Gingrinch. Not only president of the idiots club for men, but he's also a client.

Ed over at Dispatches nicely breaks down the total idiocy of Uncle Newt's current defense of his "free speech is for wussies, we gotta get tough and get rid of it" assertions (ironically given in a speech at a "Free Speech" dinner).

Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Gingrich's Failed Defense:

The absurdity begins with the way he frames the debate:

Since I made those remarks, I've heard from many, many Americans who understand the seriousness of the threat that faces us, Americans who believe as I do that free speech should not be an acceptable cover for people who are planning to kill other people who have inalienable rights of their own.

A small number of others have been quick to demagogue my remarks.

Isn't that convenient? There's only two sides to the issue, those who understand the seriousness and therefore agree with him, and those are quick to demagogue his remarks. That's it. No one could actually have a sincere disagreement with him; you're either with him or you're for the terrorists, of course. Never mind that he never actually points to a single example of demagoguery, just take his word for it and you won't have to bother actually thinking about anything.

Tip of the iceberg. Total non-sequiturs all the way, like this beauty:

No mention of efforts by terrorist groups like Hezbollah to build "franchises" among leftist, anti-globalization groups worldwide, especially in Latin America.

Let me see if I understand this correctly: a terrorist group in Palestine wants to form alliances with leftist groups in Latin America, and we have to stop that by....limiting free speech in the United States? I'll take non sequiturs for $1000, Alex.

I hated Newt 12 years ago, I clapped when he joined the ranks of the irrelevant 4 years later, and he's still there now...

Meanwhile, Prager continues to rant about how "the Bible is the source of American values" in his continued screeds against Ellison's intentions to swear on the Quran, spewing a flawed history becoming common talk among religious nutballs, but totally disproved by the evidence of the founding fathers' own writings, especially Jefferson.

Ed: The further ignorance of the passage is the notion that Jews and Muslims have freedom in America because America is based on "Judeo-Christian" values. At the time the Constitution was written, leading the charge against the new Constitution was - guess who? - the religious right of that day. They were very upset about the ban on religious tests for office. You know why? Because they were afraid that it would allow Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Quakers and other undesirables to hold public office. And they were right, it does allow exactly that.

It's bad enough that we have to fight to keep religious-driven lies out of science classes.  Soon we'll end up having to go to court to keep history classes from being full of the lies as to the intentions and philosophies behind the founding of this nation.  The enlightenment, if the Right has its way, will become a dirty word lost in time.

And THAT will be a fight much harder to win, with devastating consequences for this nation and this planet.