Author: Editorial Staff

The Unanswered Questions Surrounding the Killing of Ashli Babbitt: A Case for Justice?

  By , ,

On January 6, 2021, the U.S. Capitol became the epicenter of chaos. Amid the events of that day, one of the most controversial and tragic moments was the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed Air Force veteran. Capitol Police shot her as she attempted to climb through a broken window in the Speaker’s Lobby. Now, with a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit looming, we must confront the critical questions: Was Babbitt’s death justified, or did the system fail to deliver justice? And why has her shooter never been held accountable?

Ashli Babbitt – CBS News

The Incident: What Led to Ashli Babbitt’s Death?

Ashli Babbitt joined the group of protesters who stormed the U.S. Capitol, convinced that the 2020 election had been fraudulent. Footage from that day shows her at the forefront of a crowd, attempting to enter a restricted area. Capitol Police Officer Lt. Michael Byrd stood on the other side of a barricaded door with a gun drawn. Babbitt, unarmed and unaware, tried to climb through the broken window when Byrd shot her at close range.

The Video: Examining the Footage

Video evidence shows Ashli Babbitt standing near the window before attempting to climb through. She made no threatening gestures and held no weapon. Just as she began to climb, Lt. Byrd fired a single shot, killing her instantly. The video has sparked outrage among many, particularly those who argue she posed no immediate threat.

Supporters of Babbitt insist the video proves she wasn’t given any verbal warning and was shot without cause. To them, the footage paints a clear picture of excessive force, especially given the close proximity and lack of any aggressive actions from Babbitt.

Why Was the Shooter Never Prosecuted?

After the Department of Justice investigated the shooting, it cleared Lt. Byrd of any wrongdoing. The DOJ concluded that Byrd acted reasonably under the circumstances, citing the volatile environment and the perceived danger to lawmakers. But many Americans, particularly conservatives, question this conclusion. Why was Byrd never held accountable in a court of law?

Babbitt’s family, along with numerous critics, argues that Byrd’s actions never faced sufficient scrutiny. The decision not to convene a grand jury or hold a public trial has fueled widespread frustration. Critics believe political considerations may have influenced the decision to clear Byrd without holding him to the same standards applied to other police-involved shootings.

The $30 Million Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Babbitt’s family has filed a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. government, claiming her killing was unjustified. The lawsuit contends that the officers on duty could have employed non-lethal measures to subdue Babbitt instead of using deadly force. They argue Byrd fired his weapon without issuing a warning or attempting to de-escalate the situation.

The lawsuit, set for trial in July 2026, promises to be a significant moment for this case. It will put the government’s handling of the January 6th events back in the spotlight, raising difficult questions about the use of force and the selective application of justice.

Was Babbitt Really a Threat?

Central to the controversy is whether Ashli Babbitt posed any genuine threat to lawmakers or officers. According to the DOJ, Byrd perceived Babbitt and the crowd as a serious danger, given their attempts to breach the Speaker’s Lobby. But Babbitt was unarmed and made no aggressive moves before being shot. Video footage shows her merely climbing through a window, not charging at officers or wielding a weapon.

Could Byrd have used a taser or pepper spray instead of lethal force? Were there other officers nearby who might have restrained her without resorting to violence? These are the questions that will likely come under close scrutiny during the upcoming trial.

A Double Standard in Justice?

For many conservatives, the death of Ashli Babbitt represents a troubling double standard in American justice. They argue that if Babbitt had been involved in a different type of protest, such as those associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, there would have been an outcry for justice. In their eyes, the system failed Babbitt because of her political beliefs and her involvement in the January 6th protests.

Conservative commentators have also criticized the media’s portrayal of Babbitt as an “insurrectionist.” They argue this label has been used to justify her death, obscuring the fact that she was an unarmed American citizen exercising her right to protest.

The Upcoming Trial: What’s at Stake?

The wrongful death trial, set for July 2026, will reignite debates over the use of force, government accountability, and political bias. Ashli Babbitt’s family will have their day in court, and many Americans will be watching closely. Will the trial expose weaknesses in the Capitol Police’s handling of the protests? Or will it reaffirm the DOJ’s decision that Byrd acted within his rights?

If Babbitt’s family wins the case, it could have far-reaching implications, not only for the government but also for the broader conversation about how law enforcement handles protests. On the other hand, if the government prevails, it could solidify the narrative that Babbitt’s death was an unfortunate but justified consequence of that chaotic day.

Was Justice Truly Served?

The killing of Ashli Babbitt forces us to ask whether justice was served or denied. The decision to clear Lt. Byrd of wrongdoing has left many feeling that Babbitt’s death went unanswered. Her family’s wrongful death lawsuit could be their last opportunity to seek accountability.

At its core, this case is about more than just one woman’s tragic death—it’s about the rule of law, accountability for government officials, and the equal application of justice, regardless of political beliefs. As the country waits for the trial, the debate over Babbitt’s death continues to divide the nation.

Conclusion

Ashli Babbitt’s death and the ensuing legal battles raise fundamental questions about justice in America. Was she wrongfully killed, or was her death a necessary measure to protect others? The trial in 2026 may provide some long-awaited answers, but the scars left by this case—both political and personal—are likely to remain for years to come.

Kamala Harris Skips the Al Smith Dinner: A Costly Mistake?

  By ,

K Harris – CNN 2024

As the sitting Vice President, Kamala Harris recently declined an invitation to the prestigious Al Smith Dinner in New York City, a charity event with deep ties to the Catholic Church. Her decision sparked numerous speculations, with many questioning whether it signals her disregard for Catholic values or simply her discomfort with off-the-cuff speaking. In either case, this move could have severe political consequences, particularly among Catholics and Christians, a voter base that is more influential than many recognize. Could Harris’ absence from the event alienate these critical groups, costing her and the Democratic ticket in the upcoming election?

The Al Smith Dinner: A Catholic Tradition

The Al Smith Dinner has long been a symbol of political civility and unity, bringing together prominent political figures and Catholic leaders. Established in honor of Alfred E. Smith, the first Catholic to be nominated for president, the event has traditionally been a platform for candidates and political leaders to showcase their ability to connect with religious communities while maintaining humor and grace. Declining such an invitation is unusual, particularly for a high-profile political figure like the sitting Vice President.

Why Harris’ Absence Stands Out

The absence of Kamala Harris at this event stands out for several reasons. First, it deviates from the norm; in the past, both Republicans and Democrats have made it a priority to attend, regardless of their personal religious affiliations. The event’s significance transcends religious lines, representing an opportunity to demonstrate respect for the Catholic community’s charitable work and moral influence.

Speculation is rife over why Harris opted to skip this important dinner. Some argue that Harris has a fraught relationship with the Catholic Church, particularly due to her positions on controversial issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage—stances that clash with Catholic doctrine. Others believe her decision may have been driven by a more practical concern: her well-documented difficulties with impromptu public speaking. Her reputation for delivering awkward, sometimes nonsensical “word salad” answers has made her handlers cautious about putting her in situations requiring spontaneity.

