.
.
.
.
Post any comments or thought on the show as it happens below.
.
.
.
.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
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.
Radio host Savage always up for a fight By Jennifer Harper
The battle rages.
Shouts, warnings, directives, threats, a stray explosion or two. There's sudden silence, eloquent commentary, a plaintive oath — then a fierce laugh born of old New York. It is tough and merry, both wise and wise guy.
Batten down the hatches. Duck and cover. Michael Savage is on the airwaves, delivering his rapid-fire message over 400 radio stations, three hours a day, five days a week. He has fought the good fight for 15 years, flanked by his 10 million weekly listeners who now consider themselves the "Savage Nation."
Savage Battalion, more like.
They rally behind the laserlike takes on immigration, white males, cheeky liberals, wimpy conservatives, media bias, cultural wars, porous borders, Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, same-sex marriage, corrupt Hollywood, junk science, big medicine, big government, scurrilous officials. Mr. Savage is generous with personal memories. He pouts. He is giddy.
The loyal audience steps to the Savage drumbeat, they salute a man who is often at the center of a lawsuit, a boycott or public outrage.
"I do it because I do it. I speak, therefore I am," Mr. Savage says.
And that is it, the whole battle plan.
"People come to me because they know I will tell them the truth. The price is that you give your heart and soul every day. Every day. And in order to get there, you get thrown in the cauldron," he continues. "And a man emerges from that cauldron, and he is case hardened."
Mr. Savage has been in many, many cauldrons over the years.
This is a man who has described himself as "right of Rush Limbaugh, and left of God." He invented the phrase "compassionate conservative" 15 years ago, though it later became a rallying cry in the Republican quest for the White House.
Gay advocates continue to call him a bigot or a fascist. Mr. Savage has wrangled with the Roman Catholic Church for its humanitarian support of illegal immigrants. He accused the Council on American-Islamic Relations of maintaining ties to terrorists (CAIR), then sued them. The group in turn organized an advertising and listener boycott — a favorite method among Savage critics to defame him.
The cauldron du jour, though, is the entire British government. On May 4, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith included Mr. Savage on a list of 22 terrorists, criminals and other undesirables who were no longer welcome in the country. She claimed that the radio host was "fomenting hatred" and could prompt "intercommunity tension."
The event galvanized the press, not to mention a slew of free-speech advocates and the Savage Nation itself.
Their hero was primed to be savage, though. Mr. Savage called Mrs. Smith a lunatic, witch, Bolshevik, low-life and a tin-pot dictator among other things — then sued her for defamation of character, calling upon his listeners to cancel travel plans to Britain and boycott British goods.
"She painted a target on my back," he says.
Mr. Savage is appealing to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to have his name stricken from the list, using the Thomas More Law Center as an intermediary. Meanwhile, defenders emerged, including the American Radio Free Speech Coalition and — curiously — CAIR.
"Even though we have challenged Michael Savage's hate speech and even ran an advertising campaign against his show, we still do not back this ban from Britain based on principle, not based on the man himself. We believe freedom of speech is a two-way street," notes CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper.
The situation is complex and full of competing dynamics — just like Mr. Savage himself.
He was born to a humble household in Queens just as World War II had taken a patriotic hold of the American home front. He earned a bachelor of science degree in biology, taught in a local high school and later arrived at the University of California at Berkley, eventually to earn a Ph.D. in epidemiology and two masters in medical botany. He wrote 20 books and hung out with the likes of Timothy Leary, Allen Ginsberg and Lawrence Ferlinghetti.
His left-leaning politics shifted in the 1980s. Troubled by the AIDS epidemic and emerging health threats posed by immigrants, Mr. Savage took his pronounced views to the radio realm, landing his own show in 1994. In recent years, Mr. Savage has written five political books: "The Savage Nation," "The Enemy Within: Saving America From the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military," "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder," "The Political Zoo" and "Psychological Nudity."
"You know what I did? I prayed to God to send me a living. Please God, give me a living, and low and behold He did. I've found that the only thing that matters is survival. So I learned how to survive," Mr. Savage says.
"Whether you agree with him or not, Michael Savage is one of the most listened to talk-show hosts in the industry. He is as funny as he is controversial. You can take him as a political bomb thrower or a Borscht belt entertainer," says Michael Harrison, founder of Talkers Magazine, an industry publication that tracks talk radio.
