Skip to content

Why Are Congressional Bureaucrats Against Freedom of Speech in Amerika?

Sadly, in 21st Century America many people still don’t get freedom of speech. And there are those who do get it, but they don’t like it, and they want to silence others, in the name of “fighting hate,” being against “discrimination,” etc., etc. Those are very dangerous people, as far as I’m concerned.

The leftists want to suppress and banish those with a different point of view on the college campuses as well as off campus, and the “conservatives” want to send the government police after protesters, and shut down news outlets and websites they don’t like.

For the conservatives, it is taboo to protest the singing of the National Anthem or to kneel and not salute the American flag, etc. Or if protesters burn the American flag, that’s “offensive,” and the flag-worshipers want to censor that and even throw someone in jail for burning a flag. To those confused people, harming an inanimate object is more serious than depriving someone of one’s liberty and security by throwing him in a cage.

Criticizing the U.S. military and all its crimes for 100 years is also taboo. We must suppress such criticism.

And for other people, we can’t criticize Barack Obama, his continuing the Bush wars, NDAA, Patriot Act, TSA, the drug war, being the “Deporter-In-Chief, etc.. As Ed Asner and his fellow moron show-biz celebrities were saying, we can’t criticize Obama because we are afraid of being called “racists.” How nutty is that? But after 8 long years of shouting obscenities about George W. Bush, they did become silent throughout the long 8 years of Barack Obama.

We also can’t say anything about “transgender” lunacy. That’s taboo, too. Look, if someone who is a male thinks he’s a female and wants to put on ladies clothing and lipstick and pretend, then whatever. It’s your life. I believe in live and let live. However, when the LGBT activists want to shut me up and censor my views about that gender confusion stuff, that’s a different story. There are people who want a law punishing me for writing just those very things!

So anyway, Sheldon Richman has this lengthy article on proposals in Congress for a new “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act,” which seeks to define anti-Semitism. I’m sure the buffoons in CONgress will define that however they can to encourage even more “sensitivity” so that any reference to “Jewish” can be considered to be anti-Semitism, and encourage even more suspicion of everyone’s neighbors, more reporting on one’s co-workers, more totalitarian paranoia. Criticism of this or that Jewish person will very well be seen as “anti-Semitic,” or criticism of Israel especially.

There are now anti-Semitism laws or policies in certain backwards countries, such as South Carolina. There they apparently define anti-Semitism from a 2010 U.S. State Department propaganda sheet, according to Jerusalem Post: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews…Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

That’s mainly an anti-freedom of speech law, if it means that if someone thinks or believes a certain way that such thoughts and beliefs should be outlawed and punished by the government. But we have many, many politicians in Washington and around the country who pander to not just certain voting blocs, but pander to certain taboos which must be enforced at all times.

For many people the taboo is pointing out anything negative or any criticism of Israel or anything Jewish. But freedom of speech is that I can criticize people I want to criticize and they can respond accordingly. In the article by Sheldon Richman he points out some very good reasons to criticize Israel. The Israeli government is just another socialist, central-planning regime, just another militarist police state, just like the U.S. government. It has nothing to do with anyone being Jewish.

The most recent move by the Israeli regime to declare by law the supremacy of Jews in Israel is a move toward even further authoritarianism and militancy. I don’t think that anyone should have special favors by law based on religious background or race or gender. This is one of the most anti-individualism policies in a whole nation I have seen.

In contrast, America was founded on individualism, supposedly, which is why we have a Declaration of Independence and a Bill of Rights, to protect the life and liberty of the individual. Not so in most (if not all) other countries. How about protecting non-Jewish people who happen to live in Israel? Sorry. What is Israel, a private, exclusive club? Yes, apparently.

And there is the other issue of criticism of Zionism. Zionism is more of a general political movement, while Israel is specifically a country. Since I am not a collectivist, I don’t understand this political movement to bring the world’s Jews to one location, and to Israel and Israel only, and based solely on Biblical scriptures and nothing else. It certainly isn’t based on practicality. Should there be a “Jewish state”? No, of course not. And there shouldn’t be a Christian state, an Islamic state, or an atheist state. There should just be freedom. People should live where they are most comfortable, and where it is economically affordable.

But all that Israel and Zionism stuff is a collectivist point of view. As I have said before, collectivism is a very bad thing. People who think like collectivists are not thinking clearly, in my view.

But you see, my writing those things is so “offensive” to some people, they would want to use some censorship law as proposed now in Congress to silence my thoughts on that. Actually, probably most of the people who would be expressing offense are really feigning feeling offended out of some kind of indoctrinated social obligation to do so, in my view. (Especially the phonies in CONgress!)

And we can’t call someone a “nazi” if they act like Nazis, like the goons of the TSA and ICE, and so on. To some people, the use of the word “Nazi” refers to Nazi Germany, and the term shouldn’t be used lightly. Well, I see it as more of a humorous reference, and people should lighten up. Listen, when a government police officer is beating up on some innocent person and if he or she is acting like a Nazi, then we can say that. And what about Charlie Chaplin imitating Hitler? And Hogan’s Heroes? Col. Klink and Sgt. Schultz?

And this intolerance and lack of sense of humor is worse now than it was 30 years ago. During the 1980s, Jerry Williams on the radio would call someone a “Nazi” if he felt it applied to someone, such as a very nasty caller. And of course there was the “Soup Nazi” on Seinfeld and in New York Mayor Bloomberg was called a “Soda Nazi” for trying to ban large sugary drinks.

And some people will find it “offensive” if I refer to the “special counsel” Robert Mueller and his group of investigators as “Adolf Mueller and his gestapo,” which frankly is how they’ve been acting. Okay, okay, so far they haven’t gathered people up and shot them on the spot, but they have totally trashed the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution which they all swore to support and defend, and have been covering up for questionable characters like James Comey and John Brennan and instead going after mainly non-criminals and for political reasons.

Now, why is it more offensive to call someone a “Nazi” but not as offensive to call someone a “commie”? After all, the communists, especially Soviet and Chinese, were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions more innocent people than Hitler and the Nazis. In my view, it’s all about the Bible, which says that Jewish people are the “chosen” people, or considered “special” or more special than others. “The Jews are more important than Russians and Chinese,” and so on. That’s mainly why. So, it’s okay to call someone a “commie,” and it’s not nearly as offensive as calling someone a “Nazi.” All this comes from thinking in a collectivist way about others. People should stop doing that.

And we are always better off with freedom of speech and tolerance, and worse off with legal suppression of speech and thought. “Thought crimes” is a concept really of Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and shouldn’t be considered a valid concept in America.

Published inUncategorized