Kamala Harris consented to a puffball panel discussion with the National Association of Black Journalists on Sept. 17, and it was announced that PolitiFact would engage in live “fact-checking.” Its Twitter feed then displayed 14 checks on Harris’ answers. The first one was labeled “False,” and all the rest of them were “True,” “Accurate,” or basically okey-dokey.
On Sept. 11, PolitiFact hit a new milestone in leftist aggression. Former President Donald Trump was thumped with a “Pants on Fire” tag for the 200th time with “they’re eating the pets” in Springfield, Ohio. He’s been tagged with flaming pants 12 times since June 1.
Harris, by contrast, has zero. She was first elected statewide in California in 2010. Your two candidates this year, not exactly “neck-and-neck” at 200 to nothing.
Now compare this to national politicians since PolitiFact came on the scene in 2007. Joe Biden has seven “Pants On Fire” ratings, and only one as president. Barack Obama has nine, Hillary Clinton has nine, Bill Clinton has three, and Bernie Sanders has a perfect zero like Harris.
Even Republicans don’t have anything like Trump’s 200. George W. Bush has zero, John McCain had eight, Ted Cruz has 11, Newt Gingrich has 12, and surprisingly, Mitt Romney has 19—and 18 of those came in 2011 and 2012, when he challenged Obama for the White House. Their weirdest Romney “Pants on Fire” came when he said, “We’re only inches away from no longer being a free economy.” You can argue we didn’t have a free market back under Obama in 2012.
Bryan White at PolitiFactBias.com says this harsh flaming rating “counts as substantially if not wholly subjective.” That’s not to say that some lies aren’t whoppers. It’s when they emotionally hate something that’s not as bad as they claim it is.
In April, White singled out a “Pants on Fire” for Trump claiming he “did much better” in the Wisconsin election in 2020 than 2016, and “after the wrongdoing was found, people said, ‘Well, he actually did win.'” The second half is false: He narrowly lost Wisconsin.
But the first half is mathematically true: Trump’s vote count in 2020 was 1,610,184 in Wisconsin, and it was 1,405,284 votes in the state in 2016. So he had more votes. He “did better.” Except that he won the state in 2016, and lost it in 2020. This sounds like a “Half True,” not a “Pants on Fire.”
On Sept. 4, Trump was rated as “Pants on Fire” for calling Harris a “communist.” It’s like CNN host Kasie Hunt’s noting during the Democrat convention, “She doesn’t identify as a communist.”
Now flip that to the other party. Many Democrats and leftists have called Trump a “fascist.” Search PolitiFact for a harsh rating on that, and you won’t find it. What you will find is a “Half True” rating on Madeline Albright comparing Trump’s “drain the swamp” rhetoric to fascist Benito Mussolini.
When Biden compared Republicans to Jim Crow segregationists over their voting-integrity legislation, PolitiFact argued the subject was too complicated for a rating. They claimed: “Some historians say Biden’s rhetorical point was justified as a way of highlighting the dangers of backsliding from hard-won voting rights.”
These dramatic double standards on “facts” underlines why so many voters don’t trust “fact-checkers.” Trump has 1,051 fact checks, and 805 of them are “Mostly False” or worse—76.6% wrong. Bernie Sanders has 176 fact checks, and 44 were on the false side — 25%. Bernie can call Trump a “fascist” and he’s all good.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
On the latest episode of “The Tony Kinnett Cast,” we dive into the details on the neck-and-neck race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump as the swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and (almost) North Carolina are hit with a tsunami of promises from the candidates.
Harris goes after Hispanic voters in what might be the most unique strategy seen yet in American politics. Does a fifth accent really impress potential voters, and will the trend of Hispanic voters shifting red continue?
Why are Americans so apathetic toward the U.S. Constitution, and what could drive them back to our founding documents? Lathan Watts, vice president of public affairs for Alliance Defending Freedom, stops by to tackle a topic troubling the hearts and minds of this battered republic’s citizens for decades. It’s time to dig out the Federalist Papers and dust off that old pocket Constitution, because we have work to do.
Israeli intelligence continues to light up the pockets of Hezbollah terrorists as conspiracy theorists and foreign agents shout concerns over a “new age” of terrorism. Is every smartphone a bomb waiting to explode? What roles do foreign intelligence services have in offensive operations and what culpability do they share with their national governments?
Finally, we hit the entertainment industry for a few surprising updates about what Disney’s animators were reportedly told about their sequel to “Inside Out.” Are we finally out of the tunnel of forced political writing? No, but the light at the end of this abyss could at last be in sight.
Catch the live radio show and livestream weeknights at 7 p.m. EDT on The Daily Signal’s YouTube, X, or Facebook—and subscribe to the podcast so you never miss an episode or exclusive interview.
