Yes, it’s not an official title, but the media that dubbed Kamala the “Border Czar” or a “Border Czar” shouldn’t be trying to back out of it now. “Republicans Pounce …” is the media’s go-to headline, but it ought to be accompanied with “Democrats Evade the Truth …” or “Democrats Bob and Weave to Deny …”

Behind all of this is the fact that the Democrats have been lying about the border for years. Harris didn’t stop migration. She did nothing to stop illegal immigrants. It wasn’t her job to stop illegals from coming or to fix the border. Biden and Mayorkas never wanted to stop illegal immigration. Biden didn’t inherit a broken system. The border is not under control now. Everything — not just Harris’s task, role and supposed achievements — was all a sham from the beginning.

Just one persona of the bony eared ass fisher. On the internet “no one knows you are a dog” but it is hard to memory hole your own admission that you are indeed, fishing (going trolling).

Give it a rest Karmi.

🙂 You’ve been called a Troll here – did you claim “you’re trolling”?

In fact, it seems you threw a HISSY FIT about being called one…at least once.

You have been telling us you are trolling people. Every time you use the fishing metaphor, blatantly telling us. I’m sure, given what you write about computers, you’ve been online long enough to know where the word “trolling” comes from: “a method of fishing where one or more fishing lines, baited with lures or bait fish, are drawn through the water at consistent low speed”.

But if you come out and tell people you’re trolling, don’t be surprised if people call you a troll.

I assume these were Berenson’s words but in a closely-divided Senate the VP’s roles as President of the Senate is not “ceremonial”, and “breaking a tie” means “the Dems get their way”. The Senate can lay aside its cloture rule at any time with the votes of 50 Senators + VP, and so pass anything it wants with 51 votes (except where the Constitution explicitly requires 2/3).

A really good VP can manage the Senate to get the President’s agenda through. Most VPs are not that good, and for most of the 20th century the Senate was firmly in Democrat hands, so maybe it was thought not to matter then.

FOAF — Thank you karmi, your insult greatly reassured me I am on the right track.

You’re welcome. 🙂 Yeah, FOAF, you’re a genius and swallowing 3-hooks in one day proves it.

You’ve been desperately chasing humble me around the board—seeking my attention FOR WEEKS, and I finally decided to give you a little attention. Tho some here might accuse you of ‘encouraging a Troll’…

https://substack.com/home/post/p-146967863

Once upon a time you could (basically) believe elite media outlets like The New York Times. (I know, I worked there for a decade.) Yes, a few topics were off-limits, and the reporters were overwhelmingly Democrats.

But the paper wanted to present the world in a truthful, accurate way. The Times tried to present facts in its news pages, while giving targets of negative articles or investigative reports space to respond without editorializing about those responses.

Basically, the paper trusted readers to draw their own conclusions.
…
No more.

The Times and other major news organizations have never recovered from the shock of Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016. The fact that Trump is leading the race to be the next president only infuriates them more. They no longer view themselves as merely reporting on the plans and actions of powerful people, countries, and companies, even when they don’t like those goals.

In place of presenting facts, they want to shape opinion, even in their news pages.

But reality is messy and complex. Goals that seem worthy – such as preventing anger against China (or Asian-Americans) by reducing discussion that Sars-Cov-2 escaped from a Chinese lab – may lead reporters to shade or even avoid facts they do not like.

Once reporters lose truth – and even more importantly, factual accuracy – as lodestars, they have nothing left.

We’ve seen this pattern again just in the last few hours.

Top news organizations want to criticize Republicans for calling Kamala Harris the “border czar,” though Joe Biden unquestionably put her in charge of many border policies in 2021. So they are complaining about the phrase.

But it turns out they used the same words three years ago. Which in turn led to this bit of insanity today from Axios, a top political news organization:

…

What? You’re repudiating your own words because they’re politically inconvenient?

The reason I could break so much news about Covid and the mRNAs on Twitter and Substack during 2020 and 2021 wasn’t that I had a huge staff helping me. It was because nearly the entire media had wrongfooted itself.

I thought maybe that crisis would end when Covid subsided, but the lack of substantive coverage of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline – and now his withdrawal – shows that nothing has changed.

That’s why I – writing from my kitchen on a Saturday morning three weeks ago, with the kids circling – could break the news that a neurologist had visited the White House over and over since last July, at the invitation of the Navy nurse who supervises and coordinates Biden’s care:

Which is an interesting story itself, but deviates from the condemnation of the MSM’s sycophantic and distinctly Soviet “reporting” about Democrats in general and Harris in particular.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-146958542

As vice president, Kamala Harris had one job. She failed.
And no, it wasn’t securing the border (though she failed to do that too).
…
After last night’s piece about media efforts to whitewash the end of Joe Biden’s Presidential run, one Unreported Truths reader offered a fascinating email on why Kamala Harris must answer for helping hide Joe Biden’s cognitive decline.

Harris has never been a top Biden advisor. After he became President, he promised weekly lunches with her but failed to have them, public records show. When she tested positive for Covid, she didn’t even report Biden as a close contact.

Still, Harris saw Biden far more than any member of the press or public. And as this reader noted, she is the only person in his administration who has Constitutional responsibility for ensuring his fitness for office.
Here’s the note (edited for length):

Under the 25th Amendment, [the vice-president’s] Constitutional duty is to monitor the fitness for duty of the President and, when he/she is not fit, she is duty bound to address that issue with his Cabinet…

By failing her Constitutional duty, she allowed the shadow presidency to run unchecked. The reason no one said anything about it was that HARRIS didn’t say anything about it.

While others’ failures may have been ethically negligent, Harris’s failure was Constitutionally and professionally negligent. She endangered the Republic by allowing Biden to not actually run the government as the Constitution requires AND by allowing the unelected administrators (whoever they are) to continue making decisions that the Constitution reserves for the Chief Executive…

Harris failed (and is still currently failing) her Constitutional duty by allowing a President as clearly unfit as Biden to continue in office.

Politically expedient or inconvenient as it may be, one of her two duties is to swiftly bring this to an end. She’s the only one allowed to do it under the Constitution.

In fact, Harris didn’t merely remain silent.

She agreed to run for reelection beside Biden, implying she believed in Biden’s ability to serve not just now but through January 2029. That decision was – at best – an astonishing failure of judgment.

Did Harris remain silent out of personal ambition (to state the obvious: if Biden won reelected and then had to step down, Harris would become President)? Because she feared the consequences of breaking with him? Because she somehow failed to recognize his obvious cognitive decline?

At this point, no one knows. And no one in the media is asking.
…
As a practical matter, there’s no chance Harris will step out against Biden at this point.

She needs the Democratic Party behind her. And she has already gotten what she presumably wanted. Biden’s been sidelined and she can now run for President.

Again, Kamala Harris is not merely a governor or senator. She has one job*, and that is to be ready to step in if the President cannot do his.

She failed.

*Aside from her essentially ceremonial role presiding over and breaking ties in the Senate. (AB)