Posted on 01/28/2004 6:28:06 AM PST by VU4G10
They broke the mold with Michael Savage, and a number of records.
The New York Times No. 1 best-selling author is extraordinary in just about every category you can think of.
He’s the holder of two master’s degrees and a doctorate, an accomplished scientist, author times 19, TV personality, talk radio phenom and patriot.
Savage is one of the most controversial hosts in the nation, and his sky-high ratings and national following testify to this.
Savage is also one of the brainiest guys around, but he inevitably bowls you over with his common sense. He has that uncanny ability to squeeze ideas down to their most palatable size. You feast on the mind bites only to find yourself wanting more.
Thankfully, Savage has a new book out to satisfy the cerebral appetite. It’s called “The Enemy Within,” and it has already become another New York Times best seller.
In the book, he packs a persuasive punch against liberalism. He takes a systematic look at our lefty-infected schools, courts, churches and cherished institutions and knocks the stuffing out of them.
But unlike a lot of other voices that merely warn of impending doom, Savage clashes the cymbals of optimism, too. He urges conservatives to unite and resist the negative influences that are dragging the culture down.
Those who already belong to the “Savage Nation” know that his style is not for the faint of heart.
If you favor the ideas of the slate of Democrat candidates, Savage might rub you the wrong way. But you won’t be able to hold that poker face, even if you disagree. The stories will get you.
I recently had a chance to talk with the man and get his take on some selective Savagery.
'Socialist' Kerry, 'Demagogue' Dean
NewsMax: I want to ask you, in the wake of the Iowa caucuses, should we include Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Dean and all as part of the enemy within?
MS: It’s a great question. Let’s focus. Dean obviously is a classic red-diaper doper baby. Everything that he said is parroted by the ACLU. I mean he might as well be a lawyer for the ACLU.
Kerry is another question. He’s a standard socialist Democrat who wants to promise all things to all people, as apparently does Bush, which really worries me. They’re all giving the store away to garner votes from those, you know, who believe the government should give everybody everything without consequence.
I don’t know much about Kerry. I mean I really don’t know the guy’s track record. He seems to be a Kennedy liberal. And in that sense, he’s just a Kennedy liberal. So if we want higher taxes, we want more affirmative action, we want more lectures about race, I guess Kerry is the man for it. I think it’s lucky, though, that Dean is finished because he is a desperado. And a demagogue. You just watch the man perform.
NM: Because of your use of humor, you sometimes remind me of a modern-day kind of a Mark Twain, or a conservative Mort Sahl.
MS: Oh, yeah, there’s a lot of Mort. I remember Mort. I loved him when I was young.
NM: Some of the people don’t seem to get your wit. Do you ever feel frustrated by that?
MS: I don’t know. I think they do get my wit. I don’t think they want to get my wit.
I think I’m the greatest threat to the liberal establishment of all hosts for one reason. In terms of sarcasm, humor, entertainment value, none of them can touch me.
See, they like to believe conservatives are stuck in the mud, boring, stodgy guys. When I get up there, I do a comedy act that’s poignant and cutting. This is a great threat to them because I’m beating them at their own game.
NM: You’ve written 19 books and earned your Ph.D. You’re a nutrition and herbal expert. What made you choose this medium? What made you choose talk radio?
'Immigrants and Epidemics'
MS: In 1994, I wanted to do a new book called "Immigrants and Epidemics." And I was actually going to collaborate with the dean of a very famous medical school. And he said: “Well, you are the author. You’ve gotten books published. I’m sure you can find a publisher in New York.” We put together a proposal, and we hit a stone wall. Not because the thesis of "Immigrants and Epidemics" was incorrect, but because it was politically incorrect. Nobody would touch the book.
This is a hidden a factor in our health care system in America. No one wants to talk about it.
You know, when our grandparents or great grandparents came in, if they were unhealthy, they were either sent back or put into quarantine. But because of the tremendous pressure by the AIDS lobby, the word “quarantine” has been thrown out of the lexicon of medicine. And because of the pressure of the immigrant lobby virtually anyone can waltz in.
