The liberal Democrats appear to be caught in their own ideological whirlpool this week. Reaction among some Democrats to the alleged “anti-Semitic” speech resolution we reported about took a turn that was perhaps surprising: The Democrat rank-and-file representatives could not come to an agreement on the resolution.
This appears to underscore the thought that Nancy Pelosi, while Speaker of the House, no longer has the control over that body that she did at an earlier time. But it also underscores the increasingly radical nature of the Democrat Party’s House leadership, because the solution that seems to be taking shape in a new draft resolution is to extend the condemnation of bias speech, commonly called “hate speech”. And who is next to be added to the protection offered by the resolution?
This simply displays the mindset of modern day “liberalism”, which is really everything that is not upholding liberty.
We mentioned in our previous piece that the First Amendment to the US Constitution specifically prevents Congress from having any say about freedom of speech, freedom of the press and free exercise of religion. The House Resolution may not have the binding force of a law, but it reinforces a mindset that is totalitarian and utterly intolerant.
Right now that intolerance is being expressed towards what is called “hate speech” against Jewish people. Ilhan Omar has made a number of very clear remarks concerning the excessive prominence pro-Israel lobbies have in the US Congress, but in a classic act of denial and attack, the response from the entirety of the Congress is to brand Omar’s comments as “anti-Semitism.”
However, they are simply not so. The only possible connection to any anti-Semitic attitude is Mrs. Omar’s own identity as a Somali-American Muslim, and apparently a pretty actively involved one. But she has never gone on record saying that Jewish people are bad or need to be destroyed simply because they exist.
That would be anti-Semitism on full display, and while legal to say it, it would hopefully bring her meteoric career in Congress to a screeching halt.
While openly critical of liberalism, and especially the liberal hypocrisy that all too often gets shown – that “liberals” uphold the liberty of “everyone BUT” white, Anglo-Saxon or European, Protestant or Roman Catholic or any kind of Christian. Liberals in our time in the US uphold homosexuals, other sexually aberrant people such as those who are confused for whatever reason about what sex they are; they uphold free drug use for anyone, and they openly condemn Christian and traditional family values. They uphold murder of fully born children just because the triumph of feminism states “I am Woman, hear me roar”, and men in their effort to be kind to women who are afflicted with this state of mind have been run into the ground by it.
Liberalism is anything but liberty. Further, it strongly holds to the idea that one’s rights and even morals are established by and come from the State, from themselves. And anyone who knows human nature knows that without objective principles as guides, we change the rules as we wish to suit what we want. That is how it is.
The liberal Democrats want to be in charge of how everyone else thinks, speaks, and acts. Our Constitution forbids such action on part of the government, but here they are, trying to find a way to do it anyway.
What still remains to be seen is if there are any people in Congress who will actually recognize this situation and stop it. Socialism is on the rise in America, and continued rejection of God and personal responsibility are the vanguards.
With this idea as a given, it is more likely than ever that such a resolution to limit free speech will eventually pass. Evidence for this includes the following:
The superstar Michael Jackson got his songs banned from airplay on radio stations around the world, ostensibly because of a wise array of sexual abuse allegations against the singer while he was alive. The broadcast of Leaving Neverland caused this reaction as the quantity of abuse allegations returned to the spotlight.
Now granted, if Mr. Jackson really did these things then that is bad. But any individual can make the choice of listening or not listening to Jackson tunes without help from the outside. While it also may be the prerogative of private broadcast companies to edit their playlists, it becomes a different matter if mandated by the government.
However, the common reaction has become essentially “everyone is included” socialism in terms of things like this.
Christians continue to receive persecution in the United States when they uphold traditional values and beliefs in action in life. Cake baker Jack Phillips, who won a technical victory in the US Supreme Court against the lawsuits against him and his business in Colorado, is still getting attacked by that state’s Civil Rights Commission. Although he appears to have won again, the reason is only because the state’s hostility towards his religious freedom is still too obvious.
(However, maybe this is a side effect of cannabis being legal in that state – stoned lawyers cannot think properly – perhaps a blessing in disguise?)
A recent comment by Thomas Sowell, a known conservative and economist, noted some alarm about the rise of raw, unfettered socialism (the hyper-extension of present radical liberalism):
“I do have a great fear that in the long run we may not make it,” he told FOX Business’ David Asman on “Cavuto: Coast-to-Coast” on Tuesday.
Sowell is putting the onus on the education system and the media for encouraging people to “test ideas against facts.”
“Socialism is a wonderful sounding idea,” he said. “It’s only as a reality that it’s disastrous.”
At one time, Sowell described himself as a Marxist, but once he realized the truth, he changed his mind.
“Before I was a Marxist, I was an empiricist and I stayed an empiricist. And with the passing years simply as I looked into more and more things I saw the difference between reality and the rhetoric,” he said. “Unfortunately so many people today, including in the leading universities, don’t pay much attention to evidence.”
The facts seem not to matter at this time. The US’ existence was predicated on an educated electorate, lest the country fall into mob-driven politics. With the loss of an educated electorate, the Nanny State has emerged, and it cannot even govern its own behavior.
But it will certainly try to fix that by directing ours.