Kamala Harris and Catholic Values: A Tense Relationship?

Harris’ stance on key issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage places her at odds with many traditional Catholic values. The Catholic Church remains staunchly opposed to abortion and holds to a conservative definition of marriage. As a strong proponent of abortion rights and LGBTQ+ advocacy, Harris has often found herself in conflict with these views.

Some speculate that this ideological rift may be a driving force behind her decision to skip the event. After all, attending a Catholic event while holding positions antithetical to the Church’s teachings might feel hypocritical, or at least uncomfortable. This is not an entirely far-fetched theory. Throughout her political career, Harris has faced criticism from conservative religious groups who argue that her policies reflect a broader liberal agenda that is dismissive of religious freedoms and moral principles.

The Speaking Issue: Harris’ Struggles with Public Address

However, many observers suggest that Harris’ decision not to attend has less to do with her ideological differences and more to do with her weaknesses as a public speaker. Harris has, on numerous occasions, struggled to articulate her points clearly in unscripted moments. Her speeches are often filled with repetition, vague generalities, and nervous laughter—a pattern that has led to widespread criticism and mockery.

The Al Smith Dinner traditionally involves light-hearted speeches filled with humor and wit. For a politician like Harris, who is often stiff and uneasy in such settings, the pressure to perform could have been a major deterrent. It’s entirely possible that her handlers, aware of her vulnerabilities, advised her to avoid the event altogether. By skipping it, they might have thought they were avoiding an embarrassing moment that could have fueled further criticism of her speaking abilities.

A Missed Opportunity to Connect with Catholic and Christian Voters

Regardless of the reason behind Harris’ absence, the political fallout could be significant. The Catholic vote is not something any candidate can afford to ignore. Catholics make up approximately 20% of the U.S. population, and while the community is diverse, a substantial portion leans conservative, particularly on social issues like abortion. By skipping the Al Smith Dinner, Harris has potentially alienated a significant group of voters who might view her absence as a sign of disrespect or disinterest.

Moreover, the event is not only about connecting with Catholics. Many Christians, even those from different denominations, hold similar views on issues like abortion and traditional family values. These voters are often skeptical of politicians they perceive as dismissive of religious concerns. By opting out of the dinner, Harris may have reinforced the perception that the Democratic Party is out of touch with religious America—a narrative Republicans have been pushing for years.

The Broader Political Ramifications

Harris’ decision to skip the Al Smith Dinner could play into a broader narrative that may harm her in future elections. With President Biden’s age frequently cited as a concern, many voters are looking closely at Harris as the potential next leader of the Democratic Party. Her ability to connect with religious voters—particularly Catholics and Christians—will be crucial in any national campaign.

In 2020, Biden was able to appeal to many Catholic voters, partly because of his own Catholic faith, even though he holds some positions that diverge from Church teachings. Harris, however, does not have the benefit of shared religious identity. Her more liberal views on social issues, combined with a perceived disregard for important religious traditions like the Al Smith Dinner, could cost her and the Democratic Party dearly in the next election cycle.

Conclusion: A Potentially Fatal Mistake

Kamala Harris’ decision to skip the Al Smith Dinner may seem like a small, isolated choice, but it could have far-reaching consequences. Whether driven by ideological conflict or concerns about her public speaking abilities, her absence sends a message—one that could alienate Catholics and Christians who see the event as a bridge between faith and politics.

In an election that will likely be hard-fought and closely contested, every voting bloc counts. By turning her back on an opportunity to engage with a key segment of the electorate, Harris risks deepening the divide between herself and voters whose values she has already alienated. This could be a costly mistake for both her and the Democratic Party as they look toward the future.

Why This Matters: The Consequences of One-Sided Education

  By ,

An education system that only promotes one side of the political spectrum does a disservice to students and to society. Universities are supposed to be places where ideas are challenged and debated, not where students are spoon-fed one version of the truth. When students are only exposed to progressive ideologies, they become less equipped to critically evaluate opposing viewpoints, and democracy suffers.

Harvard University

Creating an Intellectual Echo Chamber

By stifling conservative thought, universities create intellectual echo chambers that limit true critical engagement. This lack of ideological diversity is not only unfair to conservative students but also detrimental to liberal ones. If students never encounter opposition to their ideas, how can they refine their arguments or understand the full complexity of an issue?

A Conservative Argument: Why Equal Representation is Essential

Conservatives believe that a balanced academic environment would better prepare students for the real world, where political diversity is a fact of life. Conservatives value individualism, free markets, and limited government—values that are often dismissed or even demonized in liberal-dominated academic settings. The conservative worldview has much to offer in fields like economics, history, and political science, yet it is rarely given a platform in today’s universities.

Freedom of Thought

One of the core tenets of conservatism is the belief in individual freedom—freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom from government overreach. A balanced faculty would ensure that students are not just taught what to think but how to think. When universities promote one ideology over another, they limit intellectual freedom, essentially indoctrinating students rather than educating them.

Is Private Schooling the Only Answer?

As public education at both the high school and university levels becomes increasingly dominated by liberal ideologies, many parents and conservative students are beginning to wonder if private education is the only option left for balanced, ideologically diverse schooling. Private schools, particularly religious institutions, tend to have more freedom in designing curricula and hiring faculty who align with their values, including conservative principles.

Homeschooling and Charter Schools

Another option that is growing in popularity among conservatives is homeschooling or charter schools, which often offer more control over the curriculum. Homeschooling allows parents to ensure that their children are not being subjected to progressive indoctrination and that they are being taught conservative values from a young age. Charter schools, while still part of the public system, often operate with more flexibility and can offer alternative viewpoints that are absent in traditional public schools.

What Can Be Done? Possible Solutions

While private schooling and homeschooling may offer some reprieve, we should not give up on public education altogether. There are several potential solutions to the current imbalance in academia that conservatives should advocate for:

1. Hiring More Conservative Faculty

One clear solution is to ensure that conservative professors are hired in equal numbers to their liberal counterparts. University hiring practices should aim for a balanced representation of political viewpoints to create a truly diverse academic environment.

2. Curriculum Reform

Another important step is to reform high school and college curricula to include a wider range of political and ideological perspectives. Textbooks and reading lists should reflect conservative thinkers as well as liberal ones. This would prevent the one-sided presentation of history, economics, and political science that currently dominates.

3. Free Speech Protections on Campus

Conservatives should push for stronger protections for free speech on campus. Students and faculty should not face repercussions for expressing conservative ideas. By ensuring that universities remain places of open debate, we can counteract the current trend of liberal indoctrination.