So I tried to get the book published, but nobody would publish it. So I got pissed off, and I made a demo radio tape on this called "The Savage Nation.” Sent it out to 200 stations, and it was like a lark. One station in San Francisco hired me to do fill-in work, and the rest is sort of history.
NM: So anger is the mother of invention, so to speak.
MS: (Laugh)
NM: That leads to the theme – the borders, language and culture theme – because you started that way.
MS: What I don’t understand is this. How can Bush’s advisers not understand this issue? I don’t understand them. Every poll, even the ABC polls are showing that Americans have an opposing view on this issue. And they continue to forge ahead as though it’s bull**** and that no one cares.
The Schwarzenegger election was all about illegal aliens, I think. If it was about anything, it was about that. Even 30 percent of Democrats who voted, voted for Schwarzenegger, strictly because he wouldn’t give licenses to illegal aliens. So, I don’t understand the Republicans’ thinking on this.
NM: The question is always asked: “What do you do with the millions, tens of millions of illegals that are here right now? We’ve got to do something. What should we do?” How do you answer that?
MS: Well, I keep hearing from people “you can’t deport them.” Well, theoretically, that is true. It may be foolish to say “get the buses going.” But you can discourage them from being here. There are many, many pressures you can put on them to make them return home.
First of all, why are they collecting welfare when they are not citizens, and they do inordinately use welfare. The Camarata study has shown it, that they inordinately use welfare primarily - and this ties right into the election - primarily medical care, which is why our system is bankrupt. How much free medical care can you provide the population until the system collapses?
Stephen Camarata examined the trends in immigrant welfare. He found that 22 percent of immigrant households used at least one major welfare program, compared to 15 percent of native households. That’s a big difference.
The primary usage is in Medicaid to immigrant households. So they are all coming here for this huge medical system that we have, and we’re providing it like idiots, and we’re going bankrupt because 15 percent of our budget is now spent on health care. Fifteen percent of the entire budget is now spent on medical care, and that’s before the boomers hit the market. So look at the candidates, James. What are they promising?
NM: They are all promising a variation of Hillary-care.
'Castro-Like Health Care'
MS: They are promising Castro-like health care. Well, that’s what we are going to wind up getting. You know, we are going to wind up with a Cuban-style socialized medicine, a third- or fourth-rate system for all, and that’s going to be what we are going to get. I mean, how can you give everybody the gold-plated medical care system? It’s impossible.
And we are getting poorer doctors, by the way, you know that. Because the best and the brightest are no longer going into medicine. The incentive isn’t there. So I don’t know where this ends, other than a kind of creeping socialism.
NM: What can Americans do?
MS: I wonder what we can do at this point. I mean, I almost wished that we had sort of a benign barbarian running the country.
NM: A benign barbarian. (Laugh)
MS: A benign barbarian. If we could only find such an individual, a benign barbarian to save us. Because the giveaway mentality has now permeated both parties.
Demicans and Republocrats
I opened by saying, “Who is the enemy within?” I said there’s enough blame to go around on both sides of the aisle. The concept of this gargantuan welfare state permeates the Republican Party as well. They don’t stand for very much anymore.
Yet I’d like to just say this. Look, let me be clear. From a compass point of view, even though there’s only a differential of about a degree or two or three on most issues between the parties.
As a boater, I can tell you if you boat, if you start from a center point and you go out two degrees different on a course, in the beginning the differential is insignificant. But the further out you go, the bigger the differential becomes.
And that’s my analogy here, of the difference between the remnants of the Republican conservatism and the super-socialist liberalism of the Democrats. It’s an insignificant difference in the beginning. But two points out on the compass down the line could be the difference between us surviving and us, you know, going under.
Dane, Post 64: After a period of six months or a year, all those who did not register are subject to deportation
ROTFLMAO!!!
Dane, I've read most of your posts on FR to people who are aganist illegals over running the country. So if what you say about Michael is true then the only difference between you and Michael is that you are on FR and not on the radio.
That's the same tired hold pathetic argument I hear from all Bush supporters - it's all you got. You can't argue any issues - they aren't on your side.
