American radio host Michael Savage, who has been banned from entering Britain by former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, has now written to the Prime Minister asking for the decision to be overturned.
Click here to view video.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Dr. Michael Savage: Prometheus in England by Ellis Washington
Prometheus caused blind hopes to live in the hearts of men.
~ Aeschylus' "Prometheus" (fifth century B.C.)
The ancient Greek myth of Prometheus is the tragic and enduring narrative of a heroic figure who many publicly despised but secretly venerated, because he did feats of strength that others had neither the vision, intellect nor the heart to achieve.
Prometheus, renown for his clever intelligence, became a champion of humanity when he stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mortals. For this crime Prometheus was bound to a rock by Zeus while a giant eagle ate his liver every day only to have it grow back to be eaten again the next day for eternity.
In the earliest treatment of Prometheus found in the epic poet Hesiod's "Theogony" (700 B.C.), Prometheus is introduced as a lowly challenger to Zeus' omniscience and omnipotence. Likewise, 15 years ago Michael Savage began his unheralded radio career bound with the self-appointed mandate to return America, a once great republic, to her founding principles bequeathed to us by the Constitution's framers – Borders, Language and Culture.
Prometheus challenged the awesome authority of Zeus by stealing fire from heaven, which gave warmth to the earth thus saving all humanity. Likewise, Savage has put his reputation on the line daily for 15 years as a Ph.D. trained scientist, autodidactic philosopher and historian, zealously defending America's national heritage and waging battle in the arena of ideas against the Zeuses of our time – like Jacqui Smith, the recently deposed home secretary of England who on May 5 libelously and slanderously placed Savage on a blacklist of 16 people banned from England, a list of infamy that included Muslim terrorists, homosexual hate-mongers, neo-Nazis and Russian mobsters.
Zeus meted out unjust and sadistic punishment to Prometheus by chaining him to a rock and commanding an eagle to eat his liver every day, only to have the liver grow back anew each day. Likewise, a similar Sisyphus-like torture was heaped upon Savage by Great Britain whose unprovoked defamation of his name and reputation has daily caused Savage's life and the physical security of his entire family to be brought into mortal danger. When Savage pleaded with the Obama administration and sent a personal letter to the president and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, to intervene on his behalf as an American citizen, all he received in return was the tormenting cacophony of crickets ringing in his ears.
Another famous treatment of the heroism of Prometheus was Percy Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (1820). Shelley reworks the lost play of Aeschylus so that Prometheus refuses to bow to Zeus (Jupiter), but instead defeats him in a victory of the human heart and intellect over oppressive religion. Likewise, Savage's iconoclastic, defiant nature would never allow him to compromise his moral principles by kowtowing to Zeus (e.g., Obama, England, the GOP, socialism, censorship) even as his fellow conservatives (Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Joe Scarborough, Fox News, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, American Enterprise Institute, National Review), as well as the government-controlled media, all stand in silent acquiescence as the eagle (the literal symbol of the U.S. government) daily seeks to devour Savage's singular voice.
Lord Byron's poem "Prometheus" characterizes the Titan as rebellious. For the Romantics, Prometheus was an irresistible paradigm of The Man, alone in the arena who refuses to be corrupted by any form of institutional tyranny as personified by Zeus – church, monarch and patriarch. Romantics like Shelley, Byron and others compared Prometheus with the spirit of the French Revolution, Christ, Milton's Satan and the creative inspiration of poets and artists.
Likewise, Savage is indeed a Titan, a man's man who due to his fiery nature at times hurls ad hominem attacks at his conservative colleagues and enemies of Veritas (truth) and liberty. However, I do not begrudge him. For why is it acceptable for progressives, liberals and Democrats to relentlessly attack conservatives and conservative ideas, yet Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Scarborough and the other conservative oligarchs don't seem too offended by these insults?
On the contrary, these conservative commissars constantly mention liberals by name, promote their books and even frequently invite them on their programs while concurrently ignoring Dr. Savage. I consider that rank hypocrisy! If they have an argument against Savage, then have the courage to appear on his show to debate him man to man in the arena of ideas.
In a BBC Radio interview Savage had with host Victoria Derbyshire the day before his false accuser, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, was fired by Prime Minister Gordon Brown in part because the defamation against Savage backfired, Savage was asked if he would ever consider coming back to visit England. Savage said as soon as the socialist Labour Party is swept out of power, he would accept an invitation to return to England to tell his side of the story before the British Parliament.
Prometheus, brother of Atlas, risked all to steal fire from heaven to heat the earth and save humanity. Likewise, with superlative credentials, including a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley, transcendent ideas codified in over 25 books, five of them New York Times best-sellers, for over 30 years Dr. Michael Savage risked all to speak truth to power, to relentlessly attack the hydra tentacles of the government-controlled media complex.
His reward? Little men are content only to gawk at our modern-day Prometheus as he wages battle in the crucible of the gladiatorial arena … alone.
I end this intimate tribute of my friend and intellectual mentor the same why I began, with the enduring words of that magnificent Greek tragedian, Aeschylus, who in his "Prometheus" said: Prometheus caused blind hopes to live in the hearts of men. Consequently, who can argue with any level of credibility against Dr. Michael Savage's "blind hopes" in valiantly defending freedom of speech and freedom of expression for all mankind? Surely, in England and in America this man should be memorialized as our modern-day Prometheus.
Thank you, Prometheus. … Thank you, Dr. Michael Savage.
Take me off the blacklist, shock jock tells Brown By Jerome Taylor
When Jacqui Smith stepped down as Home Secretary last week she may have expected that the most toxic job in the Cabinet was behind her. But one man has not forgotten her.
Yesterday, the controversial American talkshow host Michael Savage announced he was continuing his personal £100,000 libel case against the former Home Secretary after she placed him on a list of people banned from entering Britain and condemned him on television.
In a letter addressed to Gordon Brown and passed to The Independent, Savage says he is "likely to recover a very substantial award in damages" and demands that the Government "remove forthwith my name from the excluded list of individuals". He has instructed the City law firm Olswang and has urged his eight million listeners to boycott British goods.
