously and significantly deteriorated mentally.

2) Joe Biden has been in politics since 1972. Do you think someone who has been in office that long without accomplishing much is going to sweep in and change everything for the better?

3) Biden has promised to halt all construction on a border wall, cancel the bilateral agreement with Mexico that stops many illegals from making it here, end deportations for anyone other than felons, and push through a massive amnesty for illegal aliens.

4) Joe Biden plans to ban the sale of new AR-15s and then demand that owners of AR-15s sell them to the government or sign up on a gun registry.

5) Biden has publicly said he no longer supports the Hyde Rule, which prevents federal money from being used for abortion.

6) Biden has noted that he is open to locking the country down again over Coronavirus.

7) Biden has said numerous times that he intends to ban fracking.

8) Biden is extremely liberal.

9) Joe Biden, who has a reputation for putting his hands all over women, was credibly accused of sexual assault by his former aide, Tara Reade.

10) Biden publicly admitted that he had advised Obama not to go through with the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.

11) Electing Joe Biden after months of rioting by liberals in liberal cities will send a message that Americans are okay with that kind of behavior.

12) Both Biden and his VP, Kamala Harris, refuse to say whether they will attempt to add more justices to the Supreme Court.

13) Joe Biden has signaled that he’s open to getting rid of the legislative filibuster in the Senate, which is extremely dangerous and has the potential to destabilize our Republic.

14) Kamala Harris was arguably the single most liberal member of the Senate and Joe Biden, who seems too feeble to finish his term, made her his vice-presidential running mate.

15) Barack Obama and Joe Biden presided over the slowest post-war economic recovery in American history. Is that the guy you want shepherding the economy after the economic damage caused by Corona and the lockdowns?

Obviously there are more reasons not to elect Joe Biden, but that is one person’s list.

Something To Consider Before You Vote

Yesterday Fox News posted an article that included some recent statements by Vice-Presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

The article reports:

Peaceful protests against racial injustice are critical for the nation’s progress and help to keep law enforcement in check, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., said Friday.

That is a perfectly valid statement. The original civil rights marches in the 1960’s were non-violent on the part of the protesters. Unfortunately I cannot say the same about some of the police. Now things seem to be reversed. Protesters think they can smash windows, steal things, and set things on fire. That is not a protest–that is a crime.

The article continues:

“Nothing that we have achieved that has been about progress, in particular around civil rights, has come without a fight, and so I always am going to interpret these protests as an essential component of evolution in our country — as an essential component or mark of a real democracy,” the vice presidential nominee said during the NAACP’s national convention.

She added that protests were “necessary” as “the people’s voices must be heard, and it is often the people who must speak to get their government to do what it is supposed to do, but may not do naturally unless the people speak loudly — and obviously peacefully.”

Harris also praised the “brilliance” and “impact” of “Black Lives Matter,” which has received media praise but also come under fire for promoting left-wing stances like opposing the nuclear family. “I actually believe that ‘Black Lives Matter’ has been the most significant agent for change within the criminal justice system,” she said.

Black Lives Matter has recently scrubbed their website. However, on September 8, I wrote an article that included some quotes from a “What We Believe” page that was then on their website. I apologize for not taking a screenshot (it didn’t occur to me that they would take down the page)–I just copied the quotes. That page no longer exists on their website. When you read the following quotes from the page, you might make an educated guess as to why:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

It has been widely reported that the people behind Black Lives Matter have Marxist roots. That is true. It is disturbing to see a candidate for one of the highest offices in the land support an organization that has Marxist ties. This candidate belongs to a political party that falsely accused President Trump of ties to Russia and tried to remove him because of those charges. Now they want us to vote for someone who openly supports a Marxist organization. That kind of double standard makes my head hurt.

Where We Are And How We Got Here

Have you ever wondered how Bernie Sanders lost the Democrat presidential nomination twice? Have you ever wondered what the Democrats were thinking when they chose Joe Biden as their presidential nominee? Have you ever wondered exactly how Joe Biden suddenly clinched the nomination? The Conservative Treehouse has the best explanation I have seen. This is an involved article, so I strongly suggest you follow the link above and read the entire story. It is amazing, but not surprising.

The Conservative Treehouse reports:

When Kamala Harris informally launched her bid for the Democrat nomination she did so in an ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos; this was not accidental. Harris was the DNC club candidate intended to walk in the shadow of the Obama team. As a consequence when the formal campaign was launched it was coordinated with the Chicago Jussie Smollett fiasco.  That incident was manufactured; this is how they roll. These people are all connected. Racial issues are a purposeful political strategy.

Unfortunately for the Club, the Smollet effort back-fired and Harris was never able to exploit the larger racial dynamic deployed by those who organize the astroturf effort. The primary race then wobbled along as the internal DNC players tried to figure out the best way to stay in power yet keep the far-left base motivated.

While the Democrat party, writ large, are known for exploiting fragmented special interests, the Obama coalition is the internal group with expertise at exploiting race for political benefit.  This dynamic has existed since the initial contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008.  This internal dynamic continues today.

The Black Grievance Industry (BGI) is an assembly of two larger groups.  Group-one is the Black Lives Matter group, modern and extremist.  Group-two is the AME church network, more traditional and with a larger network.  The BLM group originated during the terms of the Obama administration.  The AME network has existed for many decades before.

