Free Speech, International

Wales Moves Forward With Plan to Punish Politicians for Telling Lies

Will Rogers once said that “if you ever injected truth into politics, you’d have no politics.” In Wales, it appears that the government is challenging that assessment. However, if the new legislation criminalizing political lies is successful, the Welsh are likely to find themselves with the same abundance of lies but little free speech.

A proposal in the Welsh parliament (or the Senedd) would make it the first country in the world to impose criminal sanctions for lying politicians. Adam Price, the former leader of the liberal Plaid Cymru Party is pushing for the criminalization, citing a “credibility gap” in UK politics.

Astonishingly, this uniquely bad idea has received support from a key committee. Once on track for adoption, this is the type of law that can become self-propelling through the legislature. Few politicians want to go on record voting against a law banning political lies. The free speech implications are easily lost in the coverage.

The new law would make it a criminal offense for a member of the Senedd, or a candidate for election to the Senedd, to wilfully, or with intent to mislead, make or publish a statement that is known to be false or deceptive. There is a six-month period for challenges to be brought.

The law allows a defense that a statement could be “reasonably inferred” to be a statement of opinion, or if it were retracted with an apology within 14 days. If guilty, the politician would be disqualified from being a Senedd member.

The defense is hardly helpful. It creates an uncertainty as to which statements would be deemed an opinion and which would be treated as a statement of fact. It invites selective and biased prosecutions. After all, what does it mean to accuse a politician of trying to “mislead” the public?

Winston Churchill said “a politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”

It is a standard heavily laden with subjectivity and potential selectivity in prosecution. It is more likely to determine not whether lies can be told but which lies can be told. The government and the majority of the public are likely to hold certain “misleading” claims of politicians to be true or opinion while holding a harsher view of the claims of the opposition.

Consider the massive censorship system in our own country. During Covid, you were labeled a liar, conspiracist, or racist for holding views now viewed as credible.

For example, academics joined this chorus in marginalizing anyone raising the lab theory. One study cited the theory as an example of “anti-Chinese racism” and “toxic white masculinity.”

As late as May 2021, the New York Times’ Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was calling any mention of the lab theory as “racist.”

Mandavilli and others made clear that reporters covering the theory were Covid’s little Bull Connors. She tweeted wistfully “someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not yet here.”

Now federal agencies have stated that they believe that the origin of the virus was indeed the Chinese lab.

If this law were in place, politicians could have been charged with lying and barred from the legislature — would have only served to diminish dissenting views further in the government.

Politicians have long been accused of lying to the public.

In this country, presidents routinely lie on matters great and small. Many of those lies cost citizens dearly, from “keeping your doctor” under ObamaCare to losing your life in Vietnam. Criminalizing lies in campaigns because of the spread of disinformation or disorder is a slippery slope that vests unprecedented power in the Justice Department.

There is obviously an abundance of statements from politicians that could be deemed as intentionally misleading. Officials can then simply pick and choose which politicians they want to tar with the allegation and potentially bar from office.

The proposed law is a continuation of the assault on free speech in the United Kingdom.

A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”

We also discussed the arrest of a woman who was praying to herself near an abortion clinic. English courts have seen criminalized “toxic ideologies” as part of this crackdown on free speech.

Scotland recently passed a new crime law covering “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. That crime covers insulting comments and anything “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive.”

Free speech is in a free fall after years of criminalization of speech. Generations have been shaped in the educational system to fear free speech. The alliance of government, media, and academic forces have created generations of speech phobics.

The anti-free speech movement in the United Kingdom should be a cautionary tale for every American. The tide of this movement has reached our shores and the same alliance is working to reduce the protections for free speech.

As I discuss in my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, this international movement has left free speech in tatters in the West. Now there are law professors calling for the First Amendment to be rewritten to remove its “excessively individualistic” protections.

The free speech community in the United Kingdom has fought bravely to preserve this right against all odds. Wales is a reminder that this remains a global struggle that requires free speech advocates to unite against this rising tide.