4. Parental Involvement

Parents must take an active role in their children’s education, particularly in high school where indoctrination often begins. By staying informed about what is being taught and encouraging critical thinking at home, parents can help offset the progressive bias in public education.

Conclusion: The Future of American Education

The dominance of liberal ideologies in academia is a serious issue that must be addressed if we are to preserve intellectual diversity and freedom of thought in our education system. Equal representation of conservative and liberal faculty members is essential for creating an environment where students can engage with a variety of ideas and develop their own informed opinions.

While private schools and homeschooling offer short-term solutions, the ultimate goal should be to reform public education so that it no longer serves as a vehicle for progressive indoctrination. Conservatives must demand that their ideas be represented fairly in the classroom, from high school to university, for the sake of both current and future generations.

Who is Running the Country?

  By ,

For the past few years, concerns about the leadership of President Joe Biden have swirled. These concerns were initially dismissed as partisan attacks, but recent events have given even staunch supporters reason to wonder: Who is actually running the country? The latest revelation, that First Lady Jill Biden reportedly led a Cabinet meeting while her husband was elsewhere, raises serious questions about whether President Biden is still capable of performing his duties. This situation has compounded speculation that others—notably senior advisors, bureaucrats, and unelected officials—may be the ones wielding real power in Washington.

In light of these concerns, it’s time to ask whether Vice President Kamala Harris should step in as president now, rather than waiting until January 2025. Doing so would not only address the immediate issue of leadership but also prove, once and for all, whether Harris is truly capable of running the country.

Biden’s Fitness to Lead: The Growing Concerns

Joe Biden was elected on a promise to restore normalcy to the White House after the turbulent Trump years. Yet, over the past two years, there have been increasing signs that President Biden is struggling to fulfill the basic requirements of his office. His public appearances are limited, his speeches are riddled with errors, and his interactions with the media are tightly controlled. These issues have gone beyond mere gaffes; they suggest a president who may not be mentally or physically up to the demands of his role.

The claim that Jill Biden led a Cabinet meeting is particularly troubling. The First Lady is not an elected official and has no constitutional authority to govern. Her involvement in such a crucial function raises red flags. If the president’s spouse is stepping in to fill gaps in leadership, it’s a clear indication that something is deeply wrong.

For over a year, there have been rumors that key decisions are being made by senior advisors or unelected officials rather than the president himself. Whether it’s Ron Klain, President Biden’s Chief of Staff, or other high-level officials, there is a growing sense that the person sitting in the Oval Office is no longer the one making critical choices. And now, with reports of the First Lady’s involvement, these rumors are no longer the stuff of conspiracy theory—they are rapidly becoming mainstream concerns.

More troubling is the administration’s continued assurances that President Biden is fully capable of performing his duties. If that were the case, why would Jill Biden be stepping into roles that are clearly meant for the president? Why does the administration continue to limit Biden’s public appearances and shield him from unscripted press interactions? The American people deserve answers. More importantly, they deserve leadership.

Harris: The 25th Amendment and Her Role

K. Harris

Nathan Howard/AP Photo

The U.S. Constitution provides a mechanism for situations just like this one. The 25th Amendment allows for the transfer of power to the vice president when a president is unable to perform his duties. While it has been invoked in temporary situations, such as when a president undergoes surgery, it has never been used to permanently remove a sitting president. However, the current situation may demand that it be seriously considered.

Under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can declare that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. If such a declaration were made, Kamala Harris would assume the role of acting president. This would not be a hostile takeover but rather a constitutional safeguard designed to ensure that the country has a leader who is fully capable of carrying out the duties of the presidency.

Many conservatives may bristle at the idea of Kamala Harris stepping into the presidency. Harris has been a divisive figure, both within her party and across the nation. Her performance as vice president has been lackluster at best. She has been criticized for mishandling key assignments, such as addressing the border crisis, and for her poor communication skills during interviews and speeches. In many ways, Harris has struggled to prove that she is ready to lead.

But the country cannot afford a president in name only, especially in these perilous times. From rising inflation to growing global tensions with China and Russia, the United States is facing real challenges that demand strong, decisive leadership. Allowing Harris to step in now, rather than waiting until January 2025, would at least resolve the question of whether she is truly capable of leading the nation. If she proves competent, the country can move forward with a clear understanding of her abilities. If she fails, it would become abundantly clear that the 2024 election will require a fresh face on the Democratic ticket—and possibly a more robust conservative candidate.

The Conservative Case for Early Action

Many on the right might be tempted to let Biden ride out the remainder of his term, hoping that his continued failures will make it easier to defeat him—or his eventual successor—in 2024. While that may seem like sound political strategy, it is not in the best interest of the country. The United States cannot afford to coast through the next two years with ineffective leadership. The stakes are too high. In fact, pushing for Harris to step in sooner rather than later could serve conservative interests in several key ways.

  1. Holding the Biden Administration Accountable: If President Biden is no longer fit to serve, the American people deserve to know it. Continuing to allow unelected figures to steer the country in his stead undermines the very foundations of representative democracy. Conservatives should demand transparency and accountability—two things that have been sorely lacking from the Biden administration.
  2. Forcing Harris to Prove Herself: Harris has largely been kept on the sidelines during Biden’s presidency, leading to speculation that even her own party does not have faith in her ability to lead. Allowing her to step in as president now would give her the opportunity to either prove herself or fail spectacularly. If Harris flounders under the weight of the presidency, it would provide conservatives with concrete evidence that the Democratic Party is in disarray and unfit to lead.
  3. Refocusing the Political Landscape: By invoking the 25th Amendment now, conservatives can refocus the national conversation on leadership and competence. While Harris is an unpopular figure, she is at least a known quantity. Conservatives could use this opportunity to emphasize the importance of strong leadership, drawing a sharp contrast between Harris and potential Republican candidates for 2024, such as Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump.
  4. Avoiding a Power Vacuum: The current situation, where unelected officials or even the First Lady are allegedly making key decisions, creates a dangerous power vacuum. This lack of leadership can have real consequences on both the national and global stage. Instability in the executive branch emboldens America’s adversaries, weakens its alliances, and sows uncertainty in the economy. A clear transfer of power to Harris, while not ideal from a conservative perspective, would at least restore some semblance of order and accountability to the White House.

A Moment of Clarity

Ultimately, the question of who is running the country is one that must be answered for the sake of the American people. If President Biden is no longer capable of performing his duties, the 25th Amendment provides a clear, constitutionally sound path forward. While Kamala Harris may not be the president conservatives want, allowing her to step into the role now would force the issue into the open. It would either confirm that Harris is a capable leader or expose the administration’s failures even further. Either way, the country would benefit from greater transparency and accountability at the highest levels of government.

The conservative case for early action is simple: America cannot afford another two years of uncertainty and weak leadership. Whether it is addressing the border crisis, responding to inflation, or dealing with growing threats from China and Russia, the challenges facing the nation require a president who is fully in charge. If President Biden cannot fulfill that role, then Kamala Harris must be given the chance to prove whether she can. And if she cannot, it will only strengthen the conservative argument for real change in 2024.

