No matter how much the Democrats try to spin Harris, they can’t sell her. And the reasons are clear.
I don’t have to explain all of Harris’ problems that she’s created on her own. But I will explain how the problems Biden-Harris created are her chickens that have come home to roost.
The chart below forebodes turbulent waters for Harris-Walz. And while I don’t believe the percentages any more than I believe the polls that have Harris anywhere close to tie with Trump.
Take immigration for example. It is easily a top 3 issue, and certainly ahead of abortion. But taking the chart at face-value, look at the second issue: free speech.
No question about number one being inflation. That’s the bug-a-boo Biden-Harris have never been able to shake. And rightfully so. But free speech?
How did free speech rise to the top 5?
Conservatives have reason to concern ourselves with the issue. We’ve felt it first-hand, as the Obama administration worked with the IRS and other agencies to stop us. As difficult as it is to believe, the Biden administration was far worse.
Biden’s DOJ worked even more closely with the media than Obama’s. But Biden’s crooks went much farther with the social media platforms. They stopped many stories from being told that we now know to be truth.
The Biden administration’s role in policing conservative speech through media and online platforms has become a hot topic, because we see the obvious media bias. But we’ve also learned that Biden’s DOJ gave “suggestions” to social media companies in targeting Conservatives or any views that didn’t speak to the narratives.
The 5th Circuit Court recently ruled that the administration likely violated First Amendment protections by pressuring companies to silence dissenting voices, particularly around COVID-19 and election content. For example, court records show White House officials and the DOJ pushed Twitter, Facebook, and others to quickly remove content that contradicted their narrative, demanding constant updates and “assurances” on how they were handling so-called misinformation.
But the censorship wasn’t limited to COVID, and covered the gamut on political issues.
The Biden administration’s tactics are raising questions about “censorship by proxy.” As it turns out, Biden officials encouraged platforms to flag or outright remove content from Conservative political voices. In doing so, the Biden administration used its authority to nudge companies into compliance. In the end, social media platforms were so cooperative that they often updated their content policies to match what the administration wanted, all under the guise of “public safety” concerns.
Democrats imposed suppression, thinly veiled as protection. They pivoted to social media, once the public began dismissing the talking heads of the mainstream media. And this is why free speech surged to the top of America’s list of grievances. But do you think Harris-Walz is backing down from this issue?
Kamala Harris on “Misinformation” and Social Media Regulation
Kamala Harris has been a proponent of regulating social media to control the spread of misinformation, especially regarding health-related topics like COVID-19 vaccines. This has sometimes sparked criticism from free speech advocates, who argue such regulation verges on censorship. While she hasn’t explicitly said she wants to “stop free speech,” Harris has supported initiatives that target what is perceived as misinformation, which some critics view as infringing on First Amendment rights. This approach has led to concerns, especially among conservatives, who feel such policies risk stifling legitimate debate. Here’s an article detailing her stance on misinformation.
Tim Walz and Protest Management
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has faced scrutiny over handling protests and public gatherings, especially during the civil unrest in 2020. Some critics accused Walz’s administration of clamping down on certain protests while allegedly allowing others to proceed, leading to accusations of selective enforcement that some perceived as limiting free expression. His approach has been controversial and viewed as inconsistent, particularly in conservative media, which framed it as an attempt to prioritize certain viewpoints over others. Walz has defended his actions as necessary to maintain public safety, though detractors argue it has a chilling effect on free speech rights. Here’s a breakdown of Walz’s approach to managing public gatherings.
The public has spoken. And ironically we love our First Amendment for free speech. And the best way to demonstrate it is at the ballot box.
