You guys need to chill. Savage has the right to say what he wants, and Sandoval has the right to introduce whatever resolution he wants. If all the Supervisors felt the same way, they have the right to approve the resolution. And by the way, the resolution simply "condemned" Savage's comments. It does not call for his job.

As an aside, I find it interesting that in your instructions for posting comments, you note that "Personal attacks are not allowed," yet you have absolutely no problem with making personal attacks in your column.

Hypocrite, much?

Sandoval is an America-hating, white-male-hating far-left doofus who could only be elected in a city as intellectually retarded as San Francisco. I used to love the city, and lived there for years, but had to escape becuase it is truly governed by lunatics and overrun with freeloading hedonistic freaks. Tolerance taken too far -- well, except for tolerance of conservative thought. Such a shame.

The comments policy is set by the publisher and has nothing to do with the content of individual articles.

Dave

Well, woe is me. The Supervisor of San Francisco, an official with about as much national significance as a used match, tells Michael Savage to shut up. I guess we all need to whitewash the windows and stock up on those emergency food kits from Costco, since clearly the world is about to end.

It'a always been beyond me why you Americans have to elect people like municipal supervisors anyway. No-one knows who the hell the people on the ballot paper are when it comes to positions like this, so it just comes down to whichever candidate got their name onto more campaign signs, who could be any old idiot. It's farcical. Can you imagine if corporations elected their staff rather than hiring them based on merit?

When radical Muslims sneak a nuke into the Port of Oakland, Mr. Sandoval and his constituency of perverts, Maoists, neo-Bolsheviks, illiterate 3rd world aliens and drugged-out street rabble will be blown away. Problem solved. America will do just fine without them, without Rice-a-Roni and without bad sour dough bread.

But won't Jerry Brown usehis psychic powers to stop the terrorists?

Dave

Selwyn (made up name?) Duke said: "In most parts of the world - Western Europe, Canada and Australia, just to name a few - Savage and many others would be criminally charged for expressing their opinions."

Hmm, here I am sitting in Sydney, Australia, where our inherited right to free speech has been protected at common law for over 200 years and for over 1000 years elsewhere, seeing Selwyn Duke expressing more rubbish about the free-speech rights of Americans. He is only right up to a point: You can be charged for hate speech (you know, like inciting people to criminal behaviour, just like you can in the US), but I've never seen it happen for expressing an opinion.

Another isolationist right-wing American with no real experience of the world outside Doodad County or the Ivy League belt expressing an opinion about which he knows nothing.

But I also have a view about rights, and it's backed up by another amendment to the US constitution - the right not to be vilified or treated like an outcast in your own country outweighs the right to say whatever you like, a "right" that has never in fact existed under American law (ask any US lawyer).

Perhaps that's just the same place we've reached by a different route, where Australia's hate-speech laws pick up the slack in relation to the misguided notion that it's OK to say anything if it serves your ends - a point upon which Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler would have been in total agreement. It's doubtful that's what the framers of the constitition would have intended in regard to the 1st amendment, a point also backed by the courts in the US.

I'll say again Selwyn: bollocks. You might fool some of the people etc, but most of us know exactly where you're coming from.

Cite, next time - this is an international site, which means you really can't get away with bullshit.

God Bless Michael Savage

I wonder if Michael Savage is related to this fellow?

Michael Savage has won a battle for free speech. But there is a lesson in this for Michael Savage to learn, and to take to heart. Savage complains that hardly anyone in talk radio came to his defense. If he would stop scratching his head long enough, he would know why. I believe all the name calling and berating of other talk radio personalities he does on his own show has finally caught up to him. Would you support a man who would just as soon act like a total buffoon with his name calling? Examples of Savage's name calling are Hush Bimbo, The Golfer, The Empty Golf Bag, The Leprecaun, Sean Vanity, etc, etc. His favorite target always seems to be Rush. If it weren't for Rush, talk radio and the New Media might not exist today.

For someone who claims to be conservative in nature, there are times Savage doesn't act like one. I believe most of the name calling by Savage to be an effort to increase his own dwindling listenership. And his listenership is dwindling. Back in the winter of 2005, Savage boasted of an audience of 12 million listeners a day. By the summer of 2005, Savage was boasting of an audience of 8 million a day. Recently on Savage's website, he now boasts of 10 million listeners a week. Is it any wonder? Do people really want to hear Savage savage other conservative talk show hosts? I turn him off when he starts into those worthless name calling diatribes. I can guarantee millions of others do, too.

Savage himself could be savaged, and has been savaged in the past for having such low life guests on his show as Chuckles the Clown Schumer during the DPW furor. As everyone knows, Schumer is in the back pockets of the Mafia and union thugs. That was the only reason why Chuckles the Clown was against DPW leasing US ports in the first place. Savage had to close down his own personal Yahoo Email account over Schumer. He was flooded by his listeners over having an idiot like Schumer on his show in the first place.

Perhaps Savage will learn from his mistakes, but I doubt it. He will no doubt continue the name calling, thinking he will always be able to stand on his dwindling audience of listeners.

Yet I applaud Savage on his victory over the true haters who inhabit our country. I would only say to Savage now is the time to show all of your talk radio colleagues some over due respect. Perhaps then he will find them more willing to come to his aid. But can he learn new tricks in time?

Great article. Thanks!

How wrong you are, Bill Bowman, how wrong you are. The SF Board of Supervisors are the government. They are paid by the taxpayers and are assigned to do the PUBLIC duty. Their resolutions represent the PEOPLE and are official statements. The supervisors CANNOT "pass whatever resolution they want." Could they pass a resolution condemning Bill Bowman's comments on "blogcritics.org"? Of course not.

No, the government "shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble ...". Please read and remember that. It applies at all levels of government, not just the federal.