The article reminds us of where we were before the South Carolina primary election:

Fast forward to the hot mess that was the 2020 Democrat primary race.  With Kamala Harris collapsing due to her own immaturity; and with Bernie Sanders in position to take the momentum; the DNC club was in a very bad position.  Urgent action needed to be taken to retain club power and control.

Immediately before the South Carolina primary, Barack Obama (BLM network) and the traditional racial apparatus (AME network) realized they were about to lose control to Bernie Sanders.  Their response was to quickly coordinate a club move to swing the election away from the Sanders camp.

An urgent assembly of all party control officers was called. The power brokers within the DNC Club designed a plan around using James Clyburn (AME network) as the official spark for Joe Biden to take back control of the primary outcome.

Former President Obama contacted all candidates and informed them when and how they would quit the race and fall-in-line behind Joe Biden.  James Clyburn was then triggered to initiate his endorsement and begin the rapid-fire process.

Within 48 hours all members of the club and candidates had their instructions and proceeded to follow-through on the plan.  They had no choice.  If they did not comply they would suffer the consequences of a fully aligned club hierarchy who would target them personally and financially.

The article explains the outcome:

The plan worked flawlessly.

As part of the coordinated deal Representative James Clyburn was put in charge of the Biden campaign; Clyburn stunningly admitted this immediately after the strategy went public.  As we noted at the time, Obama and Clyburn would then select/appoint the vice-presidential nominee.  That’s how Kamala Harris was re-entered into the equation.

Joe Biden has dementia. Everyone knows this to be true.  The Biden candidacy is a front; a ruse, a manipulative scheme that needs a face… That’s Joe Biden.

A Biden presidency would be a complete farce.  The Obama coalition is in control of everything behind the scenes.  All policy would be Obama policy; and, specifically because of their importance in triggering the origin of the entire enterprise, the primary policy stakeholders will be the congressional black caucus (CBC) led by James Clyburn.  This influence plan is behind the merging of Black Lives Matter and the AME network.

And this is how Bernie Sanders lost the nomination to the people in the smoke-filled rooms twice. If I were a Sanders supporter, I would be furious.

This Is Not A Surprise To Most Of Us

MRCTV is reporting today on an interesting choice of words by Vice-Presidential candidate Kamala Harris during a broadcast targeting Hispanic voters in Arizona.

The article reports:

Kamala Harris may have just let out a Freudian slip – and if anyone’s upset by it, it won’t be her political opponents.

The California senator, who is running to be Joe Biden’s vice president should the pair win the election in November, seemed to momentarily place herself at the top of the ticket in an odd moment during a virtual round table Monday, encouraging voters to cast their ballot for “A Harris administration, together with Joe Biden.”

“A Harris administration, together with Joe Biden as the president of the United States…the Biden/Harris administration will provide access to $100 billion in low-interest loans and investments from minority business owners,” Harris awkwardly claimed.

If Joe Biden is president, why is it the Harris administration? Who is pulling the strings?

Steven Hayward at Power Line Blog notes:

I’m betting the Secret Service is taking resumes of food tasters right about now.

The article at MRCTV concludes:

Harris’ mix-up between herself and the man who is actually running for president is also in line with many concerns on the right over Biden’s age, mental acuity and physical ability to do the job of POTUS, with many saying that a vote for Biden is really a vote for Harris if and when Biden becomes unable to hold the office.

When you consider Kamala Harris’ record as California Attorney General, the thought of her in the White House is troubling. Her prosecution of cases was very uneven and often appeared to be politically motivated.

Who Is Kamala Harris?

A friend sent me this summary of information on Kamala Harris. For more information see Peter Schweizer’s book, Profiles in Corruption. There is an entire chapter of the book dedicated to Kamala Harris.

This is a summary of the information:

Read “Profiles in Corruption” by Peter Schweizer. He dedicates an entire chapter to Kamala Harris

Kind of enlightening, still trying to figure out how a Jamaican father and an Indian mother have an African-American child…..

“I watched an interview with her.  She is very attractive, animated and absurd.  She stated that she never had children; yet was a “Mother to her husband’s children.” And she “loved being a Mother.”  She said the children called her
“Momela”.  Anyway, she led her audience to believe that she mothered these kids. I looked her up. She married her husband when the boy was in his 3rd year of college and the girl was in 10th grade and they lived with the Mother except for normal visits with their father—so much for Mother hood. Right after hearing that, I knew she was a liar. She is already beating Pence in ratings.

I do remember Kamala Harris. I had just been elected to the State Assembly in 1994 and, at that time, the ultimate “power broker” that controlled every aspect of California’s state government was the Speaker of the House, Willie Brown. He ran Sacramento like it was his own personal fiefdom and handed out jobs to loyalists and fired people who were disloyal. He broke every ethical law in the book but was never held to account by anyone. He was married but openly had mistresses which he showed off by bringing to public events.

At the time I arrived in Sacramento, he was seeing a young girl who was in her 20’s. Willie was in his 60’s. She was his mistress and he showered her with gifts and appointed her to a number of State government jobs. Her name was Kamala Harris. Willie launched her political career because she was having sex with him. The idea that she is an “independent” woman who worked her way up the political ladder because she worked hard is baloney. She slept her way into powerful political jobs.

And now she is running for VP with a man who will be unable to govern due to his lack of mental clarity. In essence, she will function as the President of the United States should the Biden/Harris ticket prevail this November. Her views on guns, taxes, immigration, energy, etc. are far to the left of the average America but you watch, the media will ignore these positions.