241 thoughts on “Wales Moves Forward With Plan to Punish Politicians for Telling Lies”

  1. I would wager that the crime rate for immigrants is far, far lower than for living former presidents of the United States

    1. 20% of living past Presidents are convicted felons. Much higher than the immigrant crime rate

      1. Donald Trump doesn’t seem to realize that he is contributing to the rising crime rate that he complains about.

        2. ^^^^Spastic Idiot who doesn’t know the difference between the rape and murder of a 12 year old and “falsifying business records”. Hard to even say the latter without laughing out loud.

        3. ^^^^Douchebag doesn’t seem to realize the prepubescent quality of his jokes.

      2. But the crime rate among Illinois governors is even higher. I believe they had a covered walkway in Springfield from the governors mansion to the state prison

        1. “As a person who owns property in Manhattan I would be happier if Alvin Bragg took care of criminals who make it impossible to ride the subway or walk the streets, than spending $10 million of taxpayer money trying Donald Trump on nonsense.”

          “I, as a taxpayer in this country, resent using the system for your own personal self-aggrandizement,”

          — Judge Judy Sheindlin

        2. “…to use his [Bragg] efforts to keep those people off the street, than to spend 5 million or ten million of taxpayers money trying Donald Trump on this nonsense,”

          — Judge Judy Sheindlin

        3. “You had to twist yourself into a pretzel to figure out what the crime was, he [Bragg] doesn’t like [Trump].”

          — Judge Judy Sheindlin

        5. Awww, the little spastic twat who keeps replying to his own drivel doesn’t like a bit of his own medicine?? WAAAAAAAAAA

  2. If that idea is adopted here each change of administration will result in the construction of new jails to house the previous administration.
    Easier method perform a net worth at the beginning of term of office and what most professional politician dread term limits.

  3. The one flaw in our constitution, that was greatly exasperated by Madeline O’Hare, was that is was conceived by men who counted on the fact that a majority of the new nation’s citizens would adhere to the basic judeo/christian tenets upon which the Western world was based. Without that underlayment of a moral core, our constitution is shattering to accommodate those who do not share those values and we are, slowly, being subsumed in cultural and societal anarchy. Once a nation loses its cultural and moral core it is not long until it is defeated by itself.

    1. The one flaw in our constitution, that was greatly exasperated by Madeline O’Hare, was that is was conceived by men who counted on the fact that a majority of the new nation’s citizens would adhere to the basic judeo/christian tenets upon which the Western world was based. Without that underlayment of a moral core, our constitution is shattering to accommodate those who do not share those values and we are, slowly, being subsumed in cultural and societal anarchy. Once a nation loses its cultural and moral core it is not long until it is defeated by itself.

      Atheists like Madeline Murray O’Hair (and our former Philosophy Faculty atheist “Sam”) rejected the values that the US Founding Fathers embraced. Abraham Lincoln, no theological giant or towering Christian, appealed to those theistic principles because, as a lawyer, he knew those principles shaped the Founding Fathers and the documents they drafted

      Ive known many atheists, and a common theme amongst them is a zealotry of anti-religion, anger and self-referrential outlook. Madalyn Murray O’Hair, her second son and granddaughter, were killed by David Waters, the office manager of her American Atheists organization. Waters and his accomplice, Gary Karr, held them hostage in a motel for ransom. While Waters and Madalyn’s son played video games (!), Madalyn would taunt Karr with her philosophical skills. She had earned a law degree.

      You would think that while held as hostage the hostages would placate the people holding them hostage. Not Madalyn: she had to antagonize him. Karr later took delight in killing and dismembering Madalyn because he did it for revenge.

      Not surprisingly her first son, William J. Murray, alive today, is a Christian minister and said the following about his mother:

      “My mother was not just Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the atheist leader. She was an evil person who led many to hell. That is hard for me to say about my own mother but it is true.”