One more time, I will refute your pathetic "lesser of 2 evils" fallacy. I can't be responsible for Kerrey's election if I don't vote for him (unless you have a new definition of what it means to be responsible). Kerry's election will be the responsibility of the 45% of hopelessly liberal Americans who vote for him - half of America. So, you can blame the half of America who votes Democrat for Kerry's election. I, on the other hand, will vote for the candidate that BEST REFLECTS true conservative ideals - that ain't Bush! I will vote Constitution Party.
Voting for any candidate who stands for liberal policies is inconsistent with my values and worldview. I will not prostitute myself or my values - I won't sell my principles down the river in order to elect a man who doesn't reflect my values. The only criteria that determines my vote is ABSOLUTE MORAL PRINCIPLES - principles espoused by the founding fathers of the United States of America - principles that are lost on Mr. Bush.
Now you are spewing lies. Bush's Solicitor General Ted Olson argued agianst the Univ. of Michigan cas at SCOTUS. The gay church letter was a mass mailing to 1000's of churches. That church didn't have the name "St. Gay". A constitutional amendment is Congress's purview and in the State of the Union address he gave support to a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage if the liberal judges keep on making up law from the bench. He can't change SCOTUS decisions and those decisions would probably have been different if it weren't for the 2 Clinotn appointees, Ginsberg and Breyer. And Bush is proposing a solution to the staus quo immigration question. I guess you like the staus quo.
JMO, and don't go into victim mode because I have an opinion, you misstate the facts and are a malcontent that the most mainstream people on the political right are glad to see booted out of the party.
All you have to do is listen to him for a couple of hours. It'll become crystal clear to most.
Savage may be Brilliant, but it helps that a...
SAECULAR Fourth Turning
is at hand.
We are in the middle of the 'OH!-OH!' Decade...and indeed,
Winter Comes Again!!
Lies eh? You don't know what you are talking about. I can back up my statements - you apparently can't. Here is an excerpt from WorldNetDaily column - you can read the entire column at:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33381
Excerpt from article: "What was President Bush's reaction? This mushy statement of resignation: "I applaud the Supreme Court for recognizing the value of diversity on our nation's campuses. Diversity is one of America's greatest strengths. Today's decision seeks a careful balance between the goal of campus diversity and the fundamental principle of equal treatment under law."
Thank you Mr. Bush for your support for "diversity".
The gay church letter was a mass mailing to 1000's of churches. That church didn't have the name "St. Gay".
Baloney- why don't you do your homework? The letter was written to Metropolitan Church specifically. Excerpt from article:
"By encouraging the celebration of faith and sharing of God's love and boundless mercy, churches like yours put hope in people's hearts and a sense of purpose in their lives," Bush said in his Oct. 14 missive. "This milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on your years of service and to rejoice in God's faithfulness to your congregation."
Read the entire article at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35539
I can refute the rest of your post as well, if you like.
Savage is the Man of the Hour!!!
I can't resist. I will refute your other points as well.
Read the text of Bush's speech again - he DID NOT come out for an amendment - he spoke of it as a last resort. Well, guess what - gay marriage is here! It's last resort time! NOW is the time to support an amendment for marriage! Now, not later. He is waffling and pro-family groups don't like it. Bush quote from Philadelphia Inquirer:
"The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."
I call that statement a huge waffle.
And you immigration comment is completely absurd, considering it makes legal immigrants out of illegal aliens overnight, will result in the influx of 25 million of their relatives, will result in taxpayers having to foot the bill for the MASSIVE social services tab (education, health care) for these people, and will certainly enourage millions more to come here for the freebies. It was reported in the news yesterday that the influx of illegals has increased the last 2-3 weeks since Bush announced his proposal.
It seems you are WRONG on every count.
Also World Net Daily, was Y2K scare central.
It's not worth the effort. WND is on the fringe and has an agenda and if you asked people if they have heard of WND, 95% would say no. The communist party of America organ probably never has been sued for libel either, and they have an agenda also.
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.