England Reaffirms Ban on Radio Host Michael Savage

We have been following the ban imposed on conservative radio host Michael Savage by England — barring him from entry into the country. England now appears to have reaffirmed the decision and accuses Savage of promising to retract some of his statements and failing to do so. While I strongly disagree with many of Savage’s statements, I view the ban as part of a disturbing trend limiting free speech in the West and particularly in England.

In the communication below, Treasury Solicitor Michael Atkins tells counsel for Savage that he previously assured the government that Savage would repudiate some of his comments on his website. It also says that Savage promised to appeal the earlier decision and failed to do so.

Savage was informed last July that the Cameron administration would continue the prior ban on his entry into the country unless he repudiated statements made on his broadcasts that were considered a threat to public security. The very notion of ideas being a threat to public safety is the hallmark of censorship and governmental abuse. While then–British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith insisted that it is “important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here,” he omitted free speech.

The most recent letter is equally disturbing. It puts the burden on Savage to show that his ideas are not a threat to public security — a ridiculous burden when the only way to do so appears to be the repudiation of his beliefs and ideas. England has moved rapidly against free speech guarantees with comparably little protest. There does not even to be much of a national debate despite the fundamental shift on individual rights. We need to support those civil libertarians in England who are fighting this lonely battle — often on behalf of unpopular individuals like Savage.

Here is the letter: Savage letter

Jonathan Turley

124 thoughts on “England Reaffirms Ban on Radio Host Michael Savage

  1. Yeah, I get the whole free speech thing, they should ban him from entering the country under a “no assholes” clause.

  2. I’m a bit puzzled? You don’t think that sovereign countries have the right to deny entry to non citizens?
    Everyone on earth should have the right to enter any country as he or she pleases?

  3. England’s ban is lawful, but dangerous. Its position is hardly unique, however. Most countries, including the United States, have a history of prohibiting entry to persons whose views are deemed threatening. I certainly don’t have the time or ability to research the matter, but I’d be willing to bet that language is far and away the favorite subject of prohibitory regulation worldwide. What have we to fear, after all, but ideas?

  4. Dr. Savage is being charged, tried, and convicted, and punished, without a trial in the land that gave us the Magna Charter. It is a very bad Orwellian omen. Beware liberals, unless crushed, the same or worse fate will befall you in the future. Fight against this repression of free speech, or insist the UK trial Savage prove even one incident of violence from his rhetoric. There is none. He does not deserve to be lumped in (as UK FOIA documents show) with terrorists and murderers, ostensibly for “balance.” Protected speech is obnoxious to some but needs to be allowed. Our US government is remiss to allow this to stand against any US citizen.
    England today is already lost to civilization in many ways. There is no England anymore.

  5. Mike Appleton is right. One such instance reached the Supreme Court which decided the US had the right to refuse entry to a Marxist author who had been invited to an academic conference. The case is Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972).

  6. “The most recent letter is equally disturbing. It puts the burden on Savage to show that his ideas are not a threat to public security — a ridiculous burden when the only way to do so appears to be the repudiation of his beliefs and ideas.”
    -Jonathan Turley

    Fighting “threats to public security” in all quarters… As Mike A. said, “charged, tried, and convicted, and punished, without a trial in the land that gave us the Magna Charter.” A little different twist:


    But the new unit uses the police to identify suspects – increasing fears the line is being blurred between criminal investigation and doctors’ clinical decisions.

    Scotland Yard, which runs the shadowy unit, refuses to discuss how many suspects have been forcibly hospitalised by the team because of “patient confidentiality”.

    But at least one terror suspect – allegedly linked to the 7/7 bomb plot and a suicide bombing in Israel – has already been held under the Mental Health Act.

    The suspect, who was subject of a control order and cannot be named for legal reasons, later absconded from the hospital and his whereabouts are unknown.

    (end excerpt)

  7. It’s not the fact that he’s banned, it’s the fact they ban him for his speech, and yet allow Muslim radicals who spew hate into their country.England sucks. You know where they can stick those pointy umbrellas.

  8. Thanks Mike A and Prof. Alberto Bernabe. I recall reading about several incidents like this over the years.

    Published: Saturday, March 19, 2011, The Harvard Crimson:

    “Female Afghani Activist Denied Visa to Visit US
    Malalai Joya, a women’s rights activist, was set to speak alongside Noam Chomsky at Harvard”

    “Malalai Joya, a former member of Afghanistan’s parliament and a celebrated women’s rights activist, was denied a travel visa to the United States Wednesday and will be unable to make her scheduled appearance at Harvard on March 25th.

    The U.S. embassy explained its decision by saying that consular officials had denied Joya a visa because she is unemployed and currently living underground, but those organizing the event said that these claims should not be grounds for barring her from a visa.

    Sonali Kolhatkar—co-director of the Afghan’s Women’s Mission, a U.S. based non-profit—said that the claim that Joya is unemployed is startling because Joya is a published author and spends the majority of her time as a social worker involved in projects in her local community. She added that the reason that Joya lives a life underground is because of the numerous threats that have been made against her, including five assassination attempts. ….”


    Anon nurse, WoW, just WoW! They must be nostalgic for the old Soviet Union, as I recall this was a favored method of dealing with dissidents there.

  9. The USA Radio broadcast system would never allow Dr. Savage to stay on air if he was a threat to the public. I guess the snobs in governemental England differ. This is a political statement, not a safety issue. Londanistan has tilted so far east that it sickens me to think England may be lost forever. What EXACTLY was so foul for those of you to “strongly” dissagree with Savage? Examples please.

  10. Savage is a treasure! He is a true conservative and not a political Republican hack like Limbaugh and Hannity. Savage holds both Republican and Democrat’s feet to the fire – and that is why NOONE on both sides will defend him! Shame on them all! HE HAS NEVER ENCOURAGED VIOLENCE!! Yet all we see is pictures of Muslim protestors in England saying “Death to those who Insult Islam”! And yet, these people are allowed to remain in England! Bottom line is that “There is NO England Anymore”!!!, the number one name for a boy in England is Mohammed. England of old is disappearing and in its place will be a country like Libya, Syria, etc. where people live in the 5th century!

  11. IF i said Muslims want to take over the world, I would be banned from England because it is “hate” speech. But the Muslims who are pictured in London with actual signs stating that “Islam will rule the world and behead those who insult Islam” are allowed to stay! INSANE! The British have lost their minds! Instead of banning Savage, the English people need to hear his message of borders, language, and culture before it is too late! But I guess they have become a country of Neville Chamberlains! This time to get “Peace in Our Time”, they are giving Herr Hitler (Muslim Extremists) their own country instead of Czechoslovakia!

  12. Jimmy, I’m pretty sure you are wrong about him never encouraging violence. Just a few years ago, Savage advocating killing 100 million Muslims. I would guess 5 minutes of googling could find a couple more.

    While I think this is a very bad act on the part of the UK the Savage Wiener is not pure either. That’s one of the problems with defending against these sorts of actions; they rarely involve people who deserve a defense. But, like the ACLU has done repeatedly, you have to defend the tasteless, tactless and vile in order to save the notion of freedom of speech.

