A Zionist Onslaught Against Freedom of Speech [Part 1]
''The penalties under the legislation include ... up to 20 years [in prison] for supporting calls to boycott Israel ... or furnishing information about whether someone is associated with [AIPAC].''
Three years ago, during the height of Covid restrictions in Canada, I felt compelled to blog about what I saw as the greatest existential threat to freedom: a series of proposed laws designed to push Canada toward authoritarianism.
Now, living in the United States, I see something new as the greatest existential threat to freedom: Zionism. So, once again, I feel a patriotic duty to write about it.
“Treason is a strong word, but not too strong to characterize the situation in which the Senate is the eager, resourceful, and indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be.”
— David Graham Phillips, “Treason of the Senate,” 1906
America was born from a boycott.
When the Sons of Liberty dumped British tea into Boston Harbor, they weren’t just protesting a tax — they were asserting the freedom to dissent. That’s your birthright as an American citizen: the freedom to speak, to believe, to dissent, and to decide for yourself what you will and won’t support with your own money.
Today, 251 years later, your birthright is under threat.
Across America, 38 states (and counting) have already passed laws banning individuals and businesses from boycotting Israel.
Texas — which I always imagined was the freest state — is one of the most egregious examples. In May 2017, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law prohibiting state agencies from contracting with, or investing in, companies that boycott Israel.
In Texas you can boycott California, Canada, Cambodia or Palestine; but if you boycott Israel for any reason whatsoever, or no reason at all, it’s a hate crime.
Immediately after Abbott passed that anti-boycott law, a speech pathologist who had been employed for nine years at a Texas public school was presented with a contract containing a new clause requiring her to certify that she does not boycott Israel. She refused to sign and was fired.
The most disgusting application of this anti-boycott law was in the city of Dickinson, a city near Houston, where officials required Hurricane Harvey victims to swear allegiance to a foreign nation to receive disaster relief.
"The First Amendment protects Americans' right to boycott, and the government cannot condition hurricane relief or any other public benefit on a commitment to refrain from protected political expression. Dickinson’s requirement is an egregious violation of the First Amendment, reminiscent of McCarthy-era loyalty oaths requiring Americans to disavow membership in the Communist party and other forms of ‘subversive’ activity"
— Andre Segura, legal director of ACLU's Texas chapter
Hurricane Harvey killed over 100 people in 2017 and caused $125 billion in damage. Greg Abbott personally observed this disaster. Three years later, in 2020, when George Floyd died from a fentanyl overdose, Abbott called Floyd’s death: “the most horrific tragedy I’ve ever personally observed.”
San Marcos Revolts
Last month, on April 15, 2025, a town in Texas near Austin, San Marcos, proposed a resolution to redirect $4.4 million in taxpayer funds away from the Israeli military and toward community priorities ‘‘such as transportation, education, housing, healthcare, environmental protection, and public goods and services, which currently face neglect due to state and federal appropriations to Israel's military.’’
This is democracy in action: a very poor (median per capita income in San Marcos: $26,900; child poverty rate: 34.1%) and very Hispanic population (46% Hispanic) town wants to prioritize local well-being over funding a foreign army.
Greg Abbott responded with a scorched-earth open letter calling San Marco city councilors ‘‘pro-Hamas’’ and pledged to review and terminate $18 million in active state grants to city, including the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program, as well as road maintenance, parks, police, and addiction services.
This letter is bigger than Texas: It’s about whether cities in America can make autonomous decisions to not be Israeli slaves without being blackmailed by their own governors and having their basic community services stripped from them as punishment.
"The Nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
- George Washington
Before San Marcos city council voted on the motion, the public comment period lasted over six and a half hours, with dozens of citizens speaking.
Among them was local lawyer David Sergi, founder and president of ‘‘Texans Standing with Israel’’, who called ICE on all the Hispanic speakers.
“Why are some Hamas-supporting members of the San Marcos City Council sponsoring a pro-Hamas resolution?” Sergi wrote. “ICE will be there. Those calls have been made.”