It’s time to put the rumors to rest. Let Harris take the reins now and prove, one way or another, whether she is truly capable of running the country.

Trump’s Booming Economy vs. Biden’s Inflation Crisis – Trump or Harris has the better plan?

  By , ,

Top 10 Economic Metrics for Comparing Biden and Trump

1. GDP Growth

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): The U.S. economy saw consistent growth with a 2.3% increase in GDP. Pre-COVID, Trump’s policies—particularly tax cuts and deregulation—were credited with stimulating economic expansion.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): The GDP is recovering post-COVID but at a slower rate compared to Trump’s third year. Growth was around 2.1% amid inflation concerns and the Fed’s aggressive interest rate hikes.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better, as his year avoided inflation spikes and had steady growth without the high levels of economic uncertainty.

2. Inflation

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): Inflation was stable and low, consistently below 2%.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): Inflation reached 40-year highs in 2022 before easing slightly in 2023. Although it has come down, it still remains elevated compared to pre-pandemic levels.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better with low inflation during his tenure.

3. Unemployment Rate

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): Unemployment was at a 50-year low of 3.5%. The tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks were credited with boosting business confidence and hiring.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): Unemployment is relatively low at 3.8%, although there are concerns about labor force participation and the number of people working part-time for economic reasons.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better as his policies had led to historically low unemployment without inflation concerns.

4. Labor Force Participation

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): The labor force participation rate was 63.2%, showing signs of improvement after a decade of decline.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): Participation has not fully rebounded post-pandemic and remains around 62.8%.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better in driving up labor force engagement.

5. Wage Growth

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): Real wages grew at a steady pace, with significant gains for lower-income workers.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): While nominal wages have risen, inflation has eroded much of those gains, leading to stagnation in real wage growth.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better, as inflation didn’t undercut wage gains.

6. Stock Market Performance

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): The stock market experienced a robust bull run, with the S&P 500 gaining around 28.9%.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): The market is volatile with concerns over rising interest rates, inflation, and a potential recession. S&P growth was around 7% YTD, below Trump’s third year.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better, with stronger investor confidence and returns.

7. Federal Debt and Deficit

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): The deficit rose to $984 billion due to the tax cuts and increased military spending, but overall debt-to-GDP was stable around 79%.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): The national debt crossed $33 trillion, with higher deficits exacerbated by post-COVID spending, Ukraine aid, and domestic programs. Debt-to-GDP ratio is over 120%.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better in managing debt relative to GDP, though both faced challenges.

8. Energy Independence

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): The U.S. became a net exporter of energy for the first time in decades, driven by deregulation and support for fossil fuel industries.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): Biden’s administration has emphasized green energy, leading to concerns over energy prices and domestic oil production. Energy independence has decreased.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better by bolstering energy independence through traditional energy sources.

9. Business Confidence and Investment

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): Business confidence was high, driven by corporate tax cuts and deregulation, which also boosted capital investment.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): Business confidence is weaker, with concerns over higher taxes, inflation, and regulatory uncertainty, especially around environmental policy.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better due to his pro-business policies.

10. Trade Deficits

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): Despite his trade war with China, the overall trade deficit grew slightly. However, Trump’s tariffs were meant to protect American jobs, especially in manufacturing.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): The trade deficit has widened further, though part of this is due to supply chain disruptions and post-COVID recovery dynamics.
  • Verdict: Neither performed exceptionally well, but Trump’s protectionist stance aimed at boosting domestic industry, while Biden’s policies haven’t stemmed the growing deficit.

Kamala Harris’s Economic Plans (if any)

As Vice President, Kamala Harris has focused largely on areas like healthcare, voting rights, and social justice, but there have been few specifics about her independent economic policies. However, as part of the Biden administration, Harris generally supports:

  1. Furthering Green Energy Initiatives: Harris backs investment in renewable energy as a key plank of the administration’s economic approach. She supports policies designed to move the U.S. away from fossil fuels, although these have met with criticism from conservatives over potential job losses in the energy sector.
  2. Expanded Childcare and Social Programs: Harris has been a strong advocate for programs aimed at improving childcare access and affordability, which she argues will allow more parents, particularly women, to participate in the workforce.
  3. Taxation: Harris supports Biden’s tax plan, which seeks to increase taxes on corporations and wealthier Americans. Critics argue this could hurt business investment and job creation.

In summary, Harris lacks a clearly articulated economic platform beyond her role in the Biden administration’s policies, which center on climate change and equity.

Trump’s Economic Plan for 2024

Donald Trump, seeking to return to the presidency, has outlined several key elements for his economic plan should he win the election in 2024:

  1. Tax Cuts 2.0: Trump has signaled his desire for another round of tax cuts, particularly aimed at middle-income Americans and businesses to drive investment, growth, and job creation.
  2. Deregulation: Trump has consistently advocated for reducing regulatory burdens on businesses, especially in industries like energy and manufacturing, to promote growth. He has been critical of Biden’s green energy policies, pledging to restore America’s energy dominance.
  3. America First Trade Policies: Trump would likely continue his “America First” trade policy, aiming to renegotiate trade deals and reduce the U.S. reliance on China. This could involve tariffs or other protectionist measures to strengthen domestic manufacturing.
  4. Cutting Government Spending: Trump has talked about addressing the national debt and deficit by reducing government spending, although specifics on which areas would face cuts are still unclear. His past approach focused more on growing the economy than making cuts.
  5. Energy Independence: Trump would push for renewed domestic fossil fuel production, cutting back on the Biden administration’s regulations on oil and gas to restore the U.S. as a net energy exporter.

In summary, Trump’s plan emphasizes tax cuts, deregulation, energy independence, and trade policies to drive economic growth, contrasting with Biden-Harris’s focus on green energy and social spending.

Conclusion

From a conservative perspective, Trump’s third year was stronger economically across most metrics compared to Biden’s third year. The key areas of GDP growth, inflation, unemployment, business confidence, and energy independence all favored Trump. Moving forward, Harris’s economic focus aligns with Biden’s policies but lacks a detailed independent platform, while Trump’s economic proposals suggest a return to the pro-business, deregulation, and tax-cutting agenda that defined his first term.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI): A Well-Meaning Policy That Undermines Competence in Government and Business

  By , ,
In recent years, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have become nearly ubiquitous across both the private and public sectors in the United States. These programs are designed to ensure that people from traditionally underrepresented groups—whether based on race, gender, or other characteristics—have more opportunities and are promoted as a means to correct historical injustices and create fairer workplaces. On its face, DEI seems like a noble and progressive endeavor, promising to expand opportunities for minorities and create a more inclusive society. However, many conservatives argue that DEI policies, when implemented poorly, can do more harm than good by undermining meritocracy, creating perverse incentives, and setting people up for failure.