  13. Frankie…was this the quote you refer to from http://www.queerty.com/michael-savage-says-hes-never-advocated-violence-excuse-me-20090508

    On April 17, 2006, a signature anti-Muslim tirade included: “Intelligent people, wealthy people … are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, ‘Oh, there’s a billion of them.’ I said, ‘So, kill 100 million of them, then there’d be 900 million of them.’ I mean … would you rather us die than them?”

    He was speaking hypothetically. If there “were” 100 million TERRORISTS, then you would need to kill all of them because they have already stated they want to kill YOU…Frankie. And by the way…I did google Michael Savage and Violence…all I got was Britain banning him. You are not as smart as you try to sound.

  14. English Muslims “Behead those who insult Muslims”

    “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
    — Winston S. Churchill

    So, Savage comments on the extremist Muslim threat and England bans him!!

    Shame on you England! Where have all the Churchill’s gone?

  15. Frankie boy: Savage has NEVER encouraged any of his listeners to be violent, as i posted previously. Can you say that about the Imam’s in England? Who’s ideas do you think those protestors with the signs saying “behead those who insult Islam” reflect?

    The quotation you mentioned was in the context of discussing our Nation at war with Muslim Extremists/Terrorists. That is not Savage telling his audience to go out and kill or be violent, something he has NEVER done. It is discussing his opinion of how our Nation should wage an effective War against our enemy who openly states that they would like to destroy our Nation.

    And the day that one of these extreme Muslims sets off a Nuclear device in NYC, that will be the day that this Nation wakes up to the real threat they pose and all the Political correctness will go out the windows. (And you should be concerned about this since we now know Bin Laden was not hiding from Pakistani military, he was directly under their nose being sheltered. So, did they also give Nuclear capability to Al Quada?!!) Muslims are killing non muslims all over the world: Phillipines, Thailand, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Egypt, Spain, Germany, Kosovo, England, and here in the USA. Every day we here of another Muslim in this country caught planning to kill American citizens. Savage has gone on record as saying we need to help Moderate Muslims to take back control of their religion from these extremists, and he has had moderate Muslims on his show.

    Instead of worrying about Savage, you better start thinking about the real threat we face from these extremist nut jobs who openly state their intentions on the streets of London; while Savage is banned simply because he exposes the threat they pose. And as for England, they are beyond help! THERE IS NO ENGLAND ANYMORE!

  16. I really do not understand the English government. They allow Muslim preachers to preach vile haterd in the streets of London. But they disallow Savage, who is against violence, to banned in Britain. They are out of their minds!!

  17. Anyone under the age of 25 years old will live to see Britain become a Muslim nation. Thousands will take to the streets to see a Royal funeral or wedding but not to protest the Muslimization of their country by a government too politically correct to save the country.

  18. Let’s not forget that they chose him so they would have a jew to balance out the actual terrorists of the Islamic variety on thelist. Of course, England has a strong and continuing streak of jew hatred.

  19. If only Michael would convert to Islam, he would be allowed into England to help plan the overthrow of the British Empire.

  20. I enjoy listening to The Weiner Nation. Michael Savage’s radio persona is that of a crazed uncle that everyone has in there family. He is very intelligent and informative, but at time goes off the deep end with his psychotic rants. This does not give Britain the right to ban him from there country.

  21. Uk lets the muzzies trample their rights,, while banning Doctor Savage, who stands up to the followers of Moe-ham-head.

    England is toast unless things change very soon.

  22. Being part English and part Irish, I have always wanted to travel to Great Britain and Ireland. As long as Michael is banned in Britain, so am I. I am so embarrassed and disgusted at what these communist pigs have done to my mother country, I no longer acknowledge the fact that I’m English. It’s also disturbing to me that both Ireland and England would roll out the red carpet to the communist pig Barry Hussein Obama. At this point in time though, I would still visit my Irish roots.

  23. Yes.

    A lovely cross-section of his audience trolling here today.

    Do I think the UK is wrong to ban someone solely for speech?

    Yes I do.

    That being said, Michael Savage is a hate mongering extremist whack job somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh. He is NOT a civil libertarian. Here are some fine excerpts from Michael Savage’s Playboy interview:

    Savage on Obama:

    [H]e’s leading the country down the road of socialism and left-wing morass.

    Do you realize Obama couldn’t have been cleared to be his own Secret Service agent? As you know, to become an FBI or a Secret Service agent there’s a very strict set of rules, one of which is based on your past associations. Let’s forget the birthing issue. I won’t go there. His association with Bill Ayers alone would have disqualified him. His association for 20 years in Reverend Wright’s church, the Reverend Wright who said the government gave AIDS to the black man?

    Savage on immigration and health care:

    Let’s take California. Put a highway patrol officer in every hospital. And I’m sorry, no tickee, no washee. You’re not a citizen, you can’t get care. Of course, if it’s catastrophic, such as an auto accident, you give them what they need. But you can’t get care if you’re not a citizen. I’m sorry; we can’t do it anymore.

    Savage on Islam:

    I’m very worried about the number of mosques being built, where they’re being built, why they have to be so dominant. I’m also worried about what type of Islam is being promulgated in America today.

    Savage on autism:

    Every goddamn thing a child does is now thrown into the autism spectrum. How is that possible? Where did this illness come from? There are children who are genuinely autistic but not to the extent the medical establishment has claimed. The same with ADD and ADHD. A kid whines and the medical-pharmaceutical establishment says, “Medicate, medicate. Treat, treat. Your child is sick, poor baby.” These kids aren’t sick! It’s the system that’s sick.

    Savage on gay marriage:

    [T]he children are being proselytized. If gay marriage becomes legal, the children see this and they get a false sense of what marriage is.

    The Savage has a right to say what he wants.
    He has a right to ridiculed for it as well.
    He also has the right to suffer unintended consequences of his bigotry and stupidity.
    Being a douche bag isn’t against the law.


  24. This thread has been hijacked by Savage defenders. That misses the point. It’s not about Mr. Savage. It’s about the steady erosion of basic rights in the birthplace of Magna Charta.

  25. Yep.

    “Shame on Great Britain!” does not equate to “Hooray for Michael the Savage!”, Mike A.

  26. All of those of who insult Savage are essentially ideologues that no longer think for themselves, following the leftist clap trap…no longer is free speech allowed….interesting how vicious some of you get…don’t have a life, do you, and while you write your email, you masaage your brush hand with which you clean toilet bowls for a living. My apologies to those who really clean toilets….sorry.

  27. Mr. Appleton, you are wrong. Name me another example of your “steady erosion” of basic rights in England. This is a political attack and thus, Dr. Savage’s views must be stated as example. Its about his VIEWS, not basic rights, doofus.

    As for you Buddha, you called him a whack job hate monger and then proceed to state His quotes from Playboy. But you don’t even try to dispute his views. Likely you are too, shall I say, sensitive, to debate the facts.

