Ben Shapiro offered to donate ten stacks to Progressive-Democratic Party candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign for a House seat from a New York district if she would debate him on “all the topics under the sun.” Shapiro also offered to debate her for charity.
Ocasio-Cortez’s response was to call Shapiro a cat-calling man with bad intentions and to refuse to debate him.
It seems the face of the Progressive-Democratic Party hasn’t the courage of the Party’s convictions.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and House of Representatives candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) are the ideological face of the Progressive-Democratic Party, pushing for socialism to be inflicted on our nation. We can have the political debate, except for the rest of the face of the Party.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D, CA) is openly pushing for violence against Republicans and Conservatives. And we have Antifa verbally assaulting Conservatives Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk. While they were not, this time, violent, the Antifa thugs were openly racist in their verbal assault, and they sought to completely shut down political debate concerning the direction our nation should take over the present next election cycle.
Progressive-Democrats’ silence on Antifa (and Waters) not only contributes to their desired goal of “no debate; it’s settled,” it shows that Progressive-Democrats actively condone the tactics being used.
Remember this this fall.
Now Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook is being blatant about censoring inconvenient truths. He and Connecticut’s Chris Murphy are peas in a pod.
Elizabeth Heng is a Republican candidate for Congress from a California district centered on Fresno. Her parents are emigres from Cambodia who also had escaped the genocide of the ’70s that Pol Pot had tried to inflict. Heng tried to run a campaign ad that touted that fight, that survival, and her parents’ recovery from that terror. When she put her ad on Facebook, Zuckerberg and his censorship algorithm-programming IT experts said Nope.
We don’t allow ads that contain shocking, disrespectful, or sensational content, including ads that depict violence or threats of violence[.]
Because an illustration of triumph over murderous adversity, when it comes from a Conservative, is shocking, disrespectful, or sensational.
No. As Heng tweeted (because Facebook showed itself not reliably available to her, I speculate)
It’s unbelievable that @facebook could have such a blatant disregard for the history that many people, including my own parents, have lived through. I’m sure it is “shocking” for people to hear about this kind of injustice, but this is reality.
Once again, an illustration of the Left’s view of free speech.
I wrote about the level of integrity in the Manafort trial a bit ago as it concerned an accountant who sold her testimony to Mueller’s prosecutors for immunity from her confessed crimes (or who was browbeaten into it with the potential charges as cudgel). Here’s another example of the level of integrity in Mueller’s case against Manafort, this time involving Mueller’s prosecutors’ star witness, Rick Gates.
Gates, long prior to the start of the Manafort trial, pled guilty to a count of conspiracy against the United States and a count of lying to the FBI. As part of the plea, Mueller dropped 22 other charges against Gates. Also on the table are the sanctions ensuing from the deal: a reduction of his likely jail sentence from 100 years (!) to 5-6 years—and potentially to just probation—and a reduction of his fine from $500,000 to as little as $2,000.
Another part of the plea deal is the kicker: to get those reductions, he must cooperate with Mueller’s prosecutors in their investigation and trial of Manafort. That cooperation, with the Manafort trial underway, clearly centers on how well he testifies to the prosecutors’ satisfaction.
Since so much of Mueller’s case against Manafort depends on witnesses who’ve sold their testimony so blatantly, or who were browbeaten into giving the testimony those prosecutors demanded, how can this case have any credibility at all?
Senator Chris Murphy (D, CT) wants to spread censorship about and vastly broaden it. All in the name of democracy—Progressive-Democrat style.
Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it[.]
Censorship. Because the only speech that should be free is that speech approved by our Betters. Because ordinary Americans are just too grindingly stupid to be trusted with deciding for ourselves what to say, what to hear, and how to evaluate what we hear.
This is the “freedom” that the Progressive-Democratic Party will allow us.