STIFLING DISSENT? EVER HEARD OF THE FEDAYEEN?

Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee (D-Mars) believes that the White House is stifling anti-war dissent. She's not shy about complaining that, when you disagree with her, you are violating her freedom of speech. The Left is confused if it thinks that the freedom of speech means anything other than the freedom to speak. If you say something stupid, you should expect ramifications. If your "speech" is contrary to the beliefs of more than 70% percent of the nation, then that 70% has a right to let you know. If you have shown yourself to be so out of step with the rest of the country, should you really expect to have positions of leadership in the United States Congress?

Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) is concerned that "there are consequences to pay if you don't go all with the administration's leadership." Absolutely there are consequences for disagreeing with the vast majority of the American public. If you stood on your roof yelling "Jews must die" you'd be exercising your freedom of speech, but should you continue to hold positions of authority. You could even suggest that Strom Thurmond wouldn't have been a bad president, but that doesn't mean that Ms. Jackson-Lee is going to hold a rally defending your right to free speech. No, she'll demand that there be consequences for your stupidity. Just as there should be consequences for Rep. Charles Rangel's stupidity. Last night, he said that the U.S. military was actually trying to kill Iraqi civilians.

So, when Rep. Farr worries that "what we're beginning to see is a concerted attempt to attack anyone who dissents," he'd be wise to consider real attacks on dissent that are being carried out by Saddam's shock troops. That's curtailment of freedom to dissent. In the meantime, I am content that Farr, Jackson-Lee and Kucinich are simply being ignored and marginalized for their ignorance, which I only know about because they exercised their freedom of speech.