Nevada’s largest jurisdiction investigated why voters were registered at commercial addresses such as Las Vegas casinos and strip clubs, finding at least 19 out of 90 suspect registrations that need further review.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election watchdog group, dropped a lawsuit against Clark County Registrar Lorena Portillo after she agreed to investigate 90 names of county voters who registered at commercial addresses that also include vacant lots, gas stations, and fast-food restaurants.
The biggest problems is the Nevada statewide policy of mailing out ballots to all registered addresses, Lauren Bis, director of communications and engagement at the Public Interest Legal Foundation, told The Daily Signal.
“If they are going to do that, then election officials need to be diligent,” Bis said. “When a casino comes up as an address, that should be a red flag to investigate. I’m glad our lawsuit forced officials to do that.”
Nevada is among a few battleground states that could decide the outcome of the Nov. 5 presidential election. Registration addresses also take on added importance for a state that automatically mails a ballot to every active registered voter.
In a separate case this week, Nevada’s Second Judicial Court denied a motion from Washoe County—which includes Reno—to dismiss a lawsuit by the Public Interest Legal Foundation seeking to force election officials to investigate registered voters who list commercial addresses as their homes.
In addition to the 19 addresses that Clark County will review, officials found 16 out of the 90 addresses were previously identified by the county and inactivated. Another 12 of the addresses identified were determined to be neither active nor inactive voters.
The registrar determined that 29 business addresses actually were also the residences of the registered voters.
“We just asked the registrar that if you find a fishy address, please look into it,” Bis said. “If you find someone living there, great. We don’t want to disenfranchise anyone.”
The legal foundation will make a request for documents assembled in the investigation to confirm the findings, Bis said.
Using data from the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office, the legal foundation found that in the 2022 midterm elections, a total of 95,556 ballots were sent to undeliverable addresses. That year, a U.S. Senate race in Nevada was decided by 8,000 votes statewide.
Nevada law requires voters to register at the address where they live.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation represented two registered Nevada voters, Frederick Kraus and Joey Paulos, in the litigation.
Kraus and Paulos asked in a court filing Thursday to drop the lawsuit in Nevada’s 8th Judicial District Court. The filing notes the Clark County registrar’s Aug. 15 motion to dismiss the case included a “declaration” by the county “that, for the first time, informed the petitioners that her office did conduct an investigation of the 90 addresses and made determinations.”
In the filing, the foundation adds that “in light of the investigation by the Clark County registrar, the petitioners have received all the relief sought by this action.”
The foundation had notified Nevada election officials before the 2020 presidential election about voter registrations at commercial locations. It did a follow-up investigation in 2024.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation says it first asked Clark County to review the addresses. When the county declined, the foundation sued in June to force an investigation.
“Because of PILF’s lawsuit, Clark County was forced to investigate crazy addresses listed as residences on the voter roll including strip clubs, casinos, [and] gas stations,” J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, said in a public statement. “Without this litigation, mail ballots would have gone to improper addresses.”
The Clark County Elections Department didn’t respond to an email inquiry for this report. A telephone call resulted in a voicemail recording saying the department was closed Friday.
The county’s Aug. 15 motion to dismiss asserted the two plaintiffs’ request for an investigation of the 90 names of voters came as the elections office prepared for a June primary. But it said it would proceed to investigate the 90 registrations and addresses afterward. The motion says:
As explained above, the ROV [registrar of voters] was not able to investigate these addresses before the petitioner’s arbitrary deadline of June 17, 2024 as the ROV was still conducting the primary election, but the ROV and her staff have now completed an investigation into the addresses provided by [Public Interest Legal Foundation] and has made the following determinations: (a) 29 addresses were confirmed as the voter’s actual residence; (b) 19 addresses will require additional research by the Election Department; (c) 16 addresses were previously identified by the department and the voters at those addresses were inactivated; (d) 12 addresses had no active or inactive voters; (e) 9 addresses were connected to voided registrations; (f) 4 addresses the voters had updated their voter registration; and (g) 1 address was [a] typo.
The Clark County registrar’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit also complained: “When the ROV received the letter, the ROV was in the middle of conducting the primary election.”
However, Bis said, Krause and Paulos sued only after not getting any response.
“It isn’t an excuse to be too busy to look at the addresses,” Bis said. “They have a job. The addresses weren’t supposed to be there to begin with.”
DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—More than a dozen briefs signed by Vice President Kamala Harris during her time as California attorney general highlight her left-wing stances on several contentious legal issues of the past decade.
Harris filed briefs with the Supreme Court in favor of affirmative action, backing buffer zones that prevent pro-life counseling outside abortion clinics and opposing Arizona’s state immigration law, according to a list compiled by law professor Josh Blackman.