"He's incredibly intelligent and very entertaining. One of his best qualities is that he's an original in an industry where so many people imitate each other. Savage marches to his own beat."
And for all of his brilliant caterwaul, Mr. Savage is reduced to utter tenderness at the thought of Teddy, his diminutive, fuzzy gray poodle.
"If anything inspires me, sustains me, it's the dog. Maybe spaghetti, too. But the dog, Teddy. He gives me such pleasure. How can anything so small have so much personality? Maybe I just don't like people anymore," Mr. Savage says.
Yet he is there for his audience. Always.
At 67, Michael Savage still ignores the comforting calls of the Barcalounger in favor of a no-nonsense chair in front of a microphone — supplying a seamless daily show for Talk Radio Network, an Oregon-based syndication company that includes Laura Ingraham, Tammy Bruce and "Mancow" in its stable of talent.
"Do I know what I'm going to do, where I'm going to be in five years?" Mr. Savage asks, and there's passion in that voice, along with a certain wry demeanor that comes from living almost seven decades on Planet Earth.
"Well, let me just say there's an old Mexican saying," he says. "If you want to make God laugh, then just tell Him about your plans."
Shouts, warnings, directives, threats, a stray explosion or two. There's sudden silence, eloquent commentary, a plaintive oath — then a fierce laugh born of old New York. It is tough and merry, both wise and wise guy.
Batten down the hatches. Duck and cover. Michael Savage is on the airwaves, delivering his rapid-fire message over 400 radio stations, three hours a day, five days a week. He has fought the good fight for 15 years, flanked by his 10 million weekly listeners who now consider themselves the "Savage Nation."
Savage Battalion, more like.
They rally behind the laserlike takes on immigration, white males, cheeky liberals, wimpy conservatives, media bias, cultural wars, porous borders, Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, same-sex marriage, corrupt Hollywood, junk science, big medicine, big government, scurrilous officials. Mr. Savage is generous with personal memories. He pouts. He is giddy.
The loyal audience steps to the Savage drumbeat, they salute a man who is often at the center of a lawsuit, a boycott or public outrage.
"I do it because I do it. I speak, therefore I am," Mr. Savage says.
And that is it, the whole battle plan.
"People come to me because they know I will tell them the truth. The price is that you give your heart and soul every day. Every day. And in order to get there, you get thrown in the cauldron," he continues. "And a man emerges from that cauldron, and he is case hardened."
Mr. Savage has been in many, many cauldrons over the years.
This is a man who has described himself as "right of Rush Limbaugh, and left of God." He invented the phrase "compassionate conservative" 15 years ago, though it later became a rallying cry in the Republican quest for the White House.
Gay advocates continue to call him a bigot or a fascist. Mr. Savage has wrangled with the Roman Catholic Church for its humanitarian support of illegal immigrants. He accused the Council on American-Islamic Relations of maintaining ties to terrorists (CAIR), then sued them. The group in turn organized an advertising and listener boycott — a favorite method among Savage critics to defame him.
The cauldron du jour, though, is the entire British government. On May 4, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith included Mr. Savage on a list of 22 terrorists, criminals and other undesirables who were no longer welcome in the country. She claimed that the radio host was "fomenting hatred" and could prompt "intercommunity tension."
The event galvanized the press, not to mention a slew of free-speech advocates and the Savage Nation itself.
Their hero was primed to be savage, though. Mr. Savage called Mrs. Smith a lunatic, witch, Bolshevik, low-life and a tin-pot dictator among other things — then sued her for defamation of character, calling upon his listeners to cancel travel plans to Britain and boycott British goods.
"She painted a target on my back," he says.
Mr. Savage is appealing to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to have his name stricken from the list, using the Thomas More Law Center as an intermediary. Meanwhile, defenders emerged, including the American Radio Free Speech Coalition and — curiously — CAIR.
"Even though we have challenged Michael Savage's hate speech and even ran an advertising campaign against his show, we still do not back this ban from Britain based on principle, not based on the man himself. We believe freedom of speech is a two-way street," notes CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper.
The situation is complex and full of competing dynamics — just like Mr. Savage himself.