      Whenever I see comments by atheists like Sam, angry, smug, taunting posts laced with ad hominem, it reminds me of Madalyn Murray O’ Hair as you stated: our constitution is shattering to accommodate those who do not share those values

      True Confession

      “Waters explained how he had convinced O’Hair’s gullible son, Jon Garth Murray, that the three would be freed when the money arrived, and thus won Jon’s trust and cooperation in the kidnapping. Jon was also allowed to use his cell phone and travel without supervision, but never alerted authorities. “It got to the point where it was real bizarre, and Jon and I were like working together. He was like responsible for his group, and I was responsible for my group,” Waters said. “One of his primary responsibilities was to control Madalyn. All he was concerned about was that I control Karr. They were terrified of Karr.” According to Waters, Karr repeatedly threatened to sexually assault Robin Murray O’Hair, 30, Madalyn’s granddaughter, whom the atheist leader adopted as her daughter; Karr also was trigger-happy to kill Madalyn. Waters said that Madalyn goaded Karr into philosophical debates.

      “He was completely out of his league, and I would chastise Madalyn, but she was taking a certain perverse delight, amusing herself in this fashion,” Waters said. “So I had to talk to Jon. ‘Jon, please talk to Madalyn. You see, I’m dealing with this guy, and he’s not wrapped real tight.’ And I say, ‘She keeps poking him with a stick. He’s like a mad dog. He’s gonna try and bite her.'”

      https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/true-confession-6387834

      1. The only thing “Crazy Abe” Lincoln adhered to was the philosophy of violent revolution, as in mass brutality and killing, of Karl Marx.

        “Karl Marx”

        “Of all the figures discussed in these articles thus far, Karl Marx is without a doubt the most Revolutionary. Marx believed that Revolution was both fundamentally essential and inevitable to the progress of human society. He anticipated that eventually the workers of the world would realise they ‘have nothing to lose but their chains’ and revolt against the industrialists and capitalists who covertly controlled their lives. (1) In the aftermath of the Revolution, a new global ‘Communist’ society would be created, where all would be equal regardless of their wealth, status or nationality. Concepts such as nations and currency would, in fact, be abolished in the new world order. Marx is seen by some as a visionary and the father of the modern welfare state, and by others as a deluded utopian – whose well-meaning but impractical ideas have been the cause of much global suffering.”

        Lincoln, per the Constitution, must have been impeached and convicted for his initial unconstitutional act of denying the not-prohibited and fully constitutional right and freedom of secession.

      2. “. . . the basic judeo/christian tenets upon which the Western world was based.”

        Western values and ideas began with ancient Greece — which long predates those religious tenets. Your history’s a bit off.

        As is your attempt to rewrite the history of the Founders. Legit scholars have documented for centuries that their primary intellectual influences were Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers.

        “Whenever I see comments by atheists like Sam, angry, smug, taunting posts laced with ad hominem, it reminds me of Madalyn Murray O’ Hair . . .”

        Rabid religionists, bent on denying reality, are not know for their introspection.

        1. “ Western values and ideas began with ancient Greece — which long predates those religious tenets.”

          Declaration of independence

          In Congress, July 4, 1776

          The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Aphrodite, Hera & Athena entitle them,….

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Aphrodite, Hera & Athena with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….

          Signed,

          Sam aka President of Madaline Murray O’Hair Fan Club

            1. Pretty sure that staring blankly at a couple of words in a single document does not count as historical scholarship.

              “ Western values and ideas began with ancient Greece”

              That you believe that such a fact is debatable or controversial illustrates your historical ignorance. Or that you are a shill for religion. Maybe both.

  4. Making it illegal is over the edge but stripping politicians of their civil immunity for intentional defamation, as in slander and libel, might not be such a bad thing. The cherry picking of spoken words to use completely out of context IS intentional defamation and politicians should be held personably liable for it.

