First They Came For The Savages
Author | jacob | Posted on | May 6, 2009 | 37 Comments
Let me see. Freedom of Speech — the liberals used to be real hot about this one. I guess it does not apply in merry ol’ England anymore or on American College Campuses. Hilarious. Whatever happened to the liberal battle cry of Voltaire: “I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it”? Now, anyone who disagrees with the liberals is branded with having spoken ‘hate-speech.’ This is a wonderful Orwellian phrase don’t you think?
Gordon Brown’s government protects the right of Pakistani Iman’s living in England to call for the death’s of millions. But now, this same government lumps Michael Savage in with Russian Skin-heads who have killed over dozen people. Savage is also lumped in with Hamas thugs who have killed children by bashing their heads in with rifle butts. Savage is a radio talk show host who has never endorsed violence of any sort. This is fact, otherwise he would have been yanked off the airwaves years ago. Look it up, the law is clear on this. Savage is a study in controlled rage, and I personally tire of him quickly. But, he has the right to be as he is.
The west is drifting into Fascism. Quietly we go into this dark because we have the modern equivalents of bread and circuses — welfare and TV, and, we are still rich, fat and at ease. This acquiescence to the abrogation of our rights is a product of our culture becoming lazy, and dependent upon the wisdom those in power. This is a recipe for future disaster.
I find it unreal the level of hypocrisy in our modern governments. This list of persona-nongrata always used to have those who actually had committed violence. Now it appears to becoming a list that includes those who views differ from those in power. I am sure Savage will appreciate the spike in his listenership. He typically has 12 Million people listening to his show on any given night. This is now sure to rise. The question that remains is under what realistic pretext was Savage banned: he is angry?!?
The desire to ban conservative speech from the public square is most apparent on American College Campuses. Recently Tom Tancredo was shouted down and his talk interrupted by the local members of the liberal thought police. Since they apparently could not out-wit, out-logic or at the very least politely disagree with Tancredo they stormed the stage yelling like crazed banshees and unfurled a sign. So much for defending the rights of others to be heard.
Then there is the pie throwing at other conservative speakers like Ann Coulter, Mike Adams, and others. Such erudite thought, I don’t like what you say so I will throw things. The monkeys at the zoo throw poop when agitated. The liberals are operating at the same level here.
On can only laugh, sadly, at the habit of college’s not allowing conservative speakers to speak on the campus at all citing worries about incitement to violence or offending someone. These same colleges then give an audience to the likes of Ahmadinejad and porn industry workers. For some reason, the arguments of the campus authorities ring hollow here.
The left, in its desire to silence its critics, is on the road to totalitarianism. Just because you think you are correct and earnest in your views, does not mean those who oppose your views think they are less correct or are less earnest in their beliefs. A free society must tolerate the speech of all voices. Fearing your goals of achieving your vision of Utopia will not be reached because the voices of opposition may turn the lowing masses against your ideals, is no excuse to silence those voices. The alternative should be inconceivable.
UPDATE:
“They forget how they called people treasonous who actually had the nerve to say that invading Iraq wasn’t necessarily the best idea.”
Classic liberal red-herring. Name calling by private citizens is equated with government sanctioned censorship. Also there is a huge difference between being called a name and being shouted down and driven from the public square. Oh, by the way — Sanity you are an unpatriotic, treasonous, dog. I look forward to your next pitiful diatribe.
Comments
37 Responses to “First They Came For The Savages”
Leave a Reply
Recent Musings
- jacob: ACT, Using a politician’s front lawn as a canine comfort station is PERFECT! This is exactly the kind of...
- jacob: Kevin, So two ’stupids’ make a smart, or is it two ‘over-the-tops’ makes a reasoned?...
- Kevin: o my goodness, you are so crazy
- Brian Withnell: I’m not so sure I’d give him as much credit squiddy. The fuller context is an address to...
- ACTivist: “I thought my tone was rather tepid in comparison?” Tepid is for bath water and some beers.
- ACTivist: Looks like Rust is up to his normal “piss on you” routine. Greason following suit is no...
- Kevin: jacob, “Either this guys is pure stupid, is dangerous beyond belief, or just doesn’t read what his...
- Joe Budzinski: “Case of schnapps, and my laptop.” Yes, that’s life in the big city.
- Joe Budzinski: HA!
- Had Enough: There’s a ticket waiting for you at the airport.
Firearms Training
Blogroll
- Ace of Spades HQ
- American Daughter
- Black Velvet Bruce Li
- BlogNetNews
- BlueRidgeForum
- Bulletproof Monk
- Digital Camel
- Donny Ferguson Online
- Equality Loudoun
- Florida Cracker
- HoodaThunk?
