October 6, 2025 • 49 mins
Kenin Spivak is an attorney, founder and chairman of SMI Group. He explains that the Left’s suppression of free speech reached its nadir during the Biden administration. We continue to learn of its Orwellian initiatives to censor, deplatform, demonetize and suppress views with which it disagreed. Globally, we are seeing unprecedented repression of conservative voices by democratically elected governments, including England, France and Brazil and the European Union isn’t much better.
Bill Martinez Live is broadcast live Mondays at 3PM ET on W4CY Radio (www.w4cy.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Bill Martinez is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Bill Martinez Live Podcast is also available on https://www.billmartinezshow.com, Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Bill Martinez Live is broadcast live Mondays at 3PM ET on W4CY Radio (www.w4cy.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Bill Martinez is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Bill Martinez Live Podcast is also available on https://www.billmartinezshow.com, Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The topics and opinions express in the following show are
solely those of the hosts and their guests and not
those of w FORCY Radio. It's employees are affiliates. We
make no recommendations or endorsements for radio show programs, services,
or products mentioned on air or on our web. No liability,
explicit or implied shall be extended to W FOURCY Radio
or it's employees are affiliates. Any questions or comments should
be directed to those show hosts. Thank you for choosing
(00:21):
w FOCY Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Well, hello and welcome Bill Martinez here. Great to have
you with us sharing a part of your day. For
more info on the show, you can go to Bill
Martinez Live dot com.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Well.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Our First Amendment of our Constitution has no doubt been
in the crosshairs of many liberals, and it's been rather frustrating.
But just for the record, here let me remind you
what it says in our constitutions. Congress may not make
any law that sets up any religion or interferes with
(01:08):
any religious practice. Congress may not make any law that
diminishes the freedom of speech, or the freedom of the press,
or the right of the people to assemble peacefully or
the right of the people to petition the government to
make things right if it has caused them harm. That
is the first Amendment in its totality. And we're going
(01:30):
to focus particularly on free speech as a core American value.
And there is a reason, I believe paramount and why
our founders focus so much on free speech and made it.
I mean, of the first ten amendments to our Constitution,
this was the first one. And I believe, you know,
(01:54):
not only from practical experience, the founders were motivated to
make sure that free speech was headlined, but also you know,
when you think about its broad implication in terms of
intellectualizing the electorate, I believe any limit of free speech
(02:14):
dumbs us all down. Though you may argue that sometimes
free speech can be harsh speech, I understand that. I
think that free speech should come with a responsibility, and
I think that is something that we still try to
debate and work out in our culture even to this day.
(02:34):
But no doubt that, you know, particularly under the Biden administration,
free speech was attacked on many levels. Kennon Spevak is
going to be joining us. He is the founder and
chairman of the SMI Group and international consulting firm, and
it contributed to real politics and Claremont Institute's The American Mind.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Ken and welcome, Michelle. Good to have you with us.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
Bill, Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Well, let's talk talk about free space. Is you write
for American value? How do you see it?
Speaker 4 (03:04):
I say it as the basis of all our liberties.
And if you don't mind, I want to add to
what you did when you read the First Amendment. The
First Amendment says Congress shall make no law, abridging and
then it goes on from there. Well, everyone needs to
understand that the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held
(03:27):
that though the words are Congress shall make no Law,
that the First Amendment applies equally to the executive branch
of the federal government in its actions, and to the
actions of the state government, governments and municipalities. So the
First Amendment is really much broader than can be seen
(03:48):
by just reading the plain words Congress shall make no law.
And the reason the Supreme Court expanded the application of
the First Amendment first to the executive branch and then
to the state's and municipalities is because it recognized that
that was the intention that was the meaning given those
(04:10):
words when they were first written so many years ago.
Without the First Amendment, we are no better than that
which government decides we can talk about. And that really
is what was happening during the Biden administration. The suppression
of free speech, particularly on social media, but not only
(04:33):
on social media. Wasn't just directed to COVID, you know, Bill,
So many people talk about what the Biden administration did
is limiting dissenting views on COVID, and it did, but
the Biden administration also suppressed dissenting views on many issues
on the economy, on international trade, even humor directed at
(04:58):
the Biden administration. That's something we can never again allow
to happen. But I'm not so sure we're ready to
stop it from happening again.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
I appreciate that. And actually you could actually go before
the Trump administration. And this began to raise its ugly
head during the Obama years, did it not?
Speaker 4 (05:20):
It did? It started during the last year of the
Obama administration. It actually continued below the radar during the
Trump administration. Within the deep state last year or two
of the Obama administration, a number of agencies were created
or reconstituted within particularly the Department the Department of Homeland Security,
(05:43):
to a lesser degree in the Department of Justice. Those
agencies or those bureaus within the Department of Homeland Security,
and by the way, one even in the Department of State,
began to abuse the authority conferred on them to prevent
problems with cyber security, problems with foreign governments intruding into
(06:08):
US cyberspace, and they began to use their authority to
limit the rights of American citizens to speak their minds
in the cyber arena during the Trump administration. And this
really does show why, or one of the reasons why
in the second Trump administration he has been so intent
(06:29):
on ensuring that he controls not just the department heads,
but deeper down into those departments, because during the first
Trump administration, these same agencies continued to try to control
US citizens speech, most especially on social media platforms, but
(06:51):
to a lesser degree in other forms of media as well. Well.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
You know, I go back with the Obama administration with
what he did to the tea parties for example. You know,
this was a wink and a nod to lowest learner,
and he directed in a sense you might say subtly
if not directly to do something about the Tea Party,
and he squelched them in response to some mid term
(07:21):
you know, ambitions, and he saw what was happening with
the tea parties. They were gaining so much momentum, and
so he made sure the I R S did not
give them, you know, tax exemption status that they had requested,
which you know was routinely given before, wasn't even a problem.
(07:41):
In fact, even Obama's half brother was I think you
got tax exemption, you know, within six months, which was
ahead of schedule. And you know, just some shenanigans that
went on. But the net result, ken is that even
to this day, this has affected free and fair elections
(08:04):
because it really reduced the effectiveness of the Tea Party
Tea Party efforts, and I maintain it's probably been eight
or nine voting cycles that were affected as a result
of that.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
You're completely right, and let's just remind your audience. Lois
Lerner was a mid level executive within the Internal Revenue Service,
and not only the Tea Party, but more broadly, she
had an animist toward conservative organizations. There are basically two
types of tax exempt organizations. The one that people sometimes
(08:39):
even know. The number four is called a five oh
one C three, and that's an organization to which donations
are tax deductible and the organization doesn't pay taxes. There
are other type of tax exempt organizations, particularly those involved
in politics, that may not pay taxes, but donations are
(09:01):
not tax deductible. Lois Learner went after five oh one
C three organizations that she thought were waiting too close
to the political organization status on the right. She never
did that for organizations on the left, and the result
of what she did was to delay, deny, and even
(09:23):
revoke five oh one C three tax status to a
lot of social organizations and some religious organizations that had
viewpoints she found anathema to her far left perspective. It
was used to diminish the effectiveness of the Tea Party,
(09:43):
and more broadly, it was used to diminish the fundraising
capability of a lot of social organizations and organizations of
faith that exactly weren't far enough left for Lois Learner.
Lois Learner ultimately was called before Congress to testify. After
giving a little bit of a speech for her position,
(10:05):
she then claimed the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself.
Now those of us who went to law school. I
went to law school, know that if you choose to
speak at all in a forum, you've waived your Fifth
Amendment right not to continue to speak. But she was
allowed this oddity of speaking when she wanted to speak
(10:29):
and claiming the Fifth Amendment when she didn't want to speak,
got off without any consequence for her horrific actions. I
did a lot of damage to a lot of conservative
organizations and organizations of faith, and Bill, I think you're
right in the Obama administration really energized this movement to
(10:51):
limit the free speech of conservatives and more broadly people
of faith right.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
And the thing is is that it was all in
a sense of like a bit of a groundbreaker because
they got away with it, and Lois Learner, of course
retired with a golden parachute, no consequence whatsoever. She's living
happily ever after. And of course probably the statue of
limitations has passed, so she is not going to be
(11:18):
held libel. And all we can do at this point
is just remind everybody that this is what she specifically did.
And you mentioned, you know, the deep state that was
in operation under the first Trump administration from what I
understand about four thousand operatives that were in the Obama
(11:39):
administration before completing his term. Obama reassigned them into government employment.
