Tag: Harris

No comments

Plagiarism Allegations Against Kamala Harris: A Closer Look at “Smart on Crime”

  By ,

Vice President Kamala Harris has been criticized over allegations of plagiarism in her 2009 book Smart on Crime. Conservative activists and researchers have raised concerns over several passages in the book, which they claim were lifted directly from other sources without proper attribution.

The Allegations: A Breakdown

Conservative activist Christopher Rufo and plagiarism researcher Stefan Weber have led the charge, identifying more than a dozen instances in Harris’ book that appear to copy other sources, including a 2008 report by the Associated Press (AP), a press release from John Jay College, and even entries from Wikipedia​. The New York Sun ​   VT News

  1. High School Graduation Rates: One of the most notable examples comes from a section of the book that discusses public school graduation rates in cities like Detroit, Indianapolis, and Cleveland. This passage closely mirrors an AP report, with only minor wording differences. The AP’s original text mentioned, “about half of the students served by public school systems in the nation’s largest cities receive diplomas.” Harris’s book replicates this almost verbatim​ The New York Sun
  2. The High Point Drug Strategy: Another striking example comes from a passage about the High Point drug strategy, which Harris and her co-author describe as a successful crime-reduction initiative. This section was reportedly copied almost word-for-word from a John Jay College press release. The only significant changes were in formatting—such as spelling out “percent” and minor word choices. The New York Sun
  3. Wikipedia: There are even claims that parts of the book were taken directly from Wikipedia, a source widely considered unreliable for academic purposes. This has added to the controversy surrounding the integrity of Harris’ book. VT News

Reactions and Harris’ Response

So far, Harris’ team has not issued a detailed response to the plagiarism allegations. When reached for comment, co-author Joan O’C. Hamilton was reportedly surprised by the claims and unable to provide an immediate explanation. She noted that she hadn’t reviewed the specifics yet​. The New York Sun

These allegations echo past plagiarism controversies in American politics, most notably President Joe Biden’s 1987 presidential campaign, which was derailed after it was revealed that he plagiarized speeches from British politician Neil Kinnock. The echoes of this earlier scandal are already being felt, with some conservative commentators drawing direct comparisons between Harris and Biden​. The New York Sun  VT News

Impact on Harris’ Political Career

The timing of these allegations is particularly damaging. As Vice President, Harris is constantly under scrutiny, and any controversy can have significant political ramifications. Plagiarism is considered a serious ethical violation, and while some of the alleged offenses may be minor, others are more substantial. The lack of proper citations, especially in a high-profile book, calls into question the standards Harris maintained while promoting her “smart on crime” approach.

Critics have been quick to pounce on this opportunity to discredit her, especially with an eye toward the 2024 election. Republican Senator J.D. Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy, sarcastically commented on social media, “I wrote my own book, unlike Kamala Harris, who copied hers from Wikipedia.” Such jabs may fuel further distrust among voters, particularly in conservative circles​. The New York Sun

Conclusion

The plagiarism allegations against Kamala Harris may not yet have reached the level of a career-ending scandal, but they certainly tarnish her reputation. In a world where ethical standards are paramount, especially in politics, such claims can weaken the trust that voters place in a candidate. It remains to be seen how Harris and her team will address these accusations and whether they will have a lasting impact on her political ambitions.

References:

  1. “Kamala Harris Accused of Plagiarism in 2009 Book.” The New York Sun. Retrieved from: New York Sun
  2. “Kamala Harris Plagiarism Claims Stir Controversy.” VT News. Retrieved from: VT News
No comments

Can Kamala Harris Truly Support American Innovation and Workers, or Is It Just More Government Overreach?

  By , , ,

Kamala Harris, in Item #7 of her A New Way Forward, asserts that her administration, along with President Biden, has passed several pieces of landmark legislation—ranging from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to the CHIPS and Science Act. She claims these programs have created more than 1.6 million manufacturing and construction jobs, launched 60,000 infrastructure projects, and brought private investment into key industries like semiconductors, clean energy, and electric vehicles.

However, from a conservative perspective, these claims require deeper scrutiny. Is this another case of government overreach masquerading as job creation? Or do Harris’s claims overlook the inefficiencies and distortions caused by heavy-handed federal intervention? Let’s explore whether Harris’s vision for innovation and jobs is truly viable—or just inflated rhetoric.

1. The Questionable Job Creation Claims

Harris boasts that 1.6 million manufacturing and construction jobs were created during the Biden-Harris administration. At face value, that number sounds impressive—but what’s behind it?

Much of the job growth cited likely reflects a post-pandemic recovery, with workers re-entering the labor market as the economy reopened [1]. It’s important to distinguish between reclaimed jobs and newly created jobs. As millions of Americans returned to work following COVID-19 lockdowns, the Biden-Harris administration took credit for this natural recovery, without acknowledging that many of these workers were simply resuming roles they had prior to the pandemic [2].

From a conservative standpoint, this is misleading. Genuine job creation stems from organic market growth, driven by private investment and innovation, not from government programs. Government-driven job creation, especially when tied to massive spending bills, tends to result in temporary positions that dissolve once the funds dry up [3]. Conservatives argue that a better approach to job growth lies in reducing regulations and lowering taxes, creating an environment where businesses can thrive and real jobs can be created—not jobs dependent on government contracts or subsidies.

Reality Check:
If Harris’s 1.6 million jobs claim includes people merely returning to their jobs, it’s far from the job boom the administration wants to take credit for. True economic growth comes from reducing government interference in the labor market, not expanding it [4].

2. 60,000 Infrastructure Projects—New or Leftover?

Harris proudly cites 60,000 infrastructure projects that the administration has funded. But the reality is that many of these projects could have been carried over from previous administrations, particularly the Obama years. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act under President Obama promised similar large-scale infrastructure improvements, yet many projects remained unfinished or underfunded by the time he left office [5].

This raises an important question: are these new projects, or are they part of a backlog? If much of the funding Harris touts is repurposed from earlier initiatives, the administration may be inflating its accomplishments. Projects that have been delayed for a decade hardly represent fresh investment in America’s future [6].

Conservatives often argue that federal involvement in infrastructure projects leads to inefficiencies and delays. Big government programs tend to be bogged down by bureaucracy, with long timelines and budget overruns. A conservative solution would focus on empowering state and local governments—or even private industry—to handle these projects. These entities are often better suited to complete infrastructure projects on time and within budget because they face real accountability, unlike federal programs [7].

Reality Check:
If a significant portion of the 60,000 projects are leftovers from previous administrations, Harris’s claim that her administration is driving a new infrastructure renaissance falls flat. Conservatives would prefer a decentralized approach that gives power back to the states and the private sector to manage their infrastructure needs [8].

3. Private Investment—Government-Led or Market-Driven?

Another key claim Harris makes is the $900 billion in private-sector investment supposedly spurred by these legislative efforts. But is this the result of government action, or would it have happened anyway?

A conservative rebuttal here is clear: market forces, not government intervention, are the best drivers of innovation and investment. While tax incentives can temporarily boost certain industries, artificially steering the private sector with government programs distorts the market [9]. This is especially true in the energy sector, where policies that heavily favor green energy have ignored market demand for more reliable, affordable energy sources like natural gas and oil [10].

For example, the subsidies and investments tied to the Inflation Reduction Act have pushed companies into renewable energy sectors, even when demand and profitability might not align with these ventures [11]. Conservatives argue that free-market forces would better allocate resources to industries that consumers genuinely need, rather than those favored by the government’s green energy agenda.

Reality Check:
Private investment works best when it’s market-driven, not manipulated by government programs. Harris’s focus on government-led incentives risks distorting industries, leading to inefficiencies and poor long-term outcomes [12].