- Hot Air
- Jihad Watch
- Just Like The Nut
- MonkeyWatch
- Not Larry Sabato
- Old NVTH Blog
- Spank That Donkey
- Straight White Guy
- The Oath
- The Other McCain
- Too Conservative
- Two Conservatives
- United Conservatives of Virginia
- VB Dems
- Virginia political blogs
- Virginia Virtucon
- Vivian Paige
Global Warming scam
- An Honest Climate Debate
- Canada Free Press
- Climate Audit
- Climate Change Science
- Climate Research News
- Climate Resistance
- Climate Science
- Climate Skeptic
- CO2 Science
- Daily Tech
- Dr Benny Peiser
- Falsehoods in Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth
- Fight Global Warming Lies
- Global Climate Scam
- Global Warming Hoax
- Heartland Institute
- Inhofe Press Blog
- Junk Science
- Science & Public Policy Institute
- Skeptics Global Warming
Topics
Tags
Resources
ODBA, etc
Find stuff here
Message to Democrats
Good Guy Award
NICE WORK, AMERICA
U.S. Apology Tour 2008-12
Fight Mass Hysteria
FROM INSANITY!
Quote of the New Year
Ecosystem
May 6th, 2009 @ 9:11 am
I have to say, I rather dislike the notion of Michael Savage somehow being the poster-child for victims of intolerance …
But the rest of your thesis is spot-on; this culture is quickly becoming fascist. If you offend the orthodoxy (which has little to do with what most Americans believe), you’ll quickly find yourself viciously attacked from 360 degrees, to shut you up and marginalize you, with the media and pop culture icons not only not defending free speech, but are usually the ones leading or cheerleading the attacks, or at least willingly carrying the water.
Now the left, with its new-found sense of power, will legislate yet more restrictions on what you can believe or say. Funding for local hate-crime prosecution passed the House the other day. Can anyone please explain how “Hate Crime” legislation is even Constitutional?
How long before “Party Memebership” and “Community Service” (performed under the watchful eye of ACORN) are requirements to go to college, to get a job, to advance in your career?
May 6th, 2009 @ 9:32 am
Squiddy,
“I have to say, I rather dislike the notion of Michael Savage somehow being the poster-child for victims of intolerance …”
I understand, but don’t you see, it is the Doc Savage types who will be the first ones targeted. Savage is abbrasive, but if you can filter out the rage he actually does provide some cogent analysis.
May 6th, 2009 @ 9:39 am
Another thing you Republicans like to do is find something about yourselves that you don’t like and claim the other side is that thing. Here it’s hilarious that the fascists are calling the left fascists. They forget how they called people treasonous who actually had the nerve to say that invading Iraq wasn’t necessarily the best idea. And let’s find out what library books they read! It might be about gay penguins!
The reason many people feel like “throwing pies” at folks like Ann Coulter is because all they do is scream “liberals are bad, bad, bad”. They add absolutely nothing intellectual to the conversations and after a while, you feel like you do when your young child is crying and screaming and carrying on all day. Eventually you yell back, tell him or her to shut up and go to their room.
No, it’s not a “textbook” reaction on how to treat your children, but you can only take so much of the incessant blabbering. You want to scream back, “Can you please, just shut your mean, bigoted, angry pie hole! I’m trying to work here!”
Yes, Voltaire was right, but some overreaction by liberals is to be expected given what they’ve put up with.
May 6th, 2009 @ 9:54 am
“They forget how they called people treasonous who actually had the nerve to say that invading Iraq wasn’t necessarily the best idea.”
Who said this and when, Sanity? Please reference your ascertain.
And your retort is to say why people FEEL like throwing pies? I feel like punching idiots I come across sometimes but to date I haven’t hauled off and done it. Liberals have no self control. Throwing pies is for the circus, which is fitting.
May 6th, 2009 @ 10:18 am
Cathymac, there’s this thing called the “Internet”, and a tool called “Google”. when used properly it can be used to call up many, many examples of what you seek. Ari Fleisher, Rush Limbaugh, you name it! Ann Coulter even has a book that’s all about it!
http://www.internet101.org/
You Republicans like to punch (and shoot and blow up and nuke…) We liberals like to throw pies.