So he kind of, you know, in a sense, set
in this battalion of moles into the into the government operation,
the government bureaucracy, to serve as a safety net, so
(12:02):
to speak, against what he perceived as radical Trump policies.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
Yeah. I don't know the number, and you may well
be right, but I do know that in the Biden administration,
more than eighty federal agencies and many hundreds of senior
federal officers participated in the censorship enterprise. During that administration,
a federal district court judge issued an injunction to stop
(12:29):
that activity, found it reprehensible and indefensible. His injunction was
largely upheld by the appeals court, but the US Supreme
Court then reversed and took the position that the plaintiffs,
the state of Missouri, and a lot of private players,
hadn't demonstrated that the Biden administration was in fact stopping
(12:53):
free speech, and that it wasn't possible that the social
media companies wouldn't have done it on their own even
without the federal government intrusion. That was a sad day
for conservatives. Justice Barrett I don't think acquitted herself well
in that decision. I don't think her factual analysis was correct.
(13:16):
I don't think her legal analysis was correct. But the
fact of the matter is we have a system. I
can't pick and choose which Supreme Court decisions I like
in the sense of which should be enforced. So I
recognize her right and the right of the majority on
that court to make the decision they made. I just
(13:37):
wish they had not done so well.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
How embarrassed they must be now when you have Mark
Zuckerberg coming out and saying, hey, they made me do it,
and you have Google saying the same thing. You know,
X was under pressure before it is known as Twitter,
before Elon Musk bought them. And Elon Musk I think
(14:00):
single handedly did more for free speech than any other
person in modern history in purchasing Twitter. Because when he
did that, suddenly we could it opened up the door
for free speech once again. It was number one. It
was refreshing, and you know, we could kind of breathe
(14:22):
again for a moment. But then afterwards, Kennon, we get
these reports, you know, from you know, from Zuckerberg and
and Google and these other platforms saying, you know, the
FBI was visiting them. Well, come on, give me a break,
you know, you know, at that point that really makes
the argument that Justice Barrett put forth even worse.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
Yet, Yeah, you know, Elon Musk did us all a
great service. Went together with Matt Tayibe on Substack and
Barry Weisse. He allowed them to publish proof of what
the government had done with x or Twitter than Twitter
in suppressing speech. Look, the facts are what the plaintiffs
(15:04):
alleged that they were. It's possible that these left leaning
social media might have suppressed some of the speech even
without Biden administration pressure. But there's no doubt that the
coercion the pressure. Remember Joe Biden and then Press Secretary
(15:24):
Jensaki publicly said that the social media were killing people
talking about the COVID side of this, and that action
had to be taken, and that the social media had
to take action. When the President of the United States
and his press secretary threatened to take action, if you don't,
(15:45):
it's difficult not to see coercion, and there was coercion,
and Justice Barrett in a conservative majority that went along
with her, or some of the conservatives that went along
with her, just as Kavanaugh in particular, they were wrong,
plaints were right, and we all paid the price for it.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Yeah, I mean who killed who?
Speaker 4 (16:06):
You know?
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Ken, And I'm going to tell you I spent more
time in YouTube jail because we had experts on medical
professionals reporting from frontline experience what was going on with COVID,
and it was, you know, deemed to be an offense
to the social media community. And here it is. I mean,
(16:29):
our motivation, our heart was, hey, we're being done down here.
We're not getting all the information, you know, whether it
had to do with the vaccine or you know, all
the procedures and everything that were being thrust upon us
by doctor Fauci and the who and you know, and
here it was. They were doing this all on a
basis of an executive authorization use. And then the basis
(16:54):
of an EAU is there. First of all, there can't
be another in order to execute and deem AEAU. You
have to make sure that there's not another product available
to people that would be able to trigger an EAU.
And there was, by evidence and by reports of these experts,
(17:15):
there were there was products on the shelf that could
be used to deal with this problem. And of course
we know that now today with a little argument. You know,
these doctors have proven themselves. But you know many of
these docs as well, ken and they were subject to
all kinds of threat of losing their license. And I
(17:36):
know of two docks down in Imperial Valley in California.
They had to go before the tribunal, the Star Chamber
in California and an answer, and they they wrote a
book that they you know, they treated over ten thousand patients.
Nobody went on a ventilator, nobody, nobody went to a hospital.
(18:01):
Not one died ten thousand.
Speaker 4 (18:04):
So let me make two points. One, California past the
rule that doctors were not permitted under thread of loss
of license to give any advice or discuss with their
patients any position inconsistent with the Fauci position on COVID vaccines. Second,
I think that it really is a First Amendment absolutist,
(18:26):
which I am. I really want to take a step
back because whether a listener one hundred percent agreed with
what doctor Fauci and some other physicians or many other
physicians were saying about vaccines, and alternative treatments, agreed with
none of it, or was somewhere in the middle. I
don't think that point of view makes any difference at
(18:48):
all to how wrong the Biden administration was let alone
the state of California in suppressing people's rights to have
and discuss other views. Governor Ron DeSantis posted a forum
at which doctors were discussing a range of views on
COVID that was censored. That was taken off of you two.
(19:11):
There are examples of other leading physicians, including some who
are now in the Department of Health and Human Services
in very senior positions, who wrote op eds, or who
issued tweets, or who discussed sometimes even just marginally different
views than the doctrine approved by doctor Fauci, And because
(19:34):
of Biden administrator excuse me, Biden administration suppression, those views
were taken down. I don't care if they were right.
I don't care if they were wrong. I don't care
if I agree or disagree with them. In America, we
are supposed to be a country based on the First
Amendment and based on the writer free speech. Justice Lewis
(19:56):
Brandeis said in the nineteen twenties, and many Justice of
the US Supreme Court since then have made the point
that the antidote for the remedy for speech with which
we do not agree, even speech which may turn out
to be factually incorrect, is more speech, exactly, more facts,
more discussion. So you know, Bill, you and I have
(20:19):
discussed COVID in the past, and I know that you
and I don't hold identical views on what would have
been the best remedies for COVID. What we hold the
identical view on the right of people of all views
regarding the best remedies for COVID being able to have
their say and not be penalized for having their say.
(20:42):
But that's not what happened. And there's no way of
making what happened be right or be constitutional exactly.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
Well, and look what happened.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
One point two million people, one point two one point
four million people died here in America. Could any of
those been saved as result? I mean, New York was
you know, they're running around with their hair on fire
and Governor Cuomo is taking advisement you know, from the
administration at the time, was the Trump administration, and which
(21:15):
was doctor Fauci and Deborah Burks were leading the cause
here and somehow he comes up with the conclusion to
take people who already are susceptible and stack them in
a in a nursing home, which exacerbated the death of
(21:36):
some fifteen thousand American citizens.
Speaker 3 (21:40):
And nobody wants to talk about.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
That, you know, because whenever you bring it up, you know,
especially some of these officials, including government, former Governor Cuomo,
they just kind of hang their heads without you know, admitting,
look at we we were in air. You know, what
did we learn, you know, from this experience, and what
it seems that we're learning is not anything from a
(22:05):
policy viewpoint, where you know, government is coming in and
saying and reaffirming. What we're learning is from conversations like
you are having like this, like you and I are
having like this right now.
Speaker 4 (22:17):
Yeah, you know, government officials like anyone else, read the newspaper,
read social media. If opposing views are suppressed, if doctors
are prevented from discussing opposing views, then they're not going
to learn anything. You don't learn anything by being given
only one perspective. So I let me give you two
(22:37):
examples of things we now know without question. We're false,
but we're suppressed and censored by the Biden administration. One,
we know that for young children, the risk of the
COVID vaccine at least approximated any benefit from the COVID vaccine.
Some would say the risk was higher, some would say
(22:59):
the risk was little bit lower, but clearly the COVID
vaccine was not an obvious remedy for children to prevent
COVID because of the side effects, and because this was
equally important, children who contracted COVID seldom had any particularly
bad symptoms of the COVID. Second thing we know is
(23:22):
that it's now universally believed as being likely, right, won't
go so far as to say universally believed as being certain,
but universally believed as being likely. That the COVID vaccine
originated at the Wuhan facility in China, exactly. Saying that
was banned during most of the Biden administration, and banned
(23:45):
not because they said just it was false, but it
was Chinese bashing. And you know, we've spent a bunch
of time here on COVID, But today, in twenty twenty five,
where COVID is becoming a thing of the past, we
see far more problems with free speech over purportedly bashing
(24:05):
marginalized minorities, not being supportive of minorities. We're seeing a
lot of people on the left, and particularly young people
on the left, have the view that free speech means
you're free to say whatever you want to say that
I agree with, or maybe some things I don't completely
agree with, but you certainly can't say anything that might
(24:28):
not be nice about minorities, or trans people, or gay people,
or fat people or anyone who I think needs protection.