  28. Augie:

    Your position appears to be that anyone who thinks Mr. Savage is one creamy filling short of a Ding Dong is some sort of troglodyte.

    I’ll have you know that I clean toilets, mow my own yard, paint my own house, do minor plumbing and electrical repairs and dress myself each morning. After all, if you can’t take care of your own stuff, you’ve got too much stuff.

    I also go to work each day and I’ve cleaned a few clocks in my lifetime. So what is your point?

  29. Want some proof that Weiner is a nut? Here it is, but if you are a Weiner stooge, or one of the people who works for Michael Weiner’s son Russell Goldenshower Weiner who often posts favorable posts about Weiner, you may not want to watch.

  30. Buddha Laughing:

    Typical, you use the “hate” description to discount anything that someone says that you disagree with. And then you display YOUR OWN HATRED by insulting those with different views than yours on this site. Go look in the mirror you hypocrit!

  31. Double Shot In the Foot,

    What is there to dispute?

    The manifest stupidity of his statements speaks for itself. Just like your assertion that quoting somebody is the equivalent of agreeing with them speaks for itself as being manifestly stupid. Context! You should get some.

    As to debate?

    You learn to bring some, sunshine sugarpants. I’ll stop back by later and finish the job you’ve already started of making you look like an idiot.


    It’s no trouble at all.

  32. I enjoy listening to America’s crazy grandfather Michael Savage, but i just wish he would stop taking so many calls that kiss his ass. His call screaners hang up on opposing views, and mostly take callers who praise him. I get enough of that from the self worshiping republican Rush Limbaugh.

  33. I found absolutely nothing wrong with the quotes Buddha supplied from Savage.

    Of course, I’m a listener, so I know the context of all the quotes. Even then, what’s wrong with enforcing our immigration laws, trying to maintain American language and culture and scrutinizing public officials (including the president)?

  34. Buddha is Laughing:

    Still insulting! It says it all about you. But this thread is not about you.

    Savage supporters are on this site because the host had the courage to defend Savage. The real crime here is not what England did; they are past saving. The real issue is why the media, Democrats, and Republicans will not defend him. It is because at one time or another he has been critical of all three of them.

    Turley does not agree with much that Savage does, and many of us would not agree with Turley. But at least he stands for the protection of free speech! God bless, him for his courage.

  35. Buddha said, “…your assertion that quoting somebody is the equivalent of agreeing with them…”

    Go back and read the posts. Its quite clear that I did not “assert” that you agree with him. Duh. Put down the tar, weirdo. I said that your too sensitive (wink wink) to have a factual debate. Go ahead, try to repute even ONE of Savage’s quotes. I doubt you could put a cohesive argument together.

  36. Hey Chucky Darwin (AKA Michael Savage) nobody is saying that Savage (AKA you) does not speak the truth. Most of the people that are posting are saying that he has a big mouth that gets himself in trouble and Britian just doesnt want to deal with that. And stop playing like you are on the air live for 3 hours, everyone knows that you tape the last hour and insert clips from previous shows. Your listeners arent as stupid as you think.

  37. I’d like to note a few articles that have been written documenting Savage’s anti-semitic rhetoric: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1148 and http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2004/spring/the-rating-game

    Savage himself is quick to point out that words have consequences. Anyone who will listen to his show for a brief period of time will hear Savage routinely call liberals “vermin.” What do we do with vermin? Anyone?

  38. Rusty, if i was a liberal, i would say what is with your “hate” speech.

    Listen, don’t you put words in the mouth of Savage supporters when obviously you are not one.

    This Savage listener likes Savage for many reasons:

    One, HE IS NOT REPUBLICAN GOOD; DEMOCRAT BAD OR DEMOCRAT BAD, REPUBLICAN GOOD! That is the problem with our system. We have been a country of two teams. The Founders NEVER envisioned a two party system, they envisioned representative government! A two party system is only one party better than a communist one party systems.

    Two, he is very intelligent and has a very interesting history. How many books has Hannity, Limbaugh, others written that are not just rants against Democrats? Savage has written books not only political, but fiction, science.

    Three, he is very funny.

    Four, we love to here his life stories.

    Five, HE DOES NOT JUST SPEND THE ENTIRE PROGRAM ON POLITICS! He, mixes politics with interesting life stories.

    Six, he is says it the way he sees it; he does not hold any punches.

    Seven, he is a Patriot and loves this country.

    Eight, Teddy!!!!!!

  39. Jeff, this is vermin defined:

    1. destructive animals or insects: small animals or insects that harm people, livestock, property, or crops and are difficult to control, e.g. rats, weasels, fleas, or cockroaches

    2. offensive term: an offensive term for a person or group considered to be extremely unpleasant or undesirable

    I am sure he was referring to #2. Its insane for you to conclude that he wants to “kill” all progressive vermin. Your starting to sound like the British Government.

  40. Double Head Shot,

    Savage calls liberals “vermin,” “rats” and “filth” for a reason. What is it?

  41. Buddah boy, the funny thing about what you refer to in order to justify your hatred, well, they just make you look ill informed. Nothing you refer to is untrue, you just don’t agree with it. THere in the problem with those who hate liberty, free expression and yes, the uncomfortable truth. What Savage doesn’t say, because he knows all of the head in the sand libs would lose their minds (even more than already), is that all of these things you think he’s wrong about? Well, he’s pointing out the evil that promulgates itself in this world. He is a man who recognizes the works of the enemy, and isn’t afraid to stand against those who promote evil works. The adversary hates truth, those who follow the adversary hare the truth… Savage isn’t always right, but he right far more often than wrong. Now, you call this truth hate speech. An imam or political leader advocating death to Israel you would defend. Who exactly is wrong in this debate? The sad thing is, all you confused followers of the adversary are inconsistent in your beliefs and opinons. you are muddled, confused, babbling.

  42. Savage is a national treasure, thank goodness I live in the US, still the most free country on the planet even Dems trying to break everything they touch and clamp down on “uncivil” speech.

  43. How pathetic that England attracts the losers of the world embracing them as they call for her death, while she is bans an erudite scholar such as Dr. Michael Savage. England deserves everything she gets, because she stifles truth in favor of appeasement. I will never ever step foot in Enlgand again. I was there in 2000 and I thought it was a sewer compared to what it was when I went to school there in the 60’s.

    And no OUR future is not going to be a futre without free speech or our civil human rights freedom. NOT AN OPTION.

    Shine on Dr. Savage shine on you crazy diamond, shine on!!!

  44. james,

    Make no mistake. If you’ll read and comprehend this:

    “The Savage has a right to say what he wants.
    He has a right to ridiculed for it as well.
    He also has the right to suffer unintended consequences of his bigotry and stupidity.
    Being a douche bag isn’t against the law.”

    I am agreeing with the Prof. that his right to free speech should be defended. Just as yours should be defended.

    I’m also saying that you have the right to be called a douche bag for being a douche bag.