The resolution failed in a 5-2 vote.
Texas Codifies IHRA
After forcing hurricane victims and schoolteachers to pledge fealty to Israel, in 2021, Texas became the first state to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism through legislation:
Specifically, this ‘‘working definition’’ of ‘‘antisemitism’’ makes it a hate-crime to:
“Deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination.”
Read: You can’t critique Zionism or Israel’s founding.
"Accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."
Read: you can’t accuse Jewish people of dual loyal to Israel.
"Make mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews.’’
Read: you can’t be mean to Jewish people.
"Accuse Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group.’’
Read: you can’t accuse Jewish people of wrongdoing.
‘‘Apply double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."
Read: you can’t criticize Israel.
"Use the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis."
Read: you can’t accuse Jewish people of killing Jesus (you legally have to blame his death on Pontius Pilate).
Draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
This would criminalize 2024 essay from historian and Israel Defense Forces veteran Omer Bartov outlining how his research of Nazi Germany informed his concerns about Israel.
The IHRA definition is deliberately broad — by design, it criminalizes virtually any criticism of Israel. Zionists just don’t want you to be allowed to criticize Israel, ever, for any reason.
That’s not democracy. It’s a third-world, police-state mindset that has no place in Western Civilization. Zionists clearly hate Western Civilization and treat the U.S. Constitution not as a foundation to honor and protect, but as a hurdle to be cleverly sidestepped through legal loopholes and political influence.
If defending the Constitution makes me an enemy in your eyes—maybe you’re the one who doesn’t belong in America.
From Hurricane Relief to K-12 Education
‘‘Without academic freedoms you don't have an academy you have a Gulag.’’
Texas’s chosen definition of antisemitism initially covered ‘‘hate crimes,’’ but last month, on April 29th, 2025, its scope was expanded to cover any dissent in public K-12 education. Now, in Texas, if students complain about illegal settlements in the West Bank—or if students don’t agree that Pontius Pilate is solely responsible for killing Jesus—they can be suspended or expelled.
The Texas House passed a bill on Tuesday that would require public schools and colleges to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. Lawmakers approved the bill by a 134-2 vote
… SB 326 would add the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism to bullying statutes, requiring schools to abide by the definition in student disciplinary proceedings when examining whether antisemitism was involved in incidents.
The goal of this legislation is not only to censor students (they are censoring literal elementary school students… What are they going to do, take away their milk money?) but to control the curriculum. History teachers won’t be allowed to teach about e.g. the Nakba, the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel or the 1948 Deir Yassin massacre if their students aren’t allowed to talk about these facts.
The IHRA Definition Goes Federal
What began as a state-level hate speech provision, then crept into K12 education, is now metastasizing across every school in the entire country.
The ‘‘Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025’’ (H.R. 1007, S. 558) was introduced in February in the Senate by Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Tim Scott (R-SC). It’s currently making its way through committee.
It was introduced at the same time in the House by Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Mike Lawler (R-NY), Max Miller (R-OH), and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL).
Here is the text of the bill:
I highlighted Section (1) because it reveals the bill's core mechanism: it hijacks the Civil Rights Act and reinterprets it to include perceived antisemitism as a special new Civil Rights carveout. If you publicly question U.S. aid to Israel, you will be in violation of the Civil Rights Act and labeled an antisemite under federal law. And once that label is applied, it opens the door to every kind of punishment: deplatforming, blacklisting, job loss, academic censorship, bank account closures—legal consequences that are already happening informally through cultural pressure will now be formalized by statute.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is one of the only voices opposing this legislative assault:
‘‘The First Amendment isn't about protecting good speech. It protects even the most despicable and vile speech. The First Amendment, the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled that you can say terrible things. That's unique about our country. In Europe, you can't say anything. In Europe, if you call a boy that thinks he's a girl a boy, you can go to jail for that. If you say something about the Holocaust in Europe, you can go to jail. This is what we're doing. We're codifying what Europe did to speech. It's a terrible idea … We’re either a free society governed by the Constitution, or we’re not.’’
