Connecting Some Dots

As the American Main Stream Media, public in general and conservative talk show hosts in particular lose interest in the on-going saga of bumptious talk show host, Michael Savage, being banned from Great Britain because of his political beliefs, a small news article and a newsletter alert popped up today that may seem disparate but added together form a troubling pattern. Blame it on the twelve-day shelf life of news stories when fickle public attention finally wanders away but Michael Savage’s story may soon segue from one man’s struggle to every man’s struggle to preserve their freedom of speech, thought and political beliefs within and without their own country.

Currently the only ones in America still making a major flap over Michael Savage’s unfair treatment by British Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith’s, arbitrarily placing him on the UK’s “Least Wanted” list of banned travelers is Michael himself. He, of course, is rightly obsessed with it and no can blame him. He thunders daily on his show, excoriating Smith, England and the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Levins of his radio genre that are doing nothing to support him.

In the UK, however, Michael Savage’s case is still very much on everyone’s mind particularly since Jacqui Smith’s limp defense of her inexcusable and libelous attack on Savage is currently a work in progress to be soon followed up with a nearly guaranteed and very expensive loss for her in the British law courts. Yesterday the British website, Politics.co.uk, carried an article titled Brazier Questions minister’s ‘even-handed approach’ to the exclusion of terror suspects and hate preachers where a Tory MP, Julian Brazier (Canterbury)(Con.), took Smith to task during Home Office questions after she smugly misrepresented her ‘even handed’ approach to banning Savage after disingenuously smearing him further by citing him completely out of context.

Mr. Brazier asked point blank, “If it is an even-handed approach, could the Home Secretary explain why we have welcomed back to this country from Guantanamo Bay two UK residents, but not citizens, who are not only suspected terrorists in Afghanistan but wanted on murder charges in Spain?”

Smith replied lamely that Britain was merely helping the US and President Obama in furthering his aim in closing down Guantanamo Bay but Brazier was not taken in especially since Smith’s comments can be used as additional evidence of malicious and on-going slander in the defamation suit Savage has started against her.

Brazier afterwards made the acerbic comment, “The Home Secretary’s alleged even-handed approach has welcomed two suspected terrorist’s who are also wanted for murder in Spain. We should exclude foreign criminals and deport them for trial.”

For those not familiar with British politics, Jacqui Smith and the Home Office are our equivalent of Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security. As such, there is a great deal of national goodwill, sympathy, communication, co-ordination and understanding between these national offices and their current socialist holders. Curiously, these women have something more in common than their respective positions because BOTH are being sued by Michael Savage.

Think back to last April when the Department of Homeland Security under Janet Napolitano issued its Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment and the furor which arose when patriots, Christians, conservatives, veterans and anyone against the socialist agenda were labeled as potential domestic terrorists.

Almost immediately, The Thomas Moore Law Center in Ann Arbor, MI, brought a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Janet Napolitano in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The lawsuit claims that the Rightwing Extremism report clearly violates the First and Fifth Amendment’s Constitutional rights of plaintiffs, “…nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray.”

Michael Savage used the bully pulpit of his conservative talk show, The Michael Savage Show, to keep his millions of listeners apprised of his lawsuit and focused on the repressive report until Napolitano was forced to tell a congressional subcommittee that the report, which has since disappeared from the DHS’ website, “…was not authorized to be distributed.”

President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, Richard Thompson, dismissed Napolitano’s move by saying, “Our lawsuit against Secretary Napolitano will continue. Since we filed that lawsuit, additional information has been brought to our attention that creates even more concern that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is unconstitutionally targeting Americans merely because of their conservative beliefs. Moreover, simply removing the report from the DHS website, without a condemnation of its contents and specific instructions to all the enforcement agencies receiving it that that it should not be used, is merely hiding the evidence of an insidious ongoing agenda to go after conservative Americans. In fact, her comment to the subcommittee that the report is being ‘redone’ and will be ‘much more precise’ in view of her previous linguistic contortions is too vague to give comfort to conservative Americans.”

Currently Savage is being held up by Jacqui Smith as a fomenter of cultural unrest, specifically targeting Muslims. But Michael Savage enjoys a Muslim following among his listeners and what he is accused of saying by Jacqui Smith is simply not true. Savage has never advocated violence against Muslims and the British Smith, who would not be familiar with his radio show, is being fed purposely twisted information.

Now who would stand to benefit more from Michael Savage’s reputation being destroyed on such an international scale? Muslims or Janet Napolitano? The cultural jihadist Muslims of CAIR and Savage already tangled in court and fought themselves to a standstill. It is my opinion that Muslim “sensitivity” is a red herring in this saga of Savage versus Napolitano and now versus Smith. There are many, many conservative talk radio show hosts and none were singled out as undesirable rabble rousers but one and that one, Michael Savage, is the one taking on the Obama Administration’s agenda of demonizing conservatives, who stand in the way of Obama’s socialist agenda.

It’s not Islam that is outraged by Savage but socialism. Michael Savage fights back. He uses the courts. He bulldogs it and he sticks with it. Michael Savage is an American pit bull taking on the British bulldog, who just might be taking orders from the Big Dog in Washington DC.