    You also have the right to be reviled for being a hateful ass like Michael Savage. I don’t hate him. I despise the things he says because they are myopic and bigoted. There is a difference.

    Double Shot In the Foot,

    “Go back and read the posts. Its quite clear that I did not “assert” that you agree with him. Duh. Put down the tar, weirdo. I said that your too sensitive (wink wink) to have a factual debate. Go ahead, try to repute even ONE of Savage’s quotes. I doubt you could put a cohesive argument together.”

    Oooo. A slur on my sexuality (like I didn’t catch that the first time, idiot). How positively closeted of you, sugarpants! Sorry, but much to your disappointment, I save my lovin’ for the ladies.

    “Every goddamn thing a child does is now thrown into the autism spectrum. How is that possible?”

    This isn’t a cogent statement. It’s hyperbole.

    “Where did this illness come from?”

    This isn’t a cogent argument. It is an argument from ignorance. Arguments from ignorance are a form of logical fallacy.

    Autism is a disease that no one knows the precise cause of yet. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t real. The genealogy of autism is complex and only partially understood, but the research suggests that it is a spectrum of disorders (referred to as Autism Spectrum Disorders or ASD) that manifests in a similar fashion but can arise from multiple causes just like other developmental disabilities like fetal alcohol syndrome and that I’m sure to your enlightened mind you still call “retarded”. Got that? A genetic component that can be aggravated/exacerbated by various environmental factors that manifest in similar ways.

    Although the use of vaccines has gained the most attention as a possible environmental factor of autism, recent research in that area has proven that to be a blind alley. Current research is focusing on prenatal viral infection as the principal non-genetic cause of autism. Specifically exposure to rubella (which causes congenital rubella syndrome), cytomegalovirus or other viruses that activate the mother’s immune response and greatly increases the risk for autism. Concurrently, another theory is showing promise that is related to the autoimmune disease model called the maternal antibody theory. That theory states that immunoglobulin G from the mother’s body passes through the placenta and attacks proteins as they form in the developing brain. In addition, there is also research suggesting links between diabetes, epilepsy and older age pregnancies and the development of autistic spectrum disorders. These are just a few of the many avenues science is researching related to the causes of autism, but the fact that they haven’t narrowed down the causes yet is not surprising. At one time, people thought influenza was caused by evil spirits and that phrenology was a valid way to diagnose mental disorders. Learning, that thing which Michael Savage and his listeners are so bad at, is an ongoing process. Science is the very pinnacle of continuing education by the very nature of its methods.

    “There are children who are genuinely autistic but not to the extent the medical establishment has claimed.”

    This isn’t a fact on “Dr.” Savage’s part. This is an opinion. As to the epidemiology of autism, “the extent the medical establishment has claimed” ASD exists? There are several factors to consider.

    1) The definition of ASD is emergent.
    2) Epidemiology is the measure of several metrics:
    a) incidence rate – the rate at which new cases occurred per person-year,
    b) cumulative incidence – the proportion of a population that became new cases within a specified time period,
    c) point prevalence – the proportion of a population that had the condition at a single point in time,
    d) period prevalence – proportion of a population that had the condition at any time within a stated period
    e) These metrics all relate to a key metric – changes with time.
    3) Because the diagnosis is emergent, many children previously misdiagnosed with learning disabilities are now diagnosed with ASD.
    4) The key defining factors of ASD is chronic abnormalities of brain development and behavior which become apparent before a child is three years old, has a steady course with no remission and is characterized by widespread abnormalities of social interactions and communication, as well as restricted interests and repetitive behavior. “Autism” – or properly “Classical Autism” – is but one of the diagnoses within the ASD group which includes Asperger’s Syndrome, atypical autism (PDD-NOS), Rett syndrome and Childhood Degenerative Disorder.
    5) According to research done by the Autism Society of North Carolina, “(ASD) is the second most common developmental disability following mental retardation. ASD is more common than childhood cancer, cystic fibrosis, and multiple sclerosis combined. It is estimated that up to 1 out of every 110 children born today has some form of ASD. This means that approximately 1.5 million Americans (children and adults) have ASD today, and that more than 15 million Americans (loved ones, caregivers, educators, and healthcare professionals) are directly impacted by the disorder.
    6) Numerous studies have shown a marked increase in ASD diagnosis since the 1980’s (changes over time) but part of this is due to the emergent diagnostic with some of the increase coming from previous misdiagnoses being corrected. This variance, however, does not change the overall upward trend in diagnosis over time.

    “The same with ADD and ADHD. A kid whines and the medical-pharmaceutical establishment says, “Medicate, medicate. Treat, treat. Your child is sick, poor baby.” These kids aren’t sick! It’s the system that’s sick.”

    Again, this is not a cogent argument. This is not only argumentum ad ignorantium, that ol’ logical fallacy rearing its ugly head again, it is a false equivalence. A false equivalence is not only a logical fallacy, it is more commonly known as a lie.

    7) ADD/ADHD is not part of the ASD grouping. It is a neurobehavioral developmental disorder primarily characterized by the co-existence of attentional problems and hyperactivity, with each behavior occurring infrequently alone and symptoms starting before seven years of age.
    8) The causes of ADD/ADHD are largely genetic with the candidate genes all affecting serotonin production and transport and some argue that it is a genetic relic caused by speciation when humans adapted to agrarian lifestyles over hunter-gather lifestyles (the Hunter-Farmer theory). There are some theories that this genetic predisposition can be aggravated by environmental factors. In addition, ADD/ADHD are often comorbid with other disorders such as oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder (35% and 26% of all cases respectively – both characterized by antisocial behaviors such as stubbornness, aggression, frequent temper tantrums, deceitfulness, lying, or stealing),borderline personality disorder, primary disorder of vigilance (characterized by poor attention and concentration, as well as difficulties staying awake), mood disorders, bipolar disorder (25% of all children diagnosed with ADD/ADHD have BPD), anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. This polyglot of commonly comorbid pathologies can make diagnosis of ADD/ADHD problematic, however, according to the AMA the diagnostic criteria for ADHD are based on extensive research and, if applied appropriately, lead to the diagnosis with high reliability.
    9) The prevalence of ADD/ADHD is far higher than ASD. ADD/ADHD was 34 per 1,000 in the U.S. during the late 1990’s. Contrast with the prevalence of ASD at 1 in 110 – which translates to be 9 in 1,000 – and you’ll see that while ASD is a rising trend in epidemiological terms it is no where near as prevalent as ADD/ADHD.

    In summation, “Dr.” Savage’s statements are misinformed opinions based on arguments made out of ignorance and false equivalences. He couldn’t argue his way out of wet paper bag. Not only are ASD and ADD/ADHD not diagnostically the same, they are not epidemiologically the equivalent either. These kids are sick, they are sick with distinctly different illnesses. Savage Mikey’s lack of knowledge about the epidemiology of the illnesses notwithstanding.

    There’s your one.

  45. Personally, I think there should be a new diagnosis for mental disorders: TRDTS.

    Talk Radio Dipshit Troll Syndrome – people who with the delusional belief that talk radio dipshits are some kind of prophet or truthsayer instead of the shit disturbing troublemakers that their niche in the entertainment world requires.