May 6th, 2009 @ 11:04 am
I agree that it is stupid of Great Britain to ban Michael Savage no matter how repugnant his views are, but people are banned from entering the United States for their views all the time, including Cat Stevens, Irish peace activist Damien Moran, Nicaraguan historian Dora María Téllez, British writer Sebastian Horsley, Latin American studies professor Marixa Lasso, Canadian physicist Karim Meziane, Music scholar Nalini Ghuman, Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan, South African professor of Political Science Adam Habib, and the list goes on. The Bush Administration was notorious in banning people because of their views. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a number of cases challenging the exclusion of visitors to the U.S. on ideological grounds:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/exclusion/index.html
Why don’t you write about that, Jacob? Or do you think it is OK for the U.S. to bar people based on ideological grounds but not the U.K.?
May 6th, 2009 @ 11:13 am
Sanity, You are not only obnoxious and snide, but lazy. I won’t research something you claimed to be true, that is your job as author.
Post the quotes and we can go from there.
Republican’s eat pies, clowns throw pies. My personal favorite is cherry, I suppose yours is just a pan of cool whip ready to throw. How boring.
May 6th, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
Since when has the ACLU defended anything American in the last 10 years Zimzo?
Hello? This group will do nothing to support Mr. Savage yet they will support non-Americans to the fullest. So please, use another reference.
BTW: Mr. savage is not “repugnant”, The truth just makes you mad,Cannot argue with the truth.
May 6th, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Marjorie
It seems ACLU defended Ollie North when he got in trouble using the 5th Amendment. Sounds American to me – but I guess that was more than 10 years ago.
If YOUR rights were severely abused legally, you might just find that ACLU would be of help to you.
I don’t know exactly what ACLU can do about the British justice system re Mr. Savage’s problem.
May 6th, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
zimzo,
As far as I am conserned those to characters can say what they want where ever they want to so long it does not involve calling for the killing of someone.
As for why don’t I write about it, I was first of all not aware of it. Second of all they are already being championed by the ACLU, and so have someone writing for them already — and in this case rightfully so if those two do not call for violence.
I heard about Savage and I have seen the left in state run college campuses exclude conservatives for their views. In Britain it is the government doing the excluding of a conservative for his thoughts.
May 6th, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
Sanity,
Are you really incapable of seeing the difference? You are telling me you cannot see the difference between Ann Coulter calling liberals treasonous and the government censoring speech? Or, the more likely senario, you can see the difference but are in the mood to be a horses ass today.
May 6th, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
I don’t recall Rush or Ari Fletcher, or any member of the Bush administration calling anyone treasonous. Ann Coulter, yes. The others – Sanity had to prove it.
May 6th, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
I seem to recall a former senator from Tennessee who also happened to be a former vice president said that Bush “betrayed our country” by supposedly preying on our fears.
I also recall that a senator from Nevada said that the war in Iraq was lost.
Not to mention of course all the accusations that Bush was Hitler and was going to cancel the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Now then, these people weren’t radio talk show hosts or journalists or bloggers, they were all former or current elected officials.
May 6th, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Jacob,
I wasn’t talking about government censorship, I was responding to the comments in your post starting with Tom Tancredo. Sorry that went over your head.
Point is that there are many far-right-wing people who seem to spend all day shouting incoherently about how bad liberals are, and then get surprised when we get tired of it and just want them shutthehellup, at least for a while. Of course, their ears are much smaller and weaker than ours, so sometimes we need a pie.
For less loud right-wingers, a cool whip pie is enough, for louder ones (like Cathymac), a cherry pie, for Ann Coulter, a brick pie isn’t enough.
May 6th, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
I hope someday to meet this Sanity.
May 6th, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
Sanity,
Thank you for making my point.
Most of the censorship is not private but governmental. That is the kind I disagree with.
Turning off the radio is another form of censorship, the kind I practice daily.
The other kind I object to is the shouting down of people. I never agree with this kind either. Sanity, do realize though I seldom agree with you, or zimzo or troll I would never delete or block one of your comments? Do you realize that going to several left wing blogs, Jack, myself and others here have been banned.
Do you see the difference? Or are you that stupid?
May 6th, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
Oh, and Sanity, ‘a brick pie to Ann Coulter’s face’? That only shows me that she has really gotten under your skin. Which shows a pitiable streak. Poor boy.
May 6th, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Sanity, I will ask one more time for a link to a reasonable source that shows anyone in the Bush Admin, or Rush, Hannity, etc using the term treasonous about those that opposed the Iraq War. I know that may be a bit loud for you Sanity, but surely you can come up some credible links, no?
May 6th, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
Sanity, One last thing – why are you listening to talk shows that you disagree with that apparently make you very angry? Like Jacob you too can turn them off.
May 6th, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
This, too , will work itself off. The inevitable result of ANY government that has tried to shut down free speech is an overthrow, or constant violence until the right is restored. Look at history.