For Savage, beloved by American right-wingers for his politically charged rants which have included describing a child with autism as "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out", this latest salvo against his persona non grata status is part of a media blitz to clear his name in Britain, a place that had barely heard of him until he was unceremoniously banned from entering it. He has hired the former News of the World editor Phil Hall, who specialises in "reputation management" for celebrities.
The spat between Savage and Ms Smith began in May when the Home Office "named and shamed" 16 people who had been banned from entering Britain in the previous six months. Savage, who had not even applied to come to Britain, was placed alongside a string of Islamist preachers, white supremacists, a convicted Arab terrorist and two anti-gay evangelicals.
Speaking on morning television, Ms Smith described Savage as "someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."
The San Francisco radio host believes those words were defamatory. He told The Independent: "I have to get my name cleared. She's made me into some sort of enemy of the state, for God's sake. On the same list I was on were a convicted terrorist and two Russian skinhead murderers.
"There is a big difference between acts of violence and words and I have never prompted anyone to commit any sort of act of violence. I would not have been able to continue my career as a radio host if I had."
For the Government, Savage's determination to pursue a libel claim against Ms Smith is a source of embarrassment which could derail the whole point of having a list of banned individuals. It is meant to keep hate preachers out of Britain but libertarians say it is a form of pre-emptive thought policing.
Yesterday, the controversial American talkshow host Michael Savage announced he was continuing his personal £100,000 libel case against the former Home Secretary after she placed him on a list of people banned from entering Britain and condemned him on television.
In a letter addressed to Gordon Brown and passed to The Independent, Savage says he is "likely to recover a very substantial award in damages" and demands that the Government "remove forthwith my name from the excluded list of individuals". He has instructed the City law firm Olswang and has urged his eight million listeners to boycott British goods.
For Savage, beloved by American right-wingers for his politically charged rants which have included describing a child with autism as "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out", this latest salvo against his persona non grata status is part of a media blitz to clear his name in Britain, a place that had barely heard of him until he was unceremoniously banned from entering it. He has hired the former News of the World editor Phil Hall, who specialises in "reputation management" for celebrities.
The spat between Savage and Ms Smith began in May when the Home Office "named and shamed" 16 people who had been banned from entering Britain in the previous six months. Savage, who had not even applied to come to Britain, was placed alongside a string of Islamist preachers, white supremacists, a convicted Arab terrorist and two anti-gay evangelicals.
Speaking on morning television, Ms Smith described Savage as "someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."
The San Francisco radio host believes those words were defamatory. He told The Independent: "I have to get my name cleared. She's made me into some sort of enemy of the state, for God's sake. On the same list I was on were a convicted terrorist and two Russian skinhead murderers.
"There is a big difference between acts of violence and words and I have never prompted anyone to commit any sort of act of violence. I would not have been able to continue my career as a radio host if I had."
For the Government, Savage's determination to pursue a libel claim against Ms Smith is a source of embarrassment which could derail the whole point of having a list of banned individuals. It is meant to keep hate preachers out of Britain but libertarians say it is a form of pre-emptive thought policing.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Radio host Savage sues over British ban By Jennifer Harper
It's the clash of the titans, pitting talk-radio god against fierce national gatekeeper.
Michael Savage made good on his threat to sue British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for libel, with the official notification letter arriving at her office Monday.
Mr. Savage, heard by 10 million listeners a week, wants an apology, a retraction and cash from Ms. Smith - director of Britain's lead government agency controlling immigration, passports, counterterrorism and police.
Her response Monday: Bring it on. She declared herself ready for a fight to defend her official "unacceptable behaviour policy" that can bar any foreigners from Britain should they foment terrorism, hatred or criminal activity in written, broadcast or online forms, or through public speaking.
On May 5, Ms. Smith placed Mr. Savage on a list of 16 undesirables "banned from the UK for stirring-up hatred and promoting their extreme views," according to the office. The list included Islamic terrorists, neo-Nazis and Russian gang members.
In a description published at its Web site, the agency cited the radio host using both his real and on-air names, saying he was "considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred, which might lead to inter-community violence."
"Did I actually say this in England? No, my show is not broadcast over there. It's Jacqui Smith who's actually provoking hatred and inter-community violence by taking out-of-context statements and broadcasting them fresh, as if I intended to say it over and over again in England," Mr. Savage told The Washington Times.
"This is an orchestrated campaign by this socialist, fascist government of hers, trying to turn me into something I am not," he added. "I spent my entire life building my reputation, and I will not have this government drag my name through the mud. I want my name cleared."
The letter - sent on Mr. Savage's behalf by the London-based business law firm Olswang LLP - countered that the Home Office's descriptions of the radio host are "false and defamatory." The letter demanded a retraction, a personal apology from Ms. Smith and a written guarantee that she will not repeat the accusations.
Mr. Savage also wants 100,000 British pounds - about $162,000 - in damages, and the cost of his legal fees reimbursed.
"The Web site says that I 'have' provoked violence. It's an absolute lie. My words have never provoked violence. I don't suggest violence, and I never have. The libel lawsuit is going ahead," Mr. Savage said, noting that he had not even planned to visit Britain and now had to employ security guards to protect himself.
The Home Office is not backing down from an already aggressive stance. Since 2005, it has already excluded more than 100 "individuals," among them "animal rights extremists, right-to-life extremists, homophobe extremists, far-right extremists, as well as advocates of hatred and violence in support of their religious beliefs," according to the office's records.
"Any legal proceedings would be robustly defended; we stand by our decision to exclude this individual. Coming to the UK is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life," the office said.
The events have made great theater in the British news media, prompting potshots at the U.S. and talk that Britain was becoming a "nanny state" in reader messages to the Daily Mail and the British Broadcasting Corp., among other news organizations.
Some say that a great deal could be at stake.
"Michael Savage's situation has to do with free speech in the Western world, in the entire free world. We live in a global marketplace now, and when our greatest ally - Britain - looks to somehow silence an American radio personality, intentionally or otherwise, it could have tremendous impact," said Michael Harrison, founder and editor of Talkers Magazine, which tracks the U.S. talk-radio industry.