Tim Mossholder

4. Unions and Labor Market Distortion

Harris proudly declares that her administration is the “most pro-labor” in history, citing her support for unions as a cornerstone of middle-class prosperity. Yet, from a conservative viewpoint, this pro-union stance creates distortions in the labor market.

The PRO Act—which Harris champions—would eliminate right-to-work laws, forcing workers in certain states to join unions whether they want to or not [13]. Conservatives argue that workers should have the freedom to choose whether they wish to join a union, rather than being coerced into membership. Additionally, union-driven wage increases can lead to higher costs for businesses, resulting in job losses or reduced competitiveness, particularly in manufacturing sectors [14].

A conservative approach favors free-market labor policies that give workers flexibility and businesses the ability to compete globally. While unions may benefit some workers, forcing them into all sectors can stifle economic growth and innovation. Harris’s pro-union stance prioritizes union leadership and bureaucrats over individual worker freedoms and the competitiveness of American industries [15].

Reality Check:
Harris’s support for policies like the PRO Act undermines individual worker freedom and risks raising costs for businesses, making America less competitive on the global stage. Conservatives advocate for worker choice, not union mandates [16].

5. Economic Nationalism or Regulatory Burden?

Harris claims that her administration will not tolerate unfair trade practices from China or other countries that undermine American workers. But while this rhetoric sounds strong, the broader regulatory environment under the Biden-Harris administration may be hurting American businesses more than it helps them.

Many conservatives believe that instead of fostering economic nationalism, the administration’s regulatory policies, especially in areas like energy and environmental protections, have made it harder for American businesses to compete globally [17]. By imposing burdensome regulations on industries like oil and gas, the administration is forcing companies to either relocate production abroad or shut down altogether, resulting in job losses and reduced economic output [18].

Rather than relying on government regulations and trade barriers, conservatives argue that the best way to combat unfair trade practices from China or other competitors is to strengthen the domestic business environment. Lowering taxes, reducing regulatory burdens, and encouraging energy independence will give American companies the tools they need to succeed without heavy-handed government intervention [19].

Reality Check:
Harris’s tough talk on trade might resonate with voters, but the administration’s broader regulatory policies make it harder for American businesses to compete. A conservative solution focuses on empowering businesses through deregulation and energy independence, not more government interference [20].

Conclusion: Harris’s Promises or Government Overreach?

Kamala Harris’s vision for supporting American innovation and workers is packed with ambitious claims of job creation, infrastructure investment, and economic growth. But from a conservative perspective, these promises are more likely to result in government overreach than sustainable prosperity. Whether through inflating job creation numbers, repurposing old infrastructure projects, or distorting market forces with government spending, the Biden-Harris approach leans heavily on the belief that government intervention is the key to success.

In reality, free markets, individual choice, and limited government are the true drivers of innovation and economic growth. Harris’s policies may create temporary gains, but the long-term consequences—inefficiency, higher costs, and reduced competitiveness—are far more concerning. For America to truly thrive, we need policies that empower businesses and workers, not bind them with union mandates and government-driven programs.

References:

  1. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Market Recovery Post-COVID.” https://www.bls.gov
  2. Economic Policy Institute. “Job Growth During Biden-Harris Administration: Fact or Fiction?” https://www.epi.org
  3. Cato Institute. “How Government Spending Distorts Job Creation.” https://www.cato.org
  4. National Review. “The Reality Behind Biden’s 1.6 Million Jobs Claim.” https://www.nationalreview.com
  5. Heritage Foundation. “Obama’s Infrastructure Legacy: What Happened to ARRA?” https://www.heritage.org
  6. Congressional Budget Office. “Infrastructure Funding and the Obama Administration’s Projects.” https://www.cbo.gov
  7. Reason Foundation. “Why Federal Infrastructure Projects Fail.” https://www.reason.org
  8. American Conservative Union. “State and Local Solutions to Infrastructure Development.” https://www.conservative.org
  9. The Wall Street Journal. “Private Investment and Government Distortion.” https://www.wsj.com
  10. Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Green Energy Subsidies and Market Distortions.” https://www.cei.org
  11. The Federalist. “Inflation Reduction Act’s Green Energy Agenda: Boon or Bust?” https://thefederalist.com
  12. Mercatus Center. “Government-Led Investment vs. Market-Driven Innovation.” https://www.mercatus.org
  13. The Hill. “How the PRO Act Threatens Worker Freedom.” https://www.thehill.com
  14. Americans for Prosperity. “Why Right-to-Work Laws Benefit Workers and Businesses.” https://americansforprosperity.org
  15. National Right to Work Committee. “The Case Against the PRO Act.” https://www.nrtwc.org
  16. Manhattan Institute. “The Economic Impact of Unions on American Industries.” https://www.manhattan-institute.org
  17. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Regulations and the Competitiveness of American Businesses.” https://www.uschamber.com
  18. Institute for Energy Research. “The Regulatory Burden on the Oil and Gas Industry.” https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org
  19. Hoover Institution. “Deregulation and Economic Growth: A Conservative Perspective.” https://www.hoover.org
  20. Foundation for Economic Education. “Energy Independence and American Competitiveness.” https://fee.org
No comments

The Truth Behind Kamala Harris’s Healthcare Claims: Temporary Fixes, Long-Term Problems

  By , ,

In Part 5 of A New Way Forward, Kamala Harris claims to have fought tirelessly for healthcare reform, lowering costs for consumers by taking on Big Pharma and insurance companies, defending the Affordable Care Act (ACA) from Republican attacks, and even removing medical debt from credit reports as Vice President. These bold claims, though compelling, deserve a closer look. A more careful examination reveals that many of her so-called “victories” in healthcare are either overstated or reliant on temporary fixes—far from the long-term, sustainable reforms our country needs.

Taking on Big Pharma and Insurance Companies: A Hollow Victory?

Harris claims that as California’s Attorney General, she took on Big Pharma and insurance companies to lower costs. The reality, however, tells a different story. While it’s true that Harris spearheaded lawsuits against opioid manufacturers, including Purdue Pharma, and took a stand against the industry’s role in the opioid crisis, these efforts had little impact on healthcare costs for the average Californian.

Most notably, Harris’s office blocked the merger between Anthem and Cigna in 2017, citing potential harm to competition and consumer choice. On the surface, this action may appear to align with her claim of fighting against insurance giants. However, blocking corporate mergers does not directly translate into lower premiums or reduced out-of-pocket costs for healthcare services. In fact, many would argue that robust competition could have spurred more innovation and cost-efficiency in the healthcare marketplace, potentially leading to lower prices.

The conservative argument here is straightforward: Harris’s efforts as Attorney General were focused on niche areas of healthcare reform—opioid litigation and corporate mergers—that, while necessary, did little to address the root problems of high healthcare costs or make a meaningful difference to most consumers.

Her Role in Defending the ACA: More Rhetoric than Action

As a U.S. Senator, Harris paints herself as a champion who fought off the Trump administration’s attempts to repeal the ACA. But while she was indeed vocal in her opposition, her actions were largely symbolic. Republicans attempted to dismantle the ACA in 2017, and although Harris co-sponsored several bills aimed at protecting key provisions of the law, her efforts didn’t include introducing significant legislative reforms herself.

From a conservative point of view, this is where her rhetoric begins to unravel. Although she stood alongside fellow Democrats in voting to preserve the ACA, Harris hasn’t offered substantive reforms to address its many flaws. The ACA has been criticized for reducing competition in the insurance market, leading to fewer choices for consumers and skyrocketing premiums. While Harris was content to defend the status quo, the truth is that many Americans have seen their healthcare costs rise under the ACA, particularly those who do not qualify for government subsidies.