    People like Savage and Rush would tell you puppies cause AIDS and cookies are the cause of the downfall of democracy in this country if they thought it would get you to turn in. They have no center whatsoever and will play any way they think the wind is blowing their target audience. They play to your innate insecurities and bias and they play you, their audience, like the bunch of suckers incapable of independent thought you really are; just salivating like Pavlov’s dog waiting to be told what to think next.

    Too bad for you lot you stumbled across a blog populated with people trained to be critical thinkers and some who are just naturally gifted at it.

    I now return you to your scheduled flash mob meeting of The Michael Savage Mutual Masturbation Club.

  46. Buddha Is Listening To The High Pitched Collective Whine Of The Savage Nation’s Blood Pressure Spiking

  47. “Michael Savage” never earned a doctorate. There is no earned doctorate with that pseudonym on it. Michael Alan Weiner earned a Ph.D. in something called “nutritional ethnomedicine.” So, it is inappropriate to refer to the pseudonym as Dr. Savage because there is no such person. I have no problem with his real name being used, since Dr. Weiner earned a Ph.D., however, in the academic world, Ph.D. holders are usually referred to as “Mr.”

  48. puzzling,


    That was worth listening to for the laughable “fascist” rant at the end.

  49. Hey, Brits, want our blacks, Mexicans and Muslims? Despite what you hear from our pet media whores, we don’t need any more. You can have all of ours and more.

  50. Puzzling,
    Great link to Savage’s shout out to Prof. Turley! I think Savage should pay professor Turley royalties for reading almost his entire article!

  51. The banning of Mr. Savage shows that Sharia Law is reigning in England (and in Europe for this matter).This is the English version of the Islamic Blasphemy Law. If you say anything offensive to Islam, you are punished, even if what you say is the truth.In Islam you are murdered, in England and in Europe you are sued or forbidden entry to the country.
    England did the same with Gert Wilders,who was barred from entering the country.
    In France, the government went after Brigitte Bardot, sued her, and threatened to put her in jail for offending Islam.

    However English Blasphemy Law does not apply to militant Muslims who offend and threaten the Queen and England( and all the countries in Europe). Muslims are allowed to swear violence against the democratic and christian nations, and are protected under freedom of speech. Anjem Choudary just threatened Obama, and got away with it. One wonders why London is called Londonistan.
    Mr. Savage, Gert Wilders, Brigitte Bardot to name a few, are all courageous citizens who are trying to worn the West to the dangers of Islamic invasion and imposition of Sharia Law.

  52. O S

    after they kept refering to weiner as dr. i had to look that one up too. somehow i doubt nutritional ethnomedicine is taught at many schools outside of california.

    i think the radio show would get along just fine if they used michaels real name.

    The Weiner Nation, sounds about right.

  53. Zeena
    1, May 25, 2011 at 11:42 pm

    One wonders why London is called Londonistan.


    i’m guessing bigots

  54. What irony After reading a portion of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand – I pop on to Micheal Savages’ website and see him being banned again from England.In Atlas Shrugged, page 809, they fire a news broadcaster because his guest wanted to tell the truth about what government actions would mean to every person left in the country and the government pulled them off the air….. permanently.

  55. Savage conceals his Jewish ancestry. Even Bill O’Reilly thinks he is a Christian:

    O’REILLY: Now you’re not a churchgoing guy. That was another thing that caught my ear as I was riding around.

    SAVAGE: Not at all.

    O’REILLY: You don’t go to church. You’re not a real strong God guy. So why are you so…

    SAVAGE: Wait, wait. No, no. Bill — Bill — Bill, I’m a very strong God-believing man. I just don’t go to houses of worship, except maybe once or twice a year, because whether you — well, whether people accept it or not, I am in touch with God all day long.

    O’REILLY: All right. That’s fine. That’s your belief.

    SAVAGE: I talk to God.


  56. I don’t care whether you like or hate what M.S. expresses on his radio show or in any interview.
    Minds like his need to prevail – and here is why:
    – individualistic, critical thinking ability
    – a love for literature and literary context
    – an understanding of the human condition (in the tradition of
    the great writers)
    – a sharp sense of humor (sometimes disturbingly so)
    – independence from the influence of media moguls
    – an unwavering conviction of not seeing the world in black &
    – speaking honestly truth to power (be that left or right)

    Rather would I accept being insulted by Savage(s) on a daily basis, than to live in a dumbed-down media landscape of tapioca opinions that pander to the lowest common denomenator.
    Read Aldous Huxley’s “Brave new world” and you’ll know why his existence is so important!!!

  57. Buddha Is Laughing you sure have alot of anger, rage, and hate inside that you project onto others. Sorry you are so unhappy in life!

  58. james,

    And I’m sorry you’re so ignorant that you think an entertainer is an oracle. If you don’t like that I have the same 1st Amendment rights as “Dr.” Savage – including the right to be critical of him and his stupidity – then I suggest you take it up with the Founding Fathers.

  59. Boo Hoo little mikey weiner cant go to england, would mikey like some treif cheese with his whine?

  60. Michael continuingly blasts Fox News for not sticking up for him, or at least not even reporting this UK news. Why would Fox News support anyone who mocks/degrades some of their own commentators (i.e. O’Reilly-leprechaun; Hannity-wallbanger; Glenn Beck-hemorrhoid;). MIchael spits puke on fellow conservatives with whom he disagrees. He deserves Fox’s abandonment.

  61. “He (referring to the weiner guy) deserves Fox’s abandonment.”


    Actually, he deserves the abandonment of the whole human race. There may be people out there who are more hateful, but they are few and far between, thank goodness.

  62. It’s a wonderful thing the internet. You can now listen to what Michael Savage has to say rather than accept the rubbish that a former disgraced Home Secretary had to say about him when she instigated the ban.
    Sure, his language is robust and he has some daft ideas about some issues….but much of what he has to say, particularly about radical islam is spot on.
    I contrast what I have heard from the man himself with the ghastly islamofascists who threaten my life. Mr Savage has never threatened me.
    Looking back at the BBC news at the time the ban was introduced, it is clear that he was included as a token white American amongst the cesspit of radical muslims who threaten death to all non-muslims. Yet another example of BBC bias and cynical New Labour manipulation.
    This country is going to the dogs!

  63. I listen to this clown just for laughs. I like the callers who start their call with Dr. Savage (hint: he doesn’t exist) you know your in for a real kiss-ass call. To all you Wiener lovers do you listen closely when he screams and yells about the government and the state of America while telling you about his multiple houses, and yachts. Keep sending in your dollars for the Weiner defense fund the cost of diesel is getting outrageous.

  64. hey buddha, your ‘list’ of quotes proves nothing other than the fact that someone in the ‘media’ has the spine to state the facts. So you agree with illegal immigration destroying school systems, rampant promulgation of radical islam, corrupt senators on the take, pharmaceuticals running the dhc and epa, socialism in our gov’t and an imposter occupying our White House? Just another tool of the globalists is what you’ve shown yourself to be. I hear iran and venezuela are looking for stenographers; you seem to fit the bill perfectly.

