Thanks to our colleges, high schools, Hollywood, and the news media; very few Americans truly understand the concept of freedom of speech in its entirety.   I see, on such a regular basis, so many misconceptions about one of our most important God-given Natural rights.  When it comes to freedom of speech, the behavior of a certain segment of the political spectrum has become most appalling.  Silencing those with differing political and religious beliefs has become a natural reaction to a great many on the political left.  If you don’t agree with that statement, please explain to me recent events such as: tens of thousands showing up in Boston to silence a small group standing up for free speech, riots at Berkeley because one individual was scheduled to speak, Antifa beating people who dare to share opinions they don’t agree with, safe spaces on college campuses,  and so much more.

Freedom of speech is not granted to us by the First Amendment.  Each one of us is granted that right, along with all of our rights, directly by God.   The First Amendment preserves that right by preventing the federal government from interfering with that right in any way.  State Constitutions contain a Bill of Rights which protects free speech, along with other Natural Rights, of those living in that state against violations by the state and local governments.  If the First Amendment granted us the right of freedom of speech then deleting or changing that amendment would take it away.   The federal government, mostly through the efforts of an out of control Supreme Court, has distorted the meaning of the First Amendment so much that it is now used as a weapon to silence individuals and groups.   That violates the God-given Natural Right of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is far more important than people’s feelings.  There is no right to live your life free from being offended.  Everyone has a right to be offended by whatever offends them however no one has a right to silence anyone for any reason.  Not listening or saying something back is the only valid responses.  Political correctness is fundamentally wrong because its adherents seek to silence anyone and anything that offends them.  Political correctness is nothing but censorship by mob rule.  This does not violate the First Amendment because that amendment only restricts the federal government.  PC censorship does violate the God-given Natural Right of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech applies to everyone.  This includes the vilest, most hate filled individuals and groups.  This view was shared by those that wrote and ratified the First Amendment.  Even though I completely detest the Ku Klux Klan, along with everything they stand for, I fully support their right to spew their hate filled garbage.

Freedom of speech protects hate speech.  Far too often hate speech is nothing more than speech that offends someone.  It is all too common today for members of the political left to label speech, ideas, and philosophies of those on the political right as hate speech and attempt to ban those ideas.  This behavior is rampant on American colleges and universities.  Even truly hateful speech is protected.  As stated before, even the garbage spewed by the Ku Klux Klan is protected by freedom of speech.

No one has a right to use their speech to silence anyone.  Mobs or individuals shouting down or drowning out other speakers is not an exercise in free speech. It is a violation of the free speech of the original group or individuals that are trying to speak. It is also a violation of the right of an audience to listen to what they want to hear. Everyone has a right to speak and be heard no matter how vile and disgusting they are. Everyone has a right to listen to whatever they want to listen to. With the mob approach, free speech is only reserved for the largest and angriest mobs. This approach will only lead to violence, which has happened all too often recently.  The events in Boston last month were a disgusting display of misguided individuals silencing others.  The media falsely labeled the original rally as hate speech by white supremacists and tens of thousands showed up to silence them, drown them out, or force the cancelation of the event.   Even if the rally was organized by white supremacists, no one had a right to silence them in any way.  Silently protesting them; while carrying signs, or peacefully and respectfully trying to engage in debate, would have been proper techniques to protest such an event.

Freedom of speech is a two way street.  Everyone has a right to criticize speech and behavior they do not agree with.  Criticism is in no way a violation of the original speaker’s right of free speech.  I am regularly critical of speech I do not like along with individuals and groups who engage in speech and behavior I don’t like.  Often I use harsh or angry language when I criticize what I don’t like.  Everyone is free to do the same.  I never call for anyone to be silenced no matter how vehemently I disagree with what they have to say.

Speech is never violence.  This claim has repeatedly been made by the group Antifa who use this claim as an excuse to use violence against those they disagree with.  Because of this behavior Antifa is nothing more than a mob of angry thugs.

Violence is never the answer to anything.  That includes speech that you do not agree with or that offends you.

Censorship is always wrong.  Facebook and Twitter regularly censor conservative and other right leaning posts, advertising, articles, and memes.  The First Amendment and state Bills of Rights do not prevent this behavior because they are private companies.  This censorship does violate the God-given Natural right of freedom of speech therefore it is wrong.  Individuals have every right to not use those social media outlets and implore others not to use them.   I regularly use those social media outlets to rail against their vile censorship.  I will share this article on both sites.

Forcing others to be patriotically correct or morally correct is just as wrong as forcing others to be politically correct.  We on the right also engage in our own censorship, although it is not as out of control as that of the political left.  There is nothing wrong with encouraging others to speak and behave as you wish.  It is absolutely wrong to force others to comply and to silence them if they do not.

If you agree with this article, can you please share it on Facebook and Twitter?

Pres. Trump gave his first speech to the United Nations General Assembly yesterday. You can read it in full here, and you should (video at Powerline).

1. Pres. Trump asserted the American constitutional system of governance, as Rick Manning said,

“not as imposition but an example to be followed, while at the same time respecting the sovereignty of other nations.”