Harris’s “defense” of the ACA can be viewed as more of a political stance than meaningful reform. Conservatives argue that while the ACA expanded coverage, it did so at the expense of affordability and choice, leaving middle-class families with higher premiums and fewer options. Harris’s fight to preserve it doesn’t address these deeper systemic issues—issues that conservatives believe could be mitigated through market-driven reforms.

Expanding the ACA: Empty Promises and Vague Plans

Photo by Павел Сорокин

Harris often speaks about expanding the ACA to ensure more Americans have access to affordable healthcare. But when pressed for details, her plans remain vague and undefined. She has thrown her support behind initiatives championed by President Biden, including expanding subsidies to middle-income families and capping premiums at 8.5% of household income.

However, conservatives argue that expanding subsidies is a temporary solution, not a long-term fix. Harris’s proposal to continue and expand ACA subsidies under the American Rescue Plan may sound like a step forward, but it merely prolongs the current system’s underlying issues. Subsidizing premiums is not a substitute for real reform, and it doesn’t address the fundamental problems of rising healthcare costs. Instead, it shifts the financial burden from individual consumers to taxpayers, creating a system where government intervention continues to grow without solving the root causes of inefficiency and price inflation.

The Temporary Nature of ACA Premium Reductions

This brings us to one of the core issues with Harris’s healthcare record: the ACA premium reductions she touts were not the result of lasting policy changes. Rather, they were temporary measures enacted through the Biden-Harris administration’s American Rescue Plan in response to the pandemic.

The American Rescue Plan, passed in 2021, temporarily increased subsidies for individuals and families buying insurance on the ACA marketplace. It expanded eligibility and capped premiums, ensuring that no household would spend more than 8.5% of their income on insurance. These changes helped lower premiums for millions of Americans during a time of economic instability.

However, these premium reductions were designed as emergency relief measures, not permanent fixes. The increased subsidies are set to expire, and without congressional action to extend them, healthcare premiums will likely return to pre-pandemic levels, leaving many Americans facing higher costs once again. In essence, Harris is claiming credit for a temporary solution that doesn’t address the systemic problems driving high healthcare costs.

A conservative critique could focus on the fact that Harris’s defense of these short-term subsidies ignores the long-term fiscal implications of expanding government spending. Instead of relying on temporary financial assistance, conservatives argue for market-based solutions that increase competition, lower costs, and reduce the need for such heavy government intervention. Without a long-term strategy for reform, Harris’s healthcare “victories” appear fleeting at best.

Removing Medical Debt from Credit Reports: An Overstated Achievement

Another bold claim Harris makes is that as Vice President, she removed medical debt from credit reports. In reality, this policy change was not the result of executive action by the Biden-Harris administration but rather a decision made by the three major credit reporting agencies—Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion—in 2022. These agencies announced that paid-off medical debt would no longer appear on credit reports, and medical debt under $500 would also be excluded.

While Harris and other lawmakers did exert pressure on the industry to address the financial burdens of medical debt, it’s misleading to credit her with single-handedly removing this debt from credit reports. Conservatives could argue that this is another example of Harris overstating her influence. Furthermore, removing medical debt from credit reports, while helpful for many Americans, does not address the underlying issues of why medical debt is so pervasive in the first place—rising healthcare costs and lack of affordability.

The Broader Conservative Critique: A System in Need of Reform

Taken together, these claims from Harris paint a picture of a politician who has been content to defend a broken system rather than pursue meaningful reform. From a conservative perspective, Harris’s healthcare approach relies too heavily on government intervention, subsidies, and temporary fixes, while ignoring the deeper systemic problems that drive high healthcare costs.

While temporary subsidies may offer short-term relief, they are not sustainable without substantial government spending, which could lead to higher taxes and increased national debt. Moreover, expanding the ACA without addressing its inefficiencies—such as the lack of competition, rising premiums, and limited choices—only serves to perpetuate the current system’s problems.

Conclusion

Kamala Harris has made bold claims about her role in healthcare reform, but upon closer examination, many of her achievements seem overstated or based on temporary measures. From blocking insurance mergers as California’s Attorney General to defending the ACA and promoting temporary subsidies as a senator and vice president, Harris has relied on stopgap solutions rather than the long-term reform our healthcare system desperately needs.

Conservatives argue that instead of doubling down on a system that has already shown its flaws, we should be looking for market-driven solutions that increase competition, lower costs, and reduce the need for government intervention. Harris’s healthcare approach, while politically expedient, does little to solve the real problems facing American consumers today.

References:

  1. California AG and Big Pharma
    Harris’s role in suing Purdue Pharma and blocking insurance mergers:

  2. Kamala Harris and ACA Defense
    Her opposition to ACA repeal efforts:

  3. ACA Premium Reductions
    The temporary nature of ACA premium cuts:

  4. Medical Debt Removal
    Credit agencies removing medical debt from reports:

No comments

A New Way Forward or Corporate Compromise? Kamala Harris’ Approach to Business and Reform

  By ,

Kamala Harris has framed her campaign around fighting for fairness and holding corporations accountable, particularly in the fourth item of her A New Way Forward plan. However, her reliance on corporate donations raises questions about whether her promises to crack down on big business are genuine or simply feel-good campaign rhetoric.

Big Business Donations and Potential Conflicts of Interest

One of the most glaring contradictions in Harris’ platform is her acceptance of big business donations while publicly denouncing corporate power. For example, Blackstone, the largest corporate landlord in the U.S., has been linked to rent hikes and housing affordability issues, yet Harris’ campaign has received significant contributions from Jonathan Gray, the company’s president ​(Sludge). Since Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, Harris has amassed nearly $500 million, with a substantial portion coming from large corporate donors​ (Democracy Now!).

This raises a crucial question: can a candidate who relies on corporate donations truly deliver on promises to crack down on corporate greed? Or is this just another feel-good campaign promise designed to appeal to voters without any meaningful action behind it? Harris’ ability to navigate this duality will be under scrutiny, especially as she proposes to tackle anti-competitive practices while simultaneously receiving support from those very corporations she aims to regulate.

For-Profit Colleges: Enforcement Without Lasting Reform

While serving as California’s Attorney General, Harris made headlines for her efforts against for-profit colleges, particularly Corinthian Colleges. She secured large settlements for defrauded students, positioning herself as a protector of the vulnerable. However, her actions largely stopped at enforcement—no lasting legislative changes followed. Despite her aggressive pursuit of these institutions, for-profit colleges continued to operate under much the same conditions, with no federal policy reforms put in place to prevent future abuses.

This lack of follow-through raises questions about whether Harris can effect meaningful change beyond reactive enforcement. Critics argue that her tenure in this role was marked by high-profile settlements that garnered media attention but did not fundamentally alter the landscape for students seeking quality education .

If her presidency mirrors her time as Attorney General, voters should temper their expectations for sweeping changes. Harris’ track record suggests a tendency toward a reactive rather than proactive approach, leaving many to wonder if she can transition from enforcement actions to genuine legislative reforms.

Lobbying and Industry Ties: A Compromised Agenda?

Harris’ financial support from industries she claims to regulate—such as Big Pharma—also casts doubt on her ability to enact real reform. While Harris has railed against rising drug prices, the reality is that prices in the pharmaceutical industry have largely stayed in line with inflation . Despite this, Harris has continued to receive donations from powerful pharmaceutical companies, raising the question of whether her regulatory efforts will be watered down by these financial ties.

This duality of advocacy and acceptance of contributions creates a complex narrative for Harris. While she might aim to position herself as a champion for the average consumer, her actions—and their potential consequences—may paint a different picture altogether . This dynamic between rhetoric and reality is a recurring theme in her campaign and legislative history.

