Was Pinocchio-Plagued Flip-Flopper Kamala REALLY the Thurs. Night Debate Winner? No! She tried to come out like gang busters and ended flipping and a flopping. She lost out when Prez Trump entered the picture.
June 28, 2019 Ben Sellers
‘You’re not answering the question directly…’
Candidates during the first Democratic primary debate raise their hand in response to a question over their support for eliminating private health insurance and extending public health benefits to illegal immigrants. / IMAGE: America Rising PAC
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Sen. Kamala Harris was touted as one of the big winners of Thursday night’s Democratic primary debates thanks to a carefully orchestrated race-baiting attack on former Vice President Joe Biden, the current front-runner.
But, once again, Harris proved that she is far weaker when put on the spot, often struggling to explain where she stands on even the most basic of positions in the current Democratic platform.
Harris in the past has waffled on issues such as whether she supported the debunked Jussie Smollet case and whether she would allow incarcerated felons to vote.
She put her flip–flopping skills on display again during the debate over a controversial call for extending universal healthcare that would forcibly end private insurance plans and socialize the entire medical industry.
After raising her hands in support, Harris promptly walked back her position the next morning, noted the conservative America Rising PAC.
“Less than 12 hours later, she said on ‘Morning Joe’ that she is not in support of eliminating private insurance and had a different interpretation of the question than the 9 other Democrats on stage, the moderators, and the millions of Americans watching,” they said in a release on Friday.
Harris clarified on the MSNBC show, “The question was, ‘Would you give up your private insurance for that option,’ and I said yes.”
However, America Rising noted that it wasn’t her first time walking back a statement that she would eliminate private insurance and switch to a single-payer system.
She did the same thing in January during a CNN town-hall forum, it noted.
Despite being a co-sponsor of the Medicare for All bill introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., within 24 hours after pronouncing her support Harris reversed course when other Democrats in the field rejected the position.
America Rising compiled its own four-minute montage of the many times Harris had second-guessed herself on her own private insurance stance.
Harris has also been the recipient of several “Pinocchio” ratings by Washington Post fact-checkers, particularly over a policy she endorsed as a San Francisco district attorney that resulted in the incarceration of parents due to their children’s school truancy.
Other issues that have been called out by fact-checkers include a false statement about President Donald Trump’s tax cuts and a deceptive video about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his nomination hearing.
Harris’s confusion problem has even come into play during high-profile testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She notably attacked Attorney General William Barr at a hearing over the Mueller Report, demanding to know whether then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein—who oversaw the bulk of the investigation—had been cleared to do so, given what Harris claimed was a conflict of interests.
Rosenstein was approved directly by the Senate in a 96–4 vote following the recusal of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
“I think they cleared it when he took over the investigation,” Barr said, noting what appeared to be a flip–flop by Democrats who had strongly favored Rosenstein in the past.
“Sir, the flip–flop in this case, I think, is that you’re not answering the question directly,” Harris said, cutting off the attorney general.
FLIP-FLOP, FLIP FLOP – POP goes the weasel.
Reblogged on kommonsentsjane/blogkommonsents.
June 29, 2019
Now for a lesson in life for Kamala Harris, who has a liberal Canadian upbringing:
KOMMONSENTSJANE – THE INHERENT RACISM OF LIBERALISM.
Posted on November 5, 2018
A NATION OF well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the ignorance that tyranny begins.
For your information.
The inherent racism of liberalism
By Sylvia Thompson
June 21, 2013
Congressman Elbert Guillory has eloquently told the American people why he is leaving the Democratic Party. As many now know, Elbert Guillory is a black politician from Louisiana, and I give kudos, cheers, and hurrahs to him. I am always heartened by a black person awakening to the reality that the Democratic Party stands for liberalism, and liberalism at its core, is racist.
Progressivism, liberalism, socialism, communism have one thing in common, as I interpret them. They all require that some designated human or group of humans maintains power over other humans. To maintain power (and often wealth), the drivers of these ideologies must keep the masses that they manipulate under control. There must be a permanent underclass of people enabling the wealth and power of those who would be their “saviors.” Those who would provide for the needs that a balanced human being should provide for himself.
This situation is no different in my view from the slavery that my ancestors (and many other groups throughout human history) experienced. It can even be argued that it is worse. Southern slave owners shackled bodies; these ideologies shackle the soul.
What touches me deeply, as a black person, is the realization that blacks in America are perfect fodder for manipulation by those who adhere to liberalism. Several centuries of conditioning to think that one must be cared for to survive makes for an easy target. Consequently, liberal Democrats (black and white) have used blacks perniciously.
As an adult, I have been able to assess my experience in America with a degree of maturity. I have experienced helpful revelations and come to a few conclusions, all of which position me diametrically opposed to any ideology that diminishes the humanity in human beings.
When I was growing up in Texas under legal segregation, my environment included all the levels of the black experience. In addition to the profane, the assorted criminal types, were the professionals. My doctor; the hospital where my mother delivered my younger siblings; my dentist (a high-school friend of my mother); my high-school principal, administrators, and teachers; and pretty much everything else was black and black owned. My parents were high-school educated and not of the same economic status as the professional blacks around us, but because those professionals were there, as role models for what could be, many of my generation and I were not likely to consider ourselves victims. And liberalism thrives on victims.
In the past several decades, black communities have become laboratories for liberal Democrat experiments in churning out victims. First they remove all God-given moral strictures by infiltrating the once-stalwart black church and turning the heads of pastors, then they throw in a convenient Planned Parenthood abortion facility to take care of the consequences of the rampant immoral behavior. They then install liberal blacks in political leadership of the communities to keep the masses in check. The resulting chaos and suffering are rife throughout Democrat-controlled areas in this nation. And blacks suffer the most, given our percentage of the population.
What has become of blacks in America under the thumb of liberalism is a travesty beyond calculation. Because unlike the slave masters of centuries ago, who shackled bodies that could thrive after the shackles were removed, liberalism shackles the mind and the soul, which is a lot more difficult to reclaim. And for that reason, I loathe liberalism and all of its companion ideologies. I am also averse to acceptance of anything that adherents to liberalism may have to offer. That includes Barack Obama.