"The British call Michael Savage a 'shock jock.' Now the Home Office accuses and condemns him of hate mongering. The First Amendment is not always tidy. It can be messy, even. When they equate a provocative political commentator with murderers and criminals - well, this is a dangerous mistake," Mr. Harrison said.
"The alliances between our countries are built, in part, on the First Amendment. This may prove a very slippery slope we're on," he added.
Mr. Savage's show is produced and distributed by Talk Radio Network, which recently announced a deal to produce and distribute a new radio show by The Washington Times.
Michael Savage made good on his threat to sue British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for libel, with the official notification letter arriving at her office Monday.
Mr. Savage, heard by 10 million listeners a week, wants an apology, a retraction and cash from Ms. Smith - director of Britain's lead government agency controlling immigration, passports, counterterrorism and police.
Her response Monday: Bring it on. She declared herself ready for a fight to defend her official "unacceptable behaviour policy" that can bar any foreigners from Britain should they foment terrorism, hatred or criminal activity in written, broadcast or online forms, or through public speaking.
On May 5, Ms. Smith placed Mr. Savage on a list of 16 undesirables "banned from the UK for stirring-up hatred and promoting their extreme views," according to the office. The list included Islamic terrorists, neo-Nazis and Russian gang members.
In a description published at its Web site, the agency cited the radio host using both his real and on-air names, saying he was "considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred, which might lead to inter-community violence."
"Did I actually say this in England? No, my show is not broadcast over there. It's Jacqui Smith who's actually provoking hatred and inter-community violence by taking out-of-context statements and broadcasting them fresh, as if I intended to say it over and over again in England," Mr. Savage told The Washington Times.
"This is an orchestrated campaign by this socialist, fascist government of hers, trying to turn me into something I am not," he added. "I spent my entire life building my reputation, and I will not have this government drag my name through the mud. I want my name cleared."
The letter - sent on Mr. Savage's behalf by the London-based business law firm Olswang LLP - countered that the Home Office's descriptions of the radio host are "false and defamatory." The letter demanded a retraction, a personal apology from Ms. Smith and a written guarantee that she will not repeat the accusations.
Mr. Savage also wants 100,000 British pounds - about $162,000 - in damages, and the cost of his legal fees reimbursed.
"The Web site says that I 'have' provoked violence. It's an absolute lie. My words have never provoked violence. I don't suggest violence, and I never have. The libel lawsuit is going ahead," Mr. Savage said, noting that he had not even planned to visit Britain and now had to employ security guards to protect himself.
The Home Office is not backing down from an already aggressive stance. Since 2005, it has already excluded more than 100 "individuals," among them "animal rights extremists, right-to-life extremists, homophobe extremists, far-right extremists, as well as advocates of hatred and violence in support of their religious beliefs," according to the office's records.
"Any legal proceedings would be robustly defended; we stand by our decision to exclude this individual. Coming to the UK is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life," the office said.
The events have made great theater in the British news media, prompting potshots at the U.S. and talk that Britain was becoming a "nanny state" in reader messages to the Daily Mail and the British Broadcasting Corp., among other news organizations.
Some say that a great deal could be at stake.
"Michael Savage's situation has to do with free speech in the Western world, in the entire free world. We live in a global marketplace now, and when our greatest ally - Britain - looks to somehow silence an American radio personality, intentionally or otherwise, it could have tremendous impact," said Michael Harrison, founder and editor of Talkers Magazine, which tracks the U.S. talk-radio industry.
"The British call Michael Savage a 'shock jock.' Now the Home Office accuses and condemns him of hate mongering. The First Amendment is not always tidy. It can be messy, even. When they equate a provocative political commentator with murderers and criminals - well, this is a dangerous mistake," Mr. Harrison said.
"The alliances between our countries are built, in part, on the First Amendment. This may prove a very slippery slope we're on," he added.
Mr. Savage's show is produced and distributed by Talk Radio Network, which recently announced a deal to produce and distribute a new radio show by The Washington Times.
Don't mess with Savage! from World Net Daily
In the wake of scandal over personal use of taxpayer funds and her controversial ban of talk-radio host Michael Savage, British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith will resign, according to the London Telegraph.
Smith has indicated she will step down when Prime Minister Gordon Brown reshuffles his Cabinet after this week's local and European elections, the British paper said today.
The Telegraph noted Smith faced humiliation over her husband's submission of a receipt to the House of Commons for watching adult films. She also claimed her family home as a second home under the Parliament members' allowances plan while staying with her sister in London. In addition, she allegedly charged a number of personal items as office expenses.
But on a BBC radio program today featuring Savage, a barrage of callers reflected public anger over Smith's surprising decision last month to ban the popular American talk host from entry into the United Kingdom along with murderers and terrorists.
Savage said the morning show had planned to take callers for only five minutes, but the segment went on for 30 minutes as phone lines lit up. Callers included a Muslim who said he was opposed to Smith's ban of Savage.
As WND reported, the talk host hired lawyers in London last month to issue a defamation complaint against Smith.
The official complaint arrived at the home secretary's office yesterday.
A spokesman said Smith would not back down.
"As the home secretary has already said, [Savage] was excluded for engaging in unacceptable behaviour by making comments that might provoke others to serious criminal acts and foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence," he said.
Any legal proceedings "would be robustly defended," the spokesman asserted.
"We stand by our decision to exclude this individual," he said. "Coming to the U.K. is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life."
Smith is one of numerous Parliament members embroiled in the expense scandal. Three other MPs in her Labour Party also announced today they will resign at the next election.
Smith contended upon announcing the ban of Savage May 5 that the talk host was "someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."
Savage also has sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking that she call on the British government to withdraw the ban.
The complaint against Smith notes the home secretary's office said in a press release that the "controversial daily radio host" is "considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence."
The allegations are "entirely false," the complaint asserts.
