The Savage Banning of an American Talk Show Host

During the past month the British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has been embroiled in a scandal involving the purchase by her husband of pornographic films; the media have grabbed onto this story with glee because it is an engaging distraction from the horrendous credit crisis and other world calamities. Because the films were acquired on an expense account, she promised to repay the government. Back in March she had been accused of double-charging said government for her accommodation; this story, which also related to other politicians, dominated the news cycle for several weeks.

Unfortunately Jacqui Smith seems unable to avoid being news because her very own men and women of Scotland Yard (the British Home Office has governance over the police force) have come under unprecedented fire over beatings and even one fatality at the April G20 protests during the visit of American President Barack Obama. She and the operatives at her department are also under scrutiny for deporting maverick Dutch MP Geert Wilders.

Now she has banned American radio host Michael Savage from the shores of Great Britain. The Home Office thinks he will foment public unrest and even violence.

Those who are unfamiliar with Savage need to know that at his very worst he has wished AIDS on a 2003 caller criticizing his homophobic views (he was fired for this by MSNBC but later was restored to the airwaves by Talk Radio Network), has pooh-poohed autism as the result of a spoiled child’s exposure to parental permissiveness, and displayed virulent antagonism towards Muslims.

But then again in Britain there are scores of extremists spouting loathsome views in every corner of the country. ...

I have listened to Savage on the drive home most days for the last seven years. In Houston we have four concurrent conservative (is there any other type?) during the drive times hours. I agree with about 98 % of his political positions. Being an ethnic Jew he has a little antipathy against Jhadist head choppers so cut him a little slack there. Autism is about 90 percent a medical/ pharmacetical complex scam. I do not care much for HIV activist liars (there are no other type) either.

Now that the personal issues are scrapped off the table, Savage is “ignored” by the mainstream media types including FNC phony “equal timers” like O’Reilly and the phony conservative Hannity because they are either

1. Jealous

2. PC phonies

3. or can not handle reality.

The frightening thing is that home grown Liberal fascists would do the same thing as Jackie Smith in the UK if they were not still afraid of the Second Amendment

This whole fiasco really brings to mind one of my favorite series of lines from the movie "JFK", (even if it was a liberal movie).

Those lines, by "X" (a very convincing Donald Sutherland), were:

"Well that's the real question, isn't it? Why? The how and the who is just scenery for the public. Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, the Mafia. Keeps 'em guessing like some kind of parlor game, prevents 'em from asking the most important question, why? .... Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up? Who? "

I have come to the conclusion that somebody in the United States Government MUST have had a communication to the Home Office in the UK and said "look, we cannot go after this kind of guy and his ilk on talk radio yet here--we are working some administrative ways to reign these folks in, but in the meantime, we can have some fun. As our fraternal partners overseas in shutting down *hate speech* why not ban this guy from entry to the British Isles? Here. Listen to this attached .wav and see for yourself."

Then you turn to "X's" lines in "JFK" for further insight and where to search for the smoking gun.

Just who was it that, in the last month or so, Savage has pissed off the most due to monologues, exposes and just plain old rants? If you really listen, you will hear it is one of two women. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and/or Janet Napolitano of DHS. He tore them new ones in the last two fortnights...and for good reason.

DHS is, as I am made to understand, the American Counterpart to the Home Office in the UK, contacts and interchange between those two will be tight. Of course, on Pelosi's professional foreign policy staff on the Hill, any number of them could conceivably get through in a moment and a high level staffer at 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London. Where I am going with this, it is almost a given that this banning of Savage by UK Immigration out the clear blue was not something inspired or orchestrated entirely on that side of the Atlantic. Their silence in our own country in the aftermath also speaks volumes, although they are laughing behind closed doors and they move ahead on the Fairness Doctrine in our own country which will silence it good for ALL of our own individual favorite conservative talk show people under Obama. There likely was a caustic, causal agent within our own country, most probably a US federal government employee or official of some sort in the new Obama Administration, a political appointee pehaps. Read into it what they have to benefit about it.

It is an attack on all Talk Radio, and on all Free Speech. It is a fitting encore to the original DHS study to label conservatives and veterans as terrorists.

I would like to see a UK investigative journalist get into this thing on their side of the pond (if one is lurking, sign up to FR and send me a "Freep Mail" about your thoughts to dig). I am sure for the right "price" or book deal, someone could be encouraged to "sing" and bring this whole conspiratorial house of cards down in one fell swoop.

Travel bans like these just don't happen by accident. Everything is for a purpose. Who was the most angry? Who sought to punish or have a little *fun*? Who stands to benefit the most at Michael Savage's humiliation, slander or fall???

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.