Summary of "Kamala is a MASSIVE Threat to Free Speech, plus Kamala's Border Hypocrisy is too much even for CNN"

Introduction

In this episode of The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson, host Ben Ferguson and guest Senator Ted Cruz delve into the critical examination of Senator Kamala Harris’s stance on free speech and her contradictory positions on border security. Released on September 6, 2024, the episode scrutinizes Harris's actions and rhetoric, positioning her as a significant threat to First Amendment rights and highlighting inconsistencies in her political narrative, particularly regarding the U.S. border wall. The discussion also critiques mainstream media outlets, especially CNN, for their handling of Harris's policies.

Kamala Harris: A Threat to Free Speech

Ben Ferguson opens the conversation by asserting that Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Waltz, represent the most anti-free speech candidates in American history. He emphasizes Harris’s history of advocating for censorship and silencing dissenting voices.

• Ferguson (00:18): "Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz are the most anti free speech presidential and vice presidential candidate in American history."

The dialogue highlights Harris’s 2019 interview with Jake Tapper on CNN, where she advocated for revoking President Donald Trump's Twitter privileges. Ferguson criticizes her stance, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent for governmental overreach into free speech.

• Ferguson (04:36): "Freedom of speech is a privilege, she says, is granted to you by us, the dictators."

Border Wall Hypocrisy

A significant portion of the episode focuses on Harris's contradictory positions regarding the U.S. border wall. Despite her long-standing opposition to the wall, Ferguson points out that her current campaign ads prominently feature it, labeling her stance as hypocritical.

• Ferguson (00:18): "Number two. Kamala Harris on the border wall, over and over and over and over again has been opposed to the border wall."

Cruz elaborates on this hypocrisy by referencing a CNN report that uncovered over 50 instances of Harris criticizing Trump’s border wall. Despite this, her campaign now showcases the very wall she once condemned.

• CNN Reporter (28:52): "And on top of critical tweets, Harris also wrote in her 2019 book... a monument designed to send the cold, hard message, keep out."

Critique of Media Outlets: CNN Under Scrutiny

The episode critically examines CNN's handling of Harris's policies, particularly their reporting on her stance on the border wall. Ferguson portrays CNN as inconsistent, lauding their investigative efforts while simultaneously airing campaign ads that contradict their findings.

• Ferguson (28:30): "This is a story that illustrates that her campaign is built on deception. It's built on lying."

Cruz adds that CNN’s attempts to expose Harris's inconsistencies may backfire, potentially harming their credibility and highlighting the deceptive strategies employed by political campaigns.

Implications for Free Speech and Democracy

Ferguson and Cruz discuss the broader implications of Harris’s policies on free speech and democratic principles. They argue that her approach not only threatens individual liberties but also undermines the foundational values of democracy by enabling government-backed censorship.

• Ferguson (09:48): "She was saying, silence the President of the United States... she is at the top of the list of those wanting to suppress the rights of free speech of every American."

Cruz echoes these concerns, emphasizing that the Democratic Party’s stance equates dissent with being an "enemy of democracy," thereby justifying authoritarian measures against opponents.

• Cruz (17:11): "You should just silence someone... they do believe that every American that disagrees with them, there should be a consequence for their views."

Expert Insights and Historical Context

The episode references Jonathan Turley, a law professor, who draws parallels between Harris’s potential administration and historical threats to free speech, notably the Alien and Sedition Acts under President John Adams.

• Ferguson (24:18): "Jonathan Turley... 'For free speech advocates, the 2024 election is looking strikingly similar to the election of 1800.'"

Turley underscores the gravity of Harris's positions, suggesting that her policies could lead to unprecedented governmental control over speech, reminiscent of early American history's darkest times.

Conclusion

Ben Ferguson concludes the episode by reiterating the significant threats posed by Kamala Harris to free speech and national security. He criticizes her administration’s record on various issues, including the economy, crime, and foreign policy, attributing these failures to her leadership. The discussion anticipates the forthcoming presidential debate, urging listeners to remain informed and vigilant against policies that undermine constitutional rights.

• Ferguson (42:33): "Her record is a failure. The Biden Harris record of the last four years is terrible... that's why she's desperately trying to run against, run away from it."

Ferguson calls for proactive opposition to Harris’s agenda, advocating for truth and factual discourse as remedies to counteract her perceived authoritarian tendencies.

Notable Quotes

• Ben Ferguson (00:18): "Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz are the most anti free speech presidential and vice presidential candidate in American history."

• Jake Tapper (05:03): "How is that not a violation of free speech? I mean, the president has the same rights that you have that I have."

• Jonathan Turley (24:18): "For free speech advocates, the 2024 election is looking strikingly similar to the election of 1800."

• Ben Ferguson (09:48): "She is at the top of the list of those wanting to suppress the rights of free speech of every American."

Final Thoughts

This episode serves as a critical examination of Kamala Harris's political strategies and their implications for American democracy and free speech. Through incisive analysis and pointed critique, Ben Ferguson and Ted Cruz present a narrative that challenges Harris's integrity and underscores the importance of safeguarding constitutional liberties against perceived governmental overreach.