From air traffic controllers to corporate boardrooms, DEI programs are now entrenched in some of the most critical positions in the nation, raising concerns about whether this emphasis on diversity is displacing an emphasis on competence.

DEI and the Peter Principle: A Recipe for Failure

One of the key conservative critiques of DEI initiatives is that they often prioritize identity over qualifications. This can lead to what is known as the Peter Principle, where individuals are promoted based on factors other than merit until they reach a level of incompetence. The Peter Principle is the concept that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their “level of incompetence”—that is, they are promoted based on their performance in their current role rather than their ability to succeed in the next one.

In the context of DEI, the concern is that individuals from underrepresented groups may be elevated to positions they are not fully prepared for, not because they are the most qualified candidate, but because they meet certain diversity quotas. This is not to say that individuals from minority groups are inherently unqualified. The issue is that when DEI becomes a primary focus, companies and government institutions risk prioritizing diversity at the expense of competence.

In such cases, individuals who are not fully qualified may struggle in their roles, leading to poor outcomes for the organization and for the individual themselves. Rather than empowering minority candidates, this approach can set them up for failure. Moreover, it can breed resentment and frustration among more qualified individuals who are passed over, leading to a toxic workplace culture where merit and hard work are devalued.

The Case of Air Traffic Controllers and Pilots

One of the most concerning examples of DEI in action involves the nation’s air traffic controllers and pilots. These are roles where mistakes can have life-or-death consequences. Yet, recent reports indicate that DEI is playing a role in the hiring and promotion of individuals in these positions.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has implemented diversity hiring initiatives that have sparked controversy, particularly in the selection process for air traffic controllers. Critics argue that prioritizing diversity over competence in such a critical field is a dangerous gamble. The role of an air traffic controller requires immense skill, precision, and the ability to handle high-pressure situations. Even a minor error can lead to catastrophic results.

The same holds true for pilots. While airlines have also embraced DEI initiatives, there are concerns that lowering the bar for diversity could compromise safety. Pilots need to undergo rigorous training, testing, and evaluation to ensure they are capable of handling emergencies and safely guiding passengers to their destination. If DEI initiatives result in less-qualified individuals being put in the cockpit, the potential for disaster increases.

In both of these examples, the primary concern is not with diversity itself, but with the possibility that DEI programs are being used to sidestep merit-based hiring and promotions in favor of filling diversity quotas. When the primary qualification for a job is a person’s race or gender, rather than their skills and expertise, the entire system suffers.

DEI: A Counterproductive Approach

At its core, DEI is intended to provide opportunities to individuals who have historically been marginalized or underrepresented. However, when it is implemented in a heavy-handed manner, it can actually reinforce negative stereotypes and create a backlash. If people are consistently promoted or hired into roles for which they are not qualified, it perpetuates the narrative that individuals from underrepresented groups are less competent—a narrative that DEI is supposedly designed to dismantle.

Moreover, DEI initiatives can create a climate of divisiveness within organizations. By focusing on identity rather than qualifications, these programs can foster resentment among employees who feel they are being unfairly passed over. This can lead to a toxic workplace culture where individuals are pitted against one another based on their race, gender, or other identity markers, rather than working together as a cohesive team.

Additionally, DEI policies can incentivize companies to engage in what is sometimes referred to as “check-the-box” diversity. In these cases, organizations implement diversity initiatives not because they believe in the value of a diverse workforce, but because they want to appear progressive or avoid legal challenges. This performative approach does little to address real inequities in the workplace and can actually hinder the development of true inclusion.

Reversing the Trend: A Return to Meritocracy

So, what can be done to reverse the trend of DEI programs that prioritize identity over competence? The answer lies in restoring a true merit-based approach to hiring and promotions. Meritocracy—where individuals are evaluated based on their skills, qualifications, and performance—remains the fairest and most effective way to ensure that the most qualified individuals are placed in critical roles.

  1. Redefine Diversity to Include Diversity of Thought: One of the primary weaknesses of current DEI initiatives is that they often focus too narrowly on race, gender, and other visible characteristics. Instead, organizations should emphasize diversity of thought, experience, and perspective. A workforce that includes individuals with different educational backgrounds, work experiences, and worldviews is likely to be more innovative and better equipped to solve complex problems.
  2. Implement Blind Hiring Practices: To ensure that the most qualified candidates are hired, organizations should consider implementing blind hiring practices. This involves removing identifying information—such as names, genders, and ethnic backgrounds—from resumes during the initial screening process. By focusing solely on a candidate’s qualifications and experience, blind hiring practices can help eliminate bias from the hiring process and ensure that the most qualified individuals are selected.
  3. Focus on Skills and Competencies: Rather than prioritizing diversity for diversity’s sake, organizations should focus on skills and competencies. This means designing hiring processes that rigorously evaluate a candidate’s ability to perform the tasks required for the role. For example, in the case of air traffic controllers and pilots, candidates should be subjected to rigorous testing and simulation exercises to ensure they have the necessary skills to perform their duties effectively and safely.
  4. Promote from Within Based on Performance: One of the reasons the Peter Principle occurs is that individuals are often promoted based on factors other than their performance in their current role. To combat this, organizations should establish clear metrics for success and promote individuals based on their demonstrated abilities, not on diversity quotas. Performance-based promotions ensure that employees are fully prepared for their next role and help prevent individuals from being set up for failure.
  5. Reject Quotas and Mandates: DEI programs that rely on quotas or mandates often result in tokenism, where individuals are hired or promoted simply to meet diversity targets. This is not only unfair to more qualified candidates but also detrimental to the individuals who are selected based on their identity rather than their abilities. By rejecting quotas, organizations can focus on building a truly inclusive culture that values merit and performance above all else.

Conclusion

While Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives may be well-intentioned, they are often counterproductive in practice. By prioritizing identity over qualifications, DEI programs risk undermining the very meritocracy that has allowed so many people, including minorities, to succeed in the first place. Whether in business or government, the key to reversing this trend lies in a return to merit-based hiring and promotions. By focusing on skills, competencies, and performance, rather than diversity quotas, organizations can ensure that the most qualified individuals are placed in critical roles, thereby benefiting everyone.

In fields like air traffic control and aviation, where lives are at stake, the dangers of allowing DEI to override competence are particularly stark. If businesses and government institutions are to thrive, they must abandon a check-the-box approach to diversity and focus on what truly matters: hiring the best and brightest individuals for the job, regardless of their race or gender. By doing so, we can create a society that values merit, fosters innovation, and ultimately ensures that everyone—regardless of background—has the opportunity to succeed.