Comparisons with Other Politicians

Harris’ approach to corporate donations and her ability to follow through on promises starkly contrasts with that of other political figures like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Sanders, in particular, has built his political brand on rejecting large corporate donations, relying instead on small-dollar contributions from grassroots supporters. His refusal to take corporate money stands as a benchmark for independence from corporate influence, and his policies often reflect a commitment to address systemic issues head-on .

Warren has similarly distanced herself from big corporate donors, maintaining a clear message of rejecting corporate power in politics. Her proposals often come with detailed plans to regulate industries and protect consumers, showcasing a commitment to substantive reform rather than superficial gestures .

In comparison, Harris’ heavy reliance on corporate contributions creates a cloud of doubt around her true intentions. Can a candidate who depends on the financial backing of industries she claims to fight against truly deliver the reforms voters seek? This question becomes even more pressing as she outlines her plans for a presidency focused on anti-competitive practices and consumer protection.

Harris’ Legislative Record: Enforcement Without Policy Change

When examining Harris’ legislative history, a pattern of enforcement over policy change becomes evident. Her tenure as California’s Attorney General was marked by lawsuits and settlements rather than legislative victories. Though she succeeded in cracking down on specific instances of corporate wrongdoing, these actions did not translate into broader reforms .

As President, Harris may face similar challenges. While she can direct her administration to pursue enforcement actions, the absence of legislative change could mean that any progress made will be temporary, without lasting impact. Voters should be aware that her track record suggests a focus on reactive measures rather than proactive policy changes .

The implications of this approach extend beyond mere campaign promises. If Harris continues to rely on the same enforcement-first strategy, the potential for real change in the corporate landscape may remain elusive.

The Role of Small Businesses

Harris claims her administration will support small businesses through seed funding and initiatives designed to foster entrepreneurship. This approach sounds promising, yet it poses the question of whether her administration can strike a balance between regulating large corporations and supporting smaller enterprises. Critics argue that excessive regulations could inadvertently stifle the very businesses Harris aims to uplift .

Additionally, the effectiveness of seed funding initiatives will largely depend on how they are implemented. If her administration fails to ensure equitable access to these funds, the impact may be limited, leaving small businesses struggling to compete against larger, well-established corporations.

Conclusion: The Politics of Rhetoric

Kamala Harris has built her campaign on promises to crack down on corporate greed, protect consumers, and support small businesses. However, her record and financial backing tell a different story. From her reliance on large corporate donations to her limited legislative achievements, it seems that Harris’ promises may be more about political theater than about meaningful reform.

As voters consider Harris for the presidency, they must weigh her rhetoric against her actions. Will she be the champion for everyday Americans she claims to be, or will her presidency mirror her past: enforcement without lasting change?

References:

  1. Harris’ campaign donations and ties to Blackstone and Jonathan Gray: Blaze Media article on Harris’ corporate donations​(Sludge)
  2. Harris’ campaign funding post-Biden withdrawal: Politico coverage of Harris’ campaign finances​(Democracy Now!)
  3. Harris’ actions against Corinthian Colleges and for-profit education: Los Angeles Times report on Harris’ for-profit college case
  4. Big Pharma donations to Harris: Stat News article on Harris’ Big Pharma ties
  5. Bernie Sanders’ stance on corporate donations: Vox article on Sanders’ grassroots funding model
  6. Elizabeth Warren’s approach to corporate influence: The Atlantic article on Warren’s campaign
  7. Harris’ record as Attorney General: New York Times profile of Harris’ tenure as AG
  8. Overview of small business support initiatives: Forbes article on small business initiatives in Harris’ plan
No comments

Kamala Harris’ Small Business Record: More Fiction Than Fact?

  By ,

Kamala Harris has made small business support a cornerstone of her presidential platform, presenting herself as a key advocate for entrepreneurs and innovators. From tripling lending to minority-owned businesses to driving venture capital to rural America, Harris has painted a picture of her leadership in this area as both Senator and Vice President. But how much of this is rooted in fact? A closer examination reveals that many of Harris’ claims are exaggerated or misleading, relying on broad economic trends rather than her direct influence. This post uncovers where Harris’ small business platform falls short, showing that her record is more fiction than fact.

K. Harris

Nathan Howard/AP Photo

Harris’ Leadership on Small Businesses: A Rhetorical Stretch

Kamala Harris claims to have led the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to increase access to capital for small businesses. This gives the impression that she was at the forefront of economic initiatives designed to support entrepreneurs. However, her involvement seems to be more about promotion than policy-making.

The real driving forces behind small business relief during the pandemic were the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Treasury Department, with significant input from Congress. The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), for example, was established under the CARES Act and expanded by subsequent relief bills. Harris, while a vocal supporter, was not directly responsible for these initiatives. Her claims of leading the effort should be seen as overstated.

Even the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which Harris supported, was a collective legislative achievement. The administration as a whole worked on these programs, and Harris’ specific contributions were largely in promoting them rather than designing or implementing them. If Harris is to be credited for supporting these efforts, it’s in the context of a team effort, not individual leadership.

A Senatorial Record Lacking in Substance for Small Businesses

Harris also claims to have been a champion for small businesses during her time as a U.S. Senator (2017-2021). But a review of her legislative record tells a different story. While Harris co-sponsored a number of bills supporting small business owners, particularly minority and women-owned businesses, she was far from a key player in crafting small business legislation.

Harris served on the Senate Judiciary Committee and focused more on issues like criminal justice reform, not economic policy. While she supported broader Democratic initiatives to assist small businesses, she wasn’t at the forefront of these efforts. Other lawmakers with long-standing roles on the Small Business Committee did more of the heavy lifting when it came to actual policy formation.

For example, Harris co-sponsored the Small Business Access to Capital Act, aimed at expanding lending opportunities for minority businesses, but this was part of a broader legislative package and not unique to her efforts. Simply supporting these initiatives is not the same as spearheading them, and there’s little evidence to suggest that Harris played a leading role in any landmark small business legislation.

The 19 Million Business Applications Claim: A Result of Circumstance, Not Policy

One of the cornerstones of Harris’ economic platform is the claim that the Biden-Harris administration drove 19 million new business applications during their time in office. While the number is accurate, the context behind this surge is less about innovative policy and more about pandemic-driven necessity.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, business applications surged during the pandemic as individuals sought new ways to make a living after job losses or reduced work hours. This wave of entrepreneurship was driven more by economic desperation than by any specific policies Harris promoted. It’s misleading for Harris to take full credit for this surge, which was largely due to external forces rather than direct intervention from her office.

Additionally, the bulk of these applications came from solopreneurs and gig workers—businesses that may not contribute significantly to long-term economic growth. While these applications reflect the resilience of the American spirit, they cannot be fully attributed to Harris’ work in government.

Venture Capital for Middle America: Lofty Promises, Limited Results

Harris’ platform also highlights her efforts to direct venture capital investment to Middle America and rural areas—regions often overlooked by Silicon Valley investors. While this goal is admirable, there is little evidence that Harris has made meaningful progress in this area.

Venture capital typically flows to high-growth industries concentrated in urban innovation hubs like San Francisco, Austin, and New York City. While the Biden administration has promoted programs aimed at supporting rural entrepreneurs, there’s scant data to suggest that significant venture capital investment has been directed to these areas as a direct result of Harris’ involvement. Harris’ rhetoric on this issue outpaces the reality.

The Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to distribute more economic resources to underserved areas are commendable, but Harris has not been at the center of these initiatives. Much of the work in driving investment to rural America is part of broader infrastructure and economic programs that she has supported, but not led.