For example, she believes illegal aliens are eligible to ALL government services, including education, welfare benefits, health care, you name it. In order words, she does NOT believe there is a difference between a citizen and a non-citizen. That view alone will cost us billions of dollars if acted upon. Her view of the constitution is frankly bizarre and dangerous and she is willing to enact laws restricting our 2nd Amendment rights even if such laws violate constitution.
She will be the most radical person to run for VP in American history but you won’t see any of this on the news. You will soon witness a massive campaign by the media to deceive you about who she is and what she believes. Don’t fall for it.”

The media plans to play a major role in this election. Their plan is to tip the scales in favor of Biden-Harris. Joe Biden also rates an entire chapter in Profiles in Corruption. I realize that a lot of people don’t like Donald Trump’s style, but you cannot honestly accuse him of using his office for personal gain. Unfortunately that cannot be said about either Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.

The Silly Season Is In Full Swing

Yesterday The Daily Wire posted an article about the Delaware debut of the Biden-Harris ticket. Since there are those who constantly accuse President Trump of lying and needing to be fact checked, Tim Graham, the author of the article, decided to fact-check the roll out of the campaign.

Here is a list of eight of the major untruths he found:

1. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have given us “four years of mismanagement and coddling of terrorists and thugs around the world,” Biden said. Did Trump “coddle” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State group? No, he’s dead. Did Trump “coddle” Iranian terrorist Gen. Qassem Soleimani? He’s dead, too. Biden opposed taking down Osama bin Laden, so he should sit a spell.

2. Trump has no “plan” for the pandemic. He has “no real help for the states and local governments trying to fill the vacuum of leadership from the White House, no real help for children and educators, for small businesses and front-line workers,” Biden said. We didn’t allocate $3 trillion to mitigate the pandemic, aiding governments and businesses and vaccine development?

3. Trump was accused of referring to neo-Nazis and racists when he said, “There are very fine people on both sides” of the 2017 Charlottesville protests. This is transparently false … and yet, fact-checkers like PolitiFact go limp and let Biden unspool this lie. Reporters at the time prodded Trump, and he explicitly condemned the neo-Nazis and racists.

4. Trump is “on track to leave office with the worst jobs record of any American president in modern history.” In January, FactCheck.org reported, “The economy added 6.7 million jobs, and unemployment fell to the lowest rate in half a century.” We’re now in a pandemic that shocked the economy, but the economy is recovering. Does anyone think the “fact-checkers” would let a Republican blame the Democrats for the economy if this were to happen under a President Hillary Clinton?

5. Kamala Harris said: “The president’s mismanagement of the pandemic has plunged us into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. … He inherited the longest economic expansion in history … And then, like everything else he inherited, he ran it straight into the ground.” Did Democrats oppose the lockdown kicking and screaming? Shouldn’t they share responsibility for it?

6. Harris insisted, “After the most competitive primary in history, the country received a resounding message that Joe was the person to lead us forward.” That’s a joke. There were a huge number of candidates, but it didn’t end up competitive at all, in part because of the pandemic. It certainly didn’t match Obama vs. Clinton in 2008.

7. Harris said, “I cannot wait for America to get to know my husband, Doug, and our amazing kids, Cole and Ella.” Our? Facebook labels claims like this as having “Missing Context.” They’re Harris’ stepkids from her 2014 marriage to Doug Emhoff, and they’re 26 and 21 years old.

8. Speaking of terrible context, Harris tried to compare the coronavirus pandemic to the Ebola outbreak of 2014: “Barack Obama and Joe Biden did their job. Only two people in the United States died. Two. That is what’s called leadership.” These are apples and oranges in epidemiology. Ebola is much deadlier than the coronavirus. But the spread isn’t nearly the same, since Ebola is not infectious until you have symptoms, and you’re quickly bedridden.

Just for the record, the mainstream media didn’t report any of these statements as untrue.

Facts vs. Spin

The mainstream media has informed us that Kamala Harris is a pragmatic progressive or a practical moderate. She is never described as extreme. Just the News posted an article yesterday that examines her voting record.

The article reports:

Harris, who is in her first term as a senator, co-sponsored Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for all” single-payer health care bill in 2017 and 2019. Opponents of the bill, including presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, argue that it would eliminate the existing private health insurance system. 

In 2019, Harris was also a co-sponsor of Sanders’ Green New Deal, which is estimated to cost $16 trillion over 10 years. She recently introduced a climate equity bill incorporating elements of the Green New Deal with New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Harris co-sponsored a bill with New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker to set up a federal commission to study providing reparations to African-American descendants of slaves and “make recommendations on reparation proposals for the descendants of slaves.”

Harris also supports the Marijuana Justice Act of 2019, which “removes marijuana from the list of scheduled substances under the Controlled Substances Act and eliminates criminal penalties for an individual who imports, exports, manufactures, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute marijuana.”

The former California attorney general is a co-sponsor of a bill introduced by Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Markey that would “authorize the admission of climate-displaced persons” from other countries into the U.S.

Some of the other bills she has supported are the the Save Voters Act, which would prevent states from purging from voter files the names of individuals who are inactive or have changed addresses, and a bill to “prohibit the imposition of the death penalty for any violation of federal law and for other purposes. She opposed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would establish “requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must exercise in the event a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.”

The article notes:

She also voted against legislation that would prohibit “the use of federal funds for abortions or for health coverage that includes abortions.” During the presidential primary debates, Harris slammed Biden for supporting the Hyde Amendment during his Senate career. The Hyde Amendment is included in appropriations bills to prohibit federal funds from going toward abortion. 