He was born to a humble household in Queens just as World War II had taken a patriotic hold of the American home front. He earned a bachelor of science degree in biology, taught in a local high school and later arrived at the University of California at Berkley, eventually to earn a Ph.D. in epidemiology and two masters in medical botany. He wrote 20 books and hung out with the likes of Timothy Leary, Allen Ginsberg and Lawrence Ferlinghetti.
His left-leaning politics shifted in the 1980s. Troubled by the AIDS epidemic and emerging health threats posed by immigrants, Mr. Savage took his pronounced views to the radio realm, landing his own show in 1994. In recent years, Mr. Savage has written five political books: "The Savage Nation," "The Enemy Within: Saving America From the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military," "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder," "The Political Zoo" and "Psychological Nudity."
"You know what I did? I prayed to God to send me a living. Please God, give me a living, and low and behold He did. I've found that the only thing that matters is survival. So I learned how to survive," Mr. Savage says.
"Whether you agree with him or not, Michael Savage is one of the most listened to talk-show hosts in the industry. He is as funny as he is controversial. You can take him as a political bomb thrower or a Borscht belt entertainer," says Michael Harrison, founder of Talkers Magazine, an industry publication that tracks talk radio.
"He's incredibly intelligent and very entertaining. One of his best qualities is that he's an original in an industry where so many people imitate each other. Savage marches to his own beat."
And for all of his brilliant caterwaul, Mr. Savage is reduced to utter tenderness at the thought of Teddy, his diminutive, fuzzy gray poodle.
"If anything inspires me, sustains me, it's the dog. Maybe spaghetti, too. But the dog, Teddy. He gives me such pleasure. How can anything so small have so much personality? Maybe I just don't like people anymore," Mr. Savage says.
Yet he is there for his audience. Always.
At 67, Michael Savage still ignores the comforting calls of the Barcalounger in favor of a no-nonsense chair in front of a microphone — supplying a seamless daily show for Talk Radio Network, an Oregon-based syndication company that includes Laura Ingraham, Tammy Bruce and "Mancow" in its stable of talent.
"Do I know what I'm going to do, where I'm going to be in five years?" Mr. Savage asks, and there's passion in that voice, along with a certain wry demeanor that comes from living almost seven decades on Planet Earth.
"Well, let me just say there's an old Mexican saying," he says. "If you want to make God laugh, then just tell Him about your plans."
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Britain’s war on Michael Savage by Jeffrey Kuhner
The British government’s recent blacklisting of conservative talk-radio host, Michael Savage, is an ominous sign—and should be of deep concern to all Americans, regardless of their political leanings. It reflects British society’s surrender not only to the forces of political correctness, but Islamist intimidation.
Britain is targeting one of America’s most popular hosts. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith released a blacklist with the names of 16 foreigners—including Mr. Savage—who are banned from entering Britain.
The average American might ask: So what? British society has been in decline for decades, plagued by soccer hooliganism, pervasive alcoholism, soaring crime, sexual permissiveness, growing ethnic and racial balkanization and overall social debauchery. If you combine this with the country’s notoriously bad cuisine, weather and manners, then being banned may not seem like a punishment but a blessing. I for one always avoid visiting England whenever possible. Hence, what’s the big deal? Mr. Savage is not missing much.
But the ban has profound societal repercussions. It is an assault on freedom of speech. Mr. Savage’s name appeared alongside mass murderers, Islamic butchers and white supremacists: Russian skinheads serving prison sentences for killing 20 migrant workers, a leader of Hamas, a known Hezbollah terrorist, a prominent neo-Nazi and a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard.
“I think it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it’s a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won’t be welcome in this country,” Ms. Smith said. “Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can’t live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what’s more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded.”
Ms. Smith is wrong. Mr. Savage is a peaceful, law-abiding citizen, who has never committed a violent act or crime. He has never called for violence or rationalized the use of force against innocent civilians. On the contrary, he believes in democracy and respects the rule of law and constitutional government. Mr. Savage embodies the very “standards” and “values” Ms. Smith claims she is so determined to enforce. To lump him with known gangsters, terrorist killers and neo-fascist thugs is grotesque. It also demonstrates a dangerous disconnect from reality. Islamic radicals and Russian skinheads champion death and destruction; violent extremism is their way of life—in fact, for them, it is the purpose and meaning of life. Mr. Savage, however, practices the very opposite: He makes his living by engaging in democratic debate, marshaling ideas and opinions through the public (and often raucous) medium of talk radio. Mr. Savage is being punished for no other reason than exercising his fundamental right to free speech.