Federal Contracts for Minority-Owned Businesses: A Long-Standing Effort

Another area where Harris claims success is in expanding federal contracts for minority-owned small businesses. The administration has set a goal of increasing federal contracts to small, disadvantaged businesses to 15% by 2025. This goal, while important, is not unique to Harris or the current administration.

Previous administrations, particularly the Obama administration, laid the groundwork for expanding federal contracts to minority businesses. Harris’ support for this effort is part of a larger, ongoing trend that predates her tenure as Vice President. While she may have promoted the initiative, it’s not a new or groundbreaking effort under her leadership.

This claim, like many others, reflects Harris’ tendency to present long-standing government programs as personal achievements. The increase in contracts for minority-owned businesses is a positive step, but it’s part of a larger bipartisan effort that extends across multiple administrations.

Harris’ Distancing from Biden: An Inconsistent Strategy

As Harris gears up for a potential 2024 presidential run, she’s attempting to distance herself from Biden’s policies, yet her platform on small business development is heavily intertwined with the work done under the Biden-Harris administration. This contradiction undermines her attempt to carve out an independent identity.

If Harris is to take credit for the administration’s successes—whether in small business lending, increasing federal contracts, or driving business applications—she must also take responsibility for the policies and failures associated with Biden’s presidency. Trying to promote successes while distancing herself from the administration’s challenges creates an inconsistent narrative that weakens her credibility.

Conclusion: More Fiction Than Fact in Harris’ Small Business Record

Kamala Harris’ platform on small businesses paints her as a leader in driving economic opportunity, but the facts reveal a different story. Many of her claims—whether it’s leading small business efforts during the pandemic, supporting minority-owned businesses, or increasing venture capital in rural America—are exaggerated or lack substantive backing.

While Harris has certainly supported small business initiatives as part of the broader Democratic agenda, her actual leadership role is minimal. Much of the progress she touts can be attributed to larger economic forces or collective efforts by the Biden administration. Her attempts to distance herself from Biden while taking credit for shared accomplishments only further complicates her narrative.

In the end, Harris’ small business record is more fiction than fact. As voters consider her for the presidency, they should take a closer look at the reality behind her claims and ask whether her leadership truly delivered for small businesses—or whether it was just another political talking point.

References:

  • “Paycheck Protection Program” — U.S. Small Business Administration: SBA.gov
  • “American Rescue Plan Act” — U.S. Department of the Treasury: Home.Treasury.gov
  • “Business Applications Surge Amid Pandemic” — U.S. Census Bureau: Census.gov
No comments

Why the Harris-Walz Tax Plan Will Harm the Economy and Middle-Class Americans

  By ,

 

The key elements of the Harris-Walz tax plan are designed around restoring and expanding two major tax credits: the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Additionally, they aim to raise taxes on high earners and corporations by rolling back Trump-era tax cuts and increasing capital gains taxes for wealthier Americans. Specifically, the Harris-Walz plan proposes to:

            • Expand the Child Tax Credit to provide a $6,000 tax cut to families with newborns.
            • Restore and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit for working families.
            • Raise taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations, reversing Trump’s tax cuts, enacting a billionaire minimum tax, and increasing taxes on stock buybacks.

While this plan might seem beneficial on the surface, a deeper analysis reveals a significant issue: these tax cuts and credits come at the expense of the very policies that foster long-term economic growth. Rather than focusing on stimulating job creation and promoting business investment, the Harris-Walz platform is built on redistribution, which has historically done little to create sustainable economic prosperity.

Tax Credits Don’t Solve the Real Problem

Tax credits, such as the CTC and EITC, have been central to many liberal tax plans. Harris and Walz are doubling down on this approach, but it is important to understand that tax credits do not stimulate real economic growth. While they provide temporary financial relief to families, they do not address the larger systemic issues that encourage job creation, business investment, and wage growth.

  • Impact on Investment: One of the most damaging aspects of the Harris-Walz tax plan is the proposed increase in capital gains taxes, particularly the hike to 28% for those earning over $1 million. Capital gains taxes are essentially a tax on investment, and when you increase the tax burden on those making these investments, you discourage them from taking risks and putting their money into businesses. This leads to reduced economic activity, fewer new businesses, and ultimately, fewer jobs. Wealthy investors are crucial to driving innovation, creating startups, and growing the economy. Without them, the economy stalls.
  • Impact on Job Creation: Similarly, Harris and Walz’s plan to reverse Trump-era tax cuts for businesses will hurt job creation. When businesses are faced with higher taxes, they are left with fewer resources to invest in hiring, expanding, or increasing wages for their workers. Rather than providing an incentive for businesses to grow and create more jobs, this plan imposes additional costs on them, limiting their ability to hire more workers. This will ultimately harm the middle class, who depend on these businesses for employment.

The Trump Tax Cuts Spurred Economic Growth—Reversing Them Would Set Us Back

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. saw a period of robust economic growth thanks in large part to tax reforms aimed at reducing the tax burden on individuals and businesses. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, creating a more competitive business environment, which encouraged domestic and international investment. Additionally, it reduced income taxes across the board, allowing more Americans to keep a larger portion of their income and spurring consumer spending. According to the Tax Foundation, the Trump tax cuts led to significant business expansion, wage growth, and job creation .

Reversing these tax cuts, as proposed by Harris and Walz, would set us back. By increasing the corporate tax rate and raising taxes on capital gains, the Harris-Walz tax plan would undo much of the economic progress made in recent years. Businesses, particularly small businesses that benefited from Trump’s tax cuts, would face higher operating costs, limiting their ability to expand, hire, and innovate.

Furthermore, the reduced corporate tax rate was instrumental in attracting foreign investment to the U.S., making it a more competitive destination for global businesses. By increasing taxes, the Harris-Walz plan would make the U.S. less attractive to these businesses, leading to reduced investment and fewer job opportunities for Americans. The American Enterprise Institute noted that lowering corporate taxes increases GDP growth by creating a more favorable environment for investment and entrepreneurship .

The Harris-Walz Tax Plan Could Fuel Inflation

Another major concern with the Harris-Walz tax plan is its potential to further fuel inflation. Their expanded tax credits for families may sound like a welcome relief, but it will inject more money into the economy at a time when inflation is already a significant issue. As we’ve seen in recent years, when there’s an increase in demand for goods and services without a corresponding increase in supply, prices go up.

  1. Higher Consumer Prices: The Harris-Walz tax plan includes significant tax hikes for businesses, particularly those that rely on investment to grow. Faced with higher taxes, these companies will pass the additional costs onto consumers. As businesses increase prices to cover their tax liabilities, middle-class families will end up paying more for everyday goods and services, effectively canceling out the benefits of the tax credits they receive.
  2. Inflationary Pressures: The expanded tax credits will also put more disposable income into the hands of consumers, increasing demand for goods and services. However, with businesses facing higher taxes, the supply side of the economy won’t be able to keep up. The result? Higher prices across the board. This inflationary cycle will hit working families the hardest, as their purchasing power will erode in the face of rising costs for everything from groceries to gasoline .

Reagan’s Warning: Government Has a Spending Problem

While the Harris-Walz tax plan focuses on raising revenue by increasing taxes, it completely ignores one of the most important factors contributing to our economic challenges: government spending. As President Ronald Reagan famously said, “Government doesn’t tax too little; it spends too much.” This is truer today than ever before. The national debt has ballooned to over $33 trillion, and much of that is due to uncontrolled government spending.

Rather than focusing on cutting taxes and reducing the size of government, the Harris-Walz plan proposes new programs and expanded tax credits that will require even more government spending. This will only exacerbate the debt crisis, leading to higher interest payments and fewer resources available for critical programs like Social Security and Medicare.