"At no time has our client provoked or sought to provoke others to commit crimes or serious criminal acts."
Savage hosts the nation's third most popular radio talk show in the U.S., with an estimated 8 million listeners a week on about 400 stations, according to his syndicator, the Talk Radio Network.
Savage told WND after the ban was announced last month that his message for Smith and the people of the U.K. was, "Shame on you. Shame that you've fallen to such a low level."
"It's interesting to me that here I am a talk show host, who does not advocate violence, who advocates patriotic traditional values – borders, language, culture – who is now on a list banned in England," Savage said. "What does that say about the government of England? It says more about them than it says about me."
The U.K. list also includes Hamas leader Yunis Al-Astal, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black, neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe and radical American pastor Fred Phelps, known for his virulent anti-gay protests at funerals. Phelps' daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper also is on the list.
On his website, Savage is appealing to his listeners to contribute his legal fund, which he has used for various efforts, including a lawsuit last year against the Council on American-Islamic Relations for waging a boycott using excerpts of his copyrighted remarks. In the case of Savage's U.K. ban, however, CAIR has sided with Savage, arguing "freedom of speech is a two-way street."
Smith has indicated she will step down when Prime Minister Gordon Brown reshuffles his Cabinet after this week's local and European elections, the British paper said today.
The Telegraph noted Smith faced humiliation over her husband's submission of a receipt to the House of Commons for watching adult films. She also claimed her family home as a second home under the Parliament members' allowances plan while staying with her sister in London. In addition, she allegedly charged a number of personal items as office expenses.
But on a BBC radio program today featuring Savage, a barrage of callers reflected public anger over Smith's surprising decision last month to ban the popular American talk host from entry into the United Kingdom along with murderers and terrorists.
Savage said the morning show had planned to take callers for only five minutes, but the segment went on for 30 minutes as phone lines lit up. Callers included a Muslim who said he was opposed to Smith's ban of Savage.
As WND reported, the talk host hired lawyers in London last month to issue a defamation complaint against Smith.
The official complaint arrived at the home secretary's office yesterday.
A spokesman said Smith would not back down.
"As the home secretary has already said, [Savage] was excluded for engaging in unacceptable behaviour by making comments that might provoke others to serious criminal acts and foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence," he said.
Any legal proceedings "would be robustly defended," the spokesman asserted.
"We stand by our decision to exclude this individual," he said. "Coming to the U.K. is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life."
Smith is one of numerous Parliament members embroiled in the expense scandal. Three other MPs in her Labour Party also announced today they will resign at the next election.
Smith contended upon announcing the ban of Savage May 5 that the talk host was "someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."
Savage also has sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking that she call on the British government to withdraw the ban.
The complaint against Smith notes the home secretary's office said in a press release that the "controversial daily radio host" is "considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence."
The allegations are "entirely false," the complaint asserts.
"At no time has our client provoked or sought to provoke others to commit crimes or serious criminal acts."
Savage hosts the nation's third most popular radio talk show in the U.S., with an estimated 8 million listeners a week on about 400 stations, according to his syndicator, the Talk Radio Network.
Savage told WND after the ban was announced last month that his message for Smith and the people of the U.K. was, "Shame on you. Shame that you've fallen to such a low level."
"It's interesting to me that here I am a talk show host, who does not advocate violence, who advocates patriotic traditional values – borders, language, culture – who is now on a list banned in England," Savage said. "What does that say about the government of England? It says more about them than it says about me."
The U.K. list also includes Hamas leader Yunis Al-Astal, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black, neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe and radical American pastor Fred Phelps, known for his virulent anti-gay protests at funerals. Phelps' daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper also is on the list.
On his website, Savage is appealing to his listeners to contribute his legal fund, which he has used for various efforts, including a lawsuit last year against the Council on American-Islamic Relations for waging a boycott using excerpts of his copyrighted remarks. In the case of Savage's U.K. ban, however, CAIR has sided with Savage, arguing "freedom of speech is a two-way street."
Hear Savage on BBC Radio
Michael Savage gave a live interview this morning to Victoria Derbyshire of Britain's BBC Radio 5 Live channel about his ban from the U.K. by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith shortly before word came of Smith's resignation.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Savage Nation Live Blog - May 21
.
.
.
.
.
Post any comments or thought on the show as it happens below.
.
.
.
.
Radio fire ignited to burn Savage ban By Chelsea Schilling (WND)
A well-known right-leaning radio firebrand whose face has become a staple on cable TV news shows has vowed to speak out against the U.K.'s blacklisting of Michael Savage – and he's demanding that the nation's talkers join him.
Bill Cunningham, Cincinnati host of 700 WLW who replaced Matt Drudge on the Sunday night Premiere Radio Network talk show, is best known for being scolded by John McCain after he referred to President Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" during the presidential campaigns. He pledged Sunday to talk about Britain's ban every week on his live show, aired in more than 200 markets, until the U.K. removes Savage's name from its blacklist.
"If the kings and queens of talk radio do not arise and stand with Michael Savage, they're going to start picking us off one at a time," Cunningham told WND. "If we don't stand with Michael, there'll be no one left to stand with each of us when the FCC or the British government or the American government comes after us. I see it as personal because if Michael Savage falls, who are they going to pick on next?"
Cunningham pledged, "Every Sunday between now and the end of time, I will talk about Michael Savage, support Michael Savage and encourage boycotts of everything British until they free Savage from this fatwa that was issued by the British government."
U.K. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith defended her decision to ban Savage Tuesday, saying, "In his radio broadcasts, Mr. Savage has spoken about killing 100 million Muslims, and he has spoken in violent terms about homosexuals."
The U.K. list also includes Hamas leader Yunis Al-Astal, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black, neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe and radical American pastor Fred Phelps, known for his virulent anti-gay protests at funerals. Phelps' daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper also is on the list. But Cunningham said he believes it is outrageous to link Savage with members of the Ku Klux Klan and radical Islamists.
