While serving in the U.S. Senate, Kamala Harris celebrated the Democrat primary victory of Philadelphia progressive prosecutor Larry Krasner—and the controversial policies he would later champion as the city’s district attorney.  “As I said yesterday, progressive prosecutors are key to criminal justice reforms like rolling back mass incarceration and ending cash bail,” Harris wrote on social media, May 17, 2017.  As I said yesterday, progressive prosecutors are key to criminal justice reforms like rolling back mass incarceration and ending cash bail. https://t.co/r0PqTVrQ9a— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) May 17, 2017 Progressive prosecutors, also referred to as rogue prosecutors, are those who, in the name of social justice, “have usurped the legislative power by refusing to prosecute large categories of crimes,” according to Zack Smith and Charles Stimson, authors of “Rogue Prosecutors: How Radical Soros Lawyers Are Destroying America’s Communities.”  Before being elected as Philadelphia’s district attorney, Krasner worked as a criminal defense and civil rights attorney. He “sued the Philadelphia Police Department dozens of times over the decades, ran to be Philadelphia’s district attorney and received almost $1.45 million in campaign spending from George Soros in the process,” Smith and Stimson, previously reported for The Daily Signal.  On his website, Krasner touts that under his watch, “the office broke its information-sharing contract with [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement], has “stopped prosecuting nearly all simple drug possession cases,” and “Other drug possession cases are diverted toward treatment.”  Harris served as a prosecutor in California in the 1990s and was later elected district attorney of San Francisco in 2003. In 2010, she was elected attorney general of California and won reelection in 2014. While serving in these roles, Harris implemented policies championed by the progressive prosecutor movement.  In 2004, black gang member David Hill shot and killed San Francisco police officer Isaac Espinoza. Harris, who was the district attorney of San Francisco at the time, did not pursue the death penalty.  In 2012, while serving as attorney general, Harris issued a bulletin to law enforcement in California regarding an Immigration and Customs Enforcement program called Secure Communities that enables ICE to detain and deport criminal illegal aliens. In the bulletin, Harris told law enforcement that they were not required to fulfill individual ICE immigration detainers but could instead “make their own decisions” about detainer requests.  Despite her past embrace of policies progressive prosecutors have been known to advocate for, Harris has pegged herself as a tough on crime criminal prosecutor on the campaign trail.  Within days of launching her campaign, Harris used her record as a prosecutor in an effort to contrast herself with former President Donald Trump.  “I took on perpetrators of all kinds: predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain,” she said at a campaign event in Wisconsin in July. “So hear me when I say I know Donald Trump’s type.” During her debate with Trump on Sept. 10, Harris said she was “the only person” on stage to have “prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings.” Harris, who wrote the book “Smart on Crime” in 2009, has previously received criticism for her support of “soft on crime” policies, such as her pledge to “never charge the death penalty” during her 2004 inauguration speech to the office of San Francisco’s district attorney.  During her 2020 campaign for president, Harris issued a memo in which she detailed her support for ending mass incarceration.  Harris advocated for “significant federal investments in policies that would end mass incarceration and especially into evidence-based, non-carceral social supports and programs at the state and local level to improve public safety and reduce violence,” she said.  In the same 2020 campaign memo, Harris called for the end of cash bail.  “Our bail system is unjust and broken,” Harris said, adding, “450,000 Americans sit in jail today awaiting trial because they cannot afford to pay bail. Excessive cash bail disproportionately harms people from low-income communities and communities of color,” she wrote.  Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment, but the campaign’s previous statements indicate Harris still backs ending cash bail.  “On the issue of cash bail, she believes that we need a system where public safety, not wealth, determines who should stay behind bars following an arrest,” James Singer, a spokesperson for the Harris campaign, told Fox News Digital in August. “Anyone who is a danger to society should be detained regardless of how wealthy they are.”  