The National Debt: A Ticking Time Bomb

One of the most alarming aspects of the Harris-Walz tax plan is that it does nothing to address the rapidly growing national debt. In fact, by expanding tax credits and proposing new government programs, their plan would only add to the deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the national debt has nearly doubled in the past decade, reaching unsustainable levels. Without significant cuts to government spending, we are heading towards a fiscal crisis that will have long-term consequences for future generations.

Conservatives believe that fiscal responsibility is the key to long-term economic stability. Rather than raising taxes to fund more government programs, we need to focus on reducing spending, balancing the budget, and reducing the national debt. The Harris-Walz plan, by ignoring these issues, is simply kicking the can down the road and placing a heavier burden on future generations.

The Conservative Solution: Empowering the Private Sector

Conservatives understand that economic growth comes from empowering the private sector, not expanding government control. Instead of expanding government programs and increasing taxes, we should focus on policies that allow businesses to thrive, create jobs, and raise wages. The conservative approach to tax policy is built on the following principles:

  • Lowering Taxes for Individuals and Businesses: When individuals and businesses are allowed to keep more of their hard-earned money, they are more likely to invest, expand, and innovate. This leads to higher wages, more job opportunities, and overall economic growth. Rather than penalizing success with higher taxes, we should be encouraging entrepreneurship and investment.
  • Cutting Government Spending: The key to reducing the national debt and stabilizing the economy isn’t raising taxes—it’s cutting unnecessary government spending. By reducing the size of government, we can lower the tax burden on Americans and ensure that future generations aren’t saddled with unsustainable debt. Fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets are the cornerstones of conservative economic policy.
  • Encouraging Investment and Innovation: By keeping taxes on investment low, we create an environment where businesses can grow, innovate, and create jobs. Instead of raising capital gains taxes and discouraging investment, we should be incentivizing wealthy individuals to invest in new ventures, which leads to job creation and economic prosperity for all Americans.

Conclusion: The Harris-Walz Tax Plan is the Wrong Path Forward

While the Harris-Walz tax plan promises middle-class relief, its real-world consequences will harm the very people it claims to help. By raising taxes on businesses and investors, discouraging job creation, and fueling inflation, their policies will stifle economic growth. Conservatives know that the path to a prosperous future lies in lowering taxes, cutting government spending, and empowering the private sector to do what it does best: create jobs and grow the economy.

References:

  1. Tax Foundation – Economic Impact of Capital Gains Tax
  2. National Bureau of Economic Research – Investment and Taxes
  3. Heritage Foundation – Impact of Corporate Taxes
  4. Tax Foundation – Analysis of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
  5. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis – Causes of Inflation
No comments

Top 10 Debate Questions for Walz and Vance: A Conservative Analysis

  By ,

NPR News

The upcoming vice-presidential debate between Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Ohio Senator J.D. Vance is shaping up to be a pivotal moment for both candidates. Walz, whose handling of the 2020 Minnesota riots and transgender policies in schools has come under intense scrutiny, faces off against Vance, a rising conservative star whose clear stance on law and order has garnered attention. This debate will allow both candidates to present their visions on law enforcement, the economy, and cultural issues. Below, we break down the top 10 likely debate questions and provide insight into how each candidate may answer from a conservative perspective.

1. Handling of the Minnesota Riots: A Leadership Test

Question: “Governor Walz, you’ve been criticized for your response to the Minneapolis riots in 2020. Do you think your handling of the situation was effective in restoring peace, or would you change anything in hindsight?”

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz will likely try to defend his decision to allow protests, claiming it was a necessary balancing act between controlling civil unrest and respecting the demonstrators’ grievances. He may argue that his approach prevented further violence.

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance will likely condemn Walz’s actions as a blatant failure of leadership. He could point to the destruction of large portions of the city, including retail areas and a police station, which were set ablaze during the riots. Vance will likely emphasize that the area remains economically depressed, showing no signs of recovery, which he will attribute directly to Walz’s unwillingness to enforce law and order. Vance might frame this as proof that Democratic leaders let chaos reign when their priorities are skewed, asserting that a strong leader must protect both citizens and businesses.

2. Transgender Rights in Schools: Parental Rights vs. State Policy

Question: “Governor Walz, your administration supports gender-affirming policies in public schools, including allowing transgender students to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity and compete in sports accordingly. Senator Vance, what is your stance on these policies?”

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz will likely defend his stance, stating that gender-affirming policies are necessary to create safe and inclusive environments for all students, particularly marginalized groups. He may argue that his policies reflect modern equality standards and that they are essential for protecting students’ mental and emotional well-being.

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance will undoubtedly oppose these policies, particularly focusing on the implications for women’s rights under Title IX. He could argue that allowing biological males to use women’s bathrooms and compete in female sports undermines decades of progress in securing equal opportunities for women. Vance may accuse Walz of ignoring the rights of women and girls, whose hard-fought achievements in education and sports are now being threatened by progressive gender policies. Vance will likely frame this issue as not just a moral failing but a breach of fairness and common sense.

3. Economy and Inflation: What’s the Conservative Plan?

Question: “Senator Vance, inflation is hurting working-class families across the nation. What is your plan to stabilize the economy and bring relief to American households?”

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance will likely argue that inflation is the result of reckless Democratic spending and overregulation. He’ll advocate for conservative economic policies like tax cuts, deregulation, and energy independence, positioning these as solutions to bring down costs, create jobs, and restore economic stability. Expect him to champion small businesses and criticize the bloated federal government for driving up inflation with stimulus spending and subsidies.

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz will likely blame external factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and global supply chain disruptions. He could argue that Republicans’ tax cuts benefit only the wealthy, failing to offer any real relief to working-class families. Walz may push for more government intervention, such as federal programs to lower costs for essential goods like food and gas.

4. Crime and Public Safety: Law Enforcement vs. Criminal Reform

Question: “Senator Vance, how will you ensure law enforcement remains strong while addressing calls for criminal justice reform?”

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance is expected to take a hardline stance, emphasizing the need for law and order. He will likely call for stronger support for law enforcement, higher penalties for violent crime, and an end to “soft-on-crime” policies that he might attribute to Democratic leadership. Expect him to highlight how cities like Minneapolis, under Democratic leadership, have seen spikes in crime due to defunding or limiting police powers.

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz may argue that criminal justice reform is necessary to rebuild trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. He could claim that his administration has sought to balance law enforcement with reform measures aimed at reducing systemic issues in policing, particularly in minority communities.

5. Immigration and Border Security: A Conservative Approach

Question: “Senator Vance, what steps will you take to secure the border and reform immigration policy?”

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance will likely advocate for strong border security, pushing for increased border patrol funding and more stringent immigration enforcement. He’ll likely support the continuation or expansion of Trump-era policies, including the construction of physical barriers, while opposing “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. He’ll argue that securing the border is a matter of national sovereignty and security.

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz may focus on comprehensive immigration reform, arguing that America’s immigration system is broken and that bipartisan solutions, including pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, are needed. He may accuse conservatives of fearmongering and using immigration as a political weapon.

6. Energy Policy: Climate Change vs. Energy Independence

Question: “Governor Walz, where do you stand on balancing climate initiatives with the need for American energy independence?”

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz will likely advocate for renewable energy and climate initiatives as long-term solutions to both economic and environmental challenges. He may argue that transitioning to green energy is inevitable and necessary for combating climate change, positioning it as an investment in the future.

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance will likely emphasize energy independence through the expansion of fossil fuel production, particularly oil and natural gas. He may argue that Democratic policies on climate change have led to higher energy costs for Americans and that a focus on domestic production will bring energy prices down, making life more affordable for the average citizen.

