Kerby Anderson
Free speech is very important, but many Americans believe that violence may be necessary to stop candidates or citizens with the wrong views about free speech. On my radio program, I frequently quote Jonathan Turley (professor of law at George Washington University). Though he is a liberal who would disagree with my perspective on many social issues, I quote him because of his dedication to free speech.
I recommend his new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. He provides the history of free speech and makes an excellent case for free speech. However, he laments that for some people “violent language can become violent action.” He explains, “We are living in an age of rage. It permeates every aspect of our society and politics. Rage is liberating, even addictive. It allows us to say and do things that we would ordinarily avoid, even denounce in others.”
One chilling illustration of this I discovered in an article by Bob Unruh. He cites polling research that uncovered the disturbing fact that 26 million Americans believe the “use of force is justified to prevent Trump from becoming president.” The study on “Political Violence and the Election: Assessing the threat from the Left and the Right” also concluded these 26 million are “active, dangerous” and have “growth potential.” On the other side, the study also found that another 18 million say the use of force is justified to “restore Trump to the presidency.”
Jonathan Turley recently cited the number of politicians working with extreme groups and concluded they were “playing a dangerous game toying with groups” that call for violence. I agree with his conclusion that this recent poll is a “chilling account of the growing radicalism in America.”

Kerby Anderson
I want to talk about the word unconfiscatable. Apparently, it isn’t even a word found in many dictionaries, which is why when I write it on my word processor, it has a red squiggly line beneath it. Mitchell Askew brought my attention to this word in his latest book.
He argues that the word isn’t used because nearly every asset we own can be confiscated. The money you have in the bank or the funds you have in the stock market through an IRA or 401k are ultimately in the hands of a third party. It is possible that they or the government could prevent you from getting your money. Just ask the people in Turkey who felt they needed to rob their local bank so they would get the money they put in the bank. Just ask the Canadian truckers who had their bank accounts frozen by the government.
Something that would be more difficult to confiscate would be what we refer to as a bearer asset. That means you have possession of it. One example would be gold. If you take possession of gold coins and put them in a safe deposit box in the bank, you have possession of them. Or do you? In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102 that required Americans to give up most of their gold in exchange for cash.
We always assume that we have an inalienable right to private property. But sometimes, especially in other countries, that right to property can be lost. That is why Mitchell Askew argued that bitcoin is unconfiscatable as a form of property. It cannot be taken from you, and it can be moved to anywhere in the world. Few other assets in the world are truly unconfiscatable.