And the situation with COVID had similarities to what we're
seeing today. What we're seeing today is a banning of
free speech, a use of violence to prevent free speech
(24:52):
on campus that's even broader than what we saw during
the Biden COVID.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Era exactly well.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
And the thing is, you know, as I mentioned in
the introduction, Kennan, is that it really dumbs down the populace.
And in the process of doing that, it frustrates, It
makes us angry, We forget about what it is to
reason with one another. As you'd mentioned early on, that
we should be able to have these discussions with one
(25:21):
another because I believe that each of us brings a
unique perspective, you know, to the debate, which can enhance
the conversation and the policy in the in its final practice.
But when everything is an offense because you're speaking, you know,
speaking the truth. I mean, look what happened here recently.
(25:44):
You know with Charlie Kirk. You know, he's bringing he's
bringing the truth as he understands, and he's passionate about
he brings it to these universities that have become I mean,
these universities you think of all places should be the
you know, should should be the vanguard of you know,
(26:05):
search truth, search for truth and.
Speaker 3 (26:09):
Open speech.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
And now it's become so weaponized and angry that they
killed Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
So two points one on Friday, and you mentioned it.
I had an article in American Mind, which is the
Claremont Institute publication, and it focused on the results of
the Fire Survey of college campuses. So Fire is the foundation.
They changed their name, but I think it's now the
Foundation for Individual Rights, and it looks at college campus
(26:40):
First Amendment issues. It just recently completed a survey of
sixty eight, five hundred and ten students at about two
hundred and sixty different campuses. Its top ten schools still
scored only in the sea range on their scale. Their
number one school, Claremont McKenna, was a B minus, but
(27:00):
they made the point that's only because they rounded certain
scores up, or it would have been a C plus.
How horrible that the top ten schools are only a
C and most of the schools got an F. And
that's because college campuses have become anathema to the notion
of free speech. And I think it's worth looking at
(27:22):
the Fire Report, or looking at my article in American
Mind which summarizes the Fire Report and some other polling
to look at how far away we've gotten from free
speech on college campuses. A majority of liberals supported the
use of violence to prevent speakers from talking about a
(27:42):
number of issues that were polled and taking conservative views.
But I've got to tell you a majority of conservative students,
much smaller majorities, but still a majority. In one case
fifty one percent oppose allowing speakers from the left to
talk about issues that they found anathema to their conservative perspective.
(28:06):
And bell, let me put this in perspective for a second.
In broader polling over the last year or two that
isn't focused on gen Z roughly twenty five percent of
far left people believe that violence can be justified to
stop people from talking about far right or not just
far right conservative issues exactly. A much smaller percent of
(28:30):
conservatives have the same view, five six seven percent at most,
but among gen Z you had as much as a
majority in this fire survey. It is very troubling that
gen Z conservatives who've gone to school in doctrinated by
these far left teachers from the American Federation of Teachers
(28:53):
and the National Education Association, who believe in all these
far left dogma. They may grow up having conservative perspectives,
but it seems that they're having them altered, as if
the DNA has been altered, altered by their far left teachers,
and they're really messed up. They're losing conservative perspectives. So
(29:17):
I am very happy that adult conservatives understand that people
are allowed to say things that they the conservatives, disagree with.
I'm not so happy about what's happening in gen Z.
And let's just make one related point. So I am
a strong supporter. I've written extensively in support of what
(29:40):
the Israeli administration has done to counter the horrible Kamas attack.
Two years ago on October seventh, when Hamas broke across
the lines in the Gaza Strip and killed and took
hostage Israeli civilians, and I support the Netunyahu governments efforts
(30:00):
to end Hamas's rule in the Gaza Strip. I recognize
that a lot of Americans disagree with me. I think
they're wrong. I think they have a right to disagree
with me. I think they have a right to speak out.
I don't think they have a right on college campuses
to bar Jewish students or to do violence to Jewish students,
but I do think they have a right to peacefully
(30:22):
demonstrate on college campuses or off college campuses. I don't
think people who have pro Palestinian views just views and
not talking about material support for terrorists, but views should
be barred from the United States. And I do think
that Trump administration risks going too far in prohibiting or
(30:42):
requiring universities to prohibit those with these pro Palestinian views
from being able to have their say. And that's because
I believe in the First Amendment, I believe the remedant
to Palestinian speech with which I disagree is to allow
those who disagreed have their say that. The reason I'm
(31:03):
making this point is whether it's COVID where you and
I may have somewhat different views, whether it's Palestinians, right,
I don't think you and I have different views, but
a lot of Americans and I have different views. People
should be able to speak about things where I think
they're completely wrong. That's what the First Amendment is all about.
(31:23):
And if we don't get back to that meeting of
the First Amendment, we are putting at risk the entire
American experiment.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
I agree with you, this is all under threat. But
you know there needs to be I guess rules of engagement.
We need to be reminded of civility, that there's a
way in which to disagree. But when you have polling
like what you referred to, and I'm glad you brought
that up, I mean two of the people on the
(31:52):
top of that list, the assassination list that too many
people think about. I mean, look at the damage that
was done to America with nineteen hijacker, nineteen terrorists. I
mean we're talking, you know, I don't know, potentially millions
of young kids here who have been indoctrinated that think
(32:12):
it's okay, to kill the President of the United States
or Elon.
Speaker 4 (32:19):
Musk, right you're referring to, and I actually am looking
at it here. It's the National Contagion Research Institute at
Rutgers University study and at risk of emulating Mark Levin,
I'll hold the papers in my hand. Fifty fifty point
two percent of those who self identify as left of
(32:40):
center think that there is justification for murder of Elon Musk.
Fourteen percent of those who identify themselves as right of
center hold the same view. Now, that's a very big difference,
but fourteen percent is fourteen percent too many. Fifty six
percent of those who identify as left of center favor
(33:02):
or believe there's justification to murder Donald Trump, believe it
or not. Twenty percent of those who identify as right
of center hold the same view. One last number from
that same study, fifty nine point six percent of those
who identify as left of center believe that there is
justification to destroy Tesla dealerships and protests, and twenty three
(33:26):
point six percent of those who are right of center. Now,
property violence is not murder, but property violence also, in
my mind, cannot be justified as a means of advancing
the political dialogue. And when you said that there is
right ways and wrong ways to articulate your disagreement, Yes,
(33:49):
but I'm going to say that even when articulated the
wrong way, articulated with hate speech, articulated with as spam
Spannenberger did as a call to let your rage flow,
I still support the First Amendment right of people to
speak out in ways that are really inappropriate, unkind uncalled for.
(34:16):
What I don't support is property violence. I don't support
when protests seven percent of the BLM protests in the
summer of twenty twenty turned violent that included arson, looting,
and physical altercations that didn't necessarily result in killing anyone.
But those are not okay. Some of my friends on
(34:39):
the left and some of my centrist friends keep pointing
to data that Cato Institute and other research organizations have
published that show that over the last thirty years, there
have been more political assassinations that were ideologically motivated by
people on the right, and there have been more total
(35:01):
deaths caused by people on the right. And that's largely,
but not only, because of the Oklahoma City bombing that
killed one hundred and sixty eight America. Some of those
statistics I think are somewhat questionable. I think there's something
of a bias in treating non ideological violence is ideological.
But I do think it's clear that people on the
(35:23):
right over the last thirty years, for ideological purposes, have
killed more than people on the left. And I think
those centrists and those people on the left who point
to those statistics are correct or correct enough, and that
there's too much violence from the right.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
I'm I'm not sure I agree with that, Kennon, but
that's okay. But the fact of the matter is is
we got people killing people here, and one is unacceptable.
I don't care if you're the right or you're in
the left, and you have to do a dive and
drill down in terms of what's the genesis of all this,
(36:02):
what is promoting all this? You mentioned, you know, these
these radical professors, these very liberal professors that are indoctrinating
our kids. You look at, you know, the way UH
speech is being uh conducted in these social media platforms.
You you look at what what is contributing to these
(36:22):
thought processes, these video games and all this. I mean,
I think you can take a look and consider all
these things in terms of what's contributing to this this
anger and this acceptability that undermines, uh, you know, the
Constitution because you know, I always say when when things
are awry, you got to go back to the beginning.
(36:44):
And I think that we need to revisit. And you
know what is what it was the start of this country?
What was this great American idea about? And yes, we
started in a revolution and we we started to to
what I mean at the at you know, the goal
of the revolution is for us to be free. And
anything that is done or said does it add or
(37:07):
take away from those freedom principles. And I don't care
if you're a Republican or a Democrat. In fact, I
really don't care much for the party system. I agree
with our first president of the United States, George Washington,
who said that parties are going to be a problem.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
And they have been.