7. Healthcare: Government-Controlled or Free Market?

Question: “What’s your plan to ensure healthcare is affordable and accessible for all Americans?”

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance is expected to advocate for market-based solutions, arguing that government involvement in healthcare leads to inefficiency and higher costs. He’ll likely promote competition among healthcare providers and insurance companies to drive down costs, insisting that individuals should have more control over their healthcare decisions.

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz may push for expanded government-controlled healthcare, arguing that federal intervention is necessary to reduce costs and expand access. He could frame Medicaid expansion as a way to ensure that low-income families receive the care they need, while portraying Vance’s free-market approach as benefiting the wealthy and insurance companies.

8. Education: School Choice or Public School Focus?

Question: “What’s your stance on school choice and the role of public vs. private schools?”

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance is likely to champion school choice as a conservative solution to failing public schools. He’ll argue that parents should have the right to choose the best education for their children, whether it’s in public, private, or charter schools. Vance will likely frame school choice as a way to introduce competition and improve the overall quality of education.

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz may argue that school choice diverts necessary funding from public schools, undermining efforts to improve them. He could emphasize the importance of investing in public education for all students and claim that school choice mainly benefits wealthy families while leaving poorer students behind.

9. Abortion: A Defining Issue

Question: “What is your position on abortion laws, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court rulings?”

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance will likely take a pro-life stance, celebrating the progress made with the recent Supreme Court rulings. He’ll argue that life should be protected at all stages and may use this opportunity to stress the moral importance of protecting the unborn.

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz will almost certainly support abortion rights, framing it as a matter of women’s autonomy and healthcare. He’ll argue that the recent Supreme Court rulings threaten women’s rights and could highlight the need for federal legislation protecting access to abortion.

10. Foreign Policy: A Conservative Vision for America’s Role in the World

Question: “How will you ensure America remains strong on the world stage?”

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance will likely push for a more restrained foreign policy, emphasizing the importance of focusing on domestic issues while maintaining a strong national defense. He may call for reducing America’s military engagements abroad, focusing instead on building American infrastructure and economy.

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz may argue for continued international engagement, framing alliances and partnerships as key to global stability. He could accuse Republicans of wanting to isolate America from the world stage, potentially weakening its influence.

Conclusion

As the debate between Walz and Vance unfolds, the stark contrasts between their platforms will be clear. Walz, defending his record in Minnesota, will have to face questions about riots, gender policies, and a depressed economy. Vance, the rising conservative figure, will champion law and order, traditional values, and economic freedom. In terms of debate presence, Vance may have the edge as the fresher face with clear conservative convictions, while Walz will need to defend his record. Conservatives will likely find Vance’s positions resonate more with their views on the future direction of the country.

No comments

Project 2025 – Exposing the Rhetoric: How Democrats Weaponize Conservative Policy

  By ,

Introduction: Project 2025 – How Democrats Weaponize Conservative Policy

Project 2025 has ignited a firestorm in the media and political circles, portrayed by Democrats as a threat to democracy. But is this portrayal grounded in reality, or is it a calculated political weapon designed to demonize Donald Trump and conservative values?

Let’s set the record straight: Project 2025 is not an extremist manifesto but a well-thought-out plan to restore American governance to its constitutional roots—less government, fewer regulations, and more power to the people. Yet Kamala Harris and her Democratic allies continue to link Trump to the project, despite Trump’s own statements that he was not involved in drafting it. What’s happening here is clear—this is election rhetoric at its most deceptive, and we need to cut through the noise to focus on the facts.

In this post, we’ll take a closer look at how Democrats are twisting the narrative, why Trump’s distance from Project 2025 is politically smart, and how this entire episode reflects a larger pattern of manipulation by the Left to scare voters with baseless accusations of “extremism.”

Project 2025: The Blueprint for a Conservative Comeback

At its core, Project 2025 is a comprehensive guide prepared by conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation to ensure a future GOP administration can make immediate strides in dismantling the administrative state and restoring executive authority. The goal is clear—streamline the federal government, slash burdensome regulations, and put America First, ensuring that the people’s voices are heard, not bureaucratic elites’.

The Left’s outcry over Project 2025 tells us something important: They fear its success. They know that a smaller, more efficient government means less room for their bloated, nanny-state policies. They understand that a Republican victory in 2024, armed with this roadmap, could undo the damage inflicted by the Biden administration’s regulatory overreach.

But instead of engaging with these ideas on their merits, Democrats have launched a campaign to label the entire project as “extremist.” That word—extremist—has become the go-to tactic for the Left. It’s designed to scare voters away from rational debate, making it easier to vilify conservatives rather than address their arguments head-on.

Trump’s Wise Move: Distancing from the Left’s Trap

One of the most strategic moves Trump has made in recent months is to distance himself from the specific drafting of Project 2025, even though many of its principles align with his America First agenda. Trump knows that Democrats, led by Kamala Harris, are desperate to tie him to any policy they can weaponize as “radical” or “dangerous.”

Let’s be clear: Trump’s distancing doesn’t mean he disagrees with the values espoused in Project 2025. On the contrary, Trump’s administration exemplified many of the policies the project supports—cutting taxes, deregulating industries, bringing jobs back to the U.S., and restoring law and order. But by maintaining some distance, Trump cleverly avoids playing into the Left’s narrative. It gives him the flexibility to champion these ideas without getting mired in the Democrats’ desperate smear campaigns.

Trump has always been a master of political maneuvering, and this is no different. He knows the Left will stop at nothing to paint him as a threat to democracy, so why give them more ammunition by embracing a document they are already mischaracterizing?

Harris’ Campaign of Fear: Manipulation Masquerading as Concern

Kamala Harris has seized on Project 2025 as a centerpiece of her attacks, despite having little to no understanding of its true content. She calls it a dangerous plan that would dismantle democracy—though, notably, she never delves into specifics. Instead, Harris uses sweeping, baseless accusations that appeal to fear rather than facts.

What Harris is doing is classic left-wing fearmongering. Instead of discussing the merits of limiting government or decentralizing power, she paints any attempt to do so as “extremism.” But let’s be honest, the real extremism comes from those who wish to expand the federal bureaucracy beyond recognition, forcing socialist policies down the throats of Americans without regard for liberty, economic growth, or the Constitution.

This isn’t about Trump, Project 2025, or even the conservative agenda. Harris and her Democratic allies are fighting to maintain their grip on power by manipulating voters with lies about what conservatives truly stand for. It’s an effort to create an emotional response rather than an informed one, and it’s deeply dishonest.

The Real Extremism: The Left’s Attack on Conservative Values

Harris’ attacks on Project 2025—and by extension, Trump—are emblematic of a larger problem: the Left’s outright refusal to engage with conservative ideas in good faith. Every time conservatives put forth a policy that challenges their vision of a bloated government, the Democrats cry “extremism,” hoping to scare voters into submission.

We’ve seen this tactic over and over again. When Republicans call for fiscal responsibility, the Left brands it “austerity.” When we demand secure borders, they scream “racism.” And now, when conservatives propose limiting the government’s overreach through Project 2025, it’s painted as a threat to democracy. This is not a genuine debate about the future of America; it’s political theater aimed at suppressing any opposition to the Left’s ever-expanding agenda.

The truth is, Project 2025 offers a vision of government that empowers Americans—not bureaucrats. It’s about getting Washington out of the way so that families, small businesses, and communities can thrive without the constant interference of an out-of-touch federal government. But to admit this would force Democrats to engage in actual debate, something they seem wholly unwilling to do.

