This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
ABC, whose one-sided presidential "debate" has been described as a campaign contribution to the Kamala Harris agenda, is not saying whether it has reported, or will report, the event as that contribution.
It was Beth Brelje, an award-winning investigative journalist and elections correspondent for the Federalist, who wrote the ABC debate this week was a "90-minute ambush to boost Kamala Harris."
She explained, "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.
"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."
She cited their focus on Jan. 6, 2021, and their decision to essentially ignore the economy, which is the top voter issue.
"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," she said.
That leaves the formula simple: "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. CBS charged $225,000 for a half-minute ad during a 2016 debate between former President Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. CNN sold ad packages for the June 27 debate between Trump and President Joe Biden for a minimum of $1.5 million per package, which included two 30-second ads, plus a few online ads."
While ABC's charges weren't known right away, assuming a "lowball" figure of $225,000 for half a minute, the 90-minute campaign promotion "comes to a contribution to the Harris Walz campaign of at least $40.5 million."
Now Brelje reports that ABC isn't saying much.
"The Federalist asked ABC in an email if it reported the debate and the performance of its moderators as an in-kind contribution, or any other category of contribution, to the Harris presidential campaign. And if not, when does the company plan to do so? The company indicated that it saw the email but did not answer the questions," she wrote.
Meanwhile, ABC has been bragging about the "19 million total viewers" of the event, which "enriched" the Harris campaign with its "favorable political infomercial."
She wrote, "The Federal Election Commission (FEC) defines an in-kind contribution as a non-monetary contribution to a campaign. This sort of campaign donation is limited to the same value as a financial donation, but corporations are barred from making such contributions."
The FEC itself told the Federalist it would not comment on specifics.
Brelje described, "The result was a so-called debate that was just another in the long line of attempted Trump takedowns. It was a 90-minute advertisement for Harris in front of a record audience, and that makes it a high value in-kind donation from ABC to the Harris campaign."
There were further conflicts, too, as it was revealed moderator Davis was a sorority sister of Harris, and the ABC News chief, Dana Walden, was a "close personal friend" of Harris who introduced her to her now-husband.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has delivered a devastating slam to Kamala Harris in this year's presidential race, rejecting her demand for another debate.
"When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are, 'I WANT A REMATCH.' Polls clearly show that I won the Debate against Comrade Kamala Harris, the Democrats' Radical Left Candidate, on Tuesday night, and she immediately called for a Second Debate."
He continued on social media: "She and Crooked Joe have destroyed our Country, with millions of criminals and mentally deranged people pouring into the USA, totally unchecked and unvetted, and with Inflation bankrupting our Middle Class. Everyone knows this, and all of the other problems caused by Kamala and Joe – it was discussed in great detail during the First Debate with Joe, and the Second Debate with Comrade Harris. She was a no-show at the Fox Debate, and refused to do NBC & CBS.
At RedState was the comment: "This isn't surprising. It also happens to be the right move. Trump gains nothing but getting on the stage with Harris again. If he shows up to the NBC News debate, the moderators are likely to be just as comically biased as David Muir and Linsey Davis.
"There's also no reason to believe Trump would change his preparation and strategy in a second debate with the vice president. So what would be the point? Does America really need another three-on-one slap-fest that shows us nothing new about either candidate? Trump has already debated twice. There's nothing else to learn about who he is or where he stands. On the other side, Harris isn't going to suddenly start giving details about her policies, and that would be the only possible value to be found in holding another debate."
After this week's event on ABC, the network was deluged with criticism for the one-sided scheme it pursued, repeatedly correcting Trump but failing to even mention several egregious lies by Harris. The moderators failed to even mention the weeks-ago assassination attempt against Trump.
Leftists at the network, and some others, claimed Harris was a clear winner, but it appears voters saw it another way: Sixty percent of a focus group that started out undecided confirmed they were leaning toward Trump now, and polling showed many voters believed Trump won the debate, and their vote.
The report continued, "Some polling has come out showing a Harris bump, but other polling has shown a Trump bump (including in Michigan). People can argue over what that means, which polls are right, which are wrong, etc. but it seems like the debate simply didn't change the game.