The post Uncovered: Old Harris Tweet Celebrates ‘Progressive Prosecutors’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In an interview Tuesday, Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, dismissed the idea of religious exemptions for abortion. Hallie Jackson, senior Washington correspondent for NBC News, asked Harris what kind of concessions she would be willing to make with a hypothetical Republican-majority Congress in order to pass legislation protecting abortion if she wins the Nov. 5 election. “What concessions would be on the table? Religious exemptions, for example, is that something that you would consider?” Jackson asked. “I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body,” Harris replied. Harris’ campaign did not respond to The Daily Signal‘s request for comment clarifying her position on religious exemptions. Religious Exemptions Federal law provides, and has provided, multiple religious-freedom protections for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and taxpayers who object to being forced to participate in an abortion. The Biden-Harris administration has vocally opposed the Hyde Amendment, the nearly half-century-old legislation that would protect taxpayers from footing the bill for procedures that kill the unborn, but the administration has acknowledged that federal law protects other exemptions. During Supreme Court oral arguments in March, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar whether it is true that “under federal law, no doctors can be forced against their consciences to perform or assist in an abortion.” Prelogar confirmed that “federal conscience protections provide broad coverage” on that issue. CONSCIENCE CLAUSE — RL34703Download Prelogar cited the Church Amendments, named for then-Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, which Congress passed and the president signed into law in the 1970s. These amendments prevent the government from forcing health care institutions that receive federal assistance to make their facilities available for abortion or sterilization. They also prevent entities receiving federal funds from discriminating against health care providers who refuse to perform abortions or sterilizations. CHURCH AMENDMENTS 42usc300a7Download Similarly, the 1996 Coats-Snowe Amendment prohibits the federal government and any state or local government receiving federal funds from discriminating against any health care entity on the basis that the entity refuses to perform abortions or to undergo training in performance of abortions. The amendment takes its name from its Senate cosponsors, then-Sens. Dan Coats, R-Ind., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. The Weldon Amendment, originally passed as part of a bill funding the Department of Health and Human Services for 2005, stipulates that no HHS appropriations may fund any federal agency or program that discriminates against health care providers that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. It takes its name from then-Rep. David Weldon, R-Fla. The Hyde Amendment, which protects taxpayers from footing the bill for abortion, remains in effect, since Congress included it in 2022 funding legislation. Even if the Hyde Amendment fails, federal law will still provide various religious exemptions that protect Americans who believe abortion constitutes the killing of an unborn human being. Under current law, hospitals can refuse to perform abortions, refuse to let others perform abortions using their facilities, and refuse to train health care professionals to perform abortions. Doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals can refuse to perform abortions, assist in performing abortions, and undergo training for abortions. Pharmacists can refuse to dispense abortion-inducing drugs, and employers can decline to cover abortion-inducing drugs for employees. One out of five hospital beds in the U.S. sits in a religious-based hospital, and Catholic hospitals make up three-quarters of those religious hospitals, according to a University of California at San Francisco study. What Is Harris’ Position? The Harris campaign did not respond to questions about whether the vice president opposes these religious exemptions. While she did not explicitly call for the repeal of the Church Amendments, the Coats-Snowe Amendment, or the Weldon Amendment, her flat rejection of even the idea of offering religious exemptions as a potential compromise on the issue suggests a firm opposition to any religious exemptions. Furthermore, Harris’ framing—”I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body”—suggests she would remove any exemptions from a law to codify abortion protections. The Harris campaign did not respond to a request for comment about what punishment Harris considers appropriate for anyone who declines to participate in abortion, should the religious exemptions be struck down. This issue may carry salience for Catholics and many evangelical Christians, whose faith condemns abortion as a form of murder. Biden, when he served in the U.S. Senate, firmly supported the Hyde Amendment as part of his stance that he was “personally opposed” to the practice, while he would allow it legally. He abandoned the Hyde Amendment while campaigning for the presidency in 2020. The Biden administration has sought to roll back religious exemptions. Would a Harris administration do the same? The post Would Kamala Harris Force Catholic Hospitals and Doctors to Perform Abortions? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Spring means “in with the new,” and this refreshing twist on the classic spring roll recipe is sure to be a crowd favorite at any outdoor garden party or poolside gathering! The zesty blend of seasonings in these Shrimp Spring Rolls, combined with a cold Thai beer or iced tea, is sure to become an instant spring snack sensation. Zesty Shrimp Spring Rolls The following ingredients are needed in order to begin preparation for your Shrimp Spring Rolls: ¼ cup fish sauce 2 tablespoons of green onion 1.5 tablespoons of lime juice Dash of crushed red pepper 2 teaspoons of olive oil 2 teaspoons of minced ginger 16 uncooked medium shrimp, peeled ¼ cups of chopped cilantro 4 cups of hot water 8 6-inch diameter Vietnamese spring roll sheets 4 small lettuce leaves halved Directions: To begin your preparation, mix the first four listed ingredients into a small bowl to create your seasoning sauce. Set this aside and turn your attention to heating the oil in a medium-sized skillet on medium-high heat. Throw in the ginger and let this sauté until it becomes fragrant (and trust me, it will be!) Add in the shrimp and cilantro, cooking for about one minute until the shrimp are done through. Sprinkle in a dash of salt and pepper and remove your shrimp from the heat. Step one is complete! Pour the four cups of hot water into a large bowl and grab a pair of kitchen tongs. Using these, dip your spring-roll sheets into the water for five seconds each. Remove them from the water and place them on a wet towel. After letting them sit for 30 seconds, the spring-roll sheets should be soft and pliable and ready for wrapping and rolling! Place one half of a lettuce leaf across the top third section of the spring-roll wrap. Arrange four pieces of shrimp on top of the lettuce, and top off your creation with 1 tablespoon of green onions. Drizzle your seasoning sauce over the filling; or, if you prefer to use it at as dipping side, feel free to forego this step. Fold the sides of the spring-roll wrap over the ends of the filling and starting at the fitted side, begin rolling your wrap into a cylinder. You’ll then repeat this final stage in the process three more times, until you’ve created four perfect Shrimp Spring Rolls that will surely become an instant crowd-pleaser at any event you host this spring. The recipe size can also be increased in order to work as a main course, just in case you and your guests can’t seem to get enough of this delicious, healthy, and savory spring treat! Up Next: 11 Spring Recipes For The Homesteading Cook Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, and Facebook! Will you give these Zesty Shrimp Spring Rolls a try? Let us know in the comment section below!

YGBKM: NYT Hamburglers Source on Kamala's McDonalds Job

TNR Needs a Waahmbulance

Christian students Grant Beth and Luke Polaske recently attended a Kamala Harris rally only to be mocked for their beliefs by the Vice President. While Harris was carrying out her routine glorification of abortion, the students peacefully shouted “Christ is King!” and “Jesus is Lord!” “Oh, you guys are at the wrong rally,” Harris responded to cheers from her abortion-worshiping crowd, adding, “I think you meant to go to the smaller one down the street.” The “smaller” rally she was referencing was former President Trump’s, which actually attracted around 7,000 attendees. Kamala’s brought in only 2,000 attendees. Pat Gray and Keith Malinak of “Pat Gray Unleashed” are disgusted. “Clearly mocking the pro-life Christian guy,” Malinak comments. “She’s probably right,” Gray says. “They probably are at the wrong rally. This is the Satan rally, okay, that wants to murder babies and murder children and perform evil in America. ‘Okay, yeah, you’re right, we’re probably at the wrong rally.’” “Pathetic,” he adds. Want more from Pat Gray?To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A federal appeals court upheld a misdemeanor trespass charge used against more than 1,400 defendants who protested at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, but the issue could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.In a 45-page ruling, a three-judge panel upheld the conviction of Jan. 6 defendant Couy Griffin on a charge of knowingly entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds under U.S. Code 18 §1752(a)(1).The two judges signing the majority opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit were Cornelia Pillard — an appointee of President Barack Obama — and Judith Rogers, appointed by President Bill Clinton.Judge Gregory Katsas, appointed to the bench by President Donald J. Trump, filed a 22-page dissenting opinion.The statute is designed to protect the president, vice president, and other top government officials from trespassers. It has two elements: The area in question must be “posted, cordoned off or otherwise restricted” and be one where “the president or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting.”'I would vacate Griffin’s conviction and remand for further findings or proceedings.'Griffin entered the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol just after 2:30 p.m. on Jan. 6, walked onto the West Plaza and up a flight of stairs to the inauguration stage, where he prayed and spoke to the crowd below using a bullhorn.Griffin, the founder of Cowboys for Trump, argued that he was not aware that Vice President Mike Pence being in the U.S. Capitol was the basis for the second element of §1752(a)(1). Pence presided over the ceremonial counting of Electoral College votes from the 2020 presidential election during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6. He was evacuated from the U.S. Senate at 2:11 p.m. and moved to a secure loading dock just before the Capitol was breached by the swelling crowds.After a March 2022 bench trial before U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, Griffin