"Michael Savage in his life has never committed a violent act against anybody. He doesn't encourage or incite violence," he said. "All Michael Savage does is make me think. The thought police, whether in Britain or in America, should leave free-thinkers like Michael Savage alone."
Cunningham said he wishes the kings and queens of talk radio would speak up for Savage because he believes the British government or the FCC will target them next.
Asked why he thinks the nation's talk radio hosts haven't already voiced their support for Savage, he replied, "I think there are two reasons: One is competition. Maybe they think that if Michael Savage leaves the airwaves it'll give them more time clearances on more stations. I think that is short-sighted. Secondly, Michael Savage is a bit radioactive, and they don't want to engender commercial
boycotts of their own shows."
But Cunningham said Fox News' Sean Hannity is a good friend of his, and he fully intends to address the issue with the radio and television host.
"The next time I talk to Sean, I'm going to ask him why he hasn't spoken up for Savage," he said.
While Cunningham said he hopes the Obama administration would be courageous enough to come to the defense of Savage, he doesn't think it will happen.
"I guarantee that if the British government had issued a fatwa against left-leaning politicians, if it had banned Ed Schultz who sits in the front row of Obama's news conferences, I bet the Obama administration would get the ban lifted," he said.
"But because it's Michael Savage, who's on the opposite side of the political spectrum as Obama, they keep their damn mouths shut."
He said the "Clintonistas" and the "Obamamaniacs" are working together to marginalize talk radio, and regardless of Savage's appeal to Hillary Clinton to call on the British government to withdraw the ban, the secretary of state is unlikely to act.
"That is a voice crying in the wilderness because Hillary and Obama want people like Savage to shut up," he said. "In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if before they did this, somebody in Gordon Brown's administration contacted Washington and told them, 'Hey, we're about to do this to one of your talk-show hosts,' and they said, 'Go get him. Let's see if it works. Let's see if the talk radio community will shut up.'"
On his website, Savage is appealing to his listeners to contribute to his legal fund as he considers action against the home secretary. Cunningham said listeners should also boycott Britain. He and his wife had planned to go to London in September, but they canceled the trip after the blacklist was released.
In the meantime, Cunningham will continue to demand an apology from Jacqui Smith and the U.K. – every Sunday on his show until the ban is lifted.
"I don't agree with some things Michael Savage says, but I will fight to the death for his right to say it," he said. "That's the essence of the First Amendment. He may say some things that I wouldn't say, but damn it, he's got the right to say it."
Bill Cunningham, Cincinnati host of 700 WLW who replaced Matt Drudge on the Sunday night Premiere Radio Network talk show, is best known for being scolded by John McCain after he referred to President Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" during the presidential campaigns. He pledged Sunday to talk about Britain's ban every week on his live show, aired in more than 200 markets, until the U.K. removes Savage's name from its blacklist.
"If the kings and queens of talk radio do not arise and stand with Michael Savage, they're going to start picking us off one at a time," Cunningham told WND. "If we don't stand with Michael, there'll be no one left to stand with each of us when the FCC or the British government or the American government comes after us. I see it as personal because if Michael Savage falls, who are they going to pick on next?"
Cunningham pledged, "Every Sunday between now and the end of time, I will talk about Michael Savage, support Michael Savage and encourage boycotts of everything British until they free Savage from this fatwa that was issued by the British government."
U.K. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith defended her decision to ban Savage Tuesday, saying, "In his radio broadcasts, Mr. Savage has spoken about killing 100 million Muslims, and he has spoken in violent terms about homosexuals."
The U.K. list also includes Hamas leader Yunis Al-Astal, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black, neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe and radical American pastor Fred Phelps, known for his virulent anti-gay protests at funerals. Phelps' daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper also is on the list. But Cunningham said he believes it is outrageous to link Savage with members of the Ku Klux Klan and radical Islamists.
"Michael Savage in his life has never committed a violent act against anybody. He doesn't encourage or incite violence," he said. "All Michael Savage does is make me think. The thought police, whether in Britain or in America, should leave free-thinkers like Michael Savage alone."
Cunningham said he wishes the kings and queens of talk radio would speak up for Savage because he believes the British government or the FCC will target them next.
Asked why he thinks the nation's talk radio hosts haven't already voiced their support for Savage, he replied, "I think there are two reasons: One is competition. Maybe they think that if Michael Savage leaves the airwaves it'll give them more time clearances on more stations. I think that is short-sighted. Secondly, Michael Savage is a bit radioactive, and they don't want to engender commercial
boycotts of their own shows."
But Cunningham said Fox News' Sean Hannity is a good friend of his, and he fully intends to address the issue with the radio and television host.
"The next time I talk to Sean, I'm going to ask him why he hasn't spoken up for Savage," he said.
While Cunningham said he hopes the Obama administration would be courageous enough to come to the defense of Savage, he doesn't think it will happen.
"I guarantee that if the British government had issued a fatwa against left-leaning politicians, if it had banned Ed Schultz who sits in the front row of Obama's news conferences, I bet the Obama administration would get the ban lifted," he said.
"But because it's Michael Savage, who's on the opposite side of the political spectrum as Obama, they keep their damn mouths shut."
He said the "Clintonistas" and the "Obamamaniacs" are working together to marginalize talk radio, and regardless of Savage's appeal to Hillary Clinton to call on the British government to withdraw the ban, the secretary of state is unlikely to act.
"That is a voice crying in the wilderness because Hillary and Obama want people like Savage to shut up," he said. "In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if before they did this, somebody in Gordon Brown's administration contacted Washington and told them, 'Hey, we're about to do this to one of your talk-show hosts,' and they said, 'Go get him. Let's see if it works. Let's see if the talk radio community will shut up.'"
On his website, Savage is appealing to his listeners to contribute to his legal fund as he considers action against the home secretary. Cunningham said listeners should also boycott Britain. He and his wife had planned to go to London in September, but they canceled the trip after the blacklist was released.
In the meantime, Cunningham will continue to demand an apology from Jacqui Smith and the U.K. – every Sunday on his show until the ban is lifted.