In a pathetic attempt to justify her ban, Ms. Smith claimed that Mr. Savage is a far right-winger, who peddles bigotry and intolerance. Therefore, he presents a danger to public order. “This is 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,” she told the British Broadcasting Corporation.
By this standard there are millions of Britons who would not qualify to enter other countries. East London has become a haven for Islamist clerics preaching the virtues of jihad and Sharia law. Moreover, prominent radio hosts, such as the fiery anti-war parliamentarian, George Galloway, not only regularly praise Hezbollah and Hamas, but spout vile anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist propaganda. Mr. Galloway was on Saddam Hussein’s payroll, and openly rationalizes suicide bombing attacks on Israelis. He defends Iran’s drive to acquire a nuclear bomb. He publicly supports Syria’s fascist dictator, Bashir Assad. Yet, our government has refused to nix his frequent speaking tours to the U.S., despite the harmful impact his inflammatory, hate-filled rhetoric may have on the Jewish community. If Ms. Smith wants to crack down on those “fomenting hatred,” then all she has to do is look across the aisle in the House of Commons. Instead, Mr. Galloway is hailed as a hero by large segments of the British liberal elite.
The double-standard is obvious—and odious: in their view, Mr. Galloway is a principled firebrand, while Mr. Savage is a dangerous lunatic. The very opposite is true. Mr. Galloway represents the civilizational self-loathing and nihilism at the heart of the modern Left. Anti-war liberals, like Mr. Galloway, are driven by ideological hatred—hatred of capitalism, America and Judeo-Christian morality. They argue the West is irredeemably racist, sexist and imperialist. Consumed by guilt and self-hatred, they champion the appeasement of Islamic fascism because deep down they believe the West deserves to be defeated; it is a culture that is not worth preserving or defending.
The Savage ban is not simply about free speech. It is also an intellectual power grab by the Left, a deliberate effort to muzzle dissenting voices on the Right. Mr. Savage is a conservative populist, who believes in small government, low taxes and family values. More than any other major radio host, he understands that modern conservatism is based on the defense of national sovereignty, distinct cultural identity and Burkean traditionalism; that America is not only a special and unique country, but represents a special and unique civilization—one that must be protected at all costs. His flinty opposition to social liberalism, massive illegal immigration and Islamist radicalism enrages the Left for one basic reason: It seeks to sustain the West’s historical and cultural core. It flies in the face of the postmodern, multicultural progressive worldview dominant among our elites. Mr. Savage’s real crime is not “fomenting hatred”; it’s fomenting a muscular conservatism.
Ms. Smith’s actions are a blatant attempt to criminalize and delegitimize conservative ideas. The Left has been engaged in such repressive activities for decades—the latest manifestation in America being the attempt to restore the Fairness Doctrine. Today, it is Mr. Savage. Tomorrow, it will be Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and maybe even FOX News and National Review. Liberals are seeking to define the parameters of “respectable” public discourse—and more conservatives will soon find themselves marginalized.
Leftists understand the key fact of politics: ideas matter. They determine how people behave—and how they vote. If one controls the terms of the debate, eventually one controls the argument. Since the 1960s, campus radicals have embarked on a “long march through the institutions.” Their goal has been to transform America by achieving cultural hegemony. Liberals have captured the universities, the public schools, the media, Hollywood, television and the arts. They now set the terms of debate, and are on the verge of fulfilling their revolutionary project. Our culture has become immersed in the acid of political correctness, which is slowly dissolving the West’s social foundations. For the multicultural Left, Mr. Savage’s traditionalist conservatism is an anathema. Therefore, he must be crushed.