    If you disagree with this then explain why.

    1. You’re on the right track. We should be expanding defamation civil lawsuits to more broadly cover attempts to dupe the public for political advantage (public frauds lawsuits). This is completly consistent with 1A, since it is not using govt. prosecution, and in fact, govt. officials and candidates can be the parties being sued. The plaintiffs would be “the public”, whose injury in being deceived is the menace of regretful public decisionmaking.

      With such lawsuits, there would have been a way to expose Iraqi WMDs as a lie before going into a very expensive war. There would have been a way to challenge “Hunter’s laptop is Russian hacking” before people voted in 2020.
      It would have halted Trump’s big lie in its tracks before 1/6/21.

      But it’s preventing future national blunders that’s why we need this tool to keep politicians honest.

        1. If you took the time to say what’s wrong with the idea of holding lawsuits over the lying pol’s head, I’d respect your intellect. Any dunce can issue dismissive epithets.

      2. NO pbinca, that’s not what I’m talking about at all.

        I’m talking about a public figure or politician suing for defamation against those that knowingly and egregiously lie about them to publicly destroy their character. The common law notion that a “public figure” can’t sue others for intentional defamation needs to be corrected and done so in a very big way. A perfect example of this is Donald Trump could/should sue other politicians and news outlets that INTENTIONALLY LIED about him calling neo-Nazis “very fine people” after the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in 2017 in their false efforts to tar Trump as a white supremist racist. Trump DIDN’T do what they claim and the facts prove it beyond a shadow of doubt. What was done to Trump in this regard was very intentional defamation and the political left’s sheeple swallowed the lie whole and serious and ongoing damage was done to Donald Trump. Those that perpetrated the bald-faced lie should be sued for millions of dollars

        If people or the media get sued for millions and millions of dollars when they intentionally and egregiously lie about politicians or public figures maybe most of the in-your-face lies would stop.

        1. I like the idea of suing big media when they hop onto a big lie. Nick Sandmann was very successful at this, as was Dominion Voting Systems. Yes, equal rights under the Constitution for defamation deterrence need to be restored by SCOTUS ASAP. Trump was fraudulently maligned for 4 years by big media. Pre-Sullivan, they could have been sued. Pre-Hamilton, they would have faced a duel challenge.

  6. I’m now watching Martha Raddatz (on ABC This Week) carefully elicit from Biden adviser John Meacham the partisan information she wants to convey to her audience this morning.
    I continue to say that the real dishonesty in America is not “lying politicians,” but rather, the SELECTIVE INFORMATION being presented to Americans.
    This includes the one-sided ideology that controls MEDIA, -and, rather than “lie” to Americans, there is this calculated and pervasive effort to quell and silence any facts that conflict with the chosen agenda, e.g., “selective fact” rather than outright lie.

    1. Lin,
      That is a very good point.
      It is also why MSM has such low trust from the public. It is also why alternative media is gaining so much readership. That has MSM in a panic. I read an article recently of how in this day and age, MSM can report something and the ease for the average American to do their own research and find the facts dispelling the MSM spin.
      Far leftist MSM spin is failing so much, even traditional liberal Democrats are calling out the crap.
      Former NY Gov. Cuomo says Trump’s hush money case should not have been brought forward
      https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/former-ny-gov-cuomo-says-trumps-hush-money-case-should-not-have-been-brought

  7. There are some interesting comments to Prof. Turley’s blog posts, but I’m less and less reading them because of so many Anonymous postings that are sanctimonious diatribes.

    1. I agree. All pseudonyms “Anonymous”, like yours, need to change to something individual so we can tell you apart.

      1. Greg,
        It is far easier and better to just scroll past their comments. Their comments are not worth reading anyways.

    2. Yet some of the biggest partisans here do use screen names
      and they’re just as full of cr@p as anyone.
      It’s about the content and intent. Some are better than others.