Michael Savage is absolutely right. He is being assailed, as are the rest of us if we took the time to look up, by a pack of left-wing jackals who would run him out of the broadcast studio as quickly as they could. If they could.

It is only through the outrage of the public, that's US, that protetcts the constitutional rights of Michael and all the rest of us.

As for hate speech laws: I say balderdash on them. In the United States there CANNOT be such a thing as hate-speech laws under our consitution. NO ONE has the right to FEEL good. NO ONE has legal protection for his/her FEELINGS. We already have laws against libel, you cannot publically impeach another's reputation. That's exactly where Sandoval went wrong. Sandoval has the right to express a contrary position to anyone else's, but he CANNOT use his government position to call for a public protest against a private citizen. Savage has a good legal case against Sandoval.

But that's trivial anyway. The overarching issue is Sandoval and the illegal-alien advocates are trying to force us to accept federal criminals, the illegal aliens, who are overrunning the United States in numbers that exceed ten million, and climbing. Will we stand by and allow that? We cannot! Illegal is illegal. Our nation cannot absorb another ten to twenty million illegals. That's not all, there must be a hundred million poor people in Central and South America that all would love to enter the United States illegally if they knew they could make more money and improve themselves. Shall we let it happen?

NO! Stop the illegals now. Don't let the lobbyists for illegals intimidate us: Michael Savage today, you tomorrow, the entire U.S. government next month. Stop them now. Michael Savage uses harsh rhetoric because he is simply mad as hell! Well, there are a lot of us who are mad as hell too! When people get mad their lips loosten up and they say what's on their minds.

God bless Michael Savage, he speaks for millions of citizens, and I hope he continues doing so on his radio program.

the government "shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble ...". Please read and remember that. It applies at all levels of government, not just the federal.

Yep. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that state and local governments, and not just the federal government, also abide by the Bill Of Rights. This is called the legal doctrine of incorporation.

Ironically, Michael Savage has a history of race-baiting, in this case, Jew-baiting rhetoric:
and
Two more quotations that may interest you:

"Now, let's go a step further. I have a bill in my hand; a one dollar bill. It says "In God We Trust." That's next from the verminous Brooklyn College lawyers, isn't it? Go down South and have a 'tee-hee' over the goyim. Laugh at the goyim. Go down there and take away the crosses and they can't touch you, huh, Mr. Cohen? Hee-hee-hee. Mr. Cohen? And you wonder where anti-Semitism comes from. Let me strip the mask off of it for you today because if you think I'm going to mince words, you are mistaken. It comes from situations like this- when you have a New York Jew like Cohen going down South into the heartland of Christianity and stealing the religious symbols from Christians. You are not going to hear it anywhere else. It's so shocking, you don't even believe you just heard it. No one in the media has the guts to say what needs to be said. They're all going to make this a dancing on the head of the pin argument. They're all going to make it a little legal argument, and go onto to the next thing and sell you a piece of garbage on their television or radio show, but let me tell you something, there's a lot more at stake than a radio show. The future of this nation is at stake today. And I am not going to sit on the sidelines and have a little gentlemanly conversation. I said it like it is." (11-13-2003 Savage Nation Radio Broadcast) (Richard Cohen is an attorney from Virginia)

"When are you liberals going to wake up to the fact that a knife is at your throat, and you are going to still believe these Leftists who are screaming about civil rights: 'It sounds problematic to me,' said ACLU attorney Mark Nobody-BERG. 'If there is evidence to involve any of these 50 people in a crime, they should be targeted for investigation, but if people are being placed on a list because of something they have done in the past or someone they have associated with, an officer looking for a pretextual reason to stop them, that strikes me as wrong.' I think you ought to put Mark Nothing-BERG in prison pre-emptively." (12-12-2002 Savage Nation Radio Broadcast)(other examples of Savage's appending "berg" to a Jewish broadcaster's name in order to underscore their Jewishness include NPR's "Terry Gross-BERG" (1-10-2004) and CNN's "Wolf Blitz-BERG" )(See also in which Savage baits media pundit David Brock as "Brock-STEIN")

I would be delighted to e-mail the audioclips of the above quotations as well as the quotations cited in the above articles, particularly, the "hooked-nose" anti-Semitic racial slur.

JB: "As for hate speech laws: I say balderdash on them. In the United States there CANNOT be such a thing as hate-speech laws under our consitution. NO ONE has the right to FEEL good. NO ONE has legal protection for his/her FEELINGS."

You are wrong and hugely misguided. Go back and read the constitution in its entirety (including the 9th amendment and possibly even investigate the broad-spectrum anti-discrimination interpretation of the 14th amendment).

The US constitution, contrary to popular belief, in fact does NOT offer wholesale protection against hate speech or allow citizens to say whatever they like in certain situations without fear of retribution, especially where such action might lead to a subsequent criminal action. It may, however, be defensible. But that won't stop you being charged and possibly convicted. Such speech, especially if it impugns reputation or endangers livelihood or standing, may also, as you point out, be actionable in a civil case, malice aforethought or lack of being key. Still, it seems to me that you don't fully understand the real implications nor potential implications of your own laws.

The first amendment has never offered carte-blanche protections against misguided "say what you like" interpretions of the law - never. In interpreting it, too, most experts see the meaning as being about allowing more speech, not allowing more noxious speech - although with more leeway than some other countries (though not all). The US government is also a signatory to international anti-discrimination and human-rights agreements that were designed to counter such things as hate-speech. They were signed by a number of countries (and for which some amendments were made in a nod to the US and its first amendment rights. However, in substance they don't differ greatly to those signed by other developed countries. The US was a prime mover of the agreements, too).

Nevertheless, if we're relying on the constituition as a clear guide here, the 9th amendment is very clear: the Constitution should never be taken or assumed to be the only law of the United States. It's there in black and white, as an instruction, for all those who can be bothered to look and who are interested in an understanding of their own law that goes beyond a grade-school history class view designed to support an untenable, racist position.

