Busted! The “Completely Independent” Government Transparency Website” Proves It Is Just Another Democratic Party Propaganda Agent [Expanded]

The effort across the news media and elsewhere in the Axis to distort Kamala Harris’s past record and documented positions sufficiently to render the public totally misinformed regarding the candidate whom Democrats are offering for President in November is rapidly reaching comic proportions. It reached Orwellian proportions some time ago.

GovTrack promotes itself as being independent, unbiased,and trustworthy. For five years, it included an entry on that esteemed site that ranked Harris as the most liberal U.S. Senator in 2019—more liberal than, for example, Bernie Sanders, who is a proto-Communist, and Elizabeth Warren, who advocates a confiscatory wealth tax, wants to cancel most student loan debt, proposes to break up Big Tech companies, and wants a $20 trillion “Medicare for all” program paid for by taxing the living daylights out of businesses. Kamala’s more radical leftist profile is not, one may assume, a policy agenda the majority of Americans favor, so our unethical journalists and related villains are trying mightily to convince voters that Harris “isn’t what she is.”

In its list of all 100 senators in the 116th congress, GovTrack rated Harris as #1 of 100 (Bernie was #2). She had signed onto bipartisan legislation the least often of any of her Democrat colleagues—unity! Of course, those who have been paying attention—most have not—also know that she supported the Black Lives Matter riots, expressed support for police de-funding efforts, supports the ludicrous “Green New Deal,” and wants to eliminate cash bail as well as decriminalize non-felonies.

As of midweek, however—- Abacadabra!—-the page on this completely independent and non-partisan website revealing how radical Harris’s positions are is gone. The URL shows “page not found.” GovTrack founder Joshua Tauberer huminhumina-ed that “The page that you are referring to was based on a single calendar year. Several years ago we discontinued creating new single-calendar year ‘report cards.’ because a single year of data was “not sufficient to create a reliable portrait of the activity of legislators.” Oh. Odd, then, that the 2019 page was only deleted this week, in the middle of the Axis gaslighting exercise regarding Harris.

This stuff is disgusting, and the public needs to be aware of it almost as much as it needs to be made aware of what Harris’s positions and proclivities are. Coming in the midst of the flagrant doubletalk, deceit and spin to try to deny that Harris was a de facto “Border Czar,” this incident makes it clear that the Left’s political operatives have learned nothing, fear nothing (except facts getting out) and will stop at nothing to accomplish with Kamala Harris what they did with Barack Obama.

Maybe, just maybe, if the smoking gun evidence of the “enemies of the people” diligently trying to keep voters uninformed and misled can break through the news media’s own barricades, these ethics villains will realize that they have to reform.

Nah, what am I saying?

Added: From an interview from 2020…

13 thoughts on “Busted! The “Completely Independent” Government Transparency Website” Proves It Is Just Another Democratic Party Propaganda Agent [Expanded]

  1. I read a report this morning that even Kamala’s Wikipedia entry has recently been modified to memory hole the “Border Czar” assignment. Ridiculous and disgusting!

    • Wikipedia “editors” seem to be tying themselves in knots removing and reinserting the border czar info. TritteX here/gone/here/gone back and forth per Per Legal Insurrection link:
      WILLIAM JACOBSON: “THE SCRUBBING OF KAMALA’S PAST CONTINUES: ‘Wikipedia completely scrubbed Kamala from its executive branch czar page. The Axios article is no longer even listed in the citations.’

      Even though it’s open to anyone, I think it likely that most Wiki editors appear to lean left for the same reason that the majority of “journalists” do. It’s a common inclination of those wanting to control the narrative.

    • Perhaps my favorite dodge up to this point has been that she was never officially given the title of “Border Czar”, as if the United States had been literally handing out titles of Russian royalty to everyone else described as a “czar” in media and popular discourse.

  2. They “will stop at nothing to accomplish with Kamala Harris what they did with Barack Obama.” And with Joe Biden! Throughout his “campaign” and his entire administration, and they’ll continue to do so for the balance of his term. Wait for it, all of a sudden, Joe will start having “better days.”

  3. In 2020, a then-nobody named Tulsi Gabbard gave a sixty-second lecture at (I believe) the first democratic debate that laid bare Kamala Harris’ disgusting legal practices in California.

    Sixty seconds.

    One minute.

    In that one minute, Ms. Gabbard essentially terminated Harris’ 2020 Presidential bid.

    Web pages can be pulled and the media can try to create new narratives from the ashes, but Ms. Harris’ California record is still there. If I were in President Trump’s position, I would get Ms. Gabbard’s consent to transcribe those exact words…and then use them should a debate opportunity open up, emphasizing the fact that there is little else to go on, because VP Harris has done nothing as VP.

    She’s a FAR more vulnerable candidate than Sen. Clinton ever was, and there is plenty of ammunition at President Trump’s disposal besides the pathetic and juvenile name-calling. He should use every last round.

  4. Re: the clip: Holy Cow! That’s Norah O’Donnell gutting the most qualified candidate for president? Norah O’Donnell? That Norah O’Donnell? Harris really was considered a liability by The Powers that Be. Her recent gravity defying ascendancy has to be the most remarkable pirouette by a party in the history of American politics.

    • For the most part I agree. However, to be fair, the clip should have run a few seconds longer and given her actual response to the question. I doubt if it would be any better for Harris, but assuming that, why cut the clip off in mid sentence?

Leave a reply to Joel Mundt Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.