  8. As children, we were raised to not lie. Why? Every moral stricture has a basis in logic and common sense. Lies, when successful in duping listeners, lead to bad, regretful decisions and actions. When found out (which eventually occurs), they weakens trust. Lying in attempted to cover-up misdeeds and escape accountability — this blocks learning from mistakes — it can pave a path to a criminal lifestyle.

    In a Court of Law, can you lie? Why not? Because justice must be based on truth, on facts that can be verified.

    In the business marketplace, can you lie for advantage? Why do we have business fraud laws, SEC laws, medical device laws? When you receive an email that is fraudulently impersonating your bank, your PayPal, are you happy that this kind of internet deception is going unpunished?

    Why should political information be carved out free from moral standards of honesty?

    The principle under which our country was founded is that an elected official’s authority is grounded in “the consent of the governed”. How can that consent be legitimately held if obtained through trickery and deceit?

    Yes, there are unknowns that force their way into the conversation, but the ethical candidate or govt. official will be able to say “I don’t know — it’s worth finding out”. Honesty requires a degree of modesty.

    The approach being proposed by Wales is wrongheaded only in relying on govt. prosecution as the deterrent. The correct approach should mimic defamation law — civil lawsuits with monetary consequences. The goal shouldn’t be to jail deceitful politicians — rather just to make them think twice before trying to dupe us. What defies common sense entirely is to completely concede the moral high ground, and jettison a bedrock principle of democracy (honest public servants) in some zealous, wildly-extravagent definition of “free speech”.

    Unless the moral teachings we received as youngsters was just a bunch of garbage not worth upholding.

    1. There it is folks! Pea brain in california back with his “more tort” crusade.

      Let me say this as gently as i can.

      NEVER GONNA HAPPEN

      So why do you keep posting that ridiculous horse shit?

      1. Name calling, cynical predictions that problems cannot be solved, that American “can do” is a thing of the past.

        Do you agree your politicians and candidates should have freedom to deceive you? It’s hard to tell where you stand on this question, because you evasively hide behind oppo-branding. Do you have any original ideas to offer?…or just bile?

        And stop hiding behind “Anonymous”. It’s not a good look.

        1. Here ya go, I chose a name just for you.

          I’m just sick of reading your tired, ragged ass call for more tort. How many times would you guess you have posted that??

          And its not about status quo, dipshit. Your idea isn’t ever going to happen because its a terrible idea. And NONE of your suppositions about its capacity to avoid wrongs are even close to realistic.

          I’m not asking you not to go advocate for it someplace where it might actually do some good, I’m just asking you to stop boring the fvck out of us with it.

  9. What a great idea. If you gave them a day injail for each lie, trump would be in jaile for 30,000 plus days for all the lies he has spewed. JT might be in trouble as well if you include all the half lies he puts forth on this site.

    1. Lies like “the CPI was 9% when Trump left office”?

      Enjoy your time with Bubba.

    2. We’ve got another imbecile that swallowed the 30,000 lies false narrative about Trump that was put forth by the Washington Post and parroted by partisan imbeciles like you.

      2. Steve,
        Your Cancel Culture and Are “We Broke” articles were interesting.

        1. Are you so blindly ignorant that you truly don’t know how to properly discern what is an opinion vs what is a lie?

          Yes, that was rhetorical because it’s known far and wide throughout these blog threads that you’re an imbecile that’s trolling for effect with parroted propaganda. There’s more to life than being a snarling partisan attack dog.

          Sit Bobo, sit!

  10. People who would like to see you punished for saying something that they don’t like should be punished themselves.

    1. There is a difference between telling things that are patently false and saying things that are unpopular. Big difference.

  11. Let’s see how it goes for the Welsh Parliament (Senedd).
    Experiment with Laws, This measure can be rescind (means the rule is now void, not used, no longer applied),
    and later revoked (means the rule no longer exists).

