As regular readers of HuffPo no doubt have seen today, former Speaker and presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich recently made the interesting assertion that we 'need to re-examine freedom of speech' in this post 9/11 world.
Well, listen up, Newt: Freedom of speech is non-negotiable. It is a core American value. It is a core value of free societies in every time and place. It's bad enough that expression in the US and A has been recently restricted to 'free speech zones' (I had previously been under the impression that in the Land of the Free, the whole place from Sea to Shining Sea was one big honkin' free speech zone).
To suggest that terrorism somehow changes this core value is a horrendous, unspeakable insult to those who gave their lives to protect this very freedom in America. By even causing us to consider abridging our freedoms voluntarily, the terrorists have won a profound spiritual victory. They made us doubt who we are. Or at least some of us paunchy politicians, anyway. Newt, I would even submit that by suggesting such a thing, you are guilty of aiding our enemies. You, sir, are not with Amercia: you are with the terrorists.
I thought we were fighting a war against those who 'hate freedom'? How is it that we fight them by helping them achieve their aims of destroying our freedoms?
No sir, Newt, I believe what needs re-examining is your head. Your suggestion in New Hampshire today was nothing short of outrageous. I'm FROM New Hampshire. Did you notice the license plates while you were there?
They say, "LIVE FREE OR DIE."
They do not say, "LIVE FREE - UNTIL WE, LIKE, GET SCARED BY TERRORISTS AND START CURBING THOSE FREEDOMS TO LIKE, OXYMORONICALLY, PROTECT AGAINST TERRORISM."
Personally, I'd prefer a President or a Speaker of the House who gets that difference.