Is that the profile of a moderate Democrat?

Part Of The Democrat Party Platform

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about Kamala Harris’ views on guns.

The article reports:

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has done something unprecedented with his pick of Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) as his running mate: put a candidate on the presidential ticket who publicly supports gun confiscation.

During her failed primary campaign, Harris was one of only a handful of candidates to explicitly advocate for the confiscation of what she estimated to be tens of millions of legally owned firearms.

“We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory gun buyback program,” she said during an October policy forum hosted by the gun-control group March for Our Lives. “It’s got to be smart. We’ve got to do it the right way but there are five million [assault weapons] at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.”

First of all, those who call for the ban on assault weapons never quite define what an assault weapon is. In the past, some Congressmen have added guns to that list simply because they were ‘scary-looking.’ Second of all, there is a reason for the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is there to protect Americans from a tyrannical government. It seems to me that one of the indications of a tyrannical government might be that they want to take your guns away. The Second Amendment is there to secure the rights of the First Amendment.

The article reports:

“During her short-lived presidential campaign, she demanded gun-control legislation within 100 days and threatened executive action if Congress didn’t deliver,” Oliva (Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation) told the Free Beacon. “Senator Harris was clear when she said gun control would be an administration priority. Her platform included entertaining forced confiscation of lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles, redefining ‘sporting purpose’ for lawful firearm possession, criminalizing private firearm transfers and repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In fact, she supports politicizing the Department of Justice and using the weight of the federal government to harass a constitutionally protected industry in a series of frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt manufacturers.”

Oliva called the pick a danger to gun owners.

“Joe Biden’s selection of Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate makes this ticket the most serious threat to American Second Amendment rights ever faced in a presidential election,” he said.

Gun-control groups, on the other hand, cheered Biden’s decision to name Harris his vice-presidential nominee. Giffords, the gun-control group headed by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, emphasized Harris’s support for expanding background checks to private sales in a celebratory email to its donors and didn’t mention her support for confiscation.

“Joe Biden just announced his pick for Vice President and we are so thrilled to have Senator Kamala Harris join the fight to defeat Trump in November,” the group said in an email to supporters. “Like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris is a gun safety champion with a proven record of fighting the NRA and standing up for common sense. They will work tirelessly together to pass universal background checks and make every community safer from gun violence.”

Gun violence will not stop when you take guns away from law-abiding gun owners; it will only stop when you take guns away from criminals. We already have laws that do that. Those laws don’t work because criminals do not obey laws.Taking guns away from law-abiding gun owners will not cause criminals to give up their guns–it will simply result in more unarmed victims of those criminals (or a tyrannical government that cannot be stopped). Neither is a positive step forward.

The following was pasted on Facebook by a friend of mine who does very good research:

Just the Facts:
Before you attack anything in this post please understand that I did research at the Smithsonian Institute and the US Census Bureau. I also researched from several historical publications, Harvard university, Oxford university, the transatlantic slave trade database, slavevoyages-org, and a few others.
Information regarding the current slave trade came from the US Department of Defense, the US State Department, the united nations, amnesty international, and a confidential paper on Russian mining.
——
History:
The historical African slave trade operated from the discovery of the New World until 1808 with a recorded exception being the slave ship “Clotilda” in 1860. There were more than 32,000 voyages that delivered more than 10 million captive slaves to the Americas.
Of the more than 10 million captive African slaves, less than 310,000 were brought to North America in what is now the USA and Canada. The vast majority went to South America and the Caribbean. More than 900,000 went to Jamaica. The first delivery of captive slaves in North America was in 1619 but slaves had been brought to the Caribbean for about 100 years before that time.
The largest slave importer in Jamaica was an ancestor of Senator Kamala Harris. Ms. Harris, contrary to her claims, does not have any verified American slaves in her ancestry. But she has at least five slaveowners in her ancestry.
Of all the Black people living in America who were born here, less than 6% can document their ancestry to people who were slaves in the United States. That is less than 1% of the current US population.
More than half of black Americans claiming to be descendants of slaves trace their slave history back to the Caribbean, including to Kamala Harris’s Jamaica.
——-
In today’s world the countries exporting the most slaves are North Korea and China. North Korea sends about 20,000 people to Russia every year to work in the Russian mines. China sends about double that amount. Of all of the people sent every year to Russia from North Korea and China the only documentation I could find showed less than 10 people (eight) ever returned to China.

Changing The Rules As You Go Along

The Democrat party claims to be the party of diversity, yet after a number of primary elections in which mainly Democrats voted, there were only three candidates left–two old white men and one woman. Now they have changed the debate rules so that the woman won’t be eligible to participate in the next Democrat debate. Doesn’t sound very diverse to me.

The Washington Free Beacon reported yesterday that under the newly announced rules for the March 15th Democrat debate, Representative Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat who represents Hawaii, is not eligible to participate.

The article reports:

Under the newly announced rules for the March 15 CNN/Univision debate, candidates must have at least 20 percent of the awarded pledged delegates in order to qualify.

…Elderly white male candidates Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders have already locked up the required delegates, but the rule change makes it nearly impossible for Gabbard to qualify, even with a strong showing in the next round of primaries. The congresswoman needs 335 more delegates to lock up 20 percent by March 15, but only 352 are up for grabs on March 10.