It's probably worth noting here too that such champions of free speech and human rights as Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin also thought it OK to make comments based solely on race, class, political belief and culture, without regard to their impact. But somewhere in a free, democratic/representative society governed by rule of law, there has to be a line drawn in the sand between freedom and responsibility. Best that Selwyn and his ilk look for that now, as there IS potential for strife.

I used to listen to Michael Weiner (that's his real name) all the time. His rhetoric has become too predictable and like most wingnut extremists, he just hates for the purpose of hating.

That said, his comments were not, at all, racist. How do we get idiots like Sandoval into office?

Unfortunately little Michael Weiner Savage is a self-hating Jew. I don't listen to his broadcasts (I have better things to do with my time than try to download his trash) but his comments attacking "liberal" Jews (who are often, but not always just as self-hating) strike me as the kind of thing a bent weiner would do...

Listen up you pot smoking communists, Doc Savage is the truth. The day is not far off when the treasonous dogs that try to Silence free speech will hang from the streetlights as a warning to all who seek to destroy this country from within.

"Treasonous dogs"?

Who talks like that?

Not that I'm complaining, you understand - we need more pirates on this site.

Now, who gets to walk the plank first?

Arrrrrr!!!

STM
You are the one who is hugely wrong. Even as you claim to be anti-hitler you support laws devoted to squashing free speech. In the U.S. there simply CANNOT be laws restricting freedom of speech. Government is specifically forbidden to do so yet you keep coming up with the same lame tired old liberal argument of comparing the right to free speech as being equal to hitler speech which is absurd. Why do liberals always fall back on comparing everybody to Hitler who disagrees with them? Hate crimes and Hate speech laws are unconstitutional. It's plain as day when it says no laws shall be passed abridging freedom of speech. And your point about illegal immigrants not wanting to feel like outcasts in their own country outweighs free speech is ridiculous because this is NOT their country at all! Hence the term 'illegal immigrant.' You're essentially saying people who aren't even supposed to be here should be given greater legal standing over legal citizens. The problem with leftist arguments such as yours is that they ignore convienient things like the facts and law.

bomb meca

Avast, ye treasonous dogs-! Wow! Picturesque English has sure gone downhill in the past 300 years, arrrr. We could use some classy, good old phrases like that some more. That's why I love it when STM talks 'strine'.

Spitzer uses the state police to go after a political threat...here by the board of supervisors...

This is what we have come to expect from democrats.

You must be tolerant of everything and everyone, unless you are conservative and then you must be wiped out, shut down, fired and taken off the air. Your ideas are hateful because I don't like them....wahhh.

In regards to the "undocumented workers" I wonder what work Jose Carranza
(the Peruvian national in the U.S. illegally and who was previously charged with raping a 5-year-old girl who pleaded not guilty Friday in the execution-style slayings of three young college students) was here doing? There are tens of thousands of Jose Carranzas in America. They are illegal aliens. They do not belong here, their crimes do not belong here, only the people who they killed belong here. How many more of our brightest and best will be slaughtered at the altar of La Raza to the God of multiculturalism before we stop importing murderers, drug-dealers, rapists and thieves?

If I used a fake social security card or identity to get a job, I would be arrested and correctly convicted of identity theft.

Do not help criminals.
Support your police. Support the border patrol.

have a nice day...

Savage is a real low-class creep. It sounds like Sandoval is, too. Sandoval is wrong about the claim of racism. There are some people who are so obsessed with race that they see racism everywhere. I doubt that Sandoval was race-baiting; he probably just assumes that anyone with an opposing viewpoint is racist.

Even if Sandoval were right about Savage's statement, he shouldn't use the government to rebuke a private citizen. Selwyn's right that we should support Savage. I just hope that doesn't include listening to his show, because he's awful.

brucebruce:

What has the Mississippi Educational Computing Association ever done to you?

The irony is, from what I can see, Sandoval is the racist. Look at all the racially-based things he's part of. A pot calling a kettle black? As for Sharpton lending his credibility *snort* BWAHAHAHAHAHA-! Sharpton has NO credibility with anyone except the brain-dead, or as Nalle terms them, the ignorant volatile masses.

I agree with most of what Michael Savage says politically speaking however I do believe he would have more support among other radio personalities if he said less about them. He does seem to be a bit out-of-control sometimes. I hate to say this but does the name Wally George mean anything to you?

You now have government against the people.
Fight this now. San Francisco is lost-"Coming events precast its future" is something for the rest of America to pay attention to.
Vote these people out of office or is that too late.......

ignorant volatile masses

I don't believe I've actually ever called them that, but I may borrow it in the future.

Dave

I know im going to be at the bottom of this thing so mine might not even be read. But if it is, I just want people to know what I have to deal with on a daily basis with these illegal aliens. First of all, I have to depend on public transportation to get to work and school. Wherever i go through Oakland and Alameda, it feels like im in a 3rd world country. I am constantly horrassed by the perverted illegals, i see them urinate and crap everywhere as they stand against the fences to wait for someone to pick them up to go do illegal jobs. They laugh in our face as they wrap the mexican flag around their body and walk around with it like they are trying to prove a point. Why is this happening? How did the liberals let it get this bad. Last month my best friend's nine year old niece got hit by a car and died. The car was driven by an illegal alien. This is crazy. And now these murderer's, thieve's, and rapist's want to demand citizenship? Liberal's make me sick. They all need to be put to sleep. I support the Savage Nation, and I will till the day I die. I pray everynight that Michael Savage will become president, and put a stop to all this bulls**t. I hate scandoval. Maybe he should be a polititian in mexico, take all his illegal friends, and la raza with him. GOD BLESS AMERICA

WIN: "In the U.S. there simply CANNOT be laws restricting freedom of speech."