  65. @laughing in TX, it’s ok that you’ve never succeeded, this once was a free country. What’s scarily comical is that the ‘media’ has yet to ask the tough questions that need to be asked. Oh and why is diesel so expensive, go ask your puppet in chief, this is by design tool.

  66. @Intellibronc, I have succeeded in life nicely thanks I just don’t go around telling everyone how terrible things are. And I’m not accepting people’s hard earned money for a defense fund. So you think the president directly controls gas prices, I guess you have to blame someone. Keep listening to Weiner complain about how the government is screwing us as he tells you about terrible life.

  67. Intellibronc,

    I’m sorry, but I’m a precision user of the English language. I don’t speak fluent Imbecile so I couldn’t make heads nor tails of your gibberish other than you seem to be mad about “Dr.” Savage being made to look like the putz he is by presenting a list of verifiable facts to contradict the bloviating of his uniformed opinion. Come back when you can make a cogent comment or when your parents quit locking you in the closet to keep you from molesting pets and small farm animals. Whichever comes first.

  68. You left out a few family members…the sheep, sister, the dog, cousins, cows, aunts, horses…the list can go on and on…

  69. Buddha,

    Did you read Fiat Lux phrase “Sure, his language is robust”?

    I like that description “robust language”.

  70. The level of discourse on the left is typified by the constant referring to Dr. Savage’s real name. If you can’t raise your arguments above the grade school, playground, name-calling level, why would you expect anyone to take you seriously?

    As for his autism/ADD comments – Savage is against the over-medicating of our children being pushed by big pharma. He has also written several books on natural medicines, based on his research as a botanist. He’s not just some ignorant screamer. (Something most of his detractors here are – completely ignorant of his real positions yet pronouncing him “bigoted” and “hateful”.)

  71. Ignorant of his real positions?

    “Michael Savage — one of the most popular talk show hosts in the nation — is used to controversy. It’s been one week since Savage made controversial remarks about autism, referring to those diagnosed with the condition as ‘brats, idiots, and morons.’

    Several big advertisers have pulled their commercials from the syndicated ‘Savage Nation’ radio show, and now, thousands of parents and protesters are urging Savage to step down, calling his words ‘hate speech.’

    ‘I’ll tell you what autism is,’ Savage told his audience on July 16. ‘In 99 percent of the cases, it’s a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out. That’s what autism is.’ The talk show host also said, ‘Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don’t sit there crying and screaming, idiot.‘”



    Those are clearly the words of somebody who is primarily concerned with Big Pharma and not simply a hateful, ignorant and ill-informed bigot. He’s not only all of that, but he’s also a brat, an idiot, and a moron. And apparently his advertisers and parents of autistic children agreed on that point. So I guess it’s just a good thing for you that you added the qualifier “most” to your statement. It makes you look only marginally less ignorant in defending him than Savage was in making his putrid pronouncements in the first place.

  72. “…constant referring to Dr. Savage’s real name….”


    What’s the matter. Is there something wrong with Michal Alan Weiner’s real name? His Jewish family history perhaps being embarrassing to him and his sheeple followers?

    As far as “Dr. Savage” goes, there is no such person on two fronts. Savage is a fake name for stage purposes and thus is not a real person. While Weiner did get a Ph.D.; in an academic setting, those holding a Ph.D. are called “Mr.” In fact, in England, surgeons are called “Mr.”

    No doctorate was ever awarded to the Savage persona, so any reference to Savage as “Dr.” is both grammatically and formally wrong. “Michael Savage” does not have a diploma on a wall anywhere showing a person by that name has a doctorate.

    As the holder of an earned doctorate myself, this is one of those issues that annoys the hell out of me when a grown man who should know better engages in this kind of childish chest-thumping.

  73. “The level of discourse on the left is typified by the constant referring to Dr. Savage’s real name. If you can’t raise your arguments above the grade school, playground, name-calling level, why would you expect anyone to take you seriously?”

    Using a person’s given name when talking about him lowers one’s argument to no more than grade school, playground, name-calling? Really?



    Anyone who has ever worked with autistic children knows Savage is dead wrong about them. Savage is just a hateful, mean-spirited little man. I don’t care if he did earn a Ph.D.

  74. Buddha, you don’t sound like your laughing anymore.

    You call me an idiot, closeted, sugarpants? and that you “save your loven for the ladies.” Yeah, right. I have read your bloviations on this post and others. All I can say is that your a pathetic dork. I didn’t believe there were really morons like you, typing away on blogs all day (likely your mom’s basement in underwear). The left sure has some embarrassing spawns.

    As for this thread, it has degenerated into blather. The point of this article is that Michael SAVAGE is being censored for his VIEWS. The same ideas that deadbeats on this site can’t stand hearing and they too want him censored. Savage may not be correct on every single issue (he is on most) but thank goodness somebody has the guts to say what needs to be said.

  75. I think it was Judge Bazelon who remarked of an expert, that spending time occupying a seat in a classroom did not guarantee the inculcation of knowledge.

    Possessing a doctorate does not guarantee either humanity or common sense. Look at Thomas Sowell, James Dobson and Rand Paul, just to name three. We can add Michael Alan Weiner and make it four.

  76. Double Head Shot,

    Who suggested that Savage should be censored? Some of us disagree with your opinion of the man and that means that we believe he should be censored?

    I think Savage is a hatemonger, a racist, and a homophobe. Lots of people say things that I find offensive. I don’t ask that they be censored. I just don’t listen to their hateful rhetoric.

  77. Triple Shot in the Foot,

    “Buddha, you don’t sound like your laughing anymore.”

    Then you don’t know me very well, genius.

    As to the rest of your blather, thanks for showing that in addition to being a Pavlovian follower instead of an actual critical thinker that you are a sore loser as well. Those pesky facts! They’ll bite you in the ass every time. Especially when you run off at the mouth without using your brain first.

    And what Elaine said.

    Also, to re-iterate what I told your Wiener Nation buddy james: I’m sorry you’re so ignorant that you think an entertainer is an oracle. If you don’t like that I have the same 1st Amendment rights as “Dr.” Savage – including the right to be critical of him and his stupidity – then I suggest you take it up with the Founding Fathers.

  78. Double Head Shot,

    Sorry old boy … “on this site … and they too want him censored” is untrue and thus a poor defense.

    Try again

  79. “The level of discourse on the left is typified by the constant referring to Dr. Savage’s real name. If you can’t raise your arguments above the grade school, playground, name-calling level, why would you expect anyone to take you seriously?”

    So now I’m confused, who was caught with his pants down Paul Reuben or PeeWee Herman? If I refer to Walt Disney am I dissing Mickey Mouse?

    By the way I agree that this vile person shouldn’t be banned, but he made his bed.

