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.

I will listen to savage tonight. He is going to go ape over this.

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.

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.

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.

You realise this implies that you are ready to take on the US Army?

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.

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.

” 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.

‘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.