Higher Taxes: A Short-Sighted Strategy That Will Hurt Everyone Except the Government

  By ,

The debate around taxation has heated up once again, with proposals on the table that would impose new taxes on businesses, the wealthy, and even on unrealized capital gains—essentially taxing wealth before it is actually earned or sold. While the rhetoric behind these policies is framed around fairness and economic equality, a deeper dive into the economics suggests that these taxes will do far more harm than good.

In fact, these policies are likely to have damaging effects on economic growth, consumer spending, and job creation. Ironically, even the government itself may not see the tax windfall it expects, as these measures can stifle the very economic activity that generates tax revenue in the first place. Let’s explore why higher taxes may ultimately hurt all levels of society and fail to deliver the expected benefits.

The Tax Burden Always Falls on the Consumer

At first glance, higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy seem like a way to raise revenue without hurting the average citizen. However, this approach ignores a fundamental truth about how the economy works: businesses don’t just absorb additional costs—they pass them on to consumers.

Whether it’s through higher prices for goods and services or reduced wages and benefits for employees, corporations will find ways to maintain profitability. In the end, it’s not the corporations that suffer, but ordinary consumers, especially those who are already struggling to make ends meet. Every additional dollar in taxes can translate into higher grocery bills, pricier gas, and fewer job opportunities.

Capitalism and Economic Growth Depend on Reinvestment

Capitalism thrives on the reinvestment of earnings. Companies that are allowed to retain more of their profits are more likely to reinvest in their operations, whether that means upgrading equipment, expanding into new markets, or hiring additional employees. These actions spur economic growth, create jobs, and improve living standards for everyone involved.

When taxes are increased, however, businesses have fewer resources to reinvest. This slows down economic growth, and the job market weakens as companies cut back on expansion. In this environment, it’s not just the wealthy who feel the pinch; it’s also the workers who depend on a robust economy for employment.

Unrealized Capital Gains: A Dangerous Precedent

One of the most troubling aspects of the current tax proposals is the idea of taxing unrealized capital gains. Typically, capital gains are taxed when an asset is sold, meaning that the owner actually receives a profit. Unrealized capital gains, however, are merely paper gains—an increase in the value of an asset that hasn’t been sold.

Taxing these unrealized gains is not only unprecedented but dangerous. Markets are volatile, and what looks like a gain today can easily turn into a loss tomorrow. By taxing paper gains, the government is essentially demanding money that the taxpayer doesn’t even have in hand. This could force individuals and businesses to sell off assets prematurely to cover their tax bill, distorting markets and damaging long-term investment strategies.

The Ripple Effect: Less Investment, Fewer Jobs

In an interconnected economy, every action has a ripple effect. Higher taxes on businesses and the wealthy reduce their ability to invest in new ventures, cutting off a key source of capital for job creation. Small businesses, which often rely on investment from wealthier individuals and large corporations, will be particularly hard hit.

As investment dries up, so does innovation. Fewer startups will be able to get off the ground, and existing businesses may struggle to remain competitive. The result is fewer jobs, less upward mobility, and ultimately, less economic freedom for everyone.

Consumer Spending: The Real Engine of the Economy

At the heart of any thriving economy is consumer spending. When people have disposable income, they spend it on goods and services, which in turn stimulates production and job growth. Conversely, when taxes go up and people are left with less money in their pockets, they spend less.

The danger here is clear: if consumer spending falls, businesses see their revenues drop. This leads to lower profits, further job cuts, and a slowdown in the overall economy. In such a scenario, the government may not even see the tax windfalls it expects from these new levies. After all, if businesses aren’t making money and consumers aren’t spending, there’s very little taxable income left to draw from.

Government Spending vs. Private Sector Growth

Proponents of higher taxes often argue that government programs funded by these taxes can help spur economic growth and benefit the wider population. However, history has shown that government spending is rarely as efficient or effective as private sector investment.

While there are certainly areas where government intervention is necessary, an over-reliance on tax revenues to fund massive spending programs often leads to waste, inefficiency, and bureaucracy. In contrast, private companies operate in a competitive environment where inefficiency is punished, and innovation is rewarded.

Simply put, private sector growth is a far more reliable engine for long-term prosperity than government spending.

The Inevitable Consequences of High Taxes

The consequences of higher taxes are predictable. When businesses are taxed more, they invest less, hire fewer workers, and raise prices to cover their costs. When the wealthy are taxed more, they invest less in the economy, reducing the capital available for startups and business expansion. When consumers are left with less disposable income due to higher prices and stagnant wages, they spend less, further slowing the economy.

In the end, it’s not just the wealthy who suffer under these policies—it’s everyone. Job creation slows down, wages stagnate, and the cost of living rises. All the while, the government may find itself collecting less revenue than it anticipated as the economy contracts.

A Better Path Forward: Low Taxes, More Growth

Rather than pursuing short-sighted policies that punish success and stifle economic growth, a better approach is to foster an environment where businesses and individuals are encouraged to invest, spend, and create jobs. This can be achieved through a combination of lower taxes, deregulation, and policies that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation.

The evidence is clear: economies grow best when individuals and businesses are free to keep more of their hard-earned money and reinvest it in the economy. High taxes, on the other hand, are a recipe for stagnation and decline.

Conclusion: The Perils of Over-Taxation

While the rhetoric surrounding higher taxes may sound appealing to some, the economic reality is far different. These taxes may provide a temporary boost in government revenues, but they will ultimately lead to slower growth, fewer jobs, and lower living standards for everyone.

Rather than looking to the government for solutions, we should trust the free market and the power of capitalism to create the jobs and opportunities that lead to prosperity. In the end, a strong economy benefits everyone—not just the government.

Comparing the Policy Platforms of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump: Key Differences in 2024

  By ,

As the 2024 U.S. Presidential election looms, two prominent figures emerge with significantly different visions for the country: Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Both have outlined their plans in speeches, public statements, and policy documents. Below, I’ll compare the top six policy areas where their platforms diverge and explore how they plan to achieve their objectives. These are based on their publicly stated goals and policy outlines.

1. Economy and Jobs

Kamala Harris: Building a Resilient Economy through Worker Support

Harris has advocated for a “worker-centric” economy, building on the Biden administration’s efforts. She emphasizes creating jobs through infrastructure investments and supporting innovation in clean energy. Key points include:

  • Expanding the Child Tax Credit: Harris strongly supports the expansion of the Child Tax Credit, which provided financial relief to families during the pandemic. She’s committed to making this permanent to help middle- and low-income families.
  • Infrastructure and Clean Energy Jobs: In line with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed during the Biden administration, Harris aims to create millions of jobs by upgrading America’s roads, bridges, and water systems, while investing in renewable energy to reduce carbon emissions.
  • Minimum Wage Increase: Harris supports raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, saying that it’s time to ensure all workers can earn a livable wage.

In her own words: “We need an economy that works for working people — an economy that rewards hard work and builds wealth for families across the country.”