  80. It’s also telling that – now that I’ve called you leftists on your overtly juvenile use of Dr. Savage’s real name – you all act as if you were only referring to his real name to be “accurate” and not (as was patently obvious) to make third grade “weiner” jokes.

    And Crying Buddha, it’s nice that you can quote left-wing websites when it comes to knowing what Dr. Savage thinks. You should try actually listening to him in context some time. He often uses hyperbole for effect, but it is plain as day to those of us who listen to him on a regular basis that his position on autism and ADD is completely based on his belief that it is unethical for doctors to over-medicate kids (and all people for that matter) and that that practice is directly related to the amount of money to be made by big pharma and NOT out of concern for the overall health of the kids.

    Maybe you should shut-up and listen for awhile before spouting off.

  81. ABC News is left-wing?

    They are owned by Disney.

    I’m thinking you are not thinking or you are one of those mentally challenged people who think all media is left wing when in fact is a dominated by corporate interests. Interests which are predominately right wing. Hell, ol’ Walt was about half-Nazi himself.

    And I have listened to him. Ad nauseum. Just like I’ve listened to Rush and Gordon Liddy. I’ve even met Gordon. See, I get to know the enemies of society before I speak ill of them. It’s called research. That thing Savage Wiener should have done before he opened his pie hole to opine on the causes of autism. Not the treatments. The causes. Cause and effect. Like the effect of being ridiculed is often an effect of saying something ridiculous.

    What is the very height of irony is that you are telling me – someone who defends Savage’s 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech – to shut up. Because you don’t like my fact based criticism and your best proof is “You just don’t understand him!” whereas I provided “Dr.” Savage Wiener’s own words to illustrate his thoughts on the matter. You sound like a 15 year old girl trying to rationalize dating a crack dealer.

    You have a nice day there, sport, but I’m going to exercise my 1st Amendment rights all I want – which includes both defending Savage’s rights and ridiculing him for being an ignorant ass all at the same time. If you’ve got a problem with that? Tell it to the Wiener Nation, because you have exactly zero chance of stopping me from doing anything. Not only am I laughing, guess which finger I’m holding up?

  82. “Like the effect of being ridiculed is often caused by saying something ridiculous.”

    Pardon me. I was laughing too hard at your basic idiocy to type properly. Plus holding out that the finger made it awkward.

  83. Savage Nation of Wieners.

    Or is that Whiners?

    It’s all sounded pretty much the same since your Holy Oracle started getting criticized.

  84. While we’re on the subject of Savage and the right of free speech–some of you might want to take a look at the following story:

    Michael Savage Has to Apologize to Brave New Films
    By Tana Ganeva
    Fri Sep. 11, 2009

    Shock jock Michael Savage, who is not prone to public shows of remorse, has been forced to apologize to progressive video production company Brave New Films after a take-down notice his syndicator sent to YouTube in 2008 resulted in the removal of all BNF’s films from the site.

    The company’s YouTube complaint specifically targeted a Brave New Films video called “Michael Savage Hates Muslims.” In the video a nice photo of Savage posing by the Golden Gate Bridge is overlaid with soundbites of the shock jock railing against Islam, Muslims and the Koran. “I can see what it says in their book of hate … make no mistake about it, the Koran is not a document of freedom. The Koran is a document of slavery and chattel!” screams Savage. Kind of hard to misrepresent his meaning.

    On his site, Savage hosts a link to a legal defense fund, meant in part to combat alleged violations of his free speech. Yet Savage’s Oregon-based syndicator, The Original Talk Radio Network, Inc. (OTRN), sent a notice to YouTube claiming copyright infringement, even though as most people who know things about the law will tell you, brief soundbites compiled into a document of critique fall squarely within fair use laws.

    BNF’s case was taken on by Bingham McCutchen LLP and Stanford Center for Internet and Society’s “Fair Use Project,” a group specializing in fair use law. According to the BNF press release, they sued Savage and the radio company “for damages caused by the removal of BNF’s content and to vindicate BNF’s free speech rights.”

    The settlement reached included the following written apology by Michael Savage and the company:

    OTRN acknowledges that it made a mistake by asking YouTube to remove Brave New Films’ video “Michael Savage Hates Muslims” from the YouTube site. Upon further examination, it is clear that video should not have been included in OTRN’s September 29, 2009 takedown notice. OTRN apologizes for this error.

    “We were not going to allow extreme members of the right to intimidate progressive organizations into inaction.” says BNF producer and liberal activist Robert Greenwald. “Mr. Savage systematically targeted the Council on American Islamic Relations for simply printing his hateful words onto one of their fundraising materials. These despicable acts, as well as Mr. Savage’s hateful rants against Muslims on his radio show, spurred us into action.”

    (Tana Ganeva is an assistant editor at AlterNet.)

  85. the height of irony would be if it were found out that high concentrations of synthetic vitamins, herbal remedies and nutritional ethnomedicine were the primary causes of autism.

  86. England is in the midst of loseing its national identity the majority of its politicians are afraid for thier lives because of muslim terror and this is just another nail in thier. Coffin the uk is a lost cause oh well they didn’t have much to offer anyways

  87. Having perused many of JT’s blog entries about the curtailment of free speech rights in recent years, his concern is understandable. I take it that he has no issue with private parties banning the likes of Savage in their homes, clubs and society. That Savage should be publicly ostracized is one thing, that his speech should be criminalized is quite another. Given JT’s acknowledgment of Savage’s vile rhetoric, I trust that he wishes to hold him accountable. In a perfect world, upon Savage’s entry into England, there would be a mob of concerned citizens demonstrating outside of passport control chanting “Go home. We don’t want you here!” Were the populace to make Savage’s stay in Britain so unwelcome that he would not wish to remain or return, that would not violate Savage’s free speech rights. It is only because the government has banned him that JT objects. May a pro-active government do anything to stop hateful rhetoric short of imprisonment or monetary fines? Would it be permissible to publish a list of persons that the government deems undesirable and put it to the British people to decide whether to grant them the privilege of entry? Logistics aside, do not the majority have the right to shun undesirable persons? Savage, after all, is free to bullhorn his hatred to passengers on passing ships just outside Britain’s territorial waters…

  88. Jeffrey,

    You cannot bestow rights that you do not have yourself.

    You have no right to silence me, nor do you and your neighbor together have that right.

  89. Hate speech lol if you think savage spews hate then your already doomed. Ingnorance and the stick your head in the sand approach is what got the U.K. into the mess its in now! Smile and wave to the more than 10,000 closed circit cameras watching your every move, while muslims put your women in burkas and chant “we will chopp your head off” in the streets outside parliament.

