Can you imagine the outcry and fervor that this travel ban would cause if it had included a leftist talk host such as Rachel Maddow? The media would be up in arms, and the Obama administration would immediately be on the phone with British diplomats to get an explanation. So why is that not happening in the case of Michael Savage?
Evidently in the U.K. it is OK to blacklist a white male conservative, if you so much as utter a word of opposition to illegal immigration, homosexuality, or Islamic terrorists. Michael Savage sent a letter to Secretary of State Clinton asking her to plead his case; we doubt that she will listen. He is also suing the British government for defamation for grouping him with all the legitimate criminals and terrorists and "painting a target on my back." Legal experts estimate he has a decent case.
In his defense on the air Savage said, ""I have never advocated violence. . . I've been on the air for fifteen years, three hours a day, five days a week -- fifteen years. They [Savage's critics] take a few sound bites that amount to one, two, or three minutes and they try to redefine me by extracting sound bites out of context. I could do that with anyone in the public eye."
The mainstream media and the Obama administration are neglecting their duties by not defending Mr. Savage. As much as they may be disagree with Savage's opinions, this type of censorship and blacklisting is threatening everyone's freedom of expression. As Roger Hedgecock says, "The British government action barring Michael Savage is a frightening preview of what we can expect in our own country as the PC police shut down the voices of dissent."
If these attempts to intimidate and censor people for their viewpoints are not combated now, freedom of dissent may become a memory.