"I don't agree with some things Michael Savage says, but I will fight to the death for his right to say it," he said. "That's the essence of the First Amendment. He may say some things that I wouldn't say, but damn it, he's got the right to say it."
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Declare I AM SAVAGE!
Support Savage: buy a I AM SAVAGE t-shirt.
For each shirt purchased they will donate $2.50 to the Michael Savage legal fund.
Savage Nation Live Blog (test)
.
.
.
.
Post any comments or thought on the show as it happens below.
.
.
.
.
The Savage Silence of the Lambs by Ellis Washington
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say
it.
~ Voltaire
First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus
Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: What is it in itself? What is its
nature? What does he do, this man you seek?
~ Hannibal Lecter
The enduring words of French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire – I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it – have stood as a salient sentinel of free speech for over two centuries, yet why do I hear these crickets ringing in my ears? Why aren't the so-called conservative media coming to the rescue of their fellow ideological colleague, radio host and conservative intellectual Dr. Michael Savage?
It is the Savage silence of the lambs.
In the 1991 movie "Silence of the Lambs," based on a novel by Thomas Harris, Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), a brilliant but evil psychiatrist, begins a game of quid pro quo with Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster), a young FBI trainee seeking the advice of the imprisoned Lecter on capturing a serial murder with the alias, "Buffalo Bill." In one telling scene Starling tells of how she was orphaned, relocated to an uncle's farm, discovered the horror of the lambs going to the slaughterhouse and unsuccessfully tried to save one of the little lambs.
That horrific, indelible scene that haunted her all those years was the lambs' seeming indifference and silence in the face of utter slaughter.
How does the silence of the lambs apply to Michael Savage? On May 5, Jacqui Smith, the British home secretary, published a list of 16 individuals banned from entering the United Kingdom. Savage was justifiably outraged that his name was placed on the list along with the names of radical Muslims who call for the overthrow of the British government, Hamas murderers, neo-Nazi skinheads and Russian mobsters.
Sign the petition to block federal government attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press!
Where is the outrage from all the big-named conservative media giants like Fox News, Rush, Hannity, Mike Gallagher, Scarborough, Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, O'Reilly, Cavuto, Glenn Beck, Greta, National Review, Weekly Standard, Human Events, American Enterprise Institute and The Hoover Institute? Other than one unremarkable short TV segment by O'Reilly and two excellent short stories by Bret Baier at Fox News, there is only the vexing sound of crickets chirping. With the exception of Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily, I cannot cite a single media entity, think tank or radio host in America that has dedicated themselves to preserving this vital story and keeping it alive with rigorous and trenchant analysis.
It is the Savage silence of the lambs.
Jacqui Smith's naked assault on free speech has sparked universal public outrage in England where Savage enjoys 80/20 favorable ratings, but the deafening silence by those conservative voices in America who have built their own careers lamenting and complaining about Clinton, Obama, the "liberal media" and the Democratic Party treating them badly seems akin to crocodile tears or even worse, to the duplicitous treachery of a Benedict Arnold or a Judas … but why?
Savage answered this question on his radio show last week. quoting the words of Martin Niemoller, the great German protestant minister who for years suffered in Nazi concentration camps for his outspoken Christian beliefs in the face of Hitler's genocidal mania. Niemoller wrote these poignant lines:
When the Nazis came for the communists,I remained silent;I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,I remained silent;I was not a
social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,I did not speak
out;I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,there was no one left to speak
out for me.
Niemoller was very self-critical and prophetic. In modern times Democrats, through their majorities in Congress, have once again attempted to resurrect the unconstitutional assault on free speech called, the "Fairness Doctrine." Obama and his fascist legions will undoubtedly come after Rush, Hannity, Scarborough, O'Reilly, Ingraham, Cavuto and Fox News in the near future. Who, then, will fight for them? Who will be their advocate? … The GOP? Themselves?
Why have virtually the entire conservative and liberal media so hardened their hearts and closed their bowels of compassion against this magnificent conservative intellectual? Michael Savage, in my opinion, is a singular genius, the rival in his genre to other famous iconoclasts in world history, including Jeremiah, Elijah, Socrates, Montesquieu, Beethoven, van Gogh, Einstein, Hanna Arendt, Churchill, Gen. Patton and Reagan – yet why is he ignored at home and vilified in Great Britain for dedicating his entire life to Veritas (truth)?
It is the Savage silence of the lambs.
The galling irony of Britain's home secretary's libelous and slanderous attacks on Savage is that this is the land where the Magna Charta was born, where the right to freedom of expression protected by international law and treaties so essential to democracies originated. For years I wondered why the GOP, the Republican National Committee, Hannity, O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough and others in the conservative politics and media regularly invite the most reactionary, radical liberal Democrats and socialists on their programs (to be "fair and balanced") while for 15 years disregarding the comprehensive genius of Michael Savage by rarely or never inviting him on their shows or ignoring him summarily.
Intellectuals, conservative talk radio, the GOP and the RNC must understand that Savage's oeuvre and worldview transcends mere men, personality, politics, philosophy or emotion, but is in the Parthenon of godliness, principle, ideas, righteousness and Veritas. It is my prayer that conservative talk radio set aside their fears, jealousies and silent acquiescence to the fascist blacklisting tactics of Britain and unite with Savage's righteous cause, defending freedom of speech and freedom of expression in England, in America and throughout the world.
For to do otherwise is the Savage silence of the lambs.
When They Came for Savage.....by Barbara Anderson
A representative of the British government has banned Michael Savage from that country. He has been listed among such real haters as a Hezbollah terrorist, a leader of Hamas, white supremacists, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, and Russian skinheads, now in prison for murder. This is a hateful, murderous lot.
And on this blacklist by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, in an “in-your-face” announcement, Smith has added Michael Savage. Since there are no crimes committed by Savage, it can only be surmised that he appears there because he is deemed hateful and may stir up feelings of hate and incitement to violence.
Savage often yells at those he thinks are steering us into socialism, or worse. He sometimes is strident. He is articulate and makes his case. There have been callers who would like to go farther than that, but Savage has carefully drawn that line beyond which he will not go. He will not call for violence, nor will he stand for callers who would like to do so. His is a war of words, nothing more.