Donald Trump: America First, Deregulation, and Job Creation

Trump continues to emphasize his “America First” economic vision. He promises to bring back manufacturing jobs, reduce taxes, and slash regulations. His key initiatives include:

  • Tax Cuts 2.0: Trump has hinted at further tax cuts to benefit both individuals and corporations. He believes that lowering taxes spurs economic growth and incentivizes investment in the U.S.
  • Energy Independence: Trump vows to make the U.S. energy-independent again by ramping up oil, gas, and coal production, arguing that cheap energy is vital to the economy.
  • Deregulation: Trump plans to roll back regulations that he says stifle business growth, particularly in manufacturing and energy. His administration claimed to have cut eight regulations for every new one during his first term, and he promises to continue this trend.

In his words: “We will make America wealthy again by cutting taxes, removing job-killing regulations, and bringing our manufacturing jobs back from overseas.”

2. Immigration

Kamala Harris: Pathways to Citizenship and Humane Enforcement

Harris supports comprehensive immigration reform, including pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Her main points include:

  • Pathway for DREAMers: Harris is a strong advocate for legislation that provides a pathway to citizenship for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients and other undocumented immigrants.
  • Asylum Reform: She supports streamlining the asylum process, ensuring that those fleeing violence and persecution can apply more easily.
  • Border Security with Humane Policies: Harris has stated that while border security is important, she wants to enforce immigration laws without separating families or detaining children.

Harris: “Immigration reform is about fairness, security, and making sure that every person has a fair shot at contributing to this great country.”

Donald Trump: Border Wall and Tough Enforcement

Trump’s stance on immigration has remained largely unchanged from his first term. His plan centers on border security, strict enforcement, and reducing both illegal and legal immigration:

  • Finish the Border Wall: Trump vows to complete the construction of the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, citing it as essential for national security.
  • Zero Tolerance on Illegal Immigration: Trump plans to reintroduce policies that quickly deport undocumented immigrants, promising to restore his administration’s strict measures, such as the “Remain in Mexico” policy.
  • Limit Legal Immigration: Trump has advocated for a merit-based immigration system to reduce the overall number of immigrants allowed into the country, emphasizing that the U.S. should prioritize highly skilled workers.

Trump: “We will stop illegal immigration, finish the wall, and make our borders strong again.”

3. Healthcare

Kamala Harris: Expanding Healthcare Access

Harris supports strengthening the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and expanding access to healthcare. Her main priorities include:

  • Public Option: Harris has voiced support for adding a public option to the ACA, allowing Americans to buy into a government-backed health plan if they choose.
  • Lowering Prescription Drug Costs: Harris supports policies that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a measure she argues will bring down costs for consumers.
  • Maternal Healthcare: One of Harris’s signature policy focuses has been reducing the high maternal mortality rates, particularly among Black women. She advocates for increased funding to improve maternal healthcare services.

Harris: “Healthcare is a right, not a privilege. We must expand access to affordable healthcare for every American.”

Donald Trump: Private Market Solutions and ACA Repeal

Trump continues to advocate for market-driven healthcare reforms, focused on lowering costs through competition. His key goals include:

  • Repeal the Affordable Care Act: Trump remains committed to repealing the ACA, believing it imposes unnecessary burdens on businesses and leads to higher premiums for individuals.
  • Health Savings Accounts (HSAs): Trump promotes expanding HSAs, allowing Americans to save more tax-free money to spend on healthcare.
  • Price Transparency: Trump continues to advocate for greater price transparency in healthcare to encourage competition and reduce costs. His administration introduced some price transparency rules during his first term, which he promises to expand.

Trump: “We will deliver great healthcare by getting government out of the way and letting patients and doctors make decisions.”

4. Climate and Energy

Kamala Harris: Climate Action and Clean Energy

Harris prioritizes fighting climate change and advancing renewable energy solutions. Her primary policy objectives include:

  • Green New Deal Support: Harris has voiced support for the Green New Deal framework, aiming for a 100% clean energy economy by 2050.
  • Climate Justice: Harris emphasizes the need for environmental justice, ensuring that low-income and minority communities, who are often disproportionately affected by pollution, receive support through green investments.
  • Carbon Emissions Reductions: Harris has advocated for stronger emissions reductions and has promised to re-engage the U.S. in global climate agreements like the Paris Accord.

Harris: “Climate change is an existential threat, and we must act boldly to protect our planet and our people.”

Donald Trump: Energy Independence and Fossil Fuels

Trump’s energy policy revolves around maximizing domestic production of fossil fuels and pulling back regulations on energy producers:

  • Promote Oil, Gas, and Coal: Trump plans to increase oil, natural gas, and coal production, rolling back regulations that limit fossil fuel extraction.
  • Withdraw from Climate Accords: Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement during his first term and has expressed no intention of rejoining it. He argues that such agreements unfairly burden the U.S. economy.
  • End Renewable Energy Subsidies: Trump argues that the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers and has vowed to end subsidies for renewable energy programs.

Trump: “We will restore American energy dominance and bring back jobs by producing the cleanest and cheapest energy in the world.”

5. Criminal Justice Reform

Kamala Harris: Comprehensive Reform

Harris has made criminal justice reform a central part of her platform. Her key initiatives include:

  • End Cash Bail: Harris supports eliminating the cash bail system, which she argues disproportionately affects poor and minority communities.
  • Sentencing Reform: Harris supports reducing mandatory minimum sentences, particularly for non-violent drug offenses.
  • Police Accountability: Harris advocates for greater accountability in law enforcement, including the creation of national standards for the use of force.

Harris: “We need comprehensive criminal justice reform that treats all people equally in the eyes of the law.”

Donald Trump: Law and Order

Trump emphasizes “law and order,” focusing on supporting police and tough-on-crime policies. His main points include:

  • Increase Police Funding: Trump supports increasing funding for police departments and believes in the need to expand law enforcement, not defund it.
  • Tougher Sentences for Violent Crimes: Trump advocates for harsher penalties for violent criminals and repeat offenders, opposing measures to reduce sentences.
  • Oppose Bail Reform: Trump has been critical of bail reform initiatives, arguing that they allow dangerous criminals to be released back into communities.

Trump: “We will stand with our police and stop the radical left’s soft-on-crime policies.”

6. Foreign Policy

Kamala Harris: Multilateralism and Diplomacy

Harris advocates for rebuilding alliances and restoring America’s leadership on the global stage:

  • Rebuild Alliances: Harris supports restoring relationships with NATO allies and working collaboratively on global challenges.
  • Human Rights and Democracy: She has emphasized the need to promote human rights and democracy abroad, focusing on diplomacy over military intervention.
  • China and Russia: Harris supports a tough but balanced approach to countering China’s rise and addressing Russian aggression, using economic pressure and alliances.

Harris: “We must lead with diplomacy and strengthen our alliances to address the challenges of today’s world.”

