Posted on 05/07/2009 6:23:37 AM PDT by shortstop
Why didn’t Hillary or Obama stick up for him?
Michael Savage, the radio talk-show host. When the British home secretary declared him persona non grata, and forbad him to ever enter England, why didn’t the American government stand up for him?
Have you ever heard him?
He’s a guy with a New York City accent and some combination of madness and brilliance that is very entertaining. He yells a lot and hangs up on callers and talks about boats and restaurants and cars.
And his simple motto – borders, language, culture – is the best distillation of what America needs that you’ll find.
He is a conservative, sort of, an irrascible old freedom-loving blowhard who each night talks to a few million Americans. He’s pro-religion, anti-gay, down on illegals, contemptuous of politicians, broadly knowledgable and unwelcome in England.
Why?
Because they don’t have a First Amendment. America doesn’t really have one anymore either, but in England they don’t even pretend. And that left Michael Savage open to the political correctness warriors.
So a few days ago he turned up on a list of murderers, terrorists, bigots and Klansmen – and a whole bunch of Muslims. It turns out that the British government keeps a list of people it won’t let into the country.
Britain can do that because the English Channel is a lot wider than the Rio Grande.
Michael Savage says he never asked for permission to visit, and England says he shouldn’t even try. For things he has said on the radio, things which would seemingly be protected by the freedoms of speech and the press, he is being denied entry.
Let’s think that through.
The government of one of our close allies is denying an American citizen the right of entry – rejecting an American passport – for political reasons. The British government doesn’t like this man’s political views and it is discriminating against him as a result.
A foreign government is punishing someone for exercising in America American freedom of the press.
And the president is silent.
Ditto for the secretary of state.
An American citizen is penalized by a foreign government without reason or precedent and the American government – responsible for protecting the rights of its citizens abroad – is absolutely silent.
That is a double standard.
But not much of a surprise.
The Democrats who control Washington stand up for every Third World journalist taking heat for doing his job, but when a foreign power sticks it to an American broadcaster for doing his, nary a peep is heard.
Because he is a conservative.
Because freedom of speech is in the optional portion of the Democrat Constitution.
He’s threatening to sue, and listeners are vowing never to visit Great Britain or buy its products, but one guy shouting into a microphone is not going to get England to budge. His only consolation is that the controversy will drive people to his program in droves.
Many people will find there something they enjoy, a perspective that validates them. The home secretary will have cut her nose off to spite her face. In the end, Michael Savage will be better off for this, and he may even have a court order overturning the visitation ban.
The bad news in all of this is the precedent set overseas and here at home.
Our silent president and secretary of state have acquiesced to the foreign criminalization of American speech, and our politically correct ally has allowed itself to be used as an instrument of domestic oppression of political comment.
How long before another nation decides that it doesn’t like what an American commentator has to say? If Iran takes offense to a newscast, or if Russia doesn’t like an editorial, will the Obama government follow this precedent and silently capitulate to foreign meddling?
I hope not.
But I suspect so.
Because the silence of official Washington is telling.
This is a joke article right?
You expect the messiah to respect 1st amendment rights?
>Why didn’t Hillary or Obama stick up for him?
Because they agree with the ban.
Because he approves and his people probably secretly asked for it through back channels.
I am no fan of Savage but this stinks to high heaven.
If came right down to it..Obama would put the first bullet in his head.
On another thread, they laid out a very good reason -- because this is a brick in the foundation for bringing back our own Fairness Doctrine. One poster went so far as to suggest that the only way one American could be on England's list would be that it was a suggestion from Washington.
"cause he's a Jooooo.
They’d like to do the same thing to him, and several others, here.
What? Is the author an idiot? Becuz Oh Bow Ma would also like to deny M. Savage entry to the U.S., were he not already here.
But once Zero gets those re-edumacation camps going, Savage, Limbaugh, Beck, et al, will be the first to be "placed" there.
Good perspective on the Savage saga, also saw where O’Reilly will tackle this issue on his show tonight, guess one ban is over while another one is just beginning.
Another good question is why FR seems more interested in Bristol and Levi's teenage angst, than in this attack on Savage by the anti-Americans.
Those threads are embarrassing and unseemly for this board.
If Obama were to say anything about Savage, it woud likely be “HA ha!”
Well, I believe in something called sovereignty, so England can tell whomever they want that they aren’t welcome.
Also, I am sure that the article is factually incorrect that this is the first time an American has been denied entry to England for political reasons, after all wasn’t Rev. Fred Phelps denied entry back in February for “spreading hate”?
They are talking about the UK you know. There are no First Amendment rights over there.
Well, according to the US Department of Homeland Security, he’s likely a domestic terrorist (for merely expressing normal right-leaning views). Why would our administration stand up for a guy who, officially, is undesirable?
The point is, someone in the Obummer Administration told the British government that Savage was a risk. Savage is not on the air in GB.
“They are talking about the UK you know. There are no First Amendment rights over there.”
Yes I do know.
B.O. does not respect our 1st amendment rights, why should he care about what or how world governments do in their treatment U.S. citizens?
B.O. wants the world courts to rule over our U.S. military personnel so anytime world governments can stick it to, especially conservative U.S. citizens he is all for it.
Just look at the author who went to Africa to research B.O.’s birth certificate and how he was treated.
They dont have the testes to try it on him here at home, yet, at least since fascism and hate thought crimes have yet to take hold, so they float the trial balloon overseas as a template first in concert with like minded, censorig foreigners. Government's hand in this is very clear.
Just like we knew the government was going after Joe The Plumber.
Their actions can always be sensed.
If, say, Ed Schultz or some other lefty talker had been banned, zer0 would be all over it like a fly on sh*t.
Savage's biggest problem is that he is super-annoying, not that he is some sort of dangerous Conservative thinker. If he wants to be heard in Britain, where they do have free speech, it will just have to be from a soap box in the park.
It does the Conservative movement no good, IMHO, that the ball is carried by entertainers who have made a damn good think of loudly preaching (or in Savage's case, screaming) at a choir that already agrees with them.
Savage? Could be replaced in a heartbeat by any number of over-65 cab drivers from Brooklyn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.