You are wrong. I suggest you go and look at some of the Supreme Court's rulings in regard to this. There is some speech over the years that is not protected under the 1st amendment. Like I say, it's never been carte-blanche stuff. I've done my homework on this over a period of years through my work, perhaps you could at least do us all the courtesy of getting your head around ideas that go beyond what you learned in grade school.

Supreme Court of the United States: Chaplinsky v New Hampshire is a really good place to start, and go from there. It at least affirms that the right to free speech is not absolute. And it still amazes me that many Americans don't understand the laws of their own country and will blindly trot out out this belief that there are no laws against "free speech" in the US.

Well, in reality that part is actually true - it's what constitutes free speech protected under the 1st amendment that is the issue, and many Americans don't understand where the line is drawn at law.

It also makes me laugh that people like WIN blithely assume I'm a "liberal" for challenging their misguided beliefs, when in fact the opposite is true if the definition used in my country is a yardstick.

DD wrote: "Treasonous dogs?"

In reality, Doc, from our altered perspective, aren't all Americans to be considered "treasonous dogs" (even your wife and my mates), particularly having gone against their blood ties to get into bed with the duplicitous French in the form of that fragrant nancy-boy Lafayette, and all in pursuit of a spurious end - the setting up of a Republic founded by traitors, rebels and - worse - Frenchmen.

Having shaken off the benevolent protections of the Crown, don't 300 million Americans thus remain, even to this day, "traitorous dogs".

I find it interesting, too, that at school I was taught people like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were traitors rather than heroes, which runs directly opposite to the American view.

There is only one thing for it: all such traitors must hang from the yard arm or rot in jail (and eat gruel).

Only the good citizens of the Dominion of British West Florida will be spared.

And in regard to that treasonous flag, you know my feelings on those silly stars. They should be replaced by a nice Union Jack.

Many good wishes Mike, we love you here in Tucson!

#32:

I hate bad fiction.

at school I was taught people like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were traitors rather than heroes

That's strange, Stan, because I wasn't taught that, and I'm actually from the country they were allegedly traitors against. Come to think of it, we were barely taught about that period at all. Touchy subject, I suppose. Kind of like when you don't really want to talk about the big game your team's just lost.

The key facts we were taught about George Washington were: (1) He was named after a town in County Durham (2) He cut a tree down.

And the tree incident definitely lowered him in my estimation. I mean, he cuts it down and then, when his dad has a conniption about it, 'fesses up. What was he thinking? Any boy knows that when your parent asks who did the bad thing... YOU BLAME IT ON YOUR BROTHER!!!

What a thicko.

This to STM "sitting in Sydney, Australia": you speak rubbish my friend. Free speech, in the context of this issue (Michael Savage) is certainly protected and it is not in any way "over-ruled" by some amendment to the U.S. Constitution which you pulled out of thin air:

"the right not to be villified ... in your own country". What in the H*&L are you on?

You could have a point there Doc. Perhaps I'm getting confused with that other traitor, George Washingmachine, who used to go out with a girl from work.

Although, I think you have to understand this from a perspective other than yours Doc. Us, having remained loyal and willing to sacrifice everything for the cause (and crucially, having allowed you to use the corner of our flag as your own), may well look upon those who turned on the Crown with something less than admiration :)

BR writes: "the right not to be villified ... in your own country". What in the H*&L are you on?"

Mate, read the whole thing. Go back and look at the other posts in full and then have a read of your own constitution. Having spent some years studying it, I discovered that is more than most Americans have. You do not have absolute rights in the US to say whatever you want. That is a fact, and there's not getting around it.

Evidence: Like I say, if you have a library in Doodad County, you could start with Supreme Court of the United States: Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, then go for some more rulings, past and more recent around free speech and the 1st and 14th amendments - there are quite a few.

Then come back to me and tell me I'm the one who doesn't know. And while you're reading the stuff to yourself, remember mate, it's best not to move your mouth at the same time.

Trust me, mate, the willingness of you Matildas to stand alongside us and defend the Empire/Commonwealth/monarch/what have you, in any given conflict, is not lost on us in the Mother Country.

Although you blokes do get a bit overenthusiastic sometimes. I mean Vietnam, for instance. How the heck did we let you get involved in that one without us?

Those bloody "traitorous dogs" talked us into it. They tempted us with a bone and we (and they) found it was more than we could chew through.

However, the one part of this debate where I don't have my tongue planted firmly in my cheek is the bit where people like WIN and BR, failing to understand their own law, misguidedly believe they can say what they like under constitution of the United States and do so without fear or favour.

IMO, it's a really dangerous fallacy and one that leads to all kinds of problems and misunderstandings. I'm also baffled that many Americans who can reel offthe 1st and 2nd Amendments verbatim, know nothing about the 9th amendment - the one that quite clearly says the Constitution of the US should not be taken to be the whole law of the United States.

I also believe that free speech as the founding fathers intended did not mean such things as racist, vilifying speech (which isn't free speech at all) but rather the opportunity always to voice your concerns and grievances in a socially acceptable way for the good of all.

I interpret it in a slightly different way. The First Amendment does indeed guarantee your right to say any idiot thing you want; however, it does not insure against the consequences of so doing, especially if they infringe against someone else's right to protection under the law.

Also, although the Constitution is indeed not the whole law, it does trump congressional and state laws if the two are in conflict. I think it was Marbury v Madison which first established this principle.

In any debate on this, it is crucial to go back to the "fighting words doctrine" of Chaplinsky (a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court).

Off the top of my head, it stated in part that there are certain classes of speech (and hate speech might indeed now fall into that category) that are not protected under the 1st amendment to Constitution, and never have been. While the critera has narrowed somewhat in more recent judgments as this was a ruling made in the early 1940s, it still exists to serve as a poignant warning to citizens of the US during these current debates in relation to what their obligations are under the law.