Gabbard suggested on Thursday that she would attend the debate if invited, tweeting that she would “welcome the opportunity to raise & discuss the foreign policy challenges we face.”

DNC spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa appeared to downplay the prospect of Gabbard making the debates in a Super Tuesday tweet, saying, “of course the threshold will go up.”

It’s  interesting to me that they changed the rules to let Mayor Bloomberg participate and now they have changed to rules to exclude Tulsi Gabbard. I suspect her presence would make for a much more interesting debate.

The article concludes:

The exclusion of Gabbard comes one day after Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) suspended her campaign, leaving the race with only one female candidate and prompting extensive soul-searching and criticism from Democratic women and media figures.

“I so wish that we had a woman president of the United States, and we came so close to doing that,” said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). “I do think there’s a certain element of misogyny.”

Former presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) omitted Gabbard entirely in her reaction to Warren’s departure, telling reporters, “Look at what’s happened. There are no women currently in this race.”

The Democrat presidential primary has reached the point where it is a soap opera that is moving very slowly toward something. I think it’s time to get out the popcorn!

This Shouldn’t Happen In A Civilized Society

On Friday, The Federalist posted an article about The Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act.

The article reports:

The Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act is not about restricting abortions but about giving newborns a chance to survive no matter where they are born, said Sen. Ben Sasse, the bill’s lead co-sponsor, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday.

During the hearing, called “The Infant Patient: Ensuring Appropriate Medical Care for Children Born Alive,” Republican senators questioned why a baby born in a hospital should be treated differently than a baby born in an abortion facility. Democrats, lacking an answer, changed the subject.

Thirteen committee senators heard from five female witnesses, three who shared powerful testimony and two who expressed concerns about the bill.

The article includes the testimony of some of witnesses. Three of the witnesses who were involved in the medical profession related some of the incidents where babies were tossed aside after being born alive during an abortion.

The article also includes the testimony of those who opposed the bill.

The article reports:

Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of National Women’s Law Center, argued instead that, “Access to reproductive health care, including abortion, is a key part to an individual’s liberty, equality, and economic security.” Since 2010, state lawmakers have passed more than 450 abortion restrictions designed to block access to abortion, she said.

Sasse tried to clarify numerous times that this legislation was not about abortion but about what happens after an abortion. Neither Graves nor the Democratic senators in the room agreed. Graves said she believes the bill is on a continuum of restrictive abortion measures. Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, agreed, saying that women’s health is under attack every day, especially under Trump, and that this bill is the latest in a decades-long threat against abortion.

Instead of arguing for or against protecting infants born alive, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., argued U.S. health care is biased against African-American women. Instead of fighting for legislation that protects infants born alive, Harris argued we should make taxpayers provide better housing and food for pregnant women.

While Harris might be right that pregnant women need more support, this is not the question at hand. Right now, if a doctor neglected to provide a pregnant woman needed care, he would be prosecuted. This is not true for the child in her womb. Instead of addressing this disparity, Harris simply changed the subject.

Abortion is a million-dollar business. It is also an industry that makes large donations through Political Action Committees (PAC’s) to Democrat campaigns. We are not likely to see Democrats vote against abortion and risk those campaign donations.

A Partial Victory For Freedom Of The Press

Yesterday The Daily Wire reported the following:

On Friday, a San Francisco Superior Court judge dropped five of the standing 14 felony charges against undercover journalist David Daleiden in the so-called “Baby Body Parts” case that exposed unsavory and potentially illegal practices by abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

“Today, Thomas More Society attorneys secured the dismissal of five more felony counts, six in total, at the conclusion of the Preliminary Hearing in the California criminal case against undercover journalist David Daleiden,” the Thomas More Society, a nonprofit law firm representing Daleiden, said in a press release sent to The Daily Wire.

“Superior Court Judge Christopher Hite issued his final probable cause order today, leaving nine out of an original fifteen felony counts, to proceed to trial,” the press release explained.

Friday’s ruling concluded the preliminary hearing held in September 2019, the nonprofit said.

Peter Breen, Daleiden lawyer and Thomas More Society VP, said the legal team was “pleased” over the tossing of another five felonies, but underscored the absurdity of any of the charges holding up.

“We are very pleased by the decision today to throw out another five felony charges against David Daleiden,” Breen said in a statement to The Daily Wire.

The article continued to say that Peter Breen, Daleiden lawyer and Thomas More Society VP, intends to mount a strong defense to get all of the charges thrown out. Mr. Breen noted that David Daleiden provided information to the public that the public has a right to know. The article also notes that the original case was initiated by then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

Keep in mind that Planned Parenthood pours millions of dollars into political campaigns all over the country. If politicians want to keep that money flowing, they are required to support the actions of Planned Parenthood. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, it should not be a million-dollar industry and should not be engaged in the sale of aborted baby body parts. It’s time to stop giving Planned Parenthood government money and time to provide young women an option other than abortion.

Is This What You Are Supporting If You Are Pro Choice?

The Federalist posted an article today about the preliminary hearing for pro-life activist David Daleiden that began Tuesday morning at the San Francisco Superior Court.

The article reports:

NAF (National Abortion Federation) Vice President of External Affairs Melissa Fowler also testified she recognized StemExpress—a human tissue procurement lab exposed in Daleiden’s undercover videos that is now under federal investigation—as a repeat vendor of her for-profit organization. NAF is a third-party abortion trade group.