  90. as a sovereign country england has the right to admit or not admit anyone it pleases. if you don’t like it, invade them, hang their sovereign, topple their government, and admit whomever you wish.

    deja vu

  91. Puzzling,

    You do not have the right to force me to listen to your speech. I am not silencing you by refusing to listen. Savage, for instance, has no constitutional right to broadcast his hate on the radio. When a radio shock jock is fired, his freedom of speech is not an issue. He is free to stand on a soapbox in the park and talk to his heart’s delight. Within reasonable limits, one has the right to limit one’s hearing another person’s speech. See the recent Supreme Court case involving Reverend Phelps, the preacher who chants “God hates Fags” at the funerals of soldiers. Interestingly, Phelps is also on the banned-list with Savage. Funny that Savage never mentions Phelps’ freedom of speech…

  92. There are some on this site saying they ‘dont understand how savage can be banned while the English government allows muslims to preach hate, to promote the destruction of all that would stop the tide of Islam’.

    Do you all REALLY not understand? Think about it for just a moment, logically and you may find that it actually makes quite a bit of sense why muslims are allowed to preach hate while those who preach sense (savage) are not allowed into the nation.

    It’s all there to see, there are no coincidences or accidents people, those words are illusory.

    Unfortunately, as another poster stated… it may take the detonation of a WMD in a populated place in the states to wake us up over here… you’d think two damned airplanes flying into buildings would do that, but no… there are still some retarded folk in this nation who would have us commit suicide before fighting for the values of this great nation. As far as England is concerned? Ya, they’re SOL, they’ve given up already and there isn’t much which can save them, maybe unless the soccer hooligans decide to take over and whoop ass. That’d be fun to see😀

  93. Elaine… Ellllaaaaaine Elaine, you ditsy woman. As you posted

    :: The company’s YouTube complaint specifically targeted a Brave New Films video called “Michael Savage Hates Muslims.” In the video a nice photo of Savage posing by the Golden Gate Bridge is overlaid with soundbites of the shock jock railing against Islam, Muslims and the Koran. “I can see what it says in their book of hate … make no mistake about it, the Koran is not a document of freedom. The Koran is a document of slavery and chattel!” screams Savage. Kind of hard to disagree::

    You make some seriously… retarded… backwards, regressive, damaging to your own mind… what have you (but retarded works best) statements.

    Guess what, the word Islam means submission. The religion is one of control, not freedom. Every bit of the United States Constitution, with all its protections of individual rights (like the rights of women, you ridiculous creature you) AIMS AT THE HEART OF ISLAM. You would promote your own servitude to a man, would you like to not be able to drive? Would you like to make sure rosa parks always sits in the back of the bus as she’s a woman and hell, there’s no way a nation like suadi arabia would ever allow for any type of ‘civil rights movement’. Their version of civil rights consists of “How bout a nice warm glass of STFU or die”. Would you like to be beaten whenever your husband decides? Would you like to have 3 other wives sitting beside you? Would you like to see everyone who disagrees with the religion of your husband’s (not your religion as you are a second class citizen now and your opinion means jack sh*t compared to your husbands opinion) killed, enslaved or forced to convert?

    Or would you like to enjoy the various luxuries that The Western Cannon and its triumphs has to offer – i.e. WESTER CIVILIZATION? Would you like to ensure the rights of the INDIVIDUAL ARE ALWAYS HELD SACRED? Or would you like to continue arguing on behalf of those who hold what an individual like Mike Savage says is Hate Speech.

    You don’t even know what the word HATE means let alone defining it for use in a proper context. You and your kind disgust me.

  94. Elaine M

    Falling back to the liberal bread and butter

    Accuse someone of being a racist, sexist and homophobe.

    How original!! Whew!


  95. An Americaaaaaannnnn,

    Please note that I didn’t make the statements you claim I did. I made no comments about Islam. I posted a Mother Jones article and a link to it. I suggest you learn to read better.

    So sorry I disgust you. It really breaks my heart!




    Even though it may not be original–the truth hurts. Sorry you’re clueless. I suggest you learn to live with the condition.


  96. Markdpez and An American: how original. Really original thoughts and ideas. One of the reasons I am an ardent supporter of the First Amendment is that sunshine is the best disinfectant, and by allowing haters to spew their bile, it lets the rational people of the world see wheat they look like when the pointy white hood comes off. Good work. Others can see what genuine hate and racism looks like.

  97. “which includes both defending Savage’s rights and ridiculing him for being an ignorant ass all at the same time.” (Buddha)

    clear and succinct

  98. Wow there are a lot of anti semites on here.

    Mocking Savage because of his family name ? Really ?

    He’s a talk show host giving opinions on the military. He’s opposed to war, but he’s also opposed to the door to door style war Bush fought – either get out, or do it right is his belief.

    The draft dodging thing makes me laugh. The guy was off getting a higher education. I suppose “he only got more smart to avoid the draft” is next up.

    I will admit the “draft dodger” people make me laugh – liberals are supposed to oppose war, where Republicans are supposed to detest Democrats. Yet, the liberals were the ones strongly opposed to Vietnam, and Republicans cry about people not wanting to go to Vietnam to die for a pointless Democrat war. I suppose, a lot of those Republicans are Dixiecrats.

    For all you Bush hating liberals out there, remember one thing – your pal Obama wants conscription. His pal Rahm Emmanuel wants mandatory military service like Israel. And, your buddy Charlie Rangel put forth H.R.5741

    So, if you can pull yourself away from the Republican chickenhawk mindset, just remember – the Democrats are the actual war mongers (they love them some conscription) what with Vietnam, Libya, Afghanistan etc. Now they want mandatory military service.

    LOL, remember a few years ago during Iraq how liberals were screaming in fear that Bush and Cheney were going to bring back the draft. Well, all you ignorant liberals just need to look down your own aisles to see who the REAL chickenhawks are.

    Morons. Stupid, delusional unproductive morons.

  99. I defend Michael Savage . I find his ban from Britain blatantly illegal.The comments I have read here could be cause for some of you to be banned in Britain. How would you like that? You come to a public forum, disagree, fight and name call each other. Are you now criminals who are a serious threat to society? Of course not. You are trying to goad each other into a frenzy. That is not a crime or illegal. Go ahead and keep it up. Who gives a rats ass! Let’s keep in mind that none of you have made a truthful argument why Michael Savage should be BANNED from entering Britain. I believe the ban happened because the Muslims have Britain by the balls, and they are trying very hard to do the same in Belgium, the US ,France and God knows where else. It is appalling.

  100. I have been banned from the online dailymail in the UK. I know for a fact that that the UK is not a free speech county. Its a joke to think anything else.

  101. snake,

    I have been banned from newspapers before…I think that they were doing damage control for elected officials…It was after all an election year and I sharpened a few axes with details…slaughtered a few chickens and exposed the pox that they represent….Then all of a sudden…my posts were removed and I could no longer post..as my account details had been deactivated…if you knew my screen name you could see the blawg….but it was hidden…The info would not pull up even on a general search….

    So I would say, you are probably in good company….all the way around..You are welcome to stay so long as general rules of civility are maintained…we can all be snakes and serpents at the same time…So a hearty welcome…

  102. Anonymously Yours,
    I just makes me sick to not have freedom of speech on a UK trash new paper/website. They are all about trash but put some good spin on there trash and watch you get cut off. It is sad that the British are so censored.
    What a joke county to live in

Comments are closed.