The other classic example here in regard to free speech and free thought in the US is McCarthyism: The right attacking those they believed to have leftist or communist-sympatheic views (which in many cases couldn't be regarded as seditious). Indeed, there was a clear violation of 1st amendment rights (and lots of other rights) in many such cases.

Do you think we've rooted up Selwyn's thread yet?

Seen any decent cricket/rugby/soccer matches lately Doc?

US Supreme Court - The Chaplisnky v New Hampshire ruling (in part): "[I]t is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances.

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.

"These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting"words - those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

"The right attacking those they believed to have leftist...Indeed, there was a clear violation of 1st amendment rights (and lots of other rights) in many such cases."

A great reason NOT to have laws abridging free speech. A person's opinion on the rightness of the said law speaks more to their personal politics than to any notions of principle in most cases. In America, STM would be on the left hence he condemns rightwing attempts at limiting speech while supporting leftist imposes PC speech. Very predictable and a bit unnerving.

Leftists still see Mcarthyism as wrong despite the fact that communism toppled dozens of governments, put hundreds of millions in poverty, and resulted in the greatest genocides in history even dwarfing those of the much hated Hitler.

If it's OK to openly advocate an ideology that has resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people and silenced, intimidated, and jailed many more for political views then it should be OK to talk about immigration issues without fear of government reprisal.

I agree with virtually everything you've said, and in particular about laws not abridging free speech. Just like Americans, I won't tolerate living in a country either where I don't have the right of free speech. However, I'm in agreement with the kind of "fighting words" doctrine handed down by the US Supreme Court (and with similar laws here) in the judgment above and which now forms a very important part of US law that most Americans aren't aware of - truth is, some things just can't be protected because they are of no social value at all in the good, orderly running of a country founded on rule of law. Indeed, they fulfil the opposite function.

And that rule in my book would apply to those on either side of the political fence, so you've lost on that one Doug as far as assuming that I'm a leftist and therefore one-eyed in regard to this. In the case of McCarthysim, there's also a very clear distinction there between a witch-hunt that stripped people of nearly all their constitutional rights, and the use of "fighting words" (and possibly now, what is known as hate speech) as detailed in that Chaplinsky case.

I agree with Michael Savage;furthermore,as a Black American, I am outraged that hispanics compare themselves to Black Americans. Black slave labor built America. Illegal immigrants have done nothing but made debt for America. Illegals must be rounded up and deported. America is looking more and more like a third world country everyday especially California. Hispanics are the down fall of America. I live in Antioch, California,AND CAN'T WAIT UNTIL MY HUSBANDS JOB TRANSFERS US OUT OF CALIFORNA. I don't feel like I'm living in America. Illegals are filthy. My husband and I are true believers of most of what Michael Savage says. Michael Savage is saying what most American Citizens are thinking.
Thank You Michael

*I'm in agreement with the kind of "fighting words" doctrine handed down by the US Supreme Court...which now forms a very important part of US law that most Americans aren't aware of...*

Stan - are you referring to some 'part of US law' other than state and municipal codes criminalizing disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace and libel - ?

Do you think we've rooted up Selwyn's thread yet?

Seen any decent cricket/rugby/soccer matches lately Doc?

I've tried, what with the pirate thing and the Not the Nine O'Clock News video link and all, but somehow we still keep coming back to Savage.

I haven't watched much sport lately, unfortunately. I finally got satellite TV but somehow missed out on the package which includes all the international sport channels.

I am, however, rather pleased at Newcastle United's strong start to the Premier League season. Only one game played so far, though. Don't want to get carried away.

Chris:

The "kelli" at comment 32 and the "Brenda" at comment 50 wouldn't happen to have come from the same URL, would they?

Just wondering.

*Do you think we've rooted up Selwyn's thread yet?

Seen any decent cricket/rugby/soccer matches lately Doc?

I've tried, what with the pirate thing and the Not the Nine O'Clock News video link and all, but somehow we still keep coming back to Savage.*

imo you guys should check yourselves on these despicably cute acts of distraction...your openly conspiratorial attempts to silence folks who foolishly voice distasteful notions in opposition to your own melba toast views of life in the polis reflect poorly on trolls

Doc:- No, they don't. And it's IP address, not URL!

Thanks, Chris. The... er... sentiments sounded suspiciously similar, as did the locations the commenter(s) claimed to be at. Styles were a bit different, though.

Also, thanks for the correction on the technical lingo. IP, URL, ROTFLMFAO, whatever. You know I don't understand these newfangled typewriter-televisions!

Magikthrice, you are wrong about the reason Michael Savage bashes the othere talk show hosts. The reason he does it is because they are frauds pure and simple. Savage is the only mainsream conservative commentator that doesn't agree at all with the way George Bush is conducting the war in Iraq among other things Bush does. He has every right to show these people for what they really are. Remember when Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham...etc went to the White House for a meeting BEFORE the elections? Remember that screamer? Then just a few weeks ago they did it again!!!!!!!!!!! Why anyone can still listen to them is beyond me. He is exposing them for what they are and that is what Savage so cleverly puts it,"The Government Media Complex".

By the way Savage was not jealous for not being invited to the White House. He said on his show after both of those events,"I am proud to tell you that I wasn't invited to the White house".