The First Amendment was the proverbial “steam venting port” on the pressure cooker….and our Founding Fathers used real genius when they incorporated it into their new Government.
Without it, people grow restless and angry, and with no way to address their government on it’s short sights, will ultimately offer their blood and the blood of their opponents to restore that right.
May 6th, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
zimzo,
While I am not sure about the others, Cat Stevens was banned because he called for the killing of Rushdie.
On February 21, 1989, Yusuf Islam addressed students at Kingston University in London about his conversion to Islam and was asked about the controversy in the Muslim world and the fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie’s execution. He replied, “He must be killed. The Qur’an makes it clear – if someone defames the prophet, then he must die.”
Did you know this? Either way — considering his call for violence does this change your stance with respect to his banishment form the U.S.?
May 6th, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
“This, too , will work itself off. The inevitable result of ANY government that has tried to shut down free speech is an overthrow, or constant violence until the right is restored.”
Cold comfort to the families of those who die overthrowing the tyrants.
May 6th, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
zimzo,
Was Damien Moran, the same Moran who was then part of the Dublin Catholic Worker community, and was one of the five ‘Pitstop Ploughshares’ who did $2.5 million of damage to a Navy C-40A being used to transport cargo through Ireland’s Shannon Airport during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq? That same Damien Moran? OK. He was deported. Would maybe holding him for arrest and making him pay 1/5 of the damages not been a little more just than making him leave?
May 6th, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
zimzo,
The historian, Dora Maria Tellez is this also the same Dora Maria Tellez who was the former guerrilla commander founder of the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS)? That Dora Tellez? Is it OK to expel a guerrilla leader of a communist movement? They did kill more than a few people.
May 6th, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
Moran was acquitted. Cat Stevens/Yusef Islam denied calling for the death of Rushdie. Dora Maria Tellez fought in a revolution against a brutal dictator, then served as Health Minister in the Sandinista regime and last year called Daniel Ortega a dictator. But those are just a few of the many people who have been excluded from the U.S. for ideological reasons. The point is that the U.S. does it all the time so if you are going to get upset about the U.K. banning Savage, you might want to look into what the U.S. does.
May 7th, 2009 @ 12:36 am
zimzo,
‘Moran was acquitted.’
Before or after the deportation incident? If after then it is wrong.
‘Cat Stevens/Yusef Islam denied calling for the death of Rushdie.’
That he denied is nice, I thought it was recorded in a news interview.
‘Dora Maria Tellez fought in a revolution against a brutal dictator, then served as Health Minister in the Sandinista regime and last year called Daniel Ortega a dictator.’
She served under Ortega when he first came to power, and that was not a bunch of boy-scouts he led. As for denouncing Ortega last year – good. Is that enough according to you?
‘The point is that the U.S. does it all the time’
I am against keeping out those who have not committed acts of violence or have not advocated acts of violence. All three of the above have been implicated in some kind of violence — either directly or indirectly. It is not an apples to apples comparison with Savage who is basically an old NY-er with an attitude. You live with 8 million of those. DO we ban the city from traveling? Many inquiring minds in Mississippi want to know.
Moran, if he was acquitted before his deportation deserves an apology, so we probably are in agreement in this case.
You put forth Tellez as ‘an historian’ she is not just ‘an historian’, she was part of a brutal regime. Denouncing the leader of this regime 20 years after the fact is a good start.
Yusef, well the way you tell it sounds like a he said – she said. I don’t remember it that way. Lets agree to disagree.
May 7th, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Moran was “denied entry”, not “deported”. And he never denied what he did – in his own words:
” I let them know that their database was out of date and that it should also read acquitted as an Irish jury had decided unanimously we had a lawful excuse to help save life and property in Iraq.”
So, he was acquitted, for political reasons, by a foreign judiciary. I’m certain that KSM and UBL would be acquitted by some courts in the world; based on that standard, do we now have to allow them in?
And Stevens/Islam comments are pretty thoroughly documented, such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens%27_comments_about_Salman_Rushdie
Or we could just believe zimzo’s assertions, despite no evidence, font of truth that he his.
May 7th, 2009 @ 9:33 am
Squiddy, Zimzo
Thanks Squiddy. So moran did committ a violent act — and was aquitted in a foriegn court. Does that even hold water on our shores. Why was he let go? zimzo, this is a total apples to oranges comparison. Moran committed what is in effect an act of war. Savage just calls people like you scum.
May 7th, 2009 @ 10:10 am
“Cold comfort to the families of those who die overthrowing the tyrants.”