    The ‘environment’ of the governed-body (The People), is constantly changing, so to should the Laws of the Government.
    (lest they be left to the media and others for manipulation)

    There are consequences for not changing the rules of the Government. The U.S. seems to be stuck in a Uni-Party stasis.
    Rules regarding the Electoral College are not to be amended, even though they are incomplete and manipulated.
    For some holding a Constitutional Convention is sacrilege to the Constitution [K], expressing the idea is blasphemy.
    So let’s see how it goes for the Welsh , after all something’s gotta give and it may open a door to the way outta this mess.

    Gaps In Electoral College Tiebreaker Rules Could Bring Constitutional Crisis
    The “contingent election” scenario that could leave the Oval Office empty
    By: Brian McGlinchey ~ Jun 22, 2024
    https://starkrealities.substack.com/p/gaps-in-electoral-college-tiebreaker

    1. “the delegation-control math could be different when the 119th Congress is gaveled into existence at noon on Jan. 3.”

      This is horse manure. Dems havent held the majority of delegations in more than a decade, and its not going to change any time soon.

      Plus the idiot postulates that Biden wins NC, GA, and AZ. Bwahahahaha

  12. Cymru am bath

    Alas for the land of my great grandparents birth. But as you noted in your book, the UK does not have the history of protected speech that we former colonials have enjoyed. One can hope that this proposed legislation disgyn ar ochr y ffordd

  14. Again, I must ask if we are not missing essential components of this degradation of freedom. The Law and The Courts. The Law has become the mechanism for the People to exercise their power even when their motives are clearly wrong. The Courts, sanctioned by The Law, become the perpetrators of injustice. The combination of the two leaves no room for Liberty.

  15. “. . . the First Amendment to be rewritten to remove its ‘excessively individualistic’ protections.”

    Which means:

    Who are you to think that you have the right to express yourself? The public, the Volk, the people dictate your speech. And if there’s any question about the content of that speech, just remember this: We, the Enlightened Ones, are the Voice of the People.

    In 2026, America will celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. If this tyrannical push to squash the individual continues, there will not be a 260th anniversary.

    1. Isn’t that just the bottom line? Politicians, celebrities, the lettered elite, the wealthy, the religious hierarchy, the world power brokers, generally cannot abide the rabble being able to speak directly to them. One bright exception has been Elon Musk, who thus far has enabled free speech on X- albeit it imperfectly. Substack and Rumble are other places where open discourse is flourishing.

      The thin-skinned and fragile-egoists can’t win us over using logic and reason, so therefore must erase our ideas . They are hellbent on either taking all our ability to share and spread our ideas or just proverbially stick their fingers in their ears and scream, “Blah blah blah blah blah! I can’t hear you!”

      1. Advertisers and users have abandoned “X”. It is broke and Elan cannot pay back the investors who loaned him $billions to buy Twitter. The quality of the discourse has continued the slide toward giving voice to the zealots, the low-info, the solipsists, the narcissistic self-entertaining pranksters…the loudmouths who crave attention.

        Musk is learning a hard lesson about “free speech” — when decoupled from comity, responsibility, civility and honesty, you get less freedom of thought, more stridency, more militancy, more rigidity, more BS — less trust, less confidence, fewer creative options coming forth, and less capacity for collaborative problem-solving.

        There is a sweet spot for maximizing free-thinking that is constructive, put out of reach by eliminating norms and effective moderation of them.

        1. “fewer creative options coming forth, and less capacity for collaborative problem-solving.”

          Laughing my ass off that you saw Twitter as THAT.

        2. “. . . users have abandoned “X”.”

          Twitter had some 368 million users in 2022, which is when Musk bought it.

          Today, it has some 556 million active monthly users.

          Pretty sure 556 is quite a bit more than 368.

    2. You’re optimistic. I don’t believe America will make it to her 250th birthday. She’s on life support.

  16. The courts will be buried in language crimes and therefore unable to get to lesser cases of property and violent crimes, so sorry.