Michael Savage must be doing something right since since he is attacked by the left and the "right." I doubt that many of those who criticize him have ever listened to his whole show. As far as criticizng others, Levin criticizes Michael often. Levin, Rush and Hannity are all little more than republican party stooges. Savage certainly isn't for everyone, but the others pale by comparison.

just becuase we feel the same about feeling like we are in a nasty 3rd world country u think the same person wrote it? um no. two different people. nice try little left wing idiot. im sick of my taxes going to these illegals. im sick of not hearing anyone around me speaking english when i know they are talking shit about me. i dont even bother telling them off cuz they cant understand me anyways. hay idiot liberal..... "NO MAS ILLEGALS!" ha ha. i bet that'll piss off a few libs. you libs are such scum. ill be damned if we have a muslim president. ya that's rite. obama yo mama is a muslim. you know how many hospitals had to close down in san diego because of moron liberals? the liberals said 'treat the illegals that get hurt crossing the border illegally.' who the f**k do you think paid their hospital bill you dumb asses. dumb. so dumb. all liberals need to be put to sleep. seriously. you like seeing American women get horassed by all the little illegals dont you? you like all the identity theft? you like all the spots in schools being stolen from American children? you like knowing how many homisides are done by illegals? you like all the home break-ins, car thefts, all the illegal gang members in california? the answer is yes. you like it. you want to ruin America. not in my lifetime you looooooooooosers. i hate you all. all you liberals can kiss my American ass. i love when people on bart and bus comment on my "savage/coulter '08 "sicker on my bag. say something to me! get mad! i wish you would! you'll be sorry! go to hell all you f**ckin America hating, criminal loving assholes. all of you! and to the SAVAGE NATION: WE CANT LET THESE LEFT WING ASSHOLES DESTROY OUR COUNTRY. KEEP SUPPORTING PRESIDENT SAVAGE!!!!!!!

You should put some Neosporin on those knuckles.

Savage likes gays and Jerry Brown no need to say more.

I just started listening to Dr.Savage recently.(About two months ago) Men like him are few and far between. He is a very intelligent man and I believe he speaks the truth. If he ran for president of the U.S., I would vote for him. Critics of Dr. Savage don't realize what is at stake here. It is our freedom to express ourselves without feeling threatened. I guess they don't love America the way we do. God bless America. And God bless Michael Savage.

Troll: "Stan - are you referring to some 'part of US law' other than state and municipal codes criminalizing disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace and libel - ?"

No troll, a judgment of the US Supreme Court (Chaplisnky v New Hampshire) which ruled 9-0 in 1942 and which still has application today, that certain speech is not, and never was, protected under the 1st amendment to the United States' Constitution.

It has nothing to do with state laws etc once it finds its way to the Supreme Court. It becomes part of US law, as I'm sure you know,That's now on the books and can always be referred to, and indeed is much discussed in US law schools.

Problem is, many Americans who wrongly believe US law is based solely on the constitution and how it is enunciated, don't know about it or understand that the constitution was also designed to cement common law, and therefore misguidedly believe that the 1st amendment gives them an absolute right to say what they wish. It gives them a lot of freedoms, but it's not absolute, and the kind of thing Selwy has written about here may actually fall into that category.

It likely wouldn't hold up in court, as the criteria is quite narrow, but you never know with these things.

How do I know all this? One of my best mates here is an American lawyer who moved to Australia and now practises law here (they are very similar, as both were originally based on the tenets of English law). He helped me in some personal study on the issue of free speech while I was working for the Govt.

I just started listening to Michael Savage about six months ago, I think going to college for criminal justice made me care about what goes on in the world. I absolutly love Michael Savage, in fact my dad who I hardly ever see said he met him before and that is about all we had in common. I am so outraged about illegal immigrants not just hispanics but any decent! I am married to a Arab catholic who is legal and hates the whole thing about illegal immigrants, they went threw the proper channels to come here during the Gulf War. The trem "ILLEGAL" is the plain word that it should not be exceptable! I admire Michael for his education and his strength of speaking the truth no matter what! I wish he was president of the United Staes, I listened to the crazy people who were speaking against him, it made me sick! If they do not like it then go leave or turn this radio station off. We have the right to freedom of speech. I think they are coping off the basketball team that sued the other talk show and got him fired, they really think that they can do someting. They should shut up and be happy they are even here!! I could go on and on, I just turned in a paper for school tonight and I got to do it on anything I wanted for an english class; I did illegal immigration. I Love you Michael! I think I will try to get a job for I.C.E!!

Stm, are we supposed to be impressed that a "lawyer" told you these things? You can find lawyers on both sides of every debate, as you may know. There is NO prohibition against "hate speech" (which is a term invented by leftist scum, by the way) in America, and I wouldn't respect or recognize any supreme court decision that divined one from the Constitution.

Keep your hate speech laws along with your vegemite, and stick 'em where the sun don't shine, MATE.

Right on kelli SAVAGETTE!!!!!!!!!!

Michael Savage for President!!!!!!!!!

Tesla. Having been told these things by a lwayer, he then pointed me to a judgment of the US Supreme Court which is part of US law. I know imbeciles sometimes find it hard to accept things they don't understand, but it's there in black and white. The case is: Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (fuck me, how many times do I have to repeat this for the benefit of idiots).

It says (here we go again) that some speech is not protected and never has been under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, and what it says, goes.

But look, don't take my word for it: go and look it up, if you can work out which buttons to press for google. 1st amendment protections ARE NOT ABSOLUTE (yes, I'm shouting in frustration, much the same way teachers do in remedial classes)

STM, does yelling fire in a movie theater when there is no fire count as freedom of speech? I will answer this for you. No. This is the sort of speech that is not protected under the constitution. It says nothing about "hate" speech, which was not even an issue in this case. Savage merely used sarcasm while making his point, something you as a Brit can surely understand, seeing as the English virtually cornered the market in the fine art of waging sardonic cerebral warfare. Furthermore, I would worry about your precious U.K. and the growing immigration problem that is overwhelming its native anglican culture and heritage before I would point your finger at us. Oh wait a minute, you live in AUstralia now dont you? So, you must already be savvy. Since you now live in Australia- you must also know that a total of 350,000 people left Britain in 2004 - equivalent to a third of the population of Birmingham, god knows what the numbers are in the subsequent years. Don't get me wrong in spite of your opinion of the U.S., I love the English people, I think they are wonderful despite their penchant for socialism and snobbery. But you chaps are in even bigger trouble than we are. cheers

Just out of interest, I know there are dumb people everywhere, but when it comes to general idiocy (and I do understand that doesn't mean everyone), why does America seem so chock-a-block?

