Savage Nation
Posted on May 5th, 2009
by Freddy Gray |
|
I’m not generally given to outbursts of patriotic fervor about Britain. But I felt a glimmer of pride when I first heard that my homeland had blackballed Michael Savage. Good for us, I thought. Why should we not tell that brash loudmouth war-lover to get lost? I felt the same way when we sealed our borders against another nefarious publicity-addict, Geert Wilders.
Then, however, I read Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s preachingly PC statement explaining the decision. And I felt a bit sick.
Coming to the UK is a privilege and I refuse to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life,” Secretary Smith said. “Therefore, I will not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views as I want them to know that they are not welcome here.
“The government opposes extremism in all its forms and I am determined to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country. This is the driving force behind tighter rules on exclusions for unacceptable behavior.
Nevermind, for now, the authoritarian tone and Stalinist language. This talk of “unacceptable behaviour” is from a woman who has serially ripped off taxpayers with absurd expense claims . Among other frauds, Smith has awarded her husband–a man who was recently exposed for paying to view porn films with the public purse–a 40, 000 pound-a-year job as her assistant, and neglected to declare it.
We should keep out the puerile and idiotic Mr Savage, by all means, but let’s not let Jacqui Smith seize the moral high ground. Kick her out, too, and her masturbating husband.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Thank you for reinforcing a basic belief of our Founding Fathers belief in Free Speech and bolstering my pride for my ancestors defeating the British and their Hessian hirelings. As to your opinion of Savage? Well Brits have a delightful phrase I’ll now use: Sod Off!
Smooth move, Ex-Lax. Sometimes, you have to make your choices between Satan, and sinful humans who are on to the right things, albeit in an often tainted manner. To think that even for a moment you thought this beast of a woman was on the right track. How the hell did you get access to a conservative blog?
We should keep out the puerile and idiotic Mr Savage, by all means
Is that a good enough reason to keep him from entering the country? I’ve never heard Michael Savage but as far as I know he hasn’t committed any violent crimes so I see no reason why you should agree with the Labour government on this.
From canada.
What did he say or do that was extremist or hateful. ?
Is this control of opinions in reality?
Keeping people out of nations like these for opinions is very importent new development.
if this man is banned then why not everyone who listens to his show or puts it on the air.
Should Rupert Murdock be banned?
Should women be in positions of power in the Western world?
Poor old England. the great story in intelligent leadership in civilization is truly coming to a end.
I say because they rejected Christ and even God.
And what exactly is wrong with masturbating? I’m not clear where this website fits in among the various fractures of the Republican party, but I thought it had some allegiance to the idea that people ought to be as free as is practical in a functioning society. To see the ultimate victimless crime demonized here is very disappointing - especially the insinuation that good people don’t do “that.” Has the author been tapping his feet in many airport bathrooms lately?
We should keep out the puerile and idiotic Mr Savage, by all means
The entire NuLab govt has proven to be consistently “puerile
and idiotic”-what harm can one more “puerile and idiotic person” do ? Certainly less harm than the hordes of criminals and benefits grabbers that you apparently welcome.
Ah now, lads…
If Britain has a law allowing refusal of entry to extremists, then it seems only fair that it shouldn’t just be applied to Islamic ones.
Michael Savage is a fool, just the same as Britain’s George Galloway was, but I don’t think that this kind of thing is ever justified except in cases of direct incitement.
If Savage were (non-facetiously) telling people to shoot and kill others and had a habit of conspiring with people in meetings about how to do it, then I guess I could see keeping him out. Short of that, we’re back to a free speech issue, and Britain loses there, big time.
Fighting for freedom of speech is ‘purile and idiotic’ to a dolt like you.
If you really are a Brit, what business do you have meddling with American conservative issues?
You seem to be confused as to wheather the necessary hard line that Savage has to take is worth it.
Well, if your once-illustrious homeland is any indication, you have already knuckled under to the Islams.
As Savage once said, England’s only real hope lies not in nannies but in it’s soccer thugs.
At least they had the goolies to try to stop the flood of poison.
But that was years ago, and now that you actually recognize the barbaric Islamic laws in seperate courts, you show that you have already capulated, and it is too late.
As for me, and millions of other Americans, we already started one revolution to oppose tyranny, and we’re not averse to starting another.
Blogs like this one stand as stirring reminders of Britain’s tradition of liberty.
BANNING SAVAGE IS INTERFERING WITH HIS FREE SPEECH WHICH IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF TWO INTERNATIONAL LAWS THAT THE UK HELPED AUTHOR.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Article 19
European Convention on Human Rights - Article 10
THEY BOTH SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT A COUNTRY CAN NOT INTERFER WITH A PERSONS OPINION.
THAT PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO FREE EXPRESSION WHICH BANNING SAVAGE INTERFERS WITH HIS ABILITY TO DO SO.