Federalizing the Anti-Boycott Laws... and Worse
While Congress seeks to federalize the IHRA definition of antisemitism, it is simultaneously pushing to federalize anti-boycott laws through the ‘‘IGO Anti-Boycott Act’’ (known in earlier drafts of the bill as the ‘‘Israel Anti-Boycott Act’’).
The penalties under the legislation include criminal fines of up to $1 million and imprisonment of up to 20 years for supporting calls to boycott Israel.
Think about that for a minute: The nation that once rebelled against an empire for taxing tea is now criminalizing your right to refuse to buy Israeli hummus. Imagine going to jail for 20 years for publicly refusing to buy Sabra hummus. Violent rapists serve less. Zionists believe boycotting Sabra hummus in the grocery store is worse than rape.
This bill has 3 main sections:
Prohibited Action #1: Boycotting Israel
Prohibited actions include (1) refusing to do business with companies organized under the laws of the boycotted country, if the refusal is pursuant to an agreement with or request from the country or IGO imposing the boycott;
Prohibited Action #2: Boycotting Israeli Employees
(2) refusing to employ any U.S. person on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin; and
If the First Amendment doesn’t protect your right to boycott, what exactly does it protect?
Much more insidious than the already unconstitutional anti-boycott clauses, however, is the third clause, quietly inserted at the end of the bill, which is so blatantly unconstitutional that it renders the bill not only invalid but treasonous.
Prohibited Action #3: Noticing AIPAC
(3) furnishing information about whether someone is associated with charitable or fraternal organizations that support the boycotted country.
This clause makes it a federal crime to state a neutral, factual observation, such as noting an individual's affiliation with AIPAC. Meanwhile, AIPAC runs ads bragging about how they “work with” and “urge” congress, to pass laws making it illegal to boycott Israeli companies.
‘‘‘America is not a unified bloc. We have the Senate, the Congress.’’
— Benjamin Netanyahu
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
The CEO of AIPAC was caught on leaked audio last month (April 9th) bragging about his organization’s “special access” to top Trump administration national security officials like Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz, and John Ratcliffe.
The Grayzone has obtained audio of an off-the-record session from the 2025 Congressional Summit of AIPAC, the main US lobbying arm of the state of Israel. Recorded by an attendee of the panel discussion, the audio features AIPAC’s new CEO, Elliott Brandt, describing how his organization has cultivated influence with three top national security officials in the Trump administration – Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Director Mike Waltz, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe – and how it believes it can gain “access” to their internal discussions.
After bragging about how AIPAC owned Marco Rubio, just three days ago, Rubio announced a new “vigorous” visa policy targeting foreign nationals who criticize Israel. Under this policy, anyone who dares to critique Israeli policy can be denied entry to the United States.
Criticizing America is fine.
Criticizing Israel?
That gets you banned.
‘‘Those who call to boycott Israel are calling for the boycott of their Jewish neighbors and classmates … Under President Trump, the United States will stand with the Jewish people. We have implemented a vigorous new visa policy that will prevent foreign nationals from coming to the United States to foment hatred against our Jewish community.’’
Thomas Massie & Marjorie Taylor Greene say no
The "Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025" is the most serious anti-American threat to the Constitution that I’ve seen in my lifetime. It’s treason.
It was set for a House floor vote on May 5, 2025.
Fortunately, some patriots still exist.
The night before the vote, Greene publicly opposed the bill on X.
Thomas Massie then joined her in the fight:
Soon, other prominent Republicans, including Steve Bannon, Matt Gaetz, and Anna Paulina Luna, joined the mutiny, and the bill was shelved… for now. It remains under consideration in committee and is expected to resurface in a revised form.
"It's beyond outrageous and offensive that House leadership bowed to extreme-right forces and pulled this commonsense, bipartisan bill that makes antisemitic and hate-driven boycotts illegal," said a disappointed spokesperson for Josh Gottheimer, the New Jersey Congressman who introduced the bill.
Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste
Nothing makes people more furious than having their freedom stripped away.