Honestly, I just can't understand how people can get on here making blithe comments without understanding that rulings in the highest court of the land hold water in relation to such things as so-called "hate speech", or why challenging misguided perceptions means I have to be branded "a liberal".

The term is different, that's all. In 1942, they called it "fighting words", rather than "hate speech". The two, in many instances, would seem interchangeable and have set a precedent arguable at law no matter what.

Dumb, and dumber ...

Fleshyglassbits: Yes, yelling fire in a movie when there is no fire is one of the things not protected. Another is "fighting words", although they do now fall into a narrow band. And no, I'm not a Brit, but I did go to school there for some years and have lived there since. I like the British people too, especially when they stay out of Australia :)

Please do your homework on what is and isn't protected before telling me I'm wrong.

I can see the only way out of this is to post a link on the case

And BTW fleshy, you are assuming that I don't like the US. You are wrong: I almost moved there a decade ago, but preferred it here. I have visited many times, and my best friend is an American. Actually, I really love the US and (almost) everything it stands for, and Americans are my favourite people outside my own country.

I just find it really difficult arguing with people who, despite the fact they are so vehement, just don't know what they are talking about and assume that because I'm not American I must be wrong.

STM - Yeah, I'm looking in my liberal skewed govt text book right now, and it says the supreme court has recognized other rights implied by the enumerated guarantees of the First Amendment. These include the right to association, even when such association might come in the form of clubs or organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, sex or religion. Also your little Chaplinsky vs Hampshire case "fighting words" was overuled when Steven Klein and the ACLU successfully defeated Abe Yellin and the town of SKokie by defending the use of the swastika by a bunch of marching nazis. The seventh circuit court of appeals said that "it is firmly settled that under our constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas themselves are offensive to some of the hearers."

It still applies, fleshy ... the court continues to uhold it, just with the criteria narrowed.

STM - I guess what would be needed to be proved here is was Savage's words "fighting words". Fighting words are defined as what? I'm asking you because I am not a know it all. I just think that Sandoval has a weak case because if a swastika and a bunch of nazi demonstrators can squeek by, I dont think they have shit on Savage. Remember, Imus was not tried in a court of law. He was tried by the media. This is an entirely different thing. Cheers, and sorry about being so smarmy in my earlier post

And wouldn't you be wary of the ACLU taking up anyone's case, particularly with its very left-leaning track record in regard to some issues that most people would find highly offensive???

Aren't they the masters of political correctness gone mad, just like their counterparts in this country?

No probs mate. You are probably right in regard to the courts not (ultimately) convicting him of anything, and in truth, I'm not sure that he even should get anything more than a smack over the wrist, as shock jocks are wont to do this stuff (here too).

All I'm trying to point out in this case is that the law has made a ruling (however narrow) on such issues, and that the right to say whatever you like under the 1st amendment is not absolute and can, theorertically, run the risk of a prosecution that can't be argued away on the basis of constitutional rights.

I'm not saying any more than that, nor making any judgments in relation to it.

And thanks for at least being reasonable in your argument with me, which hasn't been the case with some commentators.

Savage is a brilliant man. These leftist liberals will swing from an end of a rope one day. That day will come when the rest of America wakes up and the sleeping giant is beging to wake up more as each leftist demoncrat opens there mouths.

STM - My take is that fighting words are walking up to someone and directly threatening them with battery or assault, or in the case of public speech, directly inciting people to do violence or personal harm on another group or individual. The thing about our constitution is it is interpretive, so we shall see. I think if anything, it is Sandoval and the city of S.F. who may be in trouble here, since there are hundreds of idots outside of Savage's place of employment spewing real "fighting words" towards his person.

STM - Good point about the ACLU. It just goes to show that the extreme right is the new extreme left!!!!!

Wow STM, big supprise that a supreme court in the US rulled against something clearly stated in the constitution. Considering that they constatnly rule that things that are not in the constituion really are (abortion, privacy). Yes, you have the right to say whatever you want, but you also have to accept the consiquences of your statements. However, the constituion is clear that no law shall be enacted prohibing the speach. So the RDDB in SF can protest all they want against his comments, and the supervisor can distoret MS comments all he wants to sway public opinion in his favor, but he crosses a line when he tries to use government and law to silence MS.

Stm,

I did investigate the case, mate, and again, it doesn't apply to what the leftist SCUM call hate speech. Also, since you missed it the first time, I and many others DO NOT recognize as legitimate unconstitutional court rulings. As the book Men in Black illustrates, the court doesn't have a history of consistency but of contradicting itself. We're governed by a constitution and elected representatives, not, as Savage would say, by tyrants in greasy black robes. Judges that divine a right to abortion, a right to spread pornography and a prohibition against hiring and firing who you want from the constitution, should be swinging from a rope. I just hope and pray I live to see the day when they do.

No wonder you worked for the government. You're a great cog.

But Mike, having said all that, the key to all this might be in the 9th amendment: broadly, when it comes to rights, the constitution as it is written should not be taken to be the whole law of the United States. Everyone forgets about that bit, and its importance can't be understated, for in truth, IMO, it might be the glue that holds much of the rest of the common law of the United States in place.

It exists as a very clear instruction on how the constituion should (or more to the point, should not) be interpreted. That to me seems to be the beauty of the constitution: while laying down certain rights that can't be taken away, it's also a living, breathing document that has a built-in capacity to evolve. The 9th amendment could work both ways, too. A person could argue, theoretically, that under the 9th amendment, the right not to be vilified through, for instance, fighting words that have already been adjudged as not protected, could thus now be construed as one of those rights spoken about in the 9th amendment.