"By next week, no one will be talking about it, and that's a good thing for Trump. There's zero reason for him to take the risk of giving Harris a second bite at the apple. Her campaign will call him a chicken, but who cares? No one is paying attention to press releases from the Harris campaign. Move on and focus on the issues that voters care about from now until election day."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Inflation across America was only about 1.4% on an annual basis when the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris regime moved into the White House. Once they were there, it exploded to more than a cumulative 20%, and American voters long have stated plainly that the economy is their top issue in this election.
Tired of facing surging food, housing and energy costs, they are insisting that something be done to address the higher prices triggered by the trillions of dollars in spending demanded by the Democrats in the White House.
To that, when Harris was asked in Tuesday night's debate about whether consumers were better off than when she took office, she refused to answer.
She spoke, but it was a long explanation about her middle class upbringing and her desire or an "opportunity" economy, nothing that responded to the question.
Her waffling must have been noticed.
Because after the debate, a poll by the leftist CNN found that voters' confidence in President Donald Trump's economic plans went up. And their confidence in her plans went down.
At the ConservativeBrief, a report said, "A CNN poll taken immediately after the debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris found that the percentage of voters who trust Trump more than Harris on the economy jumped from +16 percent to +20 percent."
The results showed that before the debate, voters gave Trump a 16-point advantage when measuring their trust of economic plans, preferring the GOP candidate's plan 53%-37%.
After the debate, they went for Trump 55%-35%.
Trump had warned during the debate, "We've had a terrible economy because inflation has — which is really known as a country buster. It breaks up countries. We have inflation like very few people have ever seen before. Probably the worst in our nation's history. … everybody knows I'm an open book. Everybody knows what I'm going to do. Cut taxes very substantially. And create a great economy like I did before. We had the greatest economy."
In multiple polls and assessments, voters have told survey takers the economy is their top concern. Surveys show that gasoline, under Biden and Harris, is up 46.1%, electricity 30.7%, fuel oil 43.4%, airfare 21%, hotels 49.4%, groceries 21.5%, K-12 food 66.2%, transportation 32% and car insurance 54.9%
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Kamala Harris, who appeared on an ABC stage to debate President Donald Trump Tuesday night, has been accused repeatedly and credibly of being a liar. She's pulled out that infamous Charlottesville lie that even leftist Snopes has documented as fabricated multiple times.
Her penchant even has been memorialized in a parody of The Doors famed "Light My Fire."
Only these lyrics include: "You always say what is untrue, You are a master falsifier, When somebody fact-checks you, Like a chameleon you change your attire
Now a prominent columnist is charging that ABC was the "loser" in the debate for allowing her to mislead with impunity.
It is commentator Liz Peek who pointed out a long list of Harris' attempts to mislead:
"1. Talking about Project 2025 as if it were Trump's manifesto, and saying that he will pass a nationwide abortion ban
"2. Dredging up Trump's Charlottesville comment – that there were "very fine people on both sides" – which has been debunked
"4. Saying Donald Trump has opposed IVF
"5. Denying that Kamala Harris ever called for gun confiscation (there are videos of her doing just that)
"6. Saying that Trump's tax cuts only helped rich people
"7. And my special bete noir – saying that she and Biden have 'created' 800,000 manufacturing jobs, which is simply not true."
She continued, "Perhaps that was inevitable; the liberal media is in full panic mode now that Harris' honeymoon appears to have faded and Trump has pulled even and, in some polls, moved back into the lead."
And the moderators refused to do their job, pull out of Harris her policies.
"The moderators asked Harris early on whether people were better off under the Biden-Harris administration than they had been under Trump, and instead of citing areas of progress (perhaps because there are none), she launched into describing her 'opportunity economy.' This denotes her 'plan,' which she touted frequently and which apparently rests on giving people money to buy a home, giving people money to start a business and giving people money to help them raise children."
But she failed to say how taxpayers will pay.
"This is, of course, very Bidenesque – promise money to important voting groups like young people who have drifted away from Democrats and small business owners, who have historically lined up behind Trump.
She also criticized Trump for not prosecuting his case fully.
"He actually did build a strong economy, but saw it slammed by COVID. He actually did leave the world at peace, and negotiated significant new alliances between Middle Eastern countries. He actually did demote Iran's ability to wage proxy wars through sanctions and constrained Russia's energy dominance by canceling the Nordstream 2 Pipeline," she wrote.