When free speech, protests, and boycotts are outlawed, some people may resort to nastier methods to voice their opinions, like Elias Rogriguez, 30, who shot two Israel embassy staffers to death in Washington earlier this month:
After the shooting, the ADL immediately launched a campaign to dismantle the First Amendment.
“These tech platforms are not guaranteed under the Constitution! They're just not!” Goldenberg shrieked. According to this logic, the only valid speech is through a printing press. He demanded sweeping social media censorship, deplatforming, and the repeal of Section 230, arguing that the U.S. needs to abolish the First Amendment because 2 people were shot.
‘‘You have a platform like Meta that just gutted its entire fact-checking department and they're moving away from it. And so what we need to do is we need to apply pressure in a real significant way on tech platforms that they have a responsibility.’’ ‘‘There's a role for federal regulators… Congress needs to amend Section 230, which provides immunity to tech platforms right now, for what happens, right? … So Congress ‘‘could amend that act and actually hold tech platforms accountable … These tech platforms are not guaranteed under the Constitution. They're just not!’’
Ironically, the ADL’s favorite weapon against tech platforms is the very tactic it wants banned: boycotts. In 2023, the ADL led an advertiser boycott against X, proudly taking credit when it slashed the platform’s revenue by 60%.
The ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt then called for Congress to ‘‘shut this down’’ and ‘‘rein in social media.’’
‘‘Social media is shaping the discourse. So how do we deal with it? Leaders need to … shut this down … I think we need to rein in social media. I know this might be an unpopular view, but I think we need to be intentional and to make sure that the tech companies who are the most profitable businesses in the world with the most sophisticated tech in the world abide by the same standards that mainstream media abides by.’’
Greenblatt then went on CNN and explicitly called for banning prominent critics of Israel from major platforms. His top target is Hasan Piker, a Twitch streamer with one of the largest audiences in the world.
‘‘Extremists [Hasan Piker] should not be empowered. People who spout prejudice should not be platformed. This is a moment when we need to look ourselves in the mirror and say, we've got to stop [platforming Hasan Piker] because the consequences are deadly.’’
Hasan Piker has the right to say whatever he wants.
I disagree with him on almost everything.
But he’s still an American citizen.
That means he has the right to speak freely on any U.S. platform, even if it pisses off billionaire Jewish lobbyists or makes the ADL foam at the mouth.
The ADL doesn’t just hate the First Amendment — it hates the very idea of freedom for people it can’t control. It’s the single most aggressive enemy of constitutional rights in America today, using every lever of power to force compliance from Big Tech. They want total control over the digital public square, and they’re shockingly close to getting it.
The real question: how did a foreign-aligned lobbying group gain this much influence over U.S. politics, law enforcement, and intelligence — and why won’t anyone in power (other than Rand Paul & Thomas Massie) say a word about it?
Subscribe for Part 2
People need to wake up.
That’s why I’m writing this.
Undoubtedly, just by covering this polarizing topic for the first time — believe it or not, I’ve written hundreds of articles over the past 5 years, and not a single one so far has been about Israel — I’ll lose a huge chunk of my free audience, and I’ll lose dozens of my paying subscribers. That’s the cost of telling the truth. But if even one person reads this and starts asking the right questions, it’s worth it.
Here is a 15% off coupon to incentivize you to become a paid subscriber, I need your help to make up for the paid subscribers I will lose by writing this:
Share this article with someone who still thinks America is a free country:
Great article. Unbelievable how these republicans are criminalizing freedoms.
I feel like no matter how hard I try to prove I love America and belong here, there are always people questioning my loyalty or treating me like an outsider.
I love this country and our western values more than anything. And those who are a threat to it are my enemy.
Meanwhile, Israeli-American dual citizen get a free pass to push their own agendas, even when its clear their agendas do not align with what’s best for our country. There are many dual citizens in our government. It’s insane to me. No dual citizen should be able to exert influence in our country.
It’s frustrating to see Israelis avoid that same scrutiny the rest of us go through
Thanks for bringing this issue to light. I had no idea about these legislative efforts to stifle free speech.