was found guilty of violating §1752(a)(1) and not guilty of a charge that he intended to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business. Judge McFadden made no finding whether Griffin knew that the vice president would be present on Jan. 6.Three months later, Griffin received a time-served prison sentence. He had spent 20 days in pretrial detention. His appeal of conviction was argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 4, 2023.In her client’s appeal, assistant federal public defender Lisa Wright said as Griffin approached the Capitol, “There was no signage or police presence indicating that he was not allowed to be there.” Couy Griffin, founder of Cowboys for Trump, poses for photos on his walk to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.U.S. Department of Justice“A reasonable person would expect that, if a part of the Capitol grounds was meant to be closed, there would be some signage, barricades, or police presence to tell him so,” Wright wrote in her appeal brief. “But everywhere Mr. Griffin went–past walls that enclosed nothing and through an open door near the base of the Capitol steps–he encountered no postings or police suggesting he had reached an area that was off-limits.”Wright said that prosecutors had not proven that Griffin knew the vice president was still at the Capitol. Some 45 minutes before he set foot on the West Lawn, evidence showed Griffin remarked that Pence “certified it,” referring to the Electoral College tally.In the majority opinion, Judges Rogers and Pillard wrote that prosecutors did not need to prove that Griffin knew the vice president was present in order to satisfy elements of the crime.'Not required to prove'“We hold that the trial evidence sufficed to prove that the Capitol grounds were ‘posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted’ under section 1752(c)(1), and that Griffin knew they were so restricted when he entered and remained there,” they wrote. “We further hold that the government was not required to prove that Griffin knew when he entered and remained in the restricted area that Vice President Pence was still there.”In his dissent, Judge Katsas said knowledge that an area is restricted and that a protectee of the U.S. Secret Service such as the vice president is present are both necessary for a conviction.“Some evidence suggests Griffin did not know, such as his later, mistaken statement that the vice president had already certified the election before Griffin arrived at the Capitol,” Katsas wrote. “Because an essential element of the section 1752(a)(1) charge thus remains unresolved, I would vacate Griffin’s conviction and remand for further findings or proceedings.”Many defense attorneys expect the questions raised in the Griffin case to end up before the Supreme Court, which in June issued a ruling strictly limiting use of an accounting-fraud statute to prosecute Jan. 6 defendants.The DOJ had charged more than 350 Jan. 6 defendants with the felony crime of obstruction of an official proceeding for the delay of the session of Congress. But the High Court said 18 U.S. Code §1512(c)(2) could apply only to documents or other evidence used in a proceeding.As of Aug. 6, the DOJ had charged 1,417 people with knowingly entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds — the most common Jan. offense.However, the DOJ stopped reporting that total in its September and October statistical summaries. Instead, it inserted this language: “All defendants charged in the January 6 prosecution have been charged with some form of trespass or disorderly conduct, in violation of federal criminal codes.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

CNN poll analyst Harry Enten unearthed more data that showed the election could be swinging decisively toward former President Donald Trump just weeks before Election Day. 'This is the type of movement Donald Trump likes to see in the center of the electorate.' Enten found that independent voters were slipping away from Vice President Kamala Harris just as the Democrat was looking to shore up support. “What do we know about independents, right? Center of the electorate. You go last time around, Joe Biden won these voters by 11 points," Enten explained. "You look at September of 2024, a month ago, Kamala Harris was up five points among independents. You look now, though, look at this. She’s only up by two points among a key bloc, center of the electorate, down nine points from where Biden was at the end of the 2020 campaign." He went on to say the case against Kamala worsens when the focus centers on the battleground states. "What is going on in those key battleground states, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, the Great Lakes, that blue wall, right?” Enten continued. “Joe Biden, last time around, won ’em by five points over Donald Trump. Look at where we are today," he said. "This is the type of movement Donald Trump likes to see in the center of the electorate, up by a point. Now, of course, that’s well within any margin of error, right? But again, it‘s the movement. It’s the trend." Enten then pointed out that in the presidential elections since 1952, the candidates who won independents went on to win the election 15 times, while those who lost independents won the presidency only three times. While not decisive, the trend of independents turning toward Trump is a very bad sign for Democrats. Video of Enten's analysis from CNN can be viewed at his social media account. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A blockbuster New York Times report said that researchers trying to prove the effectiveness of puberty blockers refused to publish the results when they did not suit their political agenda. The study was conducted by Johanna Olson-Kennedy, who is described as an "influential doctor and advocate of adolescent gender treatments" and who, with her colleagues at the Los Angeles Children's Hospital, received millions of dollars in 2015 to document medical treatments for transgender youth, according to the Times. 'I understand the fear about it being weaponized, but it’s really important to get the science out there.' Olson-Kennedy and others gave puberty blockers to 95 children and followed them for two years in hopes of providing evidence that the controversial treatments eased depression and mental illness from body dysmorphia. Years later, Olson-Kennedy admits that the results were not what they expected and gave a dubious excuse for not publishing them. “They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years,” she said. However, the Times report noted that the claim contradicted an earlier description of the child cohort that said a quarter of them were either suicidal or depressed before the puberty blocker treatment. And while it's been nine years since she received the funding, she said that they were not publishing their results out of political motivations. “I do not want our work to be weaponized,” she said. “It has to be exactly on point, clear and concise. And that takes time.” Olson-Kennedy also claimed the delays were due to budget cuts, but the Times again contradicted that excuse by reporting that the researchers had received $9.7 million to date for the broader survey. The Times then obtained comments from other researchers who were alarmed by Olson-Kennedy's actions. “I understand the fear about it being weaponized, but it’s really important to get the science out there,” said Boston College clinical and research psychologist Amy Tishelman. “No change isn’t necessarily a negative finding — there could be a preventative aspect to it,” she added. “We just don’t know without more investigation.” Pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass said that delaying results misleads the public about whether transgender treatments are actually beneficial. “It’s really important we get results out there so we understand whether it’s helpful or not, and for whom,” she said. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A Texas husband and wife allegedly attempted an ambush, kidnapping, and murder of the wife's alleged former lover over the weekend.The victim — who did not want to be named due to fears for his life — allegedly had been having an affair with 35-year-old Hana Ahmad Alolaimi. Both the victim and Alolaimi reportedly were married to other people. The victim said the angry husband told him he had to die because he had dishonored his wife.Citing court records, KRIV-TV reported that the two would meet at a Chick-fil-A in West Houston and then would drive behind a nearby Target to be alone.While court documents say the victim broke off the adulterous relationship three months ago after his wife found out, the victim and Alolaimi allegedly met Saturday in the parking lot at the same Chick-fil-A from their past meetings.According to court documents, Alolaimi parked her vehicle and gestured to the victim to enter her vehicle.When Alolaimi started to drive away, the victim — a 36-year-old DoorDash delivery driver — reportedly told her that he had to make a delivery and could not leave. She allegedly continued to drive from the Chick-fil-A. The victim was unaware that 48-year-old Omar Mahmoud Bishtawi — the husband of Alolaimi — reportedly was hiding in the back seat of the vehicle. "Your husband jumped out from under a curtain that was in the back seat of the vehicle, put the complaining witness in a chokehold, then pressed a firearm against the complaining witness' head," the prosecutor told Alolaimi at her hearing, according to KHOU.The victim said the angry husband told him he had to die because he had dishonored his wife."With his left hand, he grabs me like this and says: 'You made fun of her,'" the victim told KHOU."I pulled the door handle, and thank God it opened in a matter of seconds," the victim said. The prosecutor added, "The complaining witness tried to get away, and your husband shot the complaining witness two times."The victim managed to get away, call for help, and then he was rushed to a hospital.Court documents note that the victim was shot in the thigh and right foot, and he could have died from the shooting if he had not been taken to the hospital in time.The victim told KHOU he still can't feel anything below one knee.The suspects reportedly drove away but later surrendered to the Houston police who said Alolaimi and Bishtawi provided investigators with conflicting statements about the nearly fatal incident.Bishtawi and Alolaimi are both charged with aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault. Bishtawi's bond was set at $200,000 while Alolaimi's was set at $150,000. Bishtawi and Alolaimi have three children ages 13, 10, and 7, according to court documents. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!