The nine-day hearing is the first time Planned Parenthood leaders and affiliates have publicly gathered and testified in court since Daleiden’s Center for Medical Progress published 11 undercover videos featuring Planned Parenthood leaders discussing—and in some videos displaying—the harvesting and selling of aborted fetal organs and tissues.

Daleiden and his colleague Sandra Merritt face 14 criminal felony counts of eavesdropping and one count of conspiracy. The case marks the first time charges of eavesdropping have ever been made in California. During this hearing the judge will determine if there is probable cause Daleiden and Merritt committed a crime, and if so, will schedule a date for trial. Separately, the hearing for the civil case against Daleiden and Merritt will be held Sept. 30.

The article includes a timeline of events surrounding the case, including noting that the first undercover video where a Planned Parenthood doctor is shown negotiating the sale of aborted baby body parts was released in July 2015. We’ve know about this practice for more than four years, and it is still going on. The article also notes that presidential candidate Kamala Harris used her powers as California’s Attorney General to destroy Daleiden after the videos were released.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is chilling. Planned Parenthood is not only killing babies for profit, it is selling their body parts for profit.

Still Rigging Primaries

Evidently the Democrat Presidential candidates are being winnowed down to fit on one debate stage. However, the winnowing process is about as fair as Bernie Sanders’ primary run in 2016.

The American Thinker posted an article today with their observations:

Iconoclastic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard did the unforgiveable in the eyes of the hidebound Democratic Party establishment: She knocked down one their favorites, Kamala Harris. 

…Now, through the miracle of rule-rigging, the Democratic establishment has maneuvered to exact a price from her: No appearance at the next Democratic debate. No more taking down the next favorite.

Yesterday Real Clear Politics posted an article about the exclusion of Representative Gabbard.

The article notes:

Tulsi Gabbard is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.

Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates — especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang. But the Democratic National Committee has decreed that the polls constituting this average are not sufficiently “qualifying.”

The article at RealClear Politics continues:

The absurdity mounts. A South Carolina poll published Aug. 14 by the Post and Courier placed Gabbard at 2%. One might have again vainly assumed that the newspaper with the largest circulation in a critical early primary state would be an “approved” sponsor per the dictates of the DNC, but it is not. Curious.

To recap: Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in two polls sponsored by the two largest newspapers in two early primary states, but the DNC — through its mysteriously incoherent selection process — has determined that these surveys do not count toward her debate eligibility. Without these exclusions, Gabbard would have already qualified. She has polled at 2% or more in two polls officially deemed “qualifying,” and surpassed the 130,000 donor threshold on Aug. 2. While the latter metric would seem more indicative of “grassroots support” — a formerly obscure Hawaii congresswoman has managed to secure more than 160,000 individual contributions from all 50 states, according to the latest figures from her campaign — the DNC has declared that it will prioritize polling over donors. In polls with a sample size of just a few hundred people, this means excluding candidates based on what can literally amount to rounding errors: A poll that places a candidate at 1.4% could be considered non-qualifying, but a poll that places a candidate at 1.5% is considered qualifying. Pinning such massive decisions for the trajectory of a campaign on insignificant fractional differences seems wildly arbitrary.

In Animal Farm by George Orwell, the pigs proclaim, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” I think that is the way the Democrat party runs their presidential primary elections.

 

False Statements That Create Division And Unrest

The mainstream media is not known for unbiased reporting, but every now and then even they have to correct something that is not only false but incendiary.

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article on Thursday about a recent lie by two political candidates that could easily be called incendiary.

The article reports:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) doubled down on her tweet that claimed black teenager Michael Brown was “murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri,” saying Wednesday what mattered was an “unarmed man” was shot in the street.

Campaigning in New Hampshire, Warren was asked about her inflammatory tweet, which received the harshest “Four-Pinocchio” rating from the Washington Post.

“What matters is that a man was shot, an unarmed man, in the middle of the street, by police officers and left to die,” Warren said. “And I think that’s where our focus should be.”

Warren and fellow presidential candidates Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) and Tom Steyer all used the term “murder” to describe Brown’s death in 2014 at the hands of Officer Darren Wilson. The incident set off a debate about police violence and racial injustice. Although the notion that Brown was killed with his hands up and begging Wilson not to shoot was apocryphal, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” became a mantra for protesters.

To Senator Warren and Senator Harris the narrative was more important than the truth. Rather than tell the truth, they lied in order to advance the idea that the police involved were racist.

The article concludes:

The Washington Post‘s Glenn Kessler said for Warren and Harris—he didn’t include Steyer in his story—to dismiss the Justice Department’s findings was “galling.”

“Harris and Warren have ignored the findings of the Justice Department to accuse Wilson of murder, even though the Justice Department found no credible evidence to support that claim,” Kessler wrote. “Instead, the Justice Department found that the popular narrative was wrong, according to witnesses deemed to be credible, some of whom testified reluctantly because of fear of reprisal. The department produced a comprehensive report to determine what happened, making the senators’ dismissal of it even more galling.”

The Massachusetts Police Union ripped Warren as well, saying she had unfairly accused police of harming society.

So what is the impact of these statements? Those Americans who are unaware of the Justice Department findings or the grand jury’s decision are left with the impression that the police in Missouri murdered a man without cause. How does that impact the opinion of law enforcement held by the people who believe this lie? How does this lie impact the amount of respect for law enforcement needed to maintain a civil society? The statements of Senators Harris and Warren are totally irresponsible. Even if they thought they were telling the truth, they owe those people who work in law enforcement an apology.