    1. the Tower of Babel* seems applicable

      The whole world had the same language and the same words. When they were migrating from the east, they came to a valley in the land of Shinar* and settled there. They said to one another, “Come, let us mold bricks and harden them with fire.” They used bricks for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky, and so make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered all over the earth.” The LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the people had built. Then the LORD said: If now, while they are one people and all have the same language, they have started to do this, nothing they presume to do will be out of their reach. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that no one will understand the speech of another. So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the speech of all the world. From there the LORD scattered them over all the earth

      https://bible.usccb.org/bible/genesis/11

      * This story illustrates increasing human wickedness, shown here in the sinful pride that human beings take in their own achievements apart from God.

      1. It was a tower, not a city. And they intended it to reach up to heaven.

        Funny how your translation leaves out the fairy tale parts.

        2. What are you talking about? The translation follows the original text extremely closely. The original text says they wanted to build a tower with its top in the sky. What’s implausible about that? We build skyscrapers today; why would they not have had the idea to build one too?

      2. Its also interesting that these people were doing such grandiose things just 2 generations after the flood. What were there, like 60 people on the earth at that time??

        1. Also funny that ham, shem and japheths sons had all of these sons of their own, but where did the mothers come from?

          There are plenty of morality lessons in greek and roman mythology as well.

          1. All you’re doing is exposing your own ignorance. The sons’ wives were on the ark. Why wouldn’t they have had children after the flood?

      3. “. . . confuse their language, so that no one will understand the speech of another.” “. . . scattered them from there over all the earth . . .”

        If a child did that to another’s sand castle, he’d be called what he is: A brat. A bully. A destroyer.

        1. Well, Jehovah is not known for his sunny disposition.

          On the bright side, he “scattered” what, 60 people? Over all the earth at that LMAO

  17. Turley uses the proposal in Wales as a hook to repeat what he has said numerous times before. That is fine with me for as long as the attacks on free speech continue, so must its defense. Obviously, this piece was written not by the good professor but composed by an assistant, who really needs to improve his/her writing skills. Too many errors. Second para: ‘was make it’, should be ‘would make it.’ Thirds para: ‘The new law would be a criminal offense for a member of the Senedd,..’, should be ‘would make it a criminal offense’ (the original wording is nonsensical). Etc. Just have someone else than the writer read it and correct the obvious mistakes (as it may be difficult to edit your own work). It happened before, but this posting is quite sloppy language-wise.

  18. I am sure some democrat will pickup on this and try to bring that here…the problem? How do you know if a politician is lying? If his lips are moving…

    1. Thanks, you saved me from postng that old saw. One problem with dismissing it as nothing more is that it contains far more truth than falsity. What is a politician if not someone who wants to tell all of the non-politicians how to run their lives, because he is convinced he is more privy to the correct answers than they are. In other words, convinced his sh1t don’t st1nk. An issue with the Welsh plan, even if the lies could be clearly and unambiguously demonstrated, is that, even if you barred all lying politicians from office, I suspect you would quickly learn there is a nearly inexhaustible supply of wannabes waiting to enjoy the newly unclaimed spoils. What would be needed is an incentive against becoming a politician, strong enough to discourage all, or nearly all, of the wannabes. Many years ago (pre WWW), I was on an electronic bulletin board run by Byte Magazine named BIX (Byte Information Exchange) that had many very intelligent and/or astute members (author Jerry Pournelle would be a good example). A poster (not Pournelle or me, he claimed to be a retired USAF Lt. Col.) suggested a noval approach to term limits. His idea was that any citizen could run for office, and, if successful, serve out a single term, then retire in peace. Any previously elected citizen could also run for a second term, and if successful, serve it out. However, anyone who was elected to, and served, two terms of public office would be summarily executed at the end of his second term. When I first read that proposal back in 1993 or so, I though it was amusing, but facetious. Today, I’m not convinced that it isn’t a pretty good idea.

Comments are closed.