Authored by Shane Kastler via "The Narrow Road" blog,

In a truly “free” society, no one gets beaten up for their political views. Laws cannot be passed against thoughts or symbols. And mob violence is not allowed to rule the day. But Florida Senator Marco Rubio, like most establishment political hacks, is not interested in a free society. He’s interested in seizing power in any way possible. And if that means excusing and encouraging mob violence, to achieve his political ends, then so be it. While Rubio may rail against dictators, his statements sound eerily like the late Fidel Castro, and other tyrants like him.

Rubio’s statement came in the form of a series of tweets he posted in response to the Charlottesville circus. Here are his exact words:

“When entire movement built on anger & hatred towards people different than you, it justifies & ultimately leads to violence against them.”

While the trained seals who follow hucksters like Rubio will bark their approval for his “brave words”; those who love liberty will shudder at the true ramifications of what he is saying. But let’s begin by trying to parse who exactly he is saying it about.

Like a good political opportunist, he speaks in vague terms. One might surmise that his reference to an “entire movement” is a shot at Donald Trump and his supporters. Myriads of establishment politicians have accused Trump of “anger & hatred”; yet examples of this are never forthcoming, other than disagreements over something like immigration policy. So, is Rubio saying it’s OK to physically attack any who belong to “the movement” that elected Trump? And if so, then is Rubio also saying it’s OK to physically attack Trump? The supposed leader of this “movement?” The political vagaries allow Rubio to deny this, and perhaps say that he is talking about white supremacists, neo-Nazis, or the KKK. But even if he is talking about these groups…. Is he correct in saying it’s “justifiable” to physically attack them for their views? If so, then he is no friend to freedom in general, nor to free speech in specific.

Most Americans, including me, abhor the ideologies of white supremacy, Nazism, and the KKK. But if a nation truly wants free speech, then even those we abhor must be allowed to speak their mind. There is no need to pass laws protecting polite speech. It is the very thoughts and words of those we vociferously disagree with that must be protected. Otherwise, there is no freedom at all. Only a rotating cycle of dictatorships, who suppress the people they conquer. And any U.S. Senator who encourages violence against anyone for their political views is a part of the problem and not the solution. While Rubio may rail against Castro, his views toward free speech are identical. He may rail against Adolph Hitter, but his views on free speech are no different.

Rubio is a political hound dog, who lifts his nose to try and sniff which way the popular winds are blowing. And then he (or one of his lackeys) issues a tweet to kiss-up to the mobs he wishes to appease. Rubio has always been a political robot, seemingly incapable of generating a unique thought. This was publicly displayed in that infamous, cringe-worthy presidential debate when Chris Christie tried to engage him in an actual exchange of ideas, and Rubio began sweating profusely and repeating his talking points. Over and over and over. The moment exposed him for the phony that he is and almost ruined his political career. But now, he smells an opportunity to rally the mob and save his career. His actions are truly deplorable.

Sadly, many in this country would side with Rubio and say violence and laws should be enacted to silence “hate speech.” One of the questions this leads to is, “How do you define hate speech?” People, with their selfish natures, typically define “hate speech” as anything uttered that they disagree with. This leads to a person’s thoughts being criminalized. For example, if I think or speak in favor of Christianity, then non-Christians can deem this “hate speech.” Of course the same goes for any other viewpoint that might be expressed. Those in power use the power of intimidation and law to silence opposition. This is what Rubio declares “justifiable.” And the use of baseball bats and clubs are acceptable.

As it pertains to “symbols” some say the mere presence of a Nazi flag, or a Confederate one, justifies violence. Many have shockingly said that showing a symbol is “inciting a riot” and inviting violence against the symbol-wavers, for their views. But this is a slippery slope that all freedom-loving people should avoid. This past week, a man of German origin told me that he had family members killed by the Nazis. Therefore, any violence carried out against those who wave a Nazi-flag is justified. While I have no sympathy toward Nazis, my argument back to him was that I had Southern family members killed by men carrying the American flag during the Civil War. Does this mean I can physically attack anyone who waves an American flag? Politicians like Rubio would never say this, because he’s too busy wrapping himself in the flag as he tries to further his career. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If one group can physically attack another group over a symbol. Then what stops the attacked group from reciprocating? And using Rubio’s incendiary words as justification?

If people really want a “free country” like they claim they do, then political thoughts, speech, and symbols cannot be outlawed. Nor can men as powerful as U.S. Senators justify violence against any group because of their views. It’s become passé to call anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi. In some cases, those who disagree with you truly are Nazis. But in this case, Marco Rubio is displaying the philosophy of a Nazi. If Rubio’s supporters truly want freedom, they will call him out for his incendiary comments. They will stand up to him and others like him and say free speech, truly means “free speech.” And they will look for ways to peacefully keep dictatorial men like him from seizing power. Rubio loves to talk about how his family fled the tyranny of Castro’s Cuba to find freedom in America. But today, Rubio’s political ambitions have caused him to revert back to the behavior that his ancestors fled. Or maybe this has been Rubio’s mindset all along. Evil men desire power for themselves more than they desire freedom for all. And they will say and do whatever it takes to gain such power. Rubio’s words expose him once again as what he truly is. If encouraging mob violence furthers his career, then he’s all game. Maybe instead of calling him “Little Marco” people should start calling him “Little Castro.” A more fitting moniker could not be found.