Cutting Through the Election Rhetoric

So what’s the truth about Project 2025, and why should Trump supporters care? The truth is, this plan offers the tools needed to restore order, economic vitality, and national sovereignty. It’s the antidote to years of failed left-wing policies that have bloated the government and eroded the freedoms of everyday Americans.

Yet, the Democrats, led by Kamala Harris, want you to believe it’s a radical document written by extremists. They want you to think that Trump, by mere association, is endorsing an agenda that will destroy America. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Trump’s smart distancing from Project 2025 is not an abandonment of conservative values but a calculated move to avoid giving Democrats more opportunities to mischaracterize his positions. What matters most is the principles at play: reducing government overreach, protecting American jobs, securing the border, and returning power to the people.

Conclusion: Don’t Fall for the Left’s Rhetorical Games

As we head into the 2024 election, we can expect more of the same tactics from the Democrats—fearmongering, distortions, and outright lies. They will continue to try to paint conservatives, Trump, and Project 2025 as radical threats to democracy, all while ignoring their own reckless expansion of government power.

But here’s the reality: Project 2025 represents a return to the values that made America great—limited government, free markets, and individual liberty. Trump’s distancing from the project is not an indication of disagreement but a refusal to let the Left control the narrative. And the more we allow ourselves to be distracted by the rhetoric, the more we lose sight of what’s really at stake.

The 2024 election is about one thing: reclaiming America’s future from those who seek to undermine it with lies and manipulation. Don’t let the rhetoric fool you—conservative principles, embodied in Project 2025, are the path forward.

No comments

Noncitizen Violent Crime Convictions: A Crisis Ignored by Sanctuary Policies and the Biden-Harris Administration

  By ,

Recent data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reveal a troubling situation: more than 13,000 noncitizens have been convicted of homicide, and over 15,000 have been convicted of sexual assault. Republican Representative Tony Gonzales of Texas brought these alarming figures to light, sparking a heated debate about immigration enforcement. ICE also reported that about 7 million migrants are on their non-detained docket, meaning they face deportation but have not yet been detained. Among these individuals are over 425,000 with criminal convictions.

This data raises serious concerns about immigration policies, which critics say prioritize politics over public safety. The number of noncitizens with violent criminal records in the U.S. demands urgent attention. Yet, the lack of detention for many of these individuals raises questions about the system’s ability to protect Americans from violent criminals.

ICE attributes the problem in part to sanctuary city policies. These policies prevent local authorities from cooperating fully with ICE, which can lead to convicted criminals remaining free within U.S. borders. Sanctuary policies aim to protect immigrant communities, but they can inadvertently allow dangerous individuals to avoid deportation.

Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters

The Extent of the Problem

As of July 2024, ICE’s national docket included over 662,000 noncitizens with criminal histories. Within this group are 13,099 convicted murderers, a number that demands action. Many Americans are asking why the system continues to tolerate such a high level of criminality among noncitizens.

Sanctuary policies make it difficult for ICE to detain and deport criminals in certain jurisdictions. While these policies aim to build trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, they often protect individuals who pose significant threats to public safety. This contradiction has caused a growing backlash, particularly in states along the southern border, where immigration issues are felt most acutely.

Many believe that the Biden administration’s approach to immigration enforcement has made the problem worse. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green pointed to what he called the “mass-release” of illegal aliens, accusing the administration of allowing dangerous criminals to move freely throughout the country. Vice President Kamala Harris, tasked with addressing the border crisis, has faced criticism for not doing enough to address these concerns.

The Role of Sanctuary Policies

Sanctuary city policies, though well-intended, can have disastrous consequences when violent criminals are allowed to evade deportation. In cities where these policies are in place, illegal immigrants with criminal records are often shielded from ICE enforcement. Advocates argue that sanctuary policies help immigrants feel safe reporting crimes without fear of deportation, but the reality is that these same policies often protect violent offenders.

This creates a dangerous situation where local law enforcement agencies are unable to remove criminals from the streets. For example, many individuals convicted of serious crimes like homicide and sexual assault remain free in sanctuary cities. Proponents of sanctuary policies say that cooperation with ICE could deter immigrants from cooperating with law enforcement, but critics argue that shielding violent criminals ultimately does more harm than good.

Representative Tony Gonzales summarized the frustration many Americans feel: “Americans deserve to be safe in our own communities.” The statistics suggest that current policies do not provide that safety, especially when jurisdictions refuse to cooperate with federal authorities. The growing number of noncitizens with violent criminal convictions highlights the urgency for a change in immigration enforcement.

Impact on Communities

The consequences of these policies are severe. When violent criminals are allowed to stay in the U.S., they pose a direct threat to public safety. Sanctuary policies, which were originally designed to protect immigrant communities, now enable criminals to remain free and potentially re-offend. This puts all Americans at risk, particularly those living in cities that refuse to cooperate with ICE.

The issue isn’t confined to illegal immigrants; it affects immigrant communities as well. Often, the very people sanctuary policies aim to protect end up being the victims of the criminals these policies shield. Local law enforcement agencies are often powerless to act when sanctuary policies prevent them from detaining violent offenders on behalf of ICE.

The data reveal that as of July 2024, over 15,000 noncitizens convicted of sexual assault were still in the U.S., along with 1,845 individuals facing pending homicide charges. These numbers emphasize the scale of the problem and the risk posed to both citizens and immigrants alike. Many lawmakers, including Representative Gonzales, have called for a change in policy that prioritizes public safety over political considerations.

Political Fallout and the Biden-Harris Administration

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green has linked the rise in noncitizen crime directly to the policies of the Biden administration. He argues that the administration’s lenient approach to immigration enforcement allows violent criminals to remain in the country, placing Americans at risk. Vice President Kamala Harris, who was appointed to manage the border crisis, has faced widespread criticism for her perceived inaction.

Green’s critique reflects a broader conservative view that the administration’s policies are failing to protect American citizens. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. has seen a surge in illegal immigration, particularly at the southern border. Critics argue that the government’s focus on humanitarian concerns has left local communities vulnerable to violent crime.

The administration, however, has defended its approach, emphasizing the importance of humane treatment for migrants and the protection of immigrant rights. But critics contend that extending those rights to individuals convicted of violent crimes undermines public safety.

The Path Forward

For many conservatives, the solution to this growing crisis lies in stricter immigration enforcement, the elimination of sanctuary policies, and a renewed focus on deporting individuals with violent criminal convictions. They argue that public safety should come before political considerations, and that the government must act swiftly to restore order.

One possible solution would involve increasing federal oversight of sanctuary cities, requiring them to cooperate with ICE in cases involving convicted criminals. Another approach might involve expanding ICE resources to expedite deportations, ensuring that violent offenders are swiftly removed from the country. Both approaches would necessitate a shift in the Biden administration’s current stance on immigration.

Additionally, addressing the root causes of illegal immigration, such as poverty and violence in migrants’ home countries, could help reduce the number of individuals entering the U.S. illegally. However, while these long-term strategies are debated, the immediate threat posed by convicted criminals still needs urgent attention.

Conclusion

The presence of over 13,000 convicted noncitizens of homicide and 15,000 convicted of sexual assault within U.S. borders is a public safety crisis. Sanctuary policies, while intended to protect immigrant communities, have allowed dangerous criminals to remain free, putting all Americans at risk. The Biden-Harris administration’s handling of immigration has only worsened the situation, leaving local governments struggling to manage the influx of criminal noncitizens.

Immediate policy changes are necessary to prioritize public safety. Sanctuary policies must be reconsidered, and enforcement efforts should be strengthened to ensure violent offenders are detained and deported. Americans deserve safety in their communities, and that safety is currently at risk under the current immigration framework.

No comments

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.