Now that we live in a New World Order, globalism reigns supreme. What is happening overseas has more importance than ever. However, instead of being able to count on traditional allies, we find the government of Britain colluding with a push toward punishing so-called “hate” crimes. Canada has already succumbed to this push, stifling religious opinions that do not toe their particular line.
The European Union has become almost monolithic. Britain’s representatives have betrayed the common man in forcing this union. It is largely hated because the citizens have little input as to how they will be governed. However, the elites that run the country have learned well how to leverage a small amount of power. It is the same all over the EU, to a large extent. The EU, having the blueprint, and having had time to iron out the problems, stands ready to help implement our own union, the North American Union. Our grand plan is to merge Mexico, Canada and the U.S. into the NAU.
Connecting the dots, we can see that our own domestic “hate” legislation is being pushed along even now. The Democrats have always wanted it. Now they think they are in a position to ram it through. The “victims”, the beneficiaries of this legislation, were chosen based on “actual or perceived…sexual orientation, gender identity”.
Representatives Louis Gohmert R-Texas, and Steve King R-Iowa, tried to have congressional Democrats define “sexual orientation” in this bill, but were refused. This is so vaguely defined that some have dubbed it “The Pedophile Protection” Act. King and Gohmert also tried to add an amendment that pedophiles were not protected under the law. Again, Democrats voted against this provision.
King thinks that this is a national effort by homosexual activists to not only have the freedom to choose their lifestyle, but be able to demand that approval be given and that those who don’t agree with their particular behavior will be silenced by law.
We saw the hatred toward those in California who worked to pass legislation stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Elderly people who carried signs were accosted and their signs were ripped from their fingers. An elderly woman had a cross taken from her. That was her own property. No tolerance of opinion there, although they prate about it. Early on, we were told that homosexuals just wanted to be left alone; just to have respect, just to have tolerance. How far we have come.
Christians seem to be particularly hated and the homosexual lobby would like nothing more than to silence them and their pastors. Canada is just a little ahead of us in that regard. Catholics have been a favorite target. Churches have been disrupted in their services. Wild looking people in garish garb run throughout the pews, scaring children. Holy sacraments are thrown to the floor and stomped upon. Condoms are thrown through the air and lesbians kiss on the altar. These attacks were premeditated, planned, staged (with props), and executed. This is not tolerance they are asking. This is hateful behavior. The Catholics are under attack and do not always know if actual shooting will be used against them, the violence is so intense. The attacks are calculated to instill fear in those under siege.
There is a two pronged attack on free speech. The other is the so-called “fairness doctrine” which was trotted out recently. There again, this has been a favorite to be put into law by Democrats. They think they have the power to do it now. More commentators have noticed this and condemned it because it is familiar to them. However, hate speech laws are not as familiar.
A wise man said that with politics there are no coincidences. Accusing hatred of those who just want to give an opinion comes right back to Michael Savage. Since we are all “citizens of the world”, according to some, the globalists zero on in those who speak against them. One of the loudest is Savage. To take him on calls for a certain “chutzpah”, unless you know that your allies are very strong. I think that Smith knew of Savage, and his been egged on by the globalists in our country. Usually, the modus operandi is to whittle away at some of the weaker structures until the opposition falls. With Savage, Smith has taken on the top.
It is a gamble. We have seen that he will not be intimidated. He now has a suit against Smith. Discovery should prove interesting. What little we are allowed to see in Britain lets us know that the politicians are quite corrupt. Ms. Smith herself is not squeaky clean. Did someone high up in our government give the “go ahead” for the action taken against Savage? With several millions of listeners, Savage is a threat, unlike their usual MSM puppets.
Most importantly, how will We the People respond? Everyone who writes or speaks should be alarmed. When laws are enacted for one set of people, there is favoritism that should never happen in a free Republic. If you can be sued just because somebody charges that they “perceive” that their “feelings” have been hurt, the slippery slope is greased.
Voltaire is credited with saying “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”. To the death. Strong words.
There is time to speak out and make allies. There is time to let our representatives know killing free speech is not acceptable. These reps seem to only fear one thing: a loss of power. They respond when enough let them know to change their votes.
They have come for Michael Savage; let them find a phalanx of Savage allies. If Savage is left to “twist in the wind” alone, there will soon be no champions of free speech, whether you like the speech or not.
And on this blacklist by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, in an “in-your-face” announcement, Smith has added Michael Savage. Since there are no crimes committed by Savage, it can only be surmised that he appears there because he is deemed hateful and may stir up feelings of hate and incitement to violence.
Savage often yells at those he thinks are steering us into socialism, or worse. He sometimes is strident. He is articulate and makes his case. There have been callers who would like to go farther than that, but Savage has carefully drawn that line beyond which he will not go. He will not call for violence, nor will he stand for callers who would like to do so. His is a war of words, nothing more.
Now that we live in a New World Order, globalism reigns supreme. What is happening overseas has more importance than ever. However, instead of being able to count on traditional allies, we find the government of Britain colluding with a push toward punishing so-called “hate” crimes. Canada has already succumbed to this push, stifling religious opinions that do not toe their particular line.
The European Union has become almost monolithic. Britain’s representatives have betrayed the common man in forcing this union. It is largely hated because the citizens have little input as to how they will be governed. However, the elites that run the country have learned well how to leverage a small amount of power. It is the same all over the EU, to a large extent. The EU, having the blueprint, and having had time to iron out the problems, stands ready to help implement our own union, the North American Union. Our grand plan is to merge Mexico, Canada and the U.S. into the NAU.
Connecting the dots, we can see that our own domestic “hate” legislation is being pushed along even now. The Democrats have always wanted it. Now they think they are in a position to ram it through. The “victims”, the beneficiaries of this legislation, were chosen based on “actual or perceived…sexual orientation, gender identity”.