Jack, it wasn’t offered to comfort the families. It was offered to inform the retards who would incorporate it that it will never stand. We will never accept their will of shutting down our right to free speech, and if they do choose that route, they will face the massive consequences.
May 7th, 2009 @ 10:15 am
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
May 7th, 2009 @ 10:32 am
BM,
“We will never accept their will of shutting down our right to free speech, and if they do choose that route, they will face the massive consequences.”
That sounds better, you appeared a bit lackadaisical about the whole issue in #20.
You realise this implies that you are ready to take on the US Army?
May 7th, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Wenn in Amerika sie kommen für die Konservativen, die Liberalen werden nicht schweigt, werden freuen
May 7th, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
Nobody is shutting down free speech. He can say anything he pleases. However, there are now, and always have been, consequences for what people say.
When Michael Weiner (aka Michael Savage) says nutty statments that illegal immigrants are being used as weapons in germ warfare against the United States, he proves himself to be a lunatic and should be treated as such.
I have no sympathy for him, the Klansman or the Westboro Baptist(God Hates Fags), who all have been banned from Great Britain. As far as I’m concerned, they are all equally as offensive. Again, they’re free to say it but society should shun them.
May 8th, 2009 @ 2:49 am
Pretty much of a stretch from the anti-BVBL: “Nobody is shutting down free speech.”
The Brits just told Savage that his “free speech” is unacceptable and have banned him offically in a governmental action. Sounds to me like the only way Savage could get unbanned is to modify his free speech to fit the established parameters of the current Brit government. If that isn’t the shutting down of free speech, what is? Oh, he hasn’t been banned by the U.S.G. yet; so that makes it quite all right. Wait awhile. The Dems up on the Hill are working on that one, using a backdoor approach.
“However, there are now, and always have been consequences for what people say.” And among those consequences are what? Official banning by a government? Shun if you will — a perfectly valid way to fight back. An argument which tends to look the other way with regard to official banning of any kind? No way is that acceptable, even if you hate the person and what he stands for intensely. The only out on that one is if the individual in question has openly advocated illegal violence against persons or against society in general. You’ve got to be very careful with that stuff. One day they could come for you.
May 13th, 2009 @ 12:17 am
Savage’s Revenge?? British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, the individual who placed Michael Savage on the Brit PNG list is under fire. Some have taken out after her for the listing of Savage, including Boris Johnson, Tory Mayor of London, who called Smith’s move an “utterly demented decision.” Others, particularly high- level police officials, are after her because of the increase in criminal recidivism with which the police have to deal, largely, they claim, because of the failure of the Home Secretary’s office to come down hard on crime.
Finally, the Labour Government of PM Brown has been rocked by public anger over the leaking of a long list of personal expenses charged to the taxpayer by Labour members of Parliament (plus a few Torys). Although much of this stuff is technically allowed by law, a lot of it seems to be far over the edge and, therefore, the cause for a growing scandal. Jacqui Smith is one of those under serious fire for a wide range of purchases deemed unacceptable by many in the public. This includes the discovery that she and her husband had charged pornographic movies to the official account.
The most recent scuttlebutt is that PM Brown, whose party is trailing badly in recent polls, may have to sacrifice a few of his ministers in a snap Cabinet reshuffle in order to mitigate the effects of this scandal, which is especially bad for Brown because of the current national credit crunch and other Brit economic woes. Current speculation in London is that Jacqui Smith is high on the list of those who may be forced to step down.
Michael Savage must be enjoying all this.
May 13th, 2009 @ 6:16 am
Wolv,
Ah yes. Dear Ol Jacqui’s Bo rented some porn and the couple put that cost down as an expense count charge. Real swift. Almost as smart as lumping a radio talk show jock in with murderous thugs. LOL!
I will listen to savage tonight. He is going to go ape over this.
May 15th, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Interesting development here. Savage has apparently asked Hillary Clinton to intercede in her official capacity against the UK banning. I have noted in some internet comments attached to media articles that anti-Savage people are astounded at such an action on the part of Savage. Look at that. A guy who went hammer and tong after Hillary during the primary campaign is now begging her for help. What a hypocritical chickens**t!
I tell you, some of these people just do not get it. Michael Savage begging for Hillary’s help?!!! BS. He is calling Hillary (and Obama) out on the issue of free speech. Their response or lack thereof may well go into Savage’s verbal ammo box for future broadcast use, especially if the Dem Congress continues to try to re-create some form of the Fairness Doctrine. Savage may be loud. He may hurl insults at the politicos and others. He sometimes does go too far. But one thing he is NOT is tactically dumb.