[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Talk Radio Watch Title: Who’s Afraid of Michael Savage? Freedom of speech is under assault. Neither from America nor from Britain is the torch of liberty steadfastly raised high above the heads of the real enemies of freedom: the Islamist jihadists who are in a death-struggle with Western civilization. Instead, from both nations, the whimpering policy of mollification emerges. Leaders in America and the United Kingdom are bent on a path of moral equivocation and are offering a sacrificial lamb to quiet the angry Muslim gods: conservative radio talk-show host Michael Savage must be slain on the altar of appeasement in order to quell the violent Islamist storms on the horizon. Since May 2009, the feisty, combative and often irreverent conservative commentator has been placed on a list that bans him from traveling to the United Kingdom. What was his crime? He spoke—on the air, in America, to the 8 million listeners who are the devoted fans of his daily show, The Savage Nation. According to then–British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith some of Mr. Savage’s statements are so heinous that he deserves the same treatment that the British government bestows on terrorists, members of the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis: no entry onto British soil. Mr. Savage’s comments are a threat to public security; his words might lead others to commit violent acts, foster hatred and could spark “intercommunity violence,” according to a press release by the British government. Even the newly-elected coalition government led by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is upholding the ban. Mr. Savage has been vociferously challenging this: he has embarked on a legal battle against Ms. Smith and the British government; he is willing to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. In Mr. Savage’s book, Banned in Britain, he reveals British government records that show he is targeted because the home office sought to create “balance” to an enemies list that consisted mostly of Muslim extremists. "We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists," said a restricted draft obtained by Mr. Savage in the course of his legal proceedings. Hence, the real reason Mr. Savage is being vilified has very little to do with anything he said or did. In fact, the British government has not identified which specific statements he made that they find so objectionable. This is akin to the lettres de cachet used for centuries in the French legal system whereby individuals could be denounced and imprisoned for serious crimes on flimsy grounds and without the full details of their crimes being disclosed to the accused. Even an elementary school student in Britain knows that the British pioneered a legal system that was once the envy of the world precisely because it was based on higher standards of proof and prosecution. This begets the fact that the case is not ultimately about speech; it is about appeasing the Muslim community. This is the politics of jihad, stupid. This new politics of jihad is predicated on the notion that Muslim terrorists are not all wrong—that is, their grievances are rooted in legitimate, historical Anglo-American foreign policy errors. Thus, by picking on Mr. Savage, the British are trying to demonstrate that their concern over Islamist terrorists entering their nation is not a form of ethnic profiling but is an adherence to a larger, impartial justice that can even assail a well-known American personality. In so doing, the Brits are following the lead of the world superpower under the direction of Barack Obama. Mr. Obama’s presidency has been marked by a meandering, inchoate foreign policy consisting of appeasing America’s Islamist enemies and alienating our traditional allies. His foreign policy regarding the Muslim world is based on the false notion that if only America apologizes for past errors and shows great humility and respect for Islamic traditions, the scourge of terrorism will be defeated. Thus, in the larger scheme of things, Mr. Savage’s individual liberties are merely a casualty of war. The case of Mr. Savage marks a low point in the history of the English-speaking peoples. Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, the Anglo-American alliance defended democracy, liberty and free markets against communists and fascists. Yet in the upside down world of 2010, the Anglo-American alliance is in tatters and individual liberty is imperiled. Winston Churchill, the formidable, ever-eloquent British war-time leader and President Franklin D. Roosevelt taught the European dictators, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, that they were no match for Anglo might. After World War II, the Anglo-American alliance even drew a line in the sand against the grasping Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, halting his grab for territory at the “Iron Curtain” that would divide Eastern and Western Europe until the early 1990s. And following the attack on American soil on September 11, 2001, then-President George W. Bush and then-Prime Minister Tony Blair again showed the world that America and Britain would act in concert to defend Western civilization from the tyrannical Islamist terrorist organizations around the globe that despise democracy and freedom. Yet, since he assumed office Mr. Obama has done all he can to render asunder the “special relationship” between the two nations—despite the fact that more British young men and women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside American forces than any other allied nation. In the early days of his presidency, Mr. Obama, resenting the British imperial legacy, returned a bust of Winston Churchill to the British government that had been given to America as a gift; he offended then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown with his inconsiderate gifts and snubs and he angered the British public by incessantly demonizing British Petroleum during the gulf oil spill. A June 9 report in The London Times included a poll indicating that 22 percent of respondents in Britain and America said Mr. Obama is anti-British; 64 percent of British respondents and 47 percent of Americans surveyed said he has damaged relations between the two nations. It is no wonder Mr. Cameron recently announced that his country will pull British troops out of Afghanistan in 2015—essentially signaling this will be done, whether America likes it or not. In war, there is always the danger that in fighting our enemies we become just like them and eventually blur all distinctions. The British are demonstrating that in combating Islamist jihadists, they have lost their moral compass. This ban on Mr. Savage is essentially more akin to the action of a Muslim theocracy than a freedom-loving pioneer of democracy, individual liberty and free speech. In fighting the war on terror, the Brits are now mirroring the policies of their sworn enemy. And in refusing to stand for the right of a free man to speak and travel freely, the Obama administration is endorsing this foolhardy appeasement. Thus, Mr. Savage now stands for liberty against the British jihadists. Their American partners in conciliation are choosing to turn a blind eye to the plight of a law-abiding American citizen instead of using this as a test case to show the world that the traditional Anglo-American way is the more enlightened and noble path.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Chuckles.,..that "borders, language, culture" thingie can be a real bitch when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
Savage is as entertaining as radio gets. Lots of fun, but if you want to stop him just dangle something that will make more money in front of him.
Badeye has a gay crush on ABBA
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|