Speaker 2 (37:22):
They have served to disunify, not unify the United States
of America. And here we are today, and we're probably
I don't know, every time it gets so bad, it's
always the worst it's ever been, right, So I want
to kind of fall into that trap. But regardless, we've
got a lot of trouble here in River City.
Speaker 4 (37:40):
Yeah, we do. So let's put aside the one set
of statistics where we might disagree in that having looked
carefully at it. Particular how that here too the report
of the Criminology Criminal Justice Lawn Society, which did the
study through twenty twenty, and Cato did a study from
twenty twenty to today, and Kato's a libertarian organization. Again,
(38:03):
I'm fairly well convinced that doesn't make me right, but
fairly well convinced it over that thirty year period talking
just about targeted assassinations, that there were more from the
right than the left. But whether I'm right or whether
I'm wrong, it is crystal clear to me that in
the total volume of violence, the left is far and
(38:26):
away the leader, because the left see political activities they
don't like and they react with violence. They react with looting,
an arson and physical altercations, something the right doesn't do
except to a limited degree when counter demonstrators show up
at large demonstrations called by the left. So they're not
(38:48):
totally uninvolved, but they're much less involved, and seldom do
they start it. So you have to look at what
is violence. Those studies the one I just held up
the Cato study, there very limited to fatalities caused by
targeted ideological violence. And where they may be wrong is
(39:09):
in trying to determine what was the cause of the violence.
I do think that's too narrow a way to look
at violence. I think we have to look at all
forms of violence. And when we look at all forms
of violence, there's just really no doubt that the left,
particularly in the last five years, and maybe doesn't much
matter what happened twenty five or thirty years ago except
(39:33):
to historians, But as we try to remedy what's happening today,
there's no doubt of two things in my mind, or
three things. One that violence wrint large. So again I'm
not limiting it to just Charlie Kirk type assassination. That
violence writ large is overwhelmingly a problem from the left. Second,
(39:55):
the poles are unambiguous. People on the left support the
u of violence at a level far ahead of people
on the right. Now, it's bad when it's supported by
people on the right or left, but the problem is
much larger today on the left. Again, I don't care
about twenty five years ago except for historians. Third, there's
(40:17):
little doubt that mainstream democrats and mainstream progressives either encourage
or at least excuse violence when they see it, citing
the same reason people do in polls. And here's the
last point that's very clear. In the last couple of years,
maybe not much longer than that, people on the left
(40:39):
mask violence when it's caused by people on the left.
And that's not just ideological violence. When a murderer not
an ideological murder, just a murderer is a Christian white male,
normally the story will point out that the murderer was
at least a white male and perhaps a Christian white male.
When the murderer is trans or the murderer is a
(41:04):
racial minority, the mainstream media will generally just say there
was a murder. They won't make a point of the murderer. Now,
those murders are not ideological, and the murderer almost certainly
didn't do the murder because they were black or white.
But part of obscuring what's happening is obscuring the details
(41:27):
of the murderer when they're in one group, and trumpeting
the details of the murder when there are another. Exactly
or very recently poor ideological murders, lying Jimmy Kimmel, who
from my first Amendment point of view, had to write
to lie, but lied and said that Charlie Kirk's assassin
(41:48):
was a maga Republican. He wasn't. He came from a
Republican family, and he in the last few years had
become a radical leftist, particularly on trans issues. We saw
that with other recent ideological attacks. There have been stories
that the man just convicted of attempting to assassinate Donald
(42:10):
Trump was from the right. There were stories that the
assassin attempted assassin of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania was from
the right, again because his family was conservative. You know what,
We're not our parents, we're not our grandparents. And when
the assassin evolves or changes or mutates into a leftist,
(42:33):
he or she is a leftist and it really doesn't
matter what his parents are or were, And yet at
the left they lie about it. So why am I
going on about this? I'm going on about this because
I think narrow statistics about fatalities over a thirty year
period might show one thing. Broader statistics and broader analysis
(42:54):
and a more contemporary analysis clearly shows momentum is from
the left. We've got to do something about that. The
left has got to do something about healing itself, recognizing
its problems. If it doesn't recognize this problem, if it
doesn't recognize its role in this problem, we're not going
(43:19):
to get any better.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
And I think part of the argument you present here,
I mean I was talking with doctor John Lott from
the Crime Prevention Research Center, and I've been rather frustrated
with some of the data that's been coming out, and
i'd say in the last decade at least from the
government that kind of cooks the books.
Speaker 3 (43:37):
It's almost to the point.
Speaker 2 (43:38):
That our government, whenever their hands touch any kind of numbers,
it has to fit a narrative. I don't care if
it's right or left. I want the facts, the whole facts.
I want the truth. And when you start cooking the
books and messing around with these numbers and everything else,
I mean, what are we handing off to the next generation.
When the next generation looks back during this period of
(43:59):
time and they're what they're going to do, somebody's probably
going to be smart enough to say any of those
numbers that came I don't care if you're talking about,
you know, a pandemic or you know whatever employment numbers.
We're just going to put some big asterisks on it
so that we know that we're forewarned that this came
from a you know, a corrupt database.
Speaker 4 (44:19):
Yeah. I think what you may be in part referring
to is that the FBI's data that's partner where armed
civilians were involved in stopping crime included just a fraction,
a small fraction of the total incidents. And there are
a number of different databases that include those numbers. The
FBI database suffers from a weakness that some large cities
(44:43):
don't contribute numbers to the FBI database. For example, Chicago
does not. Some of the other databases, which are generated
using different methodology, actually have more complete numbers. And one
of the categories of numbers were the FBI database, Assuming
for a moment that they're being honest, but where the
(45:05):
FBI database is just wolfully inadequate is in the number
of incidents where lawfully armed civilians were instrumental in stopping
the commission of a crime.
Speaker 2 (45:16):
You see, but all these numbers, I mean, okay, so
you can come up with rationale as to why it's not,
but these are government figures. I mean, if you're going
to quote them, you better make sure that you can
fall on your sword for them and say, okay, these
are the right numbers. But there's so many numbers that come,
whether it's crime, whether it's jobs that have been created.
(45:37):
I mean, come on, at the end of the Biden administration,
we get a number that they over they overestimated employment.
Speaker 3 (45:45):
By a million jobs.
Speaker 2 (45:47):
All of a sudden, a million jobs vapor that to me, ken,
I mean, I came out of the business world that said,
the number that you project better be pretty darn close,
if not right on. You can always always do better,
but you can't do worse. And here, you know, it's
like when I was growing up, my dad worked in
civil service after his service in World War Two, and
(46:11):
the general mantra was, well, that's close enough for government.
Speaker 4 (46:15):
I remember that saying, you know the BLS numbers, the
harm done was twofold one. Well, the attempt at harm
was in impacting the election so that Biden could argue
that they'd done a great job on employment. Unfortunately, Biden
or Mela Harris lost, but the margin of Republicans in
(46:35):
Congress might be larger, but for those BLS numbers even
just a few more seats would make a difference.
Speaker 2 (46:41):
Ken, We're running out of time, so I'm going to
have you summarize this real quick and then summarize our
core American value free speech.
Speaker 3 (46:51):
And put a wrap on it here. Okay, I'll give
you about sixty seconds.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
Go ahead to quickly finish my point on the BLS.
The numbers showing much high employment were one of the
reasons why interest rates were and cut, and that was
bad for the economy and bad for people. So it
was just bad overall. Turning to the bigger issue, I
believe that America was founded on a premise of the
First Amendment. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly,
(47:19):
freedom to petition the government. None of that works without
free speech. None of that works without recognizing that free
speech means and only means something. If I defend your
right to say things with which I strongly disagree, you
don't need any rights if I agree with what you say.
You need rights when I disagree with what you say exactly.
(47:40):
And the country is moving in a wrong direction, particularly
from the left, but even from the right. When we
turn to gen Z, we as Americans have to turn
this ship around before it's too late.
Speaker 2 (47:54):
We're all in this boat together. You're exactly right. This
is an US thing. It's not a republic thing. It's
not a democratic thing. It's a we the people thing, right.
Speaker 4 (48:04):
Absolutely, and we the people need the right to speak
our minds.
Speaker 3 (48:09):
Well, Kennon, speedback. I cannot thank you enough.
Speaker 2 (48:11):
I appreciate the insight as always, and you and I
need to have maybe an off campus conversation about COVID.
I'm not sure where we disagree, but we can talk
about that later. Kennan is the founder and chairman of
the SMI Group, an international consulting firm and a contributor
to Real Politics and the Claremont Institutes the American Mind. Kennon,
(48:33):
thank you for being with us. Appreciate the time, Take care,
be well. My friends will well. Our thanks to Kennon,
and thank you for sharing a part of your day
with us as we had this conversation about free speech.