Further, he did score points, "noting, for instance, that despite criticism over his tariff policy, the Biden-Harris White House had left intact his fees on imports from China, because they were effective. He also pushed back on the jobs supposedly 'created' by the current White House, calling them 'bounce-back' jobs. He's right."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Kamala Harris largely has been silent on her plans, should she be elected in November, for America.
She's accepted only one interview so far, and her campaign site as recently as days ago essentially was void of plans.
Her one economic policy announced was a set of price controls for what she called "price gouging," after she adopted the ideology of a trick often used by repressive governments to make their economies look better than they are.
She might be asked about her plans during a presidential debate scheduled Tuesday; she might even answer.
But there's not a lot of reason to wonder, according to an expert: Her agenda will be just what America has seen over the last four years under a Biden-Harris administration, massive government spending, surging inflation (20% so far) that pushes the costs of food, housing and such into the stratosphere and more.
Paul Mueller, a senior research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, said during an interview of "Washington Watch" that, "Harris is running a giveaway campaign."
According to a Washington Stand report, that would be more of what the nation has seen under the Biden-Harris regime.
"Of course, the Biden administration has been trying to cancel various forms of student debt for years now. And her approach, I think, to stimulating the economy is more of what we've seen over the past four years, which is extensive government involvement, huge amounts of spending. It's not really an organic growth within the economy," he explained.
Such artificial influences, he explained, cost consumers.
"When you subsidize people's ability to buy things — whether that's higher education or health care — and we give people money in the form of loans or grants or scholarships to do that, what it does is boosts demand. And so what we see over time in both of those areas is rising costs. The cost of higher education has grown much faster than everything else in the economy. The rate of increase for health care has increased very rapidly."
He specifically cited the Harris scheme to give a $25,000 credit for first-time home buyers, which is just going to "put upward pressure on the price of housing."
Even her idea to give small businesses a tax credit could end up backfiring on the nation.
"There are a lot of small business owners who maybe will close down their existing business and start a new one just to get the tax credit," he warned.
And some of the Harris plans simply were stolen by her campaign, from President Donald Trump. One, for example, is her sudden appreciation for the idea of not taxing tips, after Trump already had proposed that.
The report said only one of the economic plans from the two candidates could lead to "robust economic growth."
And it's not from Harris, who would take a hatchet to American families with price controls of food, eliminating tax cuts from 2017, raising the top tax rate to nearly 40%, surging corporate and capital gains taxes, and spending more money on Obamacare.
The report explained, "In a speech at the Economic Club of New York last Thursday, former President Trump proposed unleashing the power of the free market by maintaining the 2017 tax cuts and further slashing the corporate tax from 21% to 15%, cutting red tape, protecting U.S. manufacturing by raising tariffs on imported goods, clawing back all unspent funds from the Biden-Harris administration's Inflation Reduction Act, and making more jobs available to U.S. citizens by deporting illegal immigrants who lower wages and compete for jobs."
Mueller explained Trump's plans have the potential to spur "robust economic growth."
He also pointed out the national debt, some $32 trillion, which has exploded under Biden and Harris.
"So far, we are not seeing a lot of politicians raise their hand and say, 'I'm the guy that's going to give you less so we can save the future.' I think that might be what we need. We're not getting that from anybody at this point," he noted.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As America prepares for the highly anticipated debate Tuesday between former President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, a former member of the Trump administration says Joe Biden's vice president "needs to be told what her policies are."
Appearing on "Sunday Morning Futures" on the Fox News Channel, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Ben Carson said Harris "needs to be told what her policies are, because she doesn't really know what they are. Nobody else does either.
"Donald Trump doesn't have to prep because the truth is always the truth. You don't have to try to figure out what things will resonate with people, you just say who you are. He's very transparent. And I think the people will appreciate that. So it's going to be a widely watched debate. It's going to be a lot of fun."
Carson believes "Harris is going to to try to get under Donald Trump's skin. That's what the preparation is all about, how do you get under his skin."
The former HUD secretary expects the matchup to be "one of the most consequential can debates ever because people will finally get a chance to hear from Kamala Harris what she believes."