Her positions on some of the biggest Supreme Court controversies during her time in office—and continuing into her time in the senate and as vice president—provide a long track record to consider how she would view constitutional issues as president.
Affirmative Action
Harris defended affirmative action in 2012 and 2015 amicus briefs in Fischer v. University of Texas at Austin, urging the Supreme Court to allow the university to consider race as a factor in admissions, even while acknowledging an amendment to the California Constitution restricted race-conscious admissions.
She also led a group of Democrat attorneys general in 2013 to oppose a Michigan ban on “sex-and race-based preferences” in education, arguing bans on affirmative action “violate the Equal Protection Clause.”
In 2023, the Supreme Court struck down the use of racial preferences in college admissions as a violation of the equal protection clause. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote universities have wrongly concluded “that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin.”
Today's Supreme Court decision is a denial of opportunity.
It’s not about being colorblind. It’s about being blind to history, blind to empirical evidence about disparities, and blind to the strength that diversity brings to classrooms. pic.twitter.com/pB872AnPbO
Harris called the Supreme Court’s ruling a “step backward for our nation.” The Biden-Harris administration released guidance following the decision that urged universities to continue weighing how a “student’s background, including experiences linked to their race, have shaped their lives and the unique contributions they can make to campus” to skirt the ruling.
Abortion
Harris joined a coalition of Democratic attorneys general in 2013 to defend buffer zones around abortion clinics in Massachusetts that prevented pro-life advocates from engaging in sidewalk counseling.
In 2016, Harris joined a coalition of Democratic attorneys general in opposing a Texas law that required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital and abortion clinics to meet the requirements of an ambulatory surgical center. The attorneys general argued it was in their interest to promote “the safety of abortion services without creating unwarranted obstacles” and ensuring residents of their states could access abortion in “any State to which they may travel.”
Harris also backed a California law that forced pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise abortions, which was later rejected on First Amendment grounds by the Supreme Court. As attorney general, Harris initiated the investigation into pro-life journalist David Daleiden, whose undercover videos exposed Planned Parenthood’s involvement in fetal tissue trafficking.
Harris has vocally opposed the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Roe v. Wade in 2022 and made abortion a key issue in her 2024 campaign.
“In the case of the stealing of reproductive freedom from the women of America, Donald Trump is guilty,” she said on the second anniversary of the court’s decision in June.
Religious Liberty
In a 2014 amicus brief, Harris argued for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby should not be exempt from providing insurance coverage for contraception as required by the Affordable Care Act, despite religious objections. She opposed religious nonprofits who argued the ACA’s accommodation still burdened their religious exercise in a 2016 amicus brief.
As a senator, Harris reintroduced the Do No Harm Act in 2019, which would prevent religious freedom protections from applying in cases involving discrimination. She said the First Amendment’s freedom of worship guarantee “should never be used to undermine other Americans’ civil rights or subject them to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
LGBTQ+ Issues
In 2013, Harris officiated the state’s first same-sex wedding after the Supreme Court left in place a decision finding Proposition 8, a 2008 state ballot initiative that stated only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California, unconstitutional. Harris refused to defend Proposition 8 in federal court and filed an amicus brief arguing the sponsors of the initiative did not have standing to appeal the ruling finding it unconstitutional.
About to marry the #Prop8 plaintiffs Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier. Wedding bells are ringing!
When same-sex marriage came before the Supreme Court in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case, Harris joined an amicus brief with other Democrat attorneys general urging the justices to affirm “the right of same-sex couples to marry.”
She also worked “behind the scenes” to push forward a policy enabling inmates to obtain gender transition surgeries.
Since her time as attorney general, Harris has staked out a more radical position on gender issues. While in the senate, she co-sponsored the Equality Act, which would make sexual orientation and gender identity prohibited categories of discrimination under federal civil rights law, enabling men to access female-only spaces, such as locker rooms and bathrooms, and to compete in women’s sports.
The Biden-Harris administration continues to fight state bans prohibiting sex-change surgeries for minors in the courts.
Immigration
In 2012, Harris led 10 other states in opposing Arizona’s immigration law, which made it a state crime not to comply with federal alien-registration requirements and prohibited illegal migrants from working without authorization. It also required officers to verify the immigration status of individuals they stop or arrest and allowed warrantless arrests when an officer believed there was probable cause an individual committed a deportable crime.
The Biden-Harris Justice Department sued Texas in January to prevent the state from enforcing a law permitting local and state authorities to arrest migrants who enter the U.S. illegally. The DOJ also sued Iowa in May for a similar law allowing state authorities to arrest and charge illegal migrants who have outstanding deportation orders or reentered after previously being denied access.
The Harris campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Login
Vaunce News