I’m definitely not a fan of Michael Savage but this lady is over the top. She has ravenous Imams over there stoning women and plotting bombs yet she wishes to withhold an American who finds a problem with that??
“Fighting for freedom of speech is ‘purile and idiotic’ to a dolt like you.
If you really are a Brit, what business do you have meddling with American conservative issues?”
There is a lot of truth in that. I fear the American lust for liberty has been diluted by the rapid influx of 1st generation immigrants who no longer come here to be American.
Michael Savage has long advocated violence against his enemies. For example, here are some quotes from Savage from a story about him in Salon in 2003 :
He muses about launching preemptive nuclear strikes on the Middle East (”I wish to God the hatches were open and the missiles were flying!”), suggests gunning down illegal immigrants (”If we had a government, we’d blow them out of the desert with airplanes!”), dreams of dispatching with “commies, pinkos and perverts” and other undesirables (”I say round them up and hang ‘em high!”) and even paraphrases a remark attributed to Nazi leader Hermann Goering (”When I hear someone’s in the civil rights business, I oil up my AR-15!”)
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/03/05/savage/index.html
My first impression was that black-balling Savage was a way to put a PC face on laws that will keep out and eventually evict the muslim extremists that want to make all of Britain part of the ummah.
I’d imagine Savage himself probably sees through the smokescreen of a government’s moral stand against a political entertainer. There are real threats and real radicals that want an end to British civilization, but no progressives anywhere are in a position to be honest about the conservation of nation and heritage, so they have to describe their positions in PC terms like “hate speech” and include an unabashed anti-muslim in the same category as muslim extremists.
This website tends to hate jews as much as it hates america, and it is refreshing to see some common sense emerge, even if it took a crap on the UK to bring it to the fore.
So much effort seems to be directed at silencing dissenting opinions, and identifying and dividing the “factions” of conservatives and republicans.
I can take Michael Savage in small doses, but I have enough exposure to know that you will get a much different picture of him if you only read transcripts from Media Matters.
His comments are obviously (in my opinion) directed towards increasing listenership, rather than a true desire to start unnecessary wars, or kill innocent people.
How many of the good people that run this blog would go nuts if BUSH were asked to speak at a university, but basically have no problem with Iran developing a nuke, and their expressed desire to wipe out nations that are (sometimes at least) our allies?
Take a survey for yourself. Go back over the last three months of this blog, and count the number of times some conservative or republican faction has been told to “shut up”, and count the times a liberal (to include New York Times, Huffington, Daily Kos, Media Matters, et al) has been told the same. Also, count the times these have been cited as providing GOOD information, then count the times that RUSH, HANNITY, SAVAGE, et al, are cited as valuable contributors.
JACK TRACEY made the guess that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith might really be targeting Islamist fomentors. By the same logic, we might postulate that among the people who run TAC, more than PJB might be actual conservatives.
TomT,
I think everyone should be allowed to speak everywhere, unless they’re linked to actual crimes, in which case it might make sense to keep them out of the country, for safety’s sake.
This is why the US’s denial of a visa (at first I wrote Visa, but if we denied those to people, ever, our economy wouldn’t suck so much) to Narandra Modi, a radical, vigilantism-linked Indian Politician didn’t bother me, nor does Canada’s denial of entry to George Galloway, who gave money to Hamas when it was illegal to do so.
I am as anti-Bush as can be, but I don’t want anyone interrupting his free speech. He’s an American citizen. He can talk anywhere he wants, except in my house. I think that you might fall into the trap of thinking that, because your ideological opponents are wrong, then they must also be inconsistent. They may or they may not be.
MattSwartz - My perception is that you and I are nearly identical on many political, moral, and theological areas.
I had not intended to accuse anybody of inconsistency. The term “snarky” refers to a lack of honor and integrity, with a feeling of moral and intellectual superority to one’s audience, and a justification of dishonesty while contemptously pretending to agree with the target audience.
Many of the people here see themselves as “snarky”. Dishonest people who are highly partisan, may seem to some as inconsistent. But I think I see a great consistency on this blog.
I did not intend my comments to include people like you or Jack Tracey, or, any of the people honestly attempting to sort out (or represent) conservatism. In fact, I was feeling gratified that so many of these seemed to wish to respond to people like Freddie Gray.
Since when is the nonextremist groups the homosexuals that are destroying the entire act of marriage?And the extremist are the republicans?
The losers I believe would be the other so-called conservative talk radio hosts–Rush, Sean, Fox News, and other shameless hypocrites in that group. I am not part of the Savage Nation but I think it’s a shame when these same talk show hosts are lambasting the Democrats for attempting to bring back the “fairness doctrine.”
These hypocrites should put aside any jealousy and fight for the same right. It’s a matter of when it happens to them, not if . . . then what would they say or do?
Free Speech also applies to dissenting listeners who call the savage nation. They never can get the second sentence in. I am also shocked that people still call that show. That’s All