"And all this business about flip-flopping, you have to wonder if she has really flip-flopped because she said that her values have not changed. So what kind of values are we talking about?" Carson said.
"You know, values that as the D.A. in San Francisco led to a policy where people can go into stores and take $900 of stuff with little or no consequences or values tat lead to not deporting drug dealers who are resulting in the death of American citizens or the kind of values that that allow you to kill babies right up until the time of birth? And maybe even beyond that time?
"Values that lead you to mandate what kind of car people should drive, or what kind of stoves they should have as opposed to letting free market forces. So what you're going to see in the debate is Donald Trump running on his past policies and Kamala Harris running away from her past policies. So it should make for a very, very interesting evening."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
No, Jim Morrison is not back from the grave, but his smash hit with his rock group The Doors, "Light My Fire," has been resurrected into a Kamala Harris spoof called "Big Fat Liar."
Parody songmaker Brian Coyne created the reworked video mixing actual footage of The Doors' 1967 appearance on "The Ed Sullivan Show" with news clips of Harris during her 2024 presidential campaign.
The 2024 lyrics state:
You always say what is untrue
You are a master falsifier
When somebody fact-checks you
Like a chameleon you change your attireKamala's a big fat liar
Kamala's a big fat liar
Liar, Liar, pants on fire!The time for cackling is through
Joe Biden's condition is dire
Now the party turns to you
It's time to claim what you desireKamala's a big fat liar
Kamala is such a liar
Liar, Liar, pants on fire!You said that you worked in fast food
And put potatoes in a fryer
I hope they have a job for you
Come November when you are FIRED!Kamala's a big fat liar
Kamala's a big fat liar
Liar, Liar, pants on fire!
"Kamala Harris has become the poster child for flip-flopping on everything from her ethnicity to policy," said Coyne.
"She steals policy ideas form her opponent, Donald Trump, while having almost no policies of her own. No wonder she avoids interviews like the plague!"
The video has been viewed more than 716,000 times on YouTube alone since it was posted Sept. 2, collecting more than 3,200 comments, including:
"Never a truer word spoken!!! MAGA."
"I'm 70 years old and a child of the 60's but I was never a Doors fan but in this case I will make an exception. BRILLIANT!"
"This track should be released as a single a guaranteed Number 1 in America and probably the rest of the world."
"Parody song is perfect, so well done! I love that Jim Morrison is setting the record straight!"
"Song of the 21st Century!! Quadruple Platinum, Gold, Plutonium!!"
"I think even Jim Morrison could appreciate this."
"Watching this actually gave me chills. The hair stood up on my arms because it was so real."
"Trump should play this at all his rallies on the big screen! LOL! OMG! EPIC! Everyone would be singing it!"
"Wow this needs to be a campaign ad running 24/7."
Watch the entire parody video:
Watch The Doors singing "Light My Fire" on "The Ed Sullivan Show" on CBS in 1967:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden has been taking criticism over the last few weeks for taking one vacation after another. In fact, after the Democrat National Convention he left for one vacation. Then went from that vacation immediately to another.
Some of that likely is because he's on his way out of the administration, having been pushed out of the 2024 campaign by elites in the Democrat party who picked Kamala Harris as his replacement.
But the recent lengthy string of holidays for Biden isn't even the worst of the problem, according to Washington Examiner columnist Paul Bedard.
He reveals that Biden, in fact, has taken "48 years worth of vacation in three years."
That's the opposite direction from what most Americans go in their vacations.
"Americans continue to deprive themselves of vacations, taking an average of 11 days a year, even fewer than the famous workaholics in Japan," he said. "Expedia's Annual Vacation Deprivation Report showed that Americans, on average, get 12 paid days off a year but don't even take all that. In Japan, workers take 12 days off annually. The travel firm said that many Americans claim that they are too busy for a break."
The report said Americans are nearly twice as likely to go a year or more between vacations, 32% compared to 18% globally.
Not so with Joe.
"Biden has spent 532 days on vacation in less than four years, according to RNC Research," the report said. "Using Expedia's average of time off Americans take, Biden's tally is the equivalent of over 48 years of vacations — 48.3 years, to be exact."