And the bottom line is, if it's going to get fixed,
it's going to be up to me and you. Let's
look in the mirror. We the people must activate ourselves.
Well that's a wrap for us. Thank you for being
with us. May God bless you.
Speaker 3 (48:54):
And keep you.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
May make his face shine upon you, May be gracious
unto you and give you peace. God bless, would put bout,
everything would product
The topics and opinions express in the following show are
solely those of the hosts and their guests and not
those of w FORCY Radio. It's employees are affiliates. We
make no recommendations or endorsements for radio show programs, services,
or products mentioned on air or on our web. No liability,
explicit or implied shall be extended to W FOURCY Radio
or it's employees are affiliates. Any questions or comments should
be directed to those show hosts. Thank you for choosing
(00:21):
w FOCY Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Well, hello and welcome Bill Martinez here. Great to have
you with us sharing a part of your day. For
more info on the show, you can go to Bill
Martinez Live dot com.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Well.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Our First Amendment of our Constitution has no doubt been
in the crosshairs of many liberals, and it's been rather frustrating.
But just for the record, here let me remind you
what it says in our constitutions. Congress may not make
any law that sets up any religion or interferes with
(01:08):
any religious practice. Congress may not make any law that
diminishes the freedom of speech, or the freedom of the press,
or the right of the people to assemble peacefully or
the right of the people to petition the government to
make things right if it has caused them harm. That
is the first Amendment in its totality. And we're going
(01:30):
to focus particularly on free speech as a core American value.
And there is a reason, I believe paramount and why
our founders focus so much on free speech and made it.
I mean, of the first ten amendments to our Constitution,
this was the first one. And I believe, you know,
(01:54):
not only from practical experience, the founders were motivated to
make sure that free speech was headlined, but also you know,
when you think about its broad implication in terms of
intellectualizing the electorate, I believe any limit of free speech
(02:14):
dumbs us all down. Though you may argue that sometimes
free speech can be harsh speech, I understand that. I
think that free speech should come with a responsibility, and
I think that is something that we still try to
debate and work out in our culture even to this day.
(02:34):
But no doubt that, you know, particularly under the Biden administration,
free speech was attacked on many levels. Kennon Spevak is
going to be joining us. He is the founder and
chairman of the SMI Group and international consulting firm, and
it contributed to real politics and Claremont Institute's The American Mind.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Ken and welcome, Michelle. Good to have you with us.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
Bill, Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Well, let's talk talk about free space. Is you write
for American value? How do you see it?
Speaker 4 (03:04):
I say it as the basis of all our liberties.
And if you don't mind, I want to add to
what you did when you read the First Amendment. The
First Amendment says Congress shall make no law, abridging and
then it goes on from there. Well, everyone needs to
understand that the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held
(03:27):
that though the words are Congress shall make no Law,
that the First Amendment applies equally to the executive branch
of the federal government in its actions, and to the
actions of the state government, governments and municipalities. So the
First Amendment is really much broader than can be seen
(03:48):
by just reading the plain words Congress shall make no law.
And the reason the Supreme Court expanded the application of
the First Amendment first to the executive branch and then
to the state's and municipalities is because it recognized that
that was the intention that was the meaning given those
(04:10):
words when they were first written so many years ago.
Without the First Amendment, we are no better than that
which government decides we can talk about. And that really
is what was happening during the Biden administration. The suppression
of free speech, particularly on social media, but not only
(04:33):
on social media. Wasn't just directed to COVID, you know, Bill,
So many people talk about what the Biden administration did
is limiting dissenting views on COVID, and it did, but
the Biden administration also suppressed dissenting views on many issues
on the economy, on international trade, even humor directed at
(04:58):
the Biden administration. That's something we can never again allow
to happen. But I'm not so sure we're ready to
stop it from happening again.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
I appreciate that. And actually you could actually go before
the Trump administration. And this began to raise its ugly
head during the Obama years, did it not?
Speaker 4 (05:20):
It did? It started during the last year of the
Obama administration. It actually continued below the radar during the
Trump administration. Within the deep state last year or two
of the Obama administration, a number of agencies were created
or reconstituted within particularly the Department the Department of Homeland Security,
(05:43):
to a lesser degree in the Department of Justice. Those
agencies or those bureaus within the Department of Homeland Security,
and by the way, one even in the Department of State,
began to abuse the authority conferred on them to prevent
problems with cyber security, problems with foreign governments intruding into
(06:08):
US cyberspace, and they began to use their authority to
limit the rights of American citizens to speak their minds
in the cyber arena during the Trump administration. And this
really does show why, or one of the reasons why
in the second Trump administration he has been so intent
(06:29):
on ensuring that he controls not just the department heads,
but deeper down into those departments, because during the first
Trump administration, these same agencies continued to try to control
US citizens speech, most especially on social media platforms, but
(06:51):
to a lesser degree in other forms of media as well. Well.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
You know, I go back with the Obama administration with
what he did to the tea parties for example. You know,
this was a wink and a nod to lowest learner,
and he directed in a sense you might say subtly
if not directly to do something about the Tea Party,
and he squelched them in response to some mid term
(07:21):
you know, ambitions, and he saw what was happening with
the tea parties. They were gaining so much momentum, and
so he made sure the I R S did not
give them, you know, tax exemption status that they had requested,
which you know was routinely given before, wasn't even a problem.
(07:41):
In fact, even Obama's half brother was I think you
got tax exemption, you know, within six months, which was
ahead of schedule. And you know, just some shenanigans that
went on. But the net result, ken is that even
to this day, this has affected free and fair elections
(08:04):
because it really reduced the effectiveness of the Tea Party
Tea Party efforts, and I maintain it's probably been eight
or nine voting cycles that were affected as a result
of that.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
You're completely right, and let's just remind your audience. Lois
Lerner was a mid level executive within the Internal Revenue Service,
and not only the Tea Party, but more broadly, she
had an animist toward conservative organizations. There are basically two
types of tax exempt organizations. The one that people sometimes
(08:39):
even know. The number four is called a five oh
one C three, and that's an organization to which donations
are tax deductible and the organization doesn't pay taxes. There
are other type of tax exempt organizations, particularly those involved
in politics, that may not pay taxes, but donations are
(09:01):
not tax deductible. Lois Learner went after five oh one
C three organizations that she thought were waiting too close
to the political organization status on the right. She never
did that for organizations on the left, and the result
of what she did was to delay, deny, and even
(09:23):
revoke five oh one C three tax status to a
lot of social organizations and some religious organizations that had
viewpoints she found anathema to her far left perspective. It
was used to diminish the effectiveness of the Tea Party,
(09:43):
and more broadly, it was used to diminish the fundraising
capability of a lot of social organizations and organizations of
faith that exactly weren't far enough left for Lois Learner.
Lois Learner ultimately was called before Congress to testify. After
giving a little bit of a speech for her position,
(10:05):
she then claimed the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself.
Now those of us who went to law school. I
went to law school, know that if you choose to
speak at all in a forum, you've waived your Fifth
Amendment right not to continue to speak. But she was
allowed this oddity of speaking when she wanted to speak
(10:29):
and claiming the Fifth Amendment when she didn't want to speak,
got off without any consequence for her horrific actions. I
did a lot of damage to a lot of conservative
organizations and organizations of faith, and Bill, I think you're
right in the Obama administration really energized this movement to
(10:51):
limit the free speech of conservatives and more broadly people
of faith right.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
And the thing is is that it was all in
a sense of like a bit of a groundbreaker because
they got away with it, and Lois Learner, of course
retired with a golden parachute, no consequence whatsoever. She's living
happily ever after. And of course probably the statue of
limitations has passed, so she is not going to be
(11:18):
held libel. And all we can do at this point
is just remind everybody that this is what she specifically did.
And you mentioned, you know, the deep state that was
in operation under the first Trump administration from what I
understand about four thousand operatives that were in the Obama
(11:39):
administration before completing his term. Obama reassigned them into government employment.
So he kind of, you know, in a sense, set
in this battalion of moles into the into the government operation,
the government bureaucracy, to serve as a safety net, so
(12:02):
to speak, against what he perceived as radical Trump policies.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
Yeah. I don't know the number, and you may well
be right, but I do know that in the Biden administration,
more than eighty federal agencies and many hundreds of senior
federal officers participated in the censorship enterprise. During that administration,
a federal district court judge issued an injunction to stop
(12:29):
that activity, found it reprehensible and indefensible. His injunction was
largely upheld by the appeals court, but the US Supreme
Court then reversed and took the position that the plaintiffs,
the state of Missouri, and a lot of private players,
hadn't demonstrated that the Biden administration was in fact stopping
(12:53):
free speech, and that it wasn't possible that the social
media companies wouldn't have done it on their own even
without the federal government intrusion. That was a sad day
for conservatives. Justice Barrett I don't think acquitted herself well
in that decision. I don't think her factual analysis was correct.
(13:16):
I don't think her legal analysis was correct. But the
fact of the matter is we have a system. I
can't pick and choose which Supreme Court decisions I like
in the sense of which should be enforced. So I
recognize her right and the right of the majority on
that court to make the decision they made. I just
(13:37):
wish they had not done so well.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
How embarrassed they must be now when you have Mark
Zuckerberg coming out and saying, hey, they made me do it,
and you have Google saying the same thing. You know,
X was under pressure before it is known as Twitter,
before Elon Musk bought them. And Elon Musk I think
(14:00):
single handedly did more for free speech than any other
person in modern history in purchasing Twitter. Because when he
did that, suddenly we could it opened up the door
for free speech once again. It was number one. It
was refreshing, and you know, we could kind of breathe
(14:22):
again for a moment. But then afterwards, Kennon, we get
these reports, you know, from you know, from Zuckerberg and
and Google and these other platforms saying, you know, the
FBI was visiting them. Well, come on, give me a break,
you know, you know, at that point that really makes
the argument that Justice Barrett put forth even worse.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
Yet, Yeah, you know, Elon Musk did us all a
great service. Went together with Matt Tayibe on Substack and
Barry Weisse. He allowed them to publish proof of what
the government had done with x or Twitter than Twitter
in suppressing speech. Look, the facts are what the plaintiffs
(15:04):
alleged that they were. It's possible that these left leaning
social media might have suppressed some of the speech even
without Biden administration pressure. But there's no doubt that the
coercion the pressure. Remember Joe Biden and then Press Secretary
(15:24):
Jensaki publicly said that the social media were killing people
talking about the COVID side of this, and that action
had to be taken, and that the social media had
to take action. When the President of the United States
and his press secretary threatened to take action, if you don't,
(15:45):
it's difficult not to see coercion, and there was coercion,
and Justice Barrett in a conservative majority that went along
with her, or some of the conservatives that went along
with her, just as Kavanaugh in particular, they were wrong,
plaints were right, and we all paid the price for it.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Yeah, I mean who killed who?
Speaker 4 (16:06):
You know?
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Ken, And I'm going to tell you I spent more
time in YouTube jail because we had experts on medical
professionals reporting from frontline experience what was going on with COVID,
and it was, you know, deemed to be an offense
to the social media community. And here it is. I mean,
(16:29):
our motivation, our heart was, hey, we're being done down here.
We're not getting all the information, you know, whether it
had to do with the vaccine or you know, all
the procedures and everything that were being thrust upon us
by doctor Fauci and the who and you know, and
here it was. They were doing this all on a
basis of an executive authorization use. And then the basis
(16:54):
of an EAU is there. First of all, there can't
be another in order to execute and deem AEAU. You
have to make sure that there's not another product available
to people that would be able to trigger an EAU.
And there was, by evidence and by reports of these experts,
(17:15):
there were there was products on the shelf that could
be used to deal with this problem. And of course
we know that now today with a little argument. You know,
these doctors have proven themselves. But you know many of
these docs as well, ken and they were subject to
all kinds of threat of losing their license. And I
(17:36):
know of two docks down in Imperial Valley in California.
They had to go before the tribunal, the Star Chamber
in California and an answer, and they they wrote a
book that they you know, they treated over ten thousand patients.
Nobody went on a ventilator, nobody, nobody went to a hospital.
(18:01):
Not one died ten thousand.
Speaker 4 (18:04):
So let me make two points. One, California past the
rule that doctors were not permitted under thread of loss
of license to give any advice or discuss with their
patients any position inconsistent with the Fauci position on COVID vaccines. Second,
I think that it really is a First Amendment absolutist,
(18:26):
which I am. I really want to take a step
back because whether a listener one hundred percent agreed with
what doctor Fauci and some other physicians or many other
physicians were saying about vaccines, and alternative treatments, agreed with
none of it, or was somewhere in the middle. I
don't think that point of view makes any difference at
(18:48):
all to how wrong the Biden administration was let alone
the state of California in suppressing people's rights to have
and discuss other views. Governor Ron DeSantis posted a forum
at which doctors were discussing a range of views on
COVID that was censored. That was taken off of you two.
(19:11):
There are examples of other leading physicians, including some who
are now in the Department of Health and Human Services
in very senior positions, who wrote op eds, or who
issued tweets, or who discussed sometimes even just marginally different
views than the doctrine approved by doctor Fauci, And because
(19:34):
of Biden administrator excuse me, Biden administration suppression, those views
were taken down. I don't care if they were right.
I don't care if they were wrong. I don't care
if I agree or disagree with them. In America, we
are supposed to be a country based on the First
Amendment and based on the writer free speech. Justice Lewis
(19:56):
Brandeis said in the nineteen twenties, and many Justice of
the US Supreme Court since then have made the point
that the antidote for the remedy for speech with which
we do not agree, even speech which may turn out
to be factually incorrect, is more speech, exactly, more facts,
more discussion. So you know, Bill, you and I have
(20:19):
discussed COVID in the past, and I know that you
and I don't hold identical views on what would have
been the best remedies for COVID. What we hold the
identical view on the right of people of all views
regarding the best remedies for COVID being able to have
their say and not be penalized for having their say.
(20:42):
But that's not what happened. And there's no way of
making what happened be right or be constitutional exactly.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
Well, and look what happened.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
One point two million people, one point two one point
four million people died here in America. Could any of
those been saved as result? I mean, New York was
you know, they're running around with their hair on fire
and Governor Cuomo is taking advisement you know, from the
administration at the time, was the Trump administration, and which
(21:15):
was doctor Fauci and Deborah Burks were leading the cause
here and somehow he comes up with the conclusion to
take people who already are susceptible and stack them in
a in a nursing home, which exacerbated the death of
(21:36):
some fifteen thousand American citizens.
Speaker 3 (21:40):
And nobody wants to talk about.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
That, you know, because whenever you bring it up, you know,
especially some of these officials, including government, former Governor Cuomo,
they just kind of hang their heads without you know, admitting,
look at we we were in air. You know, what
did we learn, you know, from this experience, and what
it seems that we're learning is not anything from a
(22:05):
policy viewpoint, where you know, government is coming in and
saying and reaffirming. What we're learning is from conversations like
you are having like this, like you and I are
having like this right now.
Speaker 4 (22:17):
Yeah, you know, government officials like anyone else, read the newspaper,
read social media. If opposing views are suppressed, if doctors
are prevented from discussing opposing views, then they're not going
to learn anything. You don't learn anything by being given
only one perspective. So I let me give you two
(22:37):
examples of things we now know without question. We're false,
but we're suppressed and censored by the Biden administration. One,
we know that for young children, the risk of the
COVID vaccine at least approximated any benefit from the COVID vaccine.
Some would say the risk was higher, some would say
(22:59):
the risk was little bit lower, but clearly the COVID
vaccine was not an obvious remedy for children to prevent
COVID because of the side effects, and because this was
equally important, children who contracted COVID seldom had any particularly
bad symptoms of the COVID. Second thing we know is
(23:22):
that it's now universally believed as being likely, right, won't
go so far as to say universally believed as being certain,
but universally believed as being likely. That the COVID vaccine
originated at the Wuhan facility in China, exactly. Saying that
was banned during most of the Biden administration, and banned
(23:45):
not because they said just it was false, but it
was Chinese bashing. And you know, we've spent a bunch
of time here on COVID, But today, in twenty twenty five,
where COVID is becoming a thing of the past, we
see far more problems with free speech over purportedly bashing
(24:05):
marginalized minorities, not being supportive of minorities. We're seeing a
lot of people on the left, and particularly young people
on the left, have the view that free speech means
you're free to say whatever you want to say that
I agree with, or maybe some things I don't completely
agree with, but you certainly can't say anything that might
(24:28):
not be nice about minorities, or trans people, or gay people,
or fat people or anyone who I think needs protection.
And the situation with COVID had similarities to what we're
seeing today. What we're seeing today is a banning of
free speech, a use of violence to prevent free speech
(24:52):
on campus that's even broader than what we saw during
the Biden COVID.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Era exactly well.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
And the thing is, you know, as I mentioned in
the introduction, Kennan, is that it really dumbs down the populace.
And in the process of doing that, it frustrates, It
makes us angry, We forget about what it is to
reason with one another. As you'd mentioned early on, that
we should be able to have these discussions with one
(25:21):
another because I believe that each of us brings a
unique perspective, you know, to the debate, which can enhance
the conversation and the policy in the in its final practice.
But when everything is an offense because you're speaking, you know,
speaking the truth. I mean, look what happened here recently.
(25:44):
You know with Charlie Kirk. You know, he's bringing he's
bringing the truth as he understands, and he's passionate about
he brings it to these universities that have become I mean,
these universities you think of all places should be the
you know, should should be the vanguard of you know,
(26:05):
search truth, search for truth and.
Speaker 3 (26:09):
Open speech.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
And now it's become so weaponized and angry that they
killed Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
So two points one on Friday, and you mentioned it.
I had an article in American Mind, which is the
Claremont Institute publication, and it focused on the results of
the Fire Survey of college campuses. So Fire is the foundation.
They changed their name, but I think it's now the
Foundation for Individual Rights, and it looks at college campus
(26:40):
First Amendment issues. It just recently completed a survey of
sixty eight, five hundred and ten students at about two
hundred and sixty different campuses. Its top ten schools still
scored only in the sea range on their scale. Their
number one school, Claremont McKenna, was a B minus, but
(27:00):
they made the point that's only because they rounded certain
scores up, or it would have been a C plus.
How horrible that the top ten schools are only a
C and most of the schools got an F. And
that's because college campuses have become anathema to the notion
of free speech. And I think it's worth looking at
(27:22):
the Fire Report, or looking at my article in American
Mind which summarizes the Fire Report and some other polling
to look at how far away we've gotten from free
speech on college campuses. A majority of liberals supported the
use of violence to prevent speakers from talking about a
(27:42):
number of issues that were polled and taking conservative views.
But I've got to tell you a majority of conservative students,
much smaller majorities, but still a majority. In one case
fifty one percent oppose allowing speakers from the left to
talk about issues that they found anathema to their conservative perspective.
(28:06):
And bell, let me put this in perspective for a second.
In broader polling over the last year or two that
isn't focused on gen Z roughly twenty five percent of
far left people believe that violence can be justified to
stop people from talking about far right or not just
far right conservative issues exactly. A much smaller percent of
(28:30):
conservatives have the same view, five six seven percent at most,
but among gen Z you had as much as a
majority in this fire survey. It is very troubling that
gen Z conservatives who've gone to school in doctrinated by
these far left teachers from the American Federation of Teachers
(28:53):
and the National Education Association, who believe in all these
far left dogma. They may grow up having conservative perspectives,
but it seems that they're having them altered, as if
the DNA has been altered, altered by their far left teachers,
and they're really messed up. They're losing conservative perspectives. So
(29:17):
I am very happy that adult conservatives understand that people
are allowed to say things that they the conservatives, disagree with.
I'm not so happy about what's happening in gen Z.
And let's just make one related point. So I am
a strong supporter. I've written extensively in support of what
(29:40):
the Israeli administration has done to counter the horrible Kamas attack.
Two years ago on October seventh, when Hamas broke across
the lines in the Gaza Strip and killed and took
hostage Israeli civilians, and I support the Netunyahu governments efforts
(30:00):
to end Hamas's rule in the Gaza Strip. I recognize
that a lot of Americans disagree with me. I think
they're wrong. I think they have a right to disagree
with me. I think they have a right to speak out.
I don't think they have a right on college campuses
to bar Jewish students or to do violence to Jewish students,
but I do think they have a right to peacefully
(30:22):
demonstrate on college campuses or off college campuses. I don't
think people who have pro Palestinian views just views and
not talking about material support for terrorists, but views should
be barred from the United States. And I do think
that Trump administration risks going too far in prohibiting or
(30:42):
requiring universities to prohibit those with these pro Palestinian views
from being able to have their say. And that's because
I believe in the First Amendment, I believe the remedant
to Palestinian speech with which I disagree is to allow
those who disagreed have their say that. The reason I'm
(31:03):
making this point is whether it's COVID where you and
I may have somewhat different views, whether it's Palestinians, right,
I don't think you and I have different views, but
a lot of Americans and I have different views. People
should be able to speak about things where I think
they're completely wrong. That's what the First Amendment is all about.
(31:23):
And if we don't get back to that meeting of
the First Amendment, we are putting at risk the entire
American experiment.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
I agree with you, this is all under threat. But
you know there needs to be I guess rules of engagement.
We need to be reminded of civility, that there's a
way in which to disagree. But when you have polling
like what you referred to, and I'm glad you brought
that up, I mean two of the people on the
(31:52):
top of that list, the assassination list that too many
people think about. I mean, look at the damage that
was done to America with nineteen hijacker, nineteen terrorists. I
mean we're talking, you know, I don't know, potentially millions
of young kids here who have been indoctrinated that think
(32:12):
it's okay, to kill the President of the United States
or Elon.
Speaker 4 (32:19):
Musk, right you're referring to, and I actually am looking
at it here. It's the National Contagion Research Institute at
Rutgers University study and at risk of emulating Mark Levin,
I'll hold the papers in my hand. Fifty fifty point
two percent of those who self identify as left of
(32:40):
center think that there is justification for murder of Elon Musk.
Fourteen percent of those who identify themselves as right of
center hold the same view. Now, that's a very big difference,
but fourteen percent is fourteen percent too many. Fifty six
percent of those who identify as left of center favor
(33:02):
or believe there's justification to murder Donald Trump, believe it
or not. Twenty percent of those who identify as right
of center hold the same view. One last number from
that same study, fifty nine point six percent of those
who identify as left of center believe that there is
justification to destroy Tesla dealerships and protests, and twenty three
(33:26):
point six percent of those who are right of center. Now,
property violence is not murder, but property violence also, in
my mind, cannot be justified as a means of advancing
the political dialogue. And when you said that there is
right ways and wrong ways to articulate your disagreement, Yes,
(33:49):
but I'm going to say that even when articulated the
wrong way, articulated with hate speech, articulated with as spam
Spannenberger did as a call to let your rage flow,
I still support the First Amendment right of people to
speak out in ways that are really inappropriate, unkind uncalled for.
(34:16):
What I don't support is property violence. I don't support
when protests seven percent of the BLM protests in the
summer of twenty twenty turned violent that included arson, looting,
and physical altercations that didn't necessarily result in killing anyone.
But those are not okay. Some of my friends on
(34:39):
the left and some of my centrist friends keep pointing
to data that Cato Institute and other research organizations have
published that show that over the last thirty years, there
have been more political assassinations that were ideologically motivated by
people on the right, and there have been more total
(35:01):
deaths caused by people on the right. And that's largely,
but not only, because of the Oklahoma City bombing that
killed one hundred and sixty eight America. Some of those
statistics I think are somewhat questionable. I think there's something
of a bias in treating non ideological violence is ideological.
But I do think it's clear that people on the
(35:23):
right over the last thirty years, for ideological purposes, have
killed more than people on the left. And I think
those centrists and those people on the left who point
to those statistics are correct or correct enough, and that
there's too much violence from the right.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
I'm I'm not sure I agree with that, Kennon, but
that's okay. But the fact of the matter is is
we got people killing people here, and one is unacceptable.
I don't care if you're the right or you're in
the left, and you have to do a dive and
drill down in terms of what's the genesis of all this,
(36:02):
what is promoting all this? You mentioned, you know, these
these radical professors, these very liberal professors that are indoctrinating
our kids. You look at, you know, the way UH
speech is being uh conducted in these social media platforms.
You you look at what what is contributing to these
(36:22):
thought processes, these video games and all this. I mean,
I think you can take a look and consider all
these things in terms of what's contributing to this this
anger and this acceptability that undermines, uh, you know, the
Constitution because you know, I always say when when things
are awry, you got to go back to the beginning.
(36:44):
And I think that we need to revisit. And you
know what is what it was the start of this country?
What was this great American idea about? And yes, we
started in a revolution and we we started to to
what I mean at the at you know, the goal
of the revolution is for us to be free. And
anything that is done or said does it add or
(37:07):
take away from those freedom principles. And I don't care
if you're a Republican or a Democrat. In fact, I
really don't care much for the party system. I agree
with our first president of the United States, George Washington,
who said that parties are going to be a problem.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
And they have been.
Speaker 2 (37:22):
They have served to disunify, not unify the United States
of America. And here we are today, and we're probably
I don't know, every time it gets so bad, it's
always the worst it's ever been, right, So I want
to kind of fall into that trap. But regardless, we've
got a lot of trouble here in River City.
Speaker 4 (37:40):
Yeah, we do. So let's put aside the one set
of statistics where we might disagree in that having looked
carefully at it. Particular how that here too the report
of the Criminology Criminal Justice Lawn Society, which did the
study through twenty twenty, and Cato did a study from
twenty twenty to today, and Kato's a libertarian organization. Again,
(38:03):
I'm fairly well convinced that doesn't make me right, but
fairly well convinced it over that thirty year period talking
just about targeted assassinations, that there were more from the
right than the left. But whether I'm right or whether
I'm wrong, it is crystal clear to me that in
the total volume of violence, the left is far and
(38:26):
away the leader, because the left see political activities they
don't like and they react with violence. They react with looting,
an arson and physical altercations, something the right doesn't do
except to a limited degree when counter demonstrators show up
at large demonstrations called by the left. So they're not
(38:48):
totally uninvolved, but they're much less involved, and seldom do
they start it. So you have to look at what
is violence. Those studies the one I just held up
the Cato study, there very limited to fatalities caused by
targeted ideological violence. And where they may be wrong is
(39:09):
in trying to determine what was the cause of the violence.
I do think that's too narrow a way to look
at violence. I think we have to look at all
forms of violence. And when we look at all forms
of violence, there's just really no doubt that the left,
particularly in the last five years, and maybe doesn't much
matter what happened twenty five or thirty years ago except
(39:33):
to historians, But as we try to remedy what's happening today,
there's no doubt of two things in my mind, or
three things. One that violence wrint large. So again I'm
not limiting it to just Charlie Kirk type assassination. That
violence writ large is overwhelmingly a problem from the left. Second,
(39:55):
the poles are unambiguous. People on the left support the
u of violence at a level far ahead of people
on the right. Now, it's bad when it's supported by
people on the right or left, but the problem is
much larger today on the left. Again, I don't care
about twenty five years ago except for historians. Third, there's
(40:17):
little doubt that mainstream democrats and mainstream progressives either encourage
or at least excuse violence when they see it, citing
the same reason people do in polls. And here's the
last point that's very clear. In the last couple of years,
maybe not much longer than that, people on the left
(40:39):
mask violence when it's caused by people on the left.
And that's not just ideological violence. When a murderer not
an ideological murder, just a murderer is a Christian white male,
normally the story will point out that the murderer was
at least a white male and perhaps a Christian white male.
When the murderer is trans or the murderer is a
(41:04):
racial minority, the mainstream media will generally just say there
was a murder. They won't make a point of the murderer. Now,
those murders are not ideological, and the murderer almost certainly
didn't do the murder because they were black or white.
But part of obscuring what's happening is obscuring the details
(41:27):
of the murderer when they're in one group, and trumpeting
the details of the murder when there are another. Exactly
or very recently poor ideological murders, lying Jimmy Kimmel, who
from my first Amendment point of view, had to write
to lie, but lied and said that Charlie Kirk's assassin
(41:48):
was a maga Republican. He wasn't. He came from a
Republican family, and he in the last few years had
become a radical leftist, particularly on trans issues. We saw
that with other recent ideological attacks. There have been stories
that the man just convicted of attempting to assassinate Donald
(42:10):
Trump was from the right. There were stories that the
assassin attempted assassin of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania was from
the right, again because his family was conservative. You know what,
We're not our parents, we're not our grandparents. And when
the assassin evolves or changes or mutates into a leftist,
(42:33):
he or she is a leftist and it really doesn't
matter what his parents are or were, And yet at
the left they lie about it. So why am I
going on about this? I'm going on about this because
I think narrow statistics about fatalities over a thirty year
period might show one thing. Broader statistics and broader analysis
(42:54):
and a more contemporary analysis clearly shows momentum is from
the left. We've got to do something about that. The
left has got to do something about healing itself, recognizing
its problems. If it doesn't recognize this problem, if it
doesn't recognize its role in this problem, we're not going
(43:19):
to get any better.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
And I think part of the argument you present here,
I mean I was talking with doctor John Lott from
the Crime Prevention Research Center, and I've been rather frustrated
with some of the data that's been coming out, and
i'd say in the last decade at least from the
government that kind of cooks the books.
Speaker 3 (43:37):
It's almost to the point.
Speaker 2 (43:38):
That our government, whenever their hands touch any kind of numbers,
it has to fit a narrative. I don't care if
it's right or left. I want the facts, the whole facts.
I want the truth. And when you start cooking the
books and messing around with these numbers and everything else,
I mean, what are we handing off to the next generation.
When the next generation looks back during this period of
(43:59):
time and they're what they're going to do, somebody's probably
going to be smart enough to say any of those
numbers that came I don't care if you're talking about,
you know, a pandemic or you know whatever employment numbers.
We're just going to put some big asterisks on it
so that we know that we're forewarned that this came
from a you know, a corrupt database.
Speaker 4 (44:19):
Yeah. I think what you may be in part referring
to is that the FBI's data that's partner where armed
civilians were involved in stopping crime included just a fraction,
a small fraction of the total incidents. And there are
a number of different databases that include those numbers. The
FBI database suffers from a weakness that some large cities
(44:43):
don't contribute numbers to the FBI database. For example, Chicago
does not. Some of the other databases, which are generated
using different methodology, actually have more complete numbers. And one
of the categories of numbers were the FBI database, Assuming
for a moment that they're being honest, but where the
(45:05):
FBI database is just wolfully inadequate is in the number
of incidents where lawfully armed civilians were instrumental in stopping
the commission of a crime.
Speaker 2 (45:16):
You see, but all these numbers, I mean, okay, so
you can come up with rationale as to why it's not,
but these are government figures. I mean, if you're going
to quote them, you better make sure that you can
fall on your sword for them and say, okay, these
are the right numbers. But there's so many numbers that come,
whether it's crime, whether it's jobs that have been created.
(45:37):
I mean, come on, at the end of the Biden administration,
we get a number that they over they overestimated employment.
Speaker 3 (45:45):
By a million jobs.
Speaker 2 (45:47):
All of a sudden, a million jobs vapor that to me, ken,
I mean, I came out of the business world that said,
the number that you project better be pretty darn close,
if not right on. You can always always do better,
but you can't do worse. And here, you know, it's
like when I was growing up, my dad worked in
civil service after his service in World War Two, and
(46:11):
the general mantra was, well, that's close enough for government.
Speaker 4 (46:15):
I remember that saying, you know the BLS numbers, the
harm done was twofold one. Well, the attempt at harm
was in impacting the election so that Biden could argue
that they'd done a great job on employment. Unfortunately, Biden
or Mela Harris lost, but the margin of Republicans in
(46:35):
Congress might be larger, but for those BLS numbers even
just a few more seats would make a difference.
Speaker 2 (46:41):
Ken, We're running out of time, so I'm going to
have you summarize this real quick and then summarize our
core American value free speech.
Speaker 3 (46:51):
And put a wrap on it here. Okay, I'll give
you about sixty seconds.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
Go ahead to quickly finish my point on the BLS.
The numbers showing much high employment were one of the
reasons why interest rates were and cut, and that was
bad for the economy and bad for people. So it
was just bad overall. Turning to the bigger issue, I
believe that America was founded on a premise of the
First Amendment. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly,
(47:19):
freedom to petition the government. None of that works without
free speech. None of that works without recognizing that free
speech means and only means something. If I defend your
right to say things with which I strongly disagree, you
don't need any rights if I agree with what you say.
You need rights when I disagree with what you say exactly.
(47:40):
And the country is moving in a wrong direction, particularly
from the left, but even from the right. When we
turn to gen Z, we as Americans have to turn
this ship around before it's too late.
Speaker 2 (47:54):
We're all in this boat together. You're exactly right. This
is an US thing. It's not a republic thing. It's
not a democratic thing. It's a we the people thing, right.
Speaker 4 (48:04):
Absolutely, and we the people need the right to speak
our minds.
Speaker 3 (48:09):
Well, Kennon, speedback. I cannot thank you enough.
Speaker 2 (48:11):
I appreciate the insight as always, and you and I
need to have maybe an off campus conversation about COVID.
I'm not sure where we disagree, but we can talk
about that later. Kennan is the founder and chairman of
the SMI Group, an international consulting firm and a contributor
to Real Politics and the Claremont Institutes the American Mind. Kennon,
(48:33):
thank you for being with us. Appreciate the time, Take care,
be well. My friends will well. Our thanks to Kennon,
and thank you for sharing a part of your day
with us as we had this conversation about free speech.
And the bottom line is, if it's going to get fixed,
it's going to be up to me and you. Let's
look in the mirror. We the people must activate ourselves.
Well that's a wrap for us. Thank you for being
with us. May God bless you.
Speaker 3 (48:54):
And keep you.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
May make his face shine upon you, May be gracious
unto you and give you peace. God bless, would put bout,
everything would product
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.