This Is Going To Hand Kamala Harris the Presidency

The mainstream media is bending backwards to fact-check claims criticizing Vice President Kamala Harris. But is it showing its bias for her in the process? Welcome to America Uncovered, I'm Chris Chappell. Now that old Scranton Joe has been forced off the ticket, it's the time of Kamala Harris. The Simpsons knew it would happen. Now Harris hasn't technically become the Democratic Party's official presidential nominee yet. She's in that kind of in-between state. Like when a couple is dating and getting pretty serious, but hasn't become Facebook official yet. Is that still a thing? But Republicans have already shifted gears to attack her since Joe Biden's exit. Especially her laugh. For Republicans, Harris laughing is pretty much the marketing equivalent of Biden's falling. Trump is now calling her Laughing Kamala. Which for Trump nicknames, is a B at best. Especially when The Woker Joker is right there. There's another title that Trump and Republicans are using to rile up voters against Harris. Biden's Border Czar. If you ever wondered how Joe Biden could get the border so screwed up, remember, he had help. Here's Biden appointing Kamala Harris to be his Border Czar to deal with illegal immigration. And here are a record number of illegal immigrants—10 million and counting—flooding over the border after Harris was put in charge of stopping illegal immigration. Now this is a serious attack. According to a Gallup poll earlier this year, the border crisis topped the list of most important issues to voters. So blaming Harris for the crisis could really hurt her chances. But mainstream media is stepping in to defend her. Many pushed back, saying Kamala Harris was never Biden's Border Czar. PolitiFact claims that it's mostly false to say Biden appointed Harris to be his Border Czar. And Axios said Harris never had the Border Czar title. Ooh, except for that time three years ago when Axios called Harris the Border Czar. You see, this is a bit of narrative warfare. They're changing the definition of what a government czar means. They argue that calling Harris a Border Czar implies that she was in charge of border security, when that responsibility actually lies with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Her job was merely to lead US diplomatic efforts to stem migration and address the root causes in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, also known as the Northern Triangle. And the 541,000 people from Northern Triangle countries that illegally crossed the US border in 2022 are a stunning testament to her accomplishments. But a government czar is not an official position. It just means someone is responsible for something. Just like Dr. Fauci was in charge of the government's pandemic response, but then VP Mike Pence was called the coronavirus czar. The mainstream media also called Trump's daughter Ivanka a climate czar, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner a border wall czar, and Trump's sons Eric and Don Jr. loyalty czars. Wow, the media linking Trump with something that sounds Russian? No way. And until these recent attacks on Harris for her failures as the Border Czar, the mainstream media was fine using that term for Biden administration officials. Like when Roberta Jacobson stepped down as Biden's Border Czar over her failures. Even though by their current logic, Mayorkas was still in charge of the border. So this is not fact checking. This is propaganda. And that's very concerning. In the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, Harris only got 1% of the vote. She was not a candidate people wanted. And we have no idea if they want her today. President Biden was adamant that he would stay in the race and defeat Trump. But after the debate, the Democratic Party establishment no longer believed he could, and they forced him out. They then anointed Harris as his successor, without any consent from their constituents. And now it seems like the mainstream media, rather than being a bastion of truth, has become the mouthpiece for that Democratic Party establishment. Here's another example. CBS News came out with this fact check, rejecting Trump's claim that Harris supported the Minnesota Freedom Fund. The Minnesota Freedom Fund is a non-profit that raises bail money. They were particularly active getting bail money for people arrested in the riots following the death of George Floyd. In 2022, they paid the $2,000 bail for Sean Michael Tillman, who was arrested for indecent exposure. A few weeks after his release, Tillman murdered a man is now serving a life sentence for it. Oopsie. Trump is now saying that Harris helped bail Tillman out. CBS says that isn't true. They cite the Minnesota Freedom Fund, saying, "...it is not correct that then-Senator Harris donated to our organization." Except Trump never claimed she donated. In the wake of the George Floyd protests in 2020, Harris gave a social media shout out for the non-profit, asking people to donate to the fund. So Harris definitely helped raise money for an organization that years later would bail out a guy who would go on to commit murder. Now you can disagree if that's a legitimate criticism of Harris. But CBS fact checked something totally different, that she never donated to them. They pretty much put words into Trump's own mouth and called that fact checking. Let me help you out, CBS. The correct term isn't fact checking, it's strawmanning. That's what you did there. It's not just the media lining up to defend Harris, though. GovTrack is an organization that tracks congressional voting records. And a page rating her as the most liberal senator in 2019 suddenly disappeared. The Internet Archive shows the page was deleted sometime between July 10th and July 23rd. In response to scrutiny over this sudden disappearance, GovTrack founder Joshua Tauberer told Fox News the page was removed because the company adopted a policy several years ago to end its single-year ratings of lawmakers to only do ratings based on congressional sessions, which are two years. Ok, so why delete it now? Why wasn't it deleted several years ago when the policy changed? Here's the thing, Harris wouldn't need to be defended like this if people actually voted for her. But as it stands, it seems like there's a political oligarchy that's calling the shots, one that controls even the media. And if people feel like the 2024 election is a choice between Trump and a shadowy Democratic Party cabal, that's not fair to Harris. Covering for her like this just makes her seem like a puppet. She should have a chance to run based on her merits and her vision for the country. She should have the chance to win or lose based on that. Whether or not people call her the Woker Joker. Keeping track of what the mainstream media is up to is what America Uncovered is all about. That's why YouTube has been secretly unsubscribing people. So be sure to subscribe, and make sure you're still subscribed. And here's a video I want to show you that I think you'll really like. All you gotta do is click here and go check it out. Once again, I'm Chris Chappell. Thanks for watching America Uncovered.