The column explained, "As in past administrations, the president's aides said he remains on call when on break, and he is sometimes shown on his cellphone when not napping in a chaise lounge at Rehoboth Beach."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Jack Smith, appointed a special counsel to pursue the Democrats' lawfare against President Donald Trump even though he never was confirmed by the Senate as the law requires, has seen multiple setbacks.
On Thursday he was handed another.
His case against Trump over his handling of government documents already has dismissed because of the fact he never was correctly given the special counsel title. He's insisting to an appeals court that that law doesn't need to be fulfilled for him to be charging Trump.
Then there was the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity, which impacts much of his J6 allegations against Trump.
It was in that case Smith was handed another setback on Thursday. A judge ruled the case now will not be resolved before the election.
A report from Fox News explains Tanya Chutkan, a judge whose previously rulings largely have attacked Trump, said a trial will not be held until after the vote.
"Chutkan held a status hearing Thursday morning in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in which lawyers for former President Trump pleaded not guilty on his behalf related to charges from Smith's new indictment after the Supreme Court ruled a president is immune from prosecution for official acts in office."
The charges were in response to a replacement indictment brought by Smith, who tried to clean up his allegations enough to pass the immunity standard set by the Supreme Court.
Chutkan's order said a new deadline for replies and paperwork from federal prosecutors and Trump's legal team now is Nov. 7th, after the election. Smith has sought a trial right away because he wants a conviction before the election.
Fox said, "The case pertains to Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Last week, the former president was indicted and issued revised criminal charges by Smith, who alleges Trump pressured former Vice President Mike Pence to reject legitimate electoral votes, in addition to mounting fake electors in key states that went to President Biden and to attest to Trump's electoral victory."
The new indictment essentially is the same as the first, except with altered language to try to meet the requirements of the high court's ruling on immunity.
"Specifically, the indictment has been changed to remove allegations involving Department of Justice officials and other government officials. It clarifies Trump's role as a candidate and makes clear the allegations regarding his conversations with then-Vice President Mike Pence in his ceremonial role as president of the Senate."
Smith's claims against Trump include conspiracy and obstruction.,
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democracy is not on the 2024 ballot. But free speech is, according to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley.
He's testified on constitutional issues before Congress and has represented members in court. He's a law professor at George Washington University, a best-selling author, and a commentator across multiple outlets on constitutional issues.
He explained, "I previously wrote how a Harris-Walz administration would be a nightmare for free speech. Both candidates have shown pronounced anti-free speech values. Now, X owner Elon Musk and former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have posted a Harris interview to show the depths of the hostility of Harris to unfettered free speech."
The comments from Harris are from 2019, and in them, she was targeting President Donald Trump, who at the time was being targeted with censorship from leftist social media companies who disagreed with what he said, so they worked to suppress his ability to communicate with Americans.
Turley said, "I have long argued that Trump and the third-party candidates should make free speech a central issue in this campaign."
He explained Harris said: "And when you're talking about Donald Trump, he has 65 million Twitter followers, he has proven himself to be willing to obstruct justice – just ask Bob Mueller. You can look at the manifesto from the shooter in El Paso to know that what Donald Trump says on Twitter impacts peoples' perceptions about what they should and should not do."
She said Trump's comments need to be taken down.
"And the bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power… They are speaking to millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop."
Now, Turley noted, "Musk and Kennedy are still trying to raise the chilling potential of a Harris-Walz administration."
He explains his book, "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage," discusses how the Biden-Harris administration "has proven to be the most anti-free speech administration since John Adams. That includes a massive censorship system described by one federal judge as perfectly 'Orwellian.'"
He explained, "What is most chilling is how censorship and closure are Harris's default positions when faced with unfettered speech. She declares to CNN that such unregulated free speech 'has to stop' and that there is a danger to the country when people are allowed to 'directly speak to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight and regulation.'"
He pointed out that other Democrats, up to and including Hillary Clinton, have echoed Harris' ideology.
"Where Biden was viewed as an opportunist in embracing censorship, Harris is a true believer. Like Walz, she has long espoused a shockingly narrow view of free speech that is reflective of the wider anti-free speech movement in higher education," he said.
"Harris often speaks of free speech as if it is a privilege bestowed by the government like a license and that you can be taken off the road if you are viewed as a reckless driver," he explained.
He noted polling shows most Americans still oppose censorship and favor free speech.