2. The speech was a clear departure from the Obama era of apology. The Diplomad calls the speech “a powerful and clear foreign policy vision,”

It is a return to seeing the world as a collection of nation-states, each with its own interests and culture; states which can and should find areas of mutual cooperation while living their own lives and allowing others to live theirs. It is a step back from the silly borderless globalism which has produced the multi-cultural havoc we see in Western cities, and along our southern border. He puts our interests first, and asks other leaders to do the same with their countries. Revolutionary.

3. Trump was clear on Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela,
On Iran:

The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided the United States has ever entered into.

On Cuba:

That is why in the Western Hemisphere, the United States has stood against the corrupt and destabilizing regime in Cuba and embraced the enduring dream of the Cuban people to live in freedom. My administration recently announced that we will not lift sanctions on the Cuban government until it makes fundamental reforms.

On North Korea, the country headed by Rocket Man,

The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.

On Venezuela:

The United States has taken important steps to hold the regime accountable. We are prepared to take further action if the government of Venezuela persists on its path to impose authoritarian rule on the Venezuelan people.

4. Three words you didn’t hear often during the Obama administration: radical Islamic terrorism,

We will stop radical Islamic terrorism because we cannot allow it to tear up our nation, and indeed to tear up the entire world.

5. And, last, but not least,

Bonus: He did not need to say, “Let me be clear.” He was.

Related: Trump and the Truth about Communism

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes on U. S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog

An additional caveat to assessments of a 2030 ‘emissions gap’ is  that most NDCs are formulated in terms of CO2-equivalent (CO2e)emissions, a composite metric of warming impact of different gases based on Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) from various IPCC reports. It is therefore impossible to assess precisely the 2030 emissions of CO2 itself that are compatible with these pledges without additional assumptions, because CO2e pledges could be attained through varying combinations of long-lived and short-lived forcer mitigation.

Emissions budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5° C Sept 18 2017

Last month I did a post on how the variance in computer model’s predictions on Hurricane paths despite decades of data and the finest computers and training available was a simple proof of the folly of relying on computer climate models dealing with “complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes” trying to predict events decades in the future.

You aren’t dealing with a single “complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes” you are dealing with EVERY complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes that exists on the earth. Every single additional item you add increases the variation of the data models. Furthermore you are also dealing with variations in the sun, variations in the orbits of the earth, its moon and more.

And that’s just the variations in natural phenomena, imagine the variation in industrial output on the entire planet for a period of 50 or 100 years.

Think of the computer modeling and tracking of that single hurricane and apply this thinking to the climate of the earth as a whole. How accurate that model is going to be over 100 years, 50 years, 25 years or even ten years?

Would you be willing to bet even your short term economic future on it, would anyone in their right mind do so?

That post got both a ton of attention and a ton of pushback by those insisting that I was comparing apples and oranges (hurricanes vs the planetary system) not realizing that my point was primarily about computer modeling and variations of data over a long period of time.

Well one month later the Independent (via insty) acquaints us with a new study that suggests global warming models “on the hot side”

the findings indicate the danger may not be as acute as was previously thought.

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the study’s authors told The Times: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

The original forecasts were based on twelve separate computer models made by universities and government institutes around the world, and were put together ten years ago, “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”, Professor Allen added.

Or in other words when you have actual data that decreases the variable involved suddenly the path to the goal of avoiding disaster seems easier.

Of course you won’t be surprised to hear that this change in data is being sold as a reason to move forward on draconian emissions control because we now have a chance to achieve temperature goals without actions that are: “incompatible with democracy” but take a look at the quote not from the news article but from the actual study that I lead this post with in which I highlight several key words in BOLD:

An additional caveat to assessments of a 2030 ‘emissions gap’ is  that most NDCs are formulated in terms of CO2-equivalent (CO2e)emissions, a composite metric of warming impact of different gases based on Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) from various IPCC reports. It is therefore impossible to assess precisely the 2030 emissions of CO2 itself that are compatible with these pledges without additional assumptions, because CO2e pledges could be attained through varying combinations of long-lived and short-lived forcer mitigation.

Or to put it in english:   We have no idea if we’re actually right because we are making assumptions from a range of potential figures from multiple reports (whose composites, metrics and assumptions are not detailed here) so we can’t actually say how much carbon we have to restrict to keep the planet down to our temperature goal without making guesses.

But we conclude you have to make giant adjustments to your economy and tax code, that coincidently favor connected interests that fund such studies

You’re going to base the economy of your state, your country your continent on THAT?

Read through that entire report, it has more weasel words than an end user agreement writ and as you do ponder this exchange from the classic Doctor Who episode the Aztecs:

Tlotoxl: A vision is with us, Autloc. When does it rain?
Autloc: This day. When the sun’s fire first touches the horizon to the west.
Tlotoxl: At that moment shall I present her to the people. A vision is with us and shall stand before them. And I, in supplication to the Rain God, shall offer human blood. The rains will come. No more talk against us that the gods were against us and brought drought to the land. The rains will come and power shall again be ours.
Autloc: I tell you the rains will come with or without sacrifice.
Tlotoxl: Does the High Priest of Knowledge only worship him who has fallen, and not him who has made us strong?
Autloc: I worship the same god as you.
Tlotoxl: Then above all, honour him. He has made us rulers of the land. For this he demands blood. And he shall have it.

and ask yourself if we are seeing the same scenario from our elite classes demanding a sacrifice to prevent a crisis that doesn’t exist in order to maintain their positions and wealth?


If you like what you’ve seen here and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level