Since the 9/11 attacks, there has emerged an unholy alliance between the secular Left and radical Islamists. Again, Mr. Galloway is a useful example. He is a trendy socialist, who supports abortion, gay rights and Cuba’s atheist Marxist dictatorship. In other words, he stands for everything Islam is supposed to be against: He is anti-God, anti-family and anti-life. Yet, that has not stopped Islamists—in Britain and around the world—from embracing him. In the matters that count, he is one of them. From closing Guantanamo Bay to withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan to appeasing Iran’s genocidal mullahs—Leftists, such as Mr. Galloway, George Soros or the Huffington Post crowd have formed a common front with Islamists: They want America to surrender in the war on terror.
Mr. Savage doesn’t. He is willing to stand up to our mortal enemies—publicly, vociferously and unapologetically. For this, the Left and Islamist lobby groups, like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have been trying to destroy his career for years. Ms. Smith has allowed Britain’s Home Office to be influenced by Islamic pressure groups. Her ban on Mr. Savage is moral equivalency of the worst kind. She may think it will mollify Britain’s vocal Muslim militants, but it will not.
The Home Secretary has now shown that the most fundamental principles—freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience—whose roots lie in the Magna Carta can be jettisoned in the name of appeasement. Her ban is a symptom of civilizational paralysis and moral decay. It signifies that Britain is no longer willing to uphold its venerable, cherished principles; Britain prefers the false comforts of political correctness to the hard obligations of freedom. Mr. Savage is the latest victim, but he won’t be the last.
Conservatives must rally to his side. His fight is our fight.
-Jeffrey T. Kuhner is president of the Edmund Burke Institute and a columnist at The Washington Times.
Britain is targeting one of America’s most popular hosts. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith released a blacklist with the names of 16 foreigners—including Mr. Savage—who are banned from entering Britain.
The average American might ask: So what? British society has been in decline for decades, plagued by soccer hooliganism, pervasive alcoholism, soaring crime, sexual permissiveness, growing ethnic and racial balkanization and overall social debauchery. If you combine this with the country’s notoriously bad cuisine, weather and manners, then being banned may not seem like a punishment but a blessing. I for one always avoid visiting England whenever possible. Hence, what’s the big deal? Mr. Savage is not missing much.
But the ban has profound societal repercussions. It is an assault on freedom of speech. Mr. Savage’s name appeared alongside mass murderers, Islamic butchers and white supremacists: Russian skinheads serving prison sentences for killing 20 migrant workers, a leader of Hamas, a known Hezbollah terrorist, a prominent neo-Nazi and a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard.
“I think it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it’s a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won’t be welcome in this country,” Ms. Smith said. “Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can’t live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what’s more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded.”
Ms. Smith is wrong. Mr. Savage is a peaceful, law-abiding citizen, who has never committed a violent act or crime. He has never called for violence or rationalized the use of force against innocent civilians. On the contrary, he believes in democracy and respects the rule of law and constitutional government. Mr. Savage embodies the very “standards” and “values” Ms. Smith claims she is so determined to enforce. To lump him with known gangsters, terrorist killers and neo-fascist thugs is grotesque. It also demonstrates a dangerous disconnect from reality. Islamic radicals and Russian skinheads champion death and destruction; violent extremism is their way of life—in fact, for them, it is the purpose and meaning of life. Mr. Savage, however, practices the very opposite: He makes his living by engaging in democratic debate, marshaling ideas and opinions through the public (and often raucous) medium of talk radio. Mr. Savage is being punished for no other reason than exercising his fundamental right to free speech.
In a pathetic attempt to justify her ban, Ms. Smith claimed that Mr. Savage is a far right-winger, who peddles bigotry and intolerance. Therefore, he presents a danger to public order. “This is 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,” she told the British Broadcasting Corporation.
By this standard there are millions of Britons who would not qualify to enter other countries. East London has become a haven for Islamist clerics preaching the virtues of jihad and Sharia law. Moreover, prominent radio hosts, such as the fiery anti-war parliamentarian, George Galloway, not only regularly praise Hezbollah and Hamas, but spout vile anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist propaganda. Mr. Galloway was on Saddam Hussein’s payroll, and openly rationalizes suicide bombing attacks on Israelis. He defends Iran’s drive to acquire a nuclear bomb. He publicly supports Syria’s fascist dictator, Bashir Assad. Yet, our government has refused to nix his frequent speaking tours to the U.S., despite the harmful impact his inflammatory, hate-filled rhetoric may have on the Jewish community. If Ms. Smith wants to crack down on those “fomenting hatred,” then all she has to do is look across the aisle in the House of Commons. Instead, Mr. Galloway is hailed as a hero by large segments of the British liberal elite.