Watching The Slippery Slope

Every time a criminal or a crazy person shoots people, the Democrats decide that the gun was the problem. They just don’t seem to be able to focus on the person doing the shooting. There is a total disregard for the purpose and history of the Second Amendment.

Townhall posted an article today about some recent comments by a Democrat candidate for President regarding Americans who own guns.

The article reports:

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is one of them and said earlier this week she’s open to putting gun owners who refuse to comply with bogus government “buybacks,” which is simply government confiscation, in prison.

“You don’t want to grandfather in all of the assault weapons all across America. We’d like people to sell them back to the government,” Gillibrand said during an interview with MSNBC. “The point is you don’t want people using assault weapons so the point is ff you’re arrested for using an assault weapon you’re going to be arrested for an aggravated felony. The whole point is when you make it a crime to own an assault weapon then if you are found using it, that would be the issue. It would be part of law enforcement.”

Let’s put this into context. The semi-automatic AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. The left considers it an “assault rifle.” There are more than 20 million of them owned by Americans across the country. Gillibrand wants to turn every single person who has one into a felon and institute a police state for enforcement.

The article also notes that candidate Kamala Harris is also talking about taking away the right of Americans to own guns. This is obviously unconstitutional, but there are some real questions as to whether our courts are following the Constitution. This is a critical time for gun rights in America.

 

Senator, Please Read The Second Amendment

There were two horrific shootings in America yesterday. Actually there were probably a few more than that if you count Chicago and Baltimore, but there were two that made the headlines. There were two that were instantly politicized. There were two that reminded us that politicians don’t always think before they speak.

The Washington Examiner posted an article yesterday about Senator Kamala Harris’ response to the shooting in Texas:

California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris gave details about her gun control proposals in the wake of the deadly El Paso, Texas shooting after she addressed union members at the AFSCME forum at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas on Saturday.

When asked by the Washington Examiner if her plan would include legal gun owner databases or gun confiscation via law enforcement visits to residents who own banned firearms, she replied, “I’m actually prepared to take executive action to put in place rules that improve this situation.”

She continued, “I also have as part of my background and experience working on this issue, when I was attorney general [of California], and we put resources into allowing law enforcement to actually knock on the doors of people who were on two lists — a list where they had been found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others.

“They were on a list where they were precluded and prohibited from owning a gun because of a conviction that prohibited that ownership. Those lists were combined and then we sent law enforcement out to take those guns, because, listen, we have to deal with this on all levels, but we have to do this with a sense of urgency,” Harris added.

First of all, what firearms is she going to ban?

In June 2016, The Federalist reported:

But before we dive into whether the assault weapons ban was merely dumb, or if it was monumentally stupid and counterproductive, it’s important to define what the previous federal ban covered and how it defined an “assault weapon.” The 1994 assault weapons law banned semi-automatic rifles only if they had any two of the following five features in addition to a detachable magazine: a collapsible stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.

That’s it. Not one of those cosmetic features has anything whatsoever to do with how or what a gun fires. Note that under the 1994 law, the mere existence of a bayonet lug, not even the bayonet itself, somehow turned a garden-variety rifle into a bloodthirsty killing machine. Guns with fixed stocks? Very safe. But guns where a stock has more than one position? Obviously they’re murder factories. A rifle with both a bayonet lug and a collapsible stock? Perish the thought.

A collapsible stock does not make a rifle more deadly. Nor does a pistol grip. Nor does a bayonet mount. Nor does a flash suppressor. And for heaven’s sake, good luck finding, let alone purchasing, 40mm explosive grenades for your rifle-mounted grenade launcher (and remember: the grenade launcher itself is fine, just as long as you don’t put the ultra-deadly bayonet lug anywhere near it).

The complete unfamiliarity with guns and how they work that led to the inept definitions in the 1994 law was on full display in a now-infamous television interview with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York congresswoman who backed the so-called assault weapons ban. In the interview, Tucker Carlson asked McCarthy to define “barrel shroud,” a firearm feature regulated by the law. Here’s how she answered:

CARLSON: I read the legislation and it said that it would regulate “barrel shrouds.” What’s a barrel shroud and why should we regulate that?

MCCARTHY:The guns that were chosen back in those days were basically the guns that most gangs and criminals were using to kill our police officers. I’m not saying it was the best bill, but that was they could get out at that particular time.

CARLSON: Ok. Do you know what a barrel shroud is?

MCCARTHY: I actually don’t know what a barrel shroud is. I think it’s the shoulder thing that goes up.”

Senator Harris, you can confiscate all the guns and rifles you want and criminals will still manage to get them. At that point you have created an unarmed general population that is more vulnerable to gun crimes. Is that what you really want?

 

A Rare Moment Of Truth In The Democrat Debates

The Daily Caller posted an article today about remarks made by Democratic Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard regarding Senator Kamala Harris of California during the Democrat debate on Wednesday.

The article notes:

Democratic Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was among the first to land a solid blow on presidential primary rival Sen. Kamala Harris (CA), but she may not have taken her attack far enough.

“She put over 1500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana,” Gabbard said of Harris’s time as a prosecutor and District Attorney of San Francisco.

But as Joe Garofoli of the San Francisco Chronicle discovered as he fact-checked Gabbard’s claim, the number of people Harris sent to jail for marijuana violations was actually closer to 2000.

Garofoli noted that an initial report published by the Washington Free Beacon had put the number at 1560, but that a spokesman for California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had told him the actual number was 1974.

