Thursday, July 29, 2010

A Savage Injustice in Great Britain

Whether you listen to him or not, or consider yourself a fan or not, radio talk show host Michael Savage has been the victim of a grave injustice by the British government. He has literally been told that he cannot enter the United Kingdom based on what he has said. The Brits pride themselves on being an open-minded and tolerant lot. Heck, they are willing to accept outrageous sermons by angry mullahs in Britain, all on the grounds of free speech. Well, free speech apparently stops with Michael Savage.


Egyptian Journalist: In Actual Terms, Gaza Is Not Under Siege


In an article in the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram on the economic situation in the Gaza Strip, journalist Ashraf Abu Al-Houl wrote about the burgeoning recreation industry and of the low merchandise prices.
Also as part of the interest in the economic situation in Gaza, the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida published articles describing the expensive resorts that have been established for Gaza's newly rich, and a Palestinian website reported on the new mall recently opened in the city.


Judge blocks vital parts of Arizona immigration law

Arizona Daily Star

A federal judge this morning blocked several critical provisions of Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the law that brought the state a flurry of mostly negative international attention.
The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents. Sections barred from being enforced include:
• Requiring a police officer to make a reasonable attempt to check the immigration status of those they have stopped;
• Forbidding police from releasing anyone they have arrested until that person's immigration status is determined;
• Making it a violation of Arizona law for anyone not a citizen to fail to carry documentation;
• Creating a new state crime for trying to secure work while not a legal resident;
• Allowing police to make warrantless arrests if there is a belief the person has committed an offense that allows them to be removed from the United States.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.


Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Who’s afraid of Michael Savage?

By Dr. Grace Vuoto

Freedom of speech is under assault. Neither from America nor from Britain is the torch of liberty steadfastly raised high above the heads of the real enemies of freedom: the Islamist jihadists who are in a death-struggle with Western civilization. Instead, from both nations, the whimpering policy of mollification emerges. Leaders in America and the United Kingdom are bent on a path of moral equivocation and are offering a sacrificial lamb to quiet the angry Muslim gods: conservative radio talk-show host Michael Savage must be slain on the altar of appeasement in order to quell the violent Islamist storms on the horizon.
Since May 2009, the feisty, combative and often irreverent conservative commentator has been placed on a list that bans him from traveling to the United Kingdom. What was his crime? He spoke—on the air, in America, to the 8 million listeners who are the devoted fans of his daily show, The Savage Nation. According to then–British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith some of Mr. Savage’s statements are so heinous that he deserves the same treatment that the British government bestows on terrorists, members of the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis: no entry onto British soil. Mr. Savage’s comments are a threat to public security; his words might lead others to commit violent acts, foster hatred and could spark “intercommunity violence,” according to a press release by the British government. Even the newly-elected coalition government led by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is upholding the ban.


Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?

By Andrew Alexander
Sunday, July 18, 2010; A17

Thursday's Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department's decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long?

For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn't been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal.

But The Post has been virtually silent.

The story has its origins on Election Day in 2008, when two members of the New Black Panther Party stood in front of a Philadelphia polling place. YouTube video of the men, now viewed nearly 1.5 million times, shows both wearing paramilitary clothing. One carried a nightstick.

Early last year, just before the Bush administration left office, the Justice Department filed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against the men, the New Black Panther Party and its chairman. But several months later, with the government poised to win by default because the defendants didn't contest the suit, the Obama Justice Department decided the case was over-charged and narrowed it to the man with the nightstick. It secured only a narrow injunction forbidding him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of Philadelphia polling places through 2012.

Congressional Republicans pounced. For months they stalled the confirmation of Thomas E. Perez, President Obama's pick to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, while seeking answers to why the case had been downgraded over the objections of some of the department's career lawyers. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation, which is pending. The independent, eight-member Commission on Civil Rights also began what has become a yearlong probe with multiple public hearings; its report is due soon. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), a prominent lawmaker in The Post's circulation area, has been a loud and leading critic of how the case was handled. His office has "aggressively" sought to interest The Post in coverage, a spokesman said.


Soros-funded group wants feds to probe talk radio

Says cable-news networks engaged in 'hate speech'

Posted: July 18, 2010
9:17 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A George Soros-funded, Marxist-founded organization with close ties to the White House has urged the Federal Communications Commission to investigate talk radio and cable news for "hate speech."

The organization, calling itself Free Press, claims media companies are engaging in "hate speech" because a disproportionate number of radio and cable-news networks are owned by non-minorities.

WND previously reported Free Press published a study advocating the development of a "world class" government-run media system in the U.S.

The hot new best-seller, "The Manchurian President," by Aaron Klein reveals inside story on Team Obama and its members. Now available autographed at WND's Superstore!

Free Press was one of 33 organizations that drafted a 25-page petition asking the FCC to "initiate an inquiry into the extent and effects of hate speech in media and to explore non-regulatory means by which to mitigate its negative impacts."

"Hate speech thrives, as hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable-television programs
masquerading as 'News,'" claims the petition.


Pot to kettle: 'You're a racist'

By Joseph Farah

Posted: July 18, 2010
11:33 pm Eastern

© 2010
I often suggest we are living in a world where up is down, black is white, right is wrong and left is … well, no, left is still never right.

That would be "bizarro world," that parallel universe, where everything is backward. That's what I think with regard to the groundless, baseless, irresponsible, false, unjustifiable and unsubstantiated accusations of racism against the tea-party movement by a group seeking the advancement of nonwhites – the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

About the meanest, most hurtful, most ruthless smear you can make about someone in America in 2010 is to label that person a racist – and rightfully so. If anyone hates other people and wishes them ill because of the color of their skin, that person deserves to be vilified and berated.

However, when that accusation is unfairly, inappropriately and cavalierly hurled at people, those doing the smearing are the ones who should be vilified and berated. In fact, they are actually in service to the cause of hate and racism when they cheapen the label and simply use the accusation to attack those with whom they simply have a political disagreement.

And that's really what's going on here with the NAACP. I suspect even the leaders of the organization have some regrets about promoting the resolution condemning the tea-party movement for racism without the slightest trace of evidence. It's backfiring on the group. No sooner was the ink dry on the resolution than the backtracking began.

Ben Jealous, the chairman of the NAACP, suggested the resolution did not actually indict the tea party for racism (which it did). It was more of a warning, he said. Now he demands the tea-party movement repudiate racism.

It's like the old interrogation line, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Exactly who at the tea-party movement is supposed to do that? There are no prominent national leaders of this decentralized movement. This is a spontaneous, grass-roots effort – barely 18 months old. Are the tens of millions of Americans who identify with this movement supposed to denounce racism in unison?

For what it's worth, I'm going to do something historic right now. As the author of "The Tea Party Manifesto," a book that seeks to give the movement a mission statement upon which to build a consensus, I'm going to take the liberty to speak right here and now for the tea-party movement – just this once.