The double-standard is obvious—and odious: in their view, Mr. Galloway is a principled firebrand, while Mr. Savage is a dangerous lunatic. The very opposite is true. Mr. Galloway represents the civilizational self-loathing and nihilism at the heart of the modern Left. Anti-war liberals, like Mr. Galloway, are driven by ideological hatred—hatred of capitalism, America and Judeo-Christian morality. They argue the West is irredeemably racist, sexist and imperialist. Consumed by guilt and self-hatred, they champion the appeasement of Islamic fascism because deep down they believe the West deserves to be defeated; it is a culture that is not worth preserving or defending.
The Savage ban is not simply about free speech. It is also an intellectual power grab by the Left, a deliberate effort to muzzle dissenting voices on the Right. Mr. Savage is a conservative populist, who believes in small government, low taxes and family values. More than any other major radio host, he understands that modern conservatism is based on the defense of national sovereignty, distinct cultural identity and Burkean traditionalism; that America is not only a special and unique country, but represents a special and unique civilization—one that must be protected at all costs. His flinty opposition to social liberalism, massive illegal immigration and Islamist radicalism enrages the Left for one basic reason: It seeks to sustain the West’s historical and cultural core. It flies in the face of the postmodern, multicultural progressive worldview dominant among our elites. Mr. Savage’s real crime is not “fomenting hatred”; it’s fomenting a muscular conservatism.
Ms. Smith’s actions are a blatant attempt to criminalize and delegitimize conservative ideas. The Left has been engaged in such repressive activities for decades—the latest manifestation in America being the attempt to restore the Fairness Doctrine. Today, it is Mr. Savage. Tomorrow, it will be Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and maybe even FOX News and National Review. Liberals are seeking to define the parameters of “respectable” public discourse—and more conservatives will soon find themselves marginalized.
Leftists understand the key fact of politics: ideas matter. They determine how people behave—and how they vote. If one controls the terms of the debate, eventually one controls the argument. Since the 1960s, campus radicals have embarked on a “long march through the institutions.” Their goal has been to transform America by achieving cultural hegemony. Liberals have captured the universities, the public schools, the media, Hollywood, television and the arts. They now set the terms of debate, and are on the verge of fulfilling their revolutionary project. Our culture has become immersed in the acid of political correctness, which is slowly dissolving the West’s social foundations. For the multicultural Left, Mr. Savage’s traditionalist conservatism is an anathema. Therefore, he must be crushed.
Since the 9/11 attacks, there has emerged an unholy alliance between the secular Left and radical Islamists. Again, Mr. Galloway is a useful example. He is a trendy socialist, who supports abortion, gay rights and Cuba’s atheist Marxist dictatorship. In other words, he stands for everything Islam is supposed to be against: He is anti-God, anti-family and anti-life. Yet, that has not stopped Islamists—in Britain and around the world—from embracing him. In the matters that count, he is one of them. From closing Guantanamo Bay to withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan to appeasing Iran’s genocidal mullahs—Leftists, such as Mr. Galloway, George Soros or the Huffington Post crowd have formed a common front with Islamists: They want America to surrender in the war on terror.
Mr. Savage doesn’t. He is willing to stand up to our mortal enemies—publicly, vociferously and unapologetically. For this, the Left and Islamist lobby groups, like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have been trying to destroy his career for years. Ms. Smith has allowed Britain’s Home Office to be influenced by Islamic pressure groups. Her ban on Mr. Savage is moral equivalency of the worst kind. She may think it will mollify Britain’s vocal Muslim militants, but it will not.
The Home Secretary has now shown that the most fundamental principles—freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience—whose roots lie in the Magna Carta can be jettisoned in the name of appeasement. Her ban is a symptom of civilizational paralysis and moral decay. It signifies that Britain is no longer willing to uphold its venerable, cherished principles; Britain prefers the false comforts of political correctness to the hard obligations of freedom. Mr. Savage is the latest victim, but he won’t be the last.
Conservatives must rally to his side. His fight is our fight.
-Jeffrey T. Kuhner is president of the Edmund Burke Institute and a columnist at The Washington Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