Representatives Louis Gohmert R-Texas, and Steve King R-Iowa, tried to have congressional Democrats define “sexual orientation” in this bill, but were refused. This is so vaguely defined that some have dubbed it “The Pedophile Protection” Act. King and Gohmert also tried to add an amendment that pedophiles were not protected under the law. Again, Democrats voted against this provision.
King thinks that this is a national effort by homosexual activists to not only have the freedom to choose their lifestyle, but be able to demand that approval be given and that those who don’t agree with their particular behavior will be silenced by law.
We saw the hatred toward those in California who worked to pass legislation stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Elderly people who carried signs were accosted and their signs were ripped from their fingers. An elderly woman had a cross taken from her. That was her own property. No tolerance of opinion there, although they prate about it. Early on, we were told that homosexuals just wanted to be left alone; just to have respect, just to have tolerance. How far we have come.
Christians seem to be particularly hated and the homosexual lobby would like nothing more than to silence them and their pastors. Canada is just a little ahead of us in that regard. Catholics have been a favorite target. Churches have been disrupted in their services. Wild looking people in garish garb run throughout the pews, scaring children. Holy sacraments are thrown to the floor and stomped upon. Condoms are thrown through the air and lesbians kiss on the altar. These attacks were premeditated, planned, staged (with props), and executed. This is not tolerance they are asking. This is hateful behavior. The Catholics are under attack and do not always know if actual shooting will be used against them, the violence is so intense. The attacks are calculated to instill fear in those under siege.
There is a two pronged attack on free speech. The other is the so-called “fairness doctrine” which was trotted out recently. There again, this has been a favorite to be put into law by Democrats. They think they have the power to do it now. More commentators have noticed this and condemned it because it is familiar to them. However, hate speech laws are not as familiar.
A wise man said that with politics there are no coincidences. Accusing hatred of those who just want to give an opinion comes right back to Michael Savage. Since we are all “citizens of the world”, according to some, the globalists zero on in those who speak against them. One of the loudest is Savage. To take him on calls for a certain “chutzpah”, unless you know that your allies are very strong. I think that Smith knew of Savage, and his been egged on by the globalists in our country. Usually, the modus operandi is to whittle away at some of the weaker structures until the opposition falls. With Savage, Smith has taken on the top.
It is a gamble. We have seen that he will not be intimidated. He now has a suit against Smith. Discovery should prove interesting. What little we are allowed to see in Britain lets us know that the politicians are quite corrupt. Ms. Smith herself is not squeaky clean. Did someone high up in our government give the “go ahead” for the action taken against Savage? With several millions of listeners, Savage is a threat, unlike their usual MSM puppets.
Most importantly, how will We the People respond? Everyone who writes or speaks should be alarmed. When laws are enacted for one set of people, there is favoritism that should never happen in a free Republic. If you can be sued just because somebody charges that they “perceive” that their “feelings” have been hurt, the slippery slope is greased.
Voltaire is credited with saying “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”. To the death. Strong words.
There is time to speak out and make allies. There is time to let our representatives know killing free speech is not acceptable. These reps seem to only fear one thing: a loss of power. They respond when enough let them know to change their votes.
They have come for Michael Savage; let them find a phalanx of Savage allies. If Savage is left to “twist in the wind” alone, there will soon be no champions of free speech, whether you like the speech or not.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Michael Reagan Defends Michael Savage By Paul Bedard
.
.
Radio host Michael Reagan, whipped up by Britain's ban on conservative shock talker Michael Savage, has a message for London: You're chicken. Reagan, eldest son of the Gipper, says governments like London's are afraid of Muslim radicals. "They are trying to placate them," he says of the ban on Savage, who has ranted against Muslims. "They are saving their own skin by doing what they did to Savage." Of course, he adds, it probably helped Savage in England. "Most of the people in the United Kingdom probably didn't even know him," he says. "Now everyone in the U.K. is listening to him."
.
.
.
Radio host Michael Reagan, whipped up by Britain's ban on conservative shock talker Michael Savage, has a message for London: You're chicken. Reagan, eldest son of the Gipper, says governments like London's are afraid of Muslim radicals. "They are trying to placate them," he says of the ban on Savage, who has ranted against Muslims. "They are saving their own skin by doing what they did to Savage." Of course, he adds, it probably helped Savage in England. "Most of the people in the United Kingdom probably didn't even know him," he says. "Now everyone in the U.K. is listening to him."
.
.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Savage Nation Live Blog
I'm not sure if anyone is reading this new site yet, but I would like to set up a Live Blog during Savage's show. Everyone can comment on the show in real time in the "post a comment" below.
Comment on what Savage just said and comment on other's comments.
Smith defends UK ban on radio host
Apparently Smith has no immediate plan to admit she was paid off by some American rights group or some far-left politician to add Dr. Savage's name to the banned list. There must have been a lot of zeros on that check.
Speaking during Home Office questions, Jacqui Smith insisted she was right to stop Michael Savage from entering the country.
Savage, who hosts the Savage Nation radio show, has threatened legal action against the government following the decision to refuse him access to the UK.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Hillary should speak up for Savage by Lois Kazakoff
It must be tough for Savage Nation talk show host Michael Savage to seek help from a woman he has excoriated for years -- now Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. But he has, and Clinton should help him out, if only to slam over-the-top political correctness.
The British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith last week barred Savage and 15 others from entering the United Kingdom "to name and shame those who foster extremist views as I want them to know that they are not welcome here."
Savage's hot-button political radio show isn't broadcast in the U.K., so the move is purely political.
Regardless of what Clinton thinks of Savage's rhetoric, she should suggest to the British Home Secretary that the U.K. and the U.S. share a treasured value -- the right to free expression. Savage should not be barred.
The British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith last week barred Savage and 15 others from entering the United Kingdom "to name and shame those who foster extremist views as I want them to know that they are not welcome here."
Savage's hot-button political radio show isn't broadcast in the U.K., so the move is purely political.
Regardless of what Clinton thinks of Savage's rhetoric, she should suggest to the British Home Secretary that the U.K. and the U.S. share a treasured value -- the right to free expression. Savage should not be barred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