It’s an interesting attack. First of all, Kamala Harris was doing her job as District Attorney of San Francisco. Admittedly, her priorities might have been a little off, but she was essentially doing her job. The really sad part of the story is that she is so arrogant that she laughed about putting people in jail for something she herself had done. Some of our politicians have made a career out of ‘one rule for me and another rule for thee.’ That is the sad part of the story.

When Senators Don’t Read The Constitution

Article VI of the U. S. Constitution states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Yesterday Paul Mirengoff posted an article at Power Line Blog about the confirmation of Brian Buescher to the U.S. District Court in Nebraska.

The article reports:

The Senate today confirmed Brian Buescher, President Trump’s nominee to the U.S. District Court in Nebraska. Readers may recall that Senate Democrats attacked Buescher for his membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic service organization. I wrote about this here.

Sen. Kamala Harris was one of the Senators who led the charge against Buescher during his Committee hearing. His other main adversary was Sen. Mazie Hirono, one of the Senate’s dimmest members.

Harris isn’t dim, but she’s a hard core leftist and an incorrigible opportunist. Thus, her suggestion that Buescher’s membership in the Knights of Columbus makes him unfit to serve as a federal judge was over-determined.

The argument was that the Knights of Columbus takes the “extreme” position that a marriage is the union of a man and a woman. But, as Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out at the time, Buescher belongs to two other organizations that consider marriage to be the union of a man and woman (and that also are anti-abortion, another of the Knights’ “extreme” positions). The two organizations are the Catholic Church and the Republican Party.

Do Hirono and Harris think that Buescher’s Catholicism raises problems with his nomination? I assume they do, to the extent that Buescher takes Catholic doctrine seriously.

Buescher declined Hirono’s invitation to resign from the Knights of Columbia as a condition of being confirmed. The Senate confirmed him anyway.

The vote was 51-40. No Democrat voted to confirm Buescher. Harris and the other Senate Democrats running for president didn’t vote.

In September 2017, Dianne Feinstein made the following statement about the Catholicism of  Amy Barrett during the confirmation hearing for the judge:

Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that — you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.

People of faith who have been blindly voting for Democrats over the years might want to take notice of these statements made during confirmation hearings. Again, the Senators need to reread the U.S. Constitution. Faith is neither a qualifier nor a dis-qualifier according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

 

How Do You Reconcile This?

The Associated Press posted an article today about a recent fund raiser held by Kamala Harris. The fund raiser was hosted by was hosted by six partners of the law firm Kirkland and Ellis.

The article reports:

Kamala Harris bemoaned the influence of the powerful and connected elite last Tuesday when she called on top Justice Department officials to recuse themselves from any matter related to Jeffrey Epstein. She said their former law firm’s work on behalf of the financier accused of sexual abuse “calls into question the integrity of our legal system.”

Yet the same day, Harris’ husband headlined a Chicago fundraiser for her presidential campaign that was hosted by six partners of that firm — Kirkland and Ellis, according to an invitation obtained by The Associated Press.

…”If any connection with Kirkland and Ellis is a stain on (senior Justice Department officials), why isn’t a connection with the law firm for the receipt of campaign contributions a stain on her own campaign?” said Paul S. Ryan, an attorney for the good-government group Common Cause.

Ian Sams, a Harris spokesman, said there wasn’t a problem with accepting the campaign contributions because the firm is big and the partners who hosted the fundraiser didn’t work on Epstein’s plea agreement.

“The people involved in that case have not supported her campaign, and she wouldn’t want that support anyway,” Sams said.

This explanation represents some of the best doublespeak I have heard recently.

What Does This Say About The Candidate?

Kamala Harris is currently considered the up-and-coming Democrat candidate for President in 2020. She achieved that status after an attack on Joe Biden that stretched the truth more than a little. Well, Ms. Harris is serious about her campaign. The Washington Examiner is reporting today that the Harris campaign hired Marc Elias, who heads Perkins Coie’s political law group.

The article reports:

…Elias, who held the same position in Clinton’s campaign, is named in two pending Federal Election Commission complaints and in a recent federal lawsuit alleging that the Clinton campaign broke campaign finance laws when it used Perkins Coie to hire Fusion GPS.

Fusion GPS went on to hire British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who compiled an unverified dossier allegedly based on sources close to the Kremlin which was disseminated to the media and used by the FBI to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants targeting former Trump campaign associate Carter Page. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is reviewing alleged FISA abuse related to the dossier and Attorney General William Barr launched his “investigation of the investigators” earlier this year.

Clinton’s former presidential campaign manager Robby Mook said in 2017 that he authorized Elias to hire an outside firm to dig up dirt on Trump’s connections with Russia. “I asked our lawyer and I gave him a budget allocation to investigate this, particularly the international aspect,” he said.

Mook said Elias was receiving information from Fusion GPS or directly from Steele himself about the research into Trump and Russia in 2016, and that Elias then periodically briefed the Clinton campaign about the findings.

The article concludes:

Elias is a fixture in Democratic politics. Aside from working for Harris, Clinton, and the DNC, Elias has said that he and his colleagues at Perkins Coie have represented the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Governors Association, various Democratic PACs, the pro-abortion EMILY’s List, dozens of Democratic senators, and more than a hundred Democratic members of the House.

Neither the Harris campaign nor Elias responded to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment.

I wonder if Mr. Elias’ name is going to come up during the release of the Inspector General’s Report or the questioning of Robert Mueller. Stay tuned.