Donald Trump: America First in Foreign Policy

Trump’s foreign policy emphasizes putting American interests above all else, with a focus on military strength and economic deals:

  • Bring Troops Home: Trump has pledged to end America’s “endless wars” and bring U.S. troops home from conflict zones, focusing instead on protecting the homeland.
  • China Trade War: Trump promises to continue his tough stance on China, using tariffs and economic measures to combat what he calls unfair trade practices.
  • NATO Contributions: Trump has consistently criticized NATO members for not paying their fair share, advocating for increased defense spending from U.S. allies.

Trump: “We will put America first, stop the endless wars, and make sure our allies pay their fair share.”

Conclusion

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump represent starkly different visions for America in 2024. Harris focuses on progressive reforms in healthcare, climate change, and criminal justice, while Trump emphasizes deregulation, tax cuts, and strict immigration enforcement. Both candidates’ platforms reflect their broader political philosophies, with Harris leaning toward government intervention to solve societal problems and Trump favoring free-market solutions and national security measures.

In this election, the choice will likely come down to the voters’ preferences for either continuing progressive policies under Harris or returning to Trump’s vision of “America First” conservatism.

Sources:

  • Kamala Harris speeches, White House documents, and her campaign website
  • Donald Trump speeches, campaign documents, and his public statements

Bias in Plain Sight: ABC Debate Moderators’ Admission Exposes Unfair Targeting of Trump

  By ,

The latest political debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris has raised eyebrows for more reasons than one. The most glaring issue that emerged from the event wasn’t just the clashing of policy perspectives, but the clear bias from the debate moderators. ABC News anchor Linsey Davis, who co-moderated the debate with David Muir, admitted in a post-debate interview why they specifically targeted Trump for fact-checks—while largely ignoring Harris.

This revelation is more than just a footnote in the ever-growing narrative of media bias; it highlights how even debates, a cornerstone of American democracy, can be tilted to favor one side over the other. It wasn’t just the imbalance in fact-checking that was problematic, but the admission that the motivation behind it was rooted in a fear of poor optics for the Democratic Party.

The Setup: Uneven Ground from the Start

According to Linsey Davis, the reason Trump was fact-checked so rigorously was due to concerns about Joe Biden’s performance in a prior debate. In June, Biden’s weak showing raised serious questions about his cognitive fitness for office, stoking fears within the Democratic Party about the viability of his candidacy. The fallout from Biden’s performance led to rumors that his own party wanted him to step down.

This concern apparently drove Davis and Muir to take a different approach when moderating the Trump-Harris debate. Instead of holding both candidates to an even standard, the moderators seemed determined to avoid a repeat of Biden’s disastrous performance by taking special aim at Trump. Davis admitted to the Los Angeles Times that they fact-checked Trump because of the “concerns” raised during the Biden debate, but her reasoning is troubling. Instead of creating a fair forum for all candidates, the moderators preemptively decided to stack the deck against one.

As Davis put it: “People were concerned that statements were allowed to just hang and not [be] disputed by the candidate Biden, at the time, or the moderators.”

The vague wording—“people were concerned” and “statements were allowed”—hides the fact that a decision was made to approach Trump’s statements with heightened scrutiny, while Harris was left unchecked. It’s one thing to hold all candidates accountable, but it’s another to apply different standards to protect one candidate from embarrassment.

A Double Standard in Action

Nowhere was this bias clearer than when Trump brought up the topic of abortion. During the debate, Trump highlighted how some states, including Washington D.C., have zero legal restrictions on abortion—a fact that many conservative voters are acutely aware of. He also referenced Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s infamous comments on post-birth abortion. For many conservatives, this is a critical issue, as the boundaries of abortion policy are not just about access but about fundamental questions of life and morality.

Rather than engaging with the substance of Trump’s claims or allowing Harris to defend her position, Davis stepped in to “fact-check” Trump. She asserted: “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.”

While technically true—killing a baby post-birth is considered murder under U.S. law—the point Trump was making centered on the radical abortion policies some states have adopted, which allow for late-term abortions with very few restrictions. Davis’ fact-check glossed over the fact that Harris and many Democrats refuse to clarify their stance on any abortion restrictions. By focusing on a technicality, Davis effectively shielded Harris from the deeper moral and policy debate that Trump was trying to raise.

Harris, for her part, was not subjected to the same level of scrutiny. During the debate, she made sweeping claims about the economy, healthcare, and immigration that went unchallenged. For example, Harris touted the Biden administration’s economic policies without addressing the ongoing inflation crisis, or the fact that many Americans are struggling with the rising costs of essentials like food and fuel. The moderators allowed these claims to go unchecked, leaving the audience with a one-sided view of the debate.

The Impact of Media Bias on the Democratic Process

The role of the media in moderating debates is supposed to be one of neutrality, where both sides are held to the same standard. However, as Davis’ comments reveal, this wasn’t the case in the Trump-Harris debate. The decision to fact-check only Trump, while giving Harris a pass, confirms what many conservatives have suspected for years: the mainstream media is not only biased, but actively works to shape the narrative in favor of the Democratic Party.

When the moderators of a presidential debate are more concerned with protecting one candidate from potential damage than they are with presenting the facts to the American people, the entire democratic process is undermined. This is no longer about policy or leadership; it’s about controlling the optics and ensuring one side doesn’t look bad.

As Davis herself noted in her interview: “There is a stereotype that I am acutely aware of that I can’t be unbiased covering this moment.” While she brushed off concerns of bias, her acknowledgment is telling. She’s aware of the perception, yet unapologetically continues to operate in a way that fuels the belief that mainstream outlets have abandoned journalistic integrity.

The Bigger Picture: Trust in the Media is Dwindling

Davis and Muir’s decision to focus on fact-checking Trump is symptomatic of a larger issue that is crippling public trust in the media. According to a Gallup poll in 2022, only 34% of Americans trust the media to report the news fairly. This decline in trust has been especially pronounced among conservatives, who often feel that their perspectives are misrepresented or ignored.

The Trump-Harris debate is just the latest example of why this mistrust is growing. When voters tune into a debate, they expect the moderators to be fair and impartial. Instead, what they got was a premeditated decision to fact-check one candidate while letting the other slide. This not only creates an uneven playing field but also leaves viewers questioning the reliability of the information they’re being presented.

Conclusion: A Call for Fairness

The Trump-Harris debate should serve as a wake-up call for those concerned about the integrity of our political discourse. When moderators like Linsey Davis admit that they approached the debate with a predetermined bias against one candidate, it’s clear that something is wrong. The media’s role is to facilitate open and fair discussion, not to editorialize in real-time to protect one side from criticism.

If we want to restore trust in the media and the political process, we must demand more from those who moderate our debates. We need to hold moderators accountable for their biases and ensure that all candidates are treated equally. Until that happens, debates will continue to be less about substance and more about controlling the narrative—a disservice to the American public and the democratic process as a whole.

References: