“Should Free Speech Be THE Issue in 2016?” Tonight at 11 p.m. ET (8 p.m. PT)

Given how bad things are today, both in the media and in politics, I’m considering voting in the 2016 elections based solely on a candidate’s understanding of, and support for, free speech. What do you think?

This story and more, tonight. See program notes, below, for all the stories, etc., I plan to discuss.

Join in live, either by phone or in the chatroom!

The show can be accessed here.

To access the show’s page at BlogTalk Radio, which will allow you to check out a past episode or to subscribe via iTunes and other services, use this link.

To access the iTunes store page for “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard,” where you can find past episodes, subscribe, and leave ratings and reviews (pretty please!), use this link.

Finally, if you would like to support the show financially, please donate using your Pay Pal account or Credit Card here.

Program Notes

Freedom of Speech & the Mohammad Drawings

The Commander-in-Chief Test for Scott Walker and Rivals: Not Being Obama

Sen. Ted Cruz Objects to Democrats Attempt to Repeal Free Speech Protections

Cruz On Garland: We Must Choose Between Free Speech And Political Correctness

Trump: Geller ‘taunting’ Muslims with Muhammad event

A Guide To The Radical Left Wing Ideology And Flip-Flops Of Fake Conservative Donald J. Trump

Watch Heated Exchange ➠ Cruz Catches Obama Official In False Claim, Forces Her To Admit He’s ‘Absolutely Right’

Epic! Ted Cruz Shuts Down Code Pink Protestors On Iran Deal By Debating Them HT @CouldntBRighter on Twitter

The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science HT Deborah Sloan


Filed under Don't Let It Go...Unheard

11 responses to ““Should Free Speech Be THE Issue in 2016?” Tonight at 11 p.m. ET (8 p.m. PT)

  1. Craig

    Encryption Protects Free Speech:
    Ladar Levison on Online Freedom, Net Neutrality, and Cryptography

  2. Craig

    Whistleblower William Binney on Dark Motive of NSA Snooping

  3. Definitely, if we’re still alive to speak. I’ll be voting for someone that will eliminate the physical threat to my life from Islamists and terrorist regimes with nukes. If politicians haven’t heard and understood this resounding loud and clear exercise of free speech demanding they do their only job to protect our lives by then, voting for a free speech candidate may be mute.

  4. Christine McNulty

    Onkar Ghate’s talk was excellent. However, he is endorsement of Richard Dawkins, who wrote ‘The Selfish Gene’, is a mistake. Genes are not alive. They cannot be “selfish”. The false belief that ‘genes’ are alive and control lifeforms underpins the West’s new ‘religion’: Pantheism. A mystical reverence for ‘nature’ has led western leaders to tolerate what should not be tolerated and appease what should not be appeased.

  5. Alfred the Great

    I think the point is:

    1. If Muslims are offended by pictures of Muhhamed but don’t think it should be illegal much less a capital offense then it might be polite not to draw such pictures.

    However if:
    2. Muslims are so offended that they think it should be illegal and a capital offense then it is important to draw such pictures.

    If there’s a religion in the world like Political Islam, I don’t know what it is. Professed Christians are in the majority in the USA and they have so little influence that they are fighting for the right not to bake cakes.

  6. Why are Objectivists still using terms like “Islamist” and “political Islam”. If Charles Martel had used that type of weasel language we’d all be Muslims now.

    Objectivism is drifting to the Left more and more each decade. You’ll all be Leftists soon I fear.

  7. Yaron Brook uses it as does everyone at “The Objective Standard” (Biddle, Armstrong, etc) as does pretty much every O’ist related site I’ve seen. Also, I have never seen or heard you use expressions like “the war against Islam” or to simply refer to Islamic killers as Muslims. I’ve seen you use qualifiers frequently.

    And I’m not even getting into the fact that no Objectivist ever takes a position on ending Islamic immigration or the necessity of out-migrating Muslims from Western nations because Islam, like cancer, manifests disease and death when Muslims, like cancer cells, aggregate. That latter position is something Objectivists never consider because to do so would mean they would have to acknowledge that groups have properties and in some contexts individuals mean nothing.

    So your defensive attitude to my question has no support.

  8. Amy, thanks for another book recommendation. I really enjoyed the last one, Healing Back Pain. I am looking forward to The Brain that Changes Itself.

  9. Pingback: “Charlottesville and the American Sense of Life,” TODAY at 3 p.m. ET (12 p.m. PT) | Don't Let It Go

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.