Conversely, a person could also argue that the US government has no business interfering in a person's right to privacy. And so it goes on.

My point in all this is that the US is founded on rule of law, and law by its very nature gives us a changing and fluid society and the law indeed should reflect the changes in that society.

Madison's thinking seems to have been a nod to "natural rights", and all the rights previously given in America's common law past (ie, through the laws of England) and also those that may come in the future. The evidence here on the rightness of his view might be that the other countries which draw on English law have almost identical rights to those of the US and have evolved along a similar time scale to the US, but most of these rights are simply taken to exist and aren't enunciated in written constititions but rely instead for their veracity on judgments and rulings at law (which is how I came to be looking at the Constitution in the first place, as a beliver in the "Anglosphere", and why I'm so interested in it).

As for Savage, Sandoval, et al ... truth is, I really don't give a rat's arse about either of them. I don't live there, and the way things are in America right now, I'm really glad I don't. It's bad enough here at the moment.

All I was trying to point out was that absolute protection of free speech doesn't exist under the law of the US and that there is a huge amount of misunderstanding in relation to it.

BTW, is there some kind of extreme-right early-warning system - perhaps involving the horn of a pick-up truck and neon flashing lights - that goes off all over small-town America, and says: "Warning. Suspected liberal writing shit on blogcritics, lock and load yer dictionaries and give it to him fair up the clacker"?

Just a thought, in terms of the woodwork opening up.

Hey, Rosey, old boy ... why is it OK for me to be insulted, but if I insult someone else, you take the comment off?? What is this, Pom-style democracy?

As insults go, calling someone mad as a cut snake is pretty minor.

It's a question of degree, Stan. Being called a cog is way short of your response. One has to draw the line somewhere, as I'm sure you appreciate when your dander is down!

Besides, according to most of these good folks, I have the constitutional right, right?, to say what I like, whether I'm hurting their feelings or not :)

Yeah, but they're wrong and I'm right! lol

How is mad as a cut snake a shocking insult?? ... it's as common as kangaroo shit here.

BTW, I believe the good Tesla was suggesting I was a cheat and a swindler, rather than a minor functionary of government (in which case he would been half right :)

The only beliefs that matter are mine. Mine, I tell you! Mwuahahahahahaha. *Makes that weird Dr Evil gesture where he puts his finger to his mouth*

Sometimes I miss California-because of the weather-but other times, I am glad to be out of there. It is a state that is ran by the "La Raza" people who hate America, hate our culture, and think that the USA actually "stole" land from Mexico.

Unless we, as a nation, stand up to the "La Raza" people who are bigots, we are doomed as a nation.

I'm not a fan of Michael Savage-he is a self hating Jew. But I will defend him on this one.

The only answer to this incessant navel gazing and rampant liberalism in the US is for America and the other English-speaking nations to stand up and join more cohesively - to once and for all bring about the Anglosphere (which has nothing to do with race, BTW, and everything to do with respect for rule of law) ... and more power to it.

But the big question is: who gets to run it, and would the US finally end up with a Union Jack in the corner of its flag???

"think that the USA actually "stole" land from Mexico."

So how DID we acquire California and the Southwest then???

Yeah, that's a no brainer isn't it. Remember the Alamo??

I had no idea that Schwarzenegger is Hispanic, much less a member of La Raza. Thanks for cluing us in, daryl.

hay liberals... "KEEP WORKING HARD, MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS ARE DEPENDING ON US!" damn, i wish i could get free healthcare, free food and housing, not have to pay for spiting out babies left and right, not need to learn the language of the country i broke into, murder, steal, and yet STILL NOT GET DEPORTED! i dont think if the shoe was on the other foot mexican's would like having all these non-spanish speaking people breaking in and spiting out babies every chance they could, getting free f**kin food, housing and wraping the American flag around us and walk around mexico laughing in their faces cuz we know that we are staying! If all the taxpayers moved out of california and went somewhere else that didnt support illegals with tax money, who the hell would pay for all these illegals to stay? i know nancy pelosi, barbara boxer, dianne feinstein, the governor etc wouldnt. they dont give a shit about the hard working Americans. HAY LIBERALS...... IM LEGAL!!!!!! HA HA HA U SICK SON OF A BITCHES

Kelli--I see the American education system has failed you. Why don't you just say you're a proud bigot, and get it out of your system?

C'mon Ray.

You can't blame that level of abysmal ignorance and racism on the educational system!

You're right, Clavos. Must be my liberal tendencies, I guess.

well considering my husband is mexican American, LEGAL THAT IS, AND SPEAKS ENGLISH so i cant really use the work bigot now can i [Personal attack deleted]??? ha ha. did i piss you off with all those facts? the truth hurts doesnt it! [Personal attack deleted] write me back when you become a victim of identity theft from an illegal, or someone you know has their car stolen from some illegals, or better yet, when a friends 9yr old niece gets run over by a car and dies and the car was driven by an illegal, let me know if you still love the illegals okay!!!! [Personal attack deleted]

Okay, your husband is Latino and speaks English. Do you speak Spanish?--or Russian?--or Arabic?--or Hungarian? Or all illegal aliens automatically Mexican?
And are all people who call you on outright racism automatically left-wing? No, you didn't piss me off, but I apparently raised your blood pressure a bit.
Evidently, you know a lot more illegals than the average American. Either that, or you assume all the evils that befall us are the result of som vast illegal alien conspiracy. I'm guessing the latter. From where I stand, referring to you as a bigot is charitable.
By the way, we've all had tragedies in our lives. In my case, most of them have been the result of good ol' boys with too much machismo from a bottle.If I adapt your logic, I'd have more hate on my plate than I can handle.
Welcome to reality, baby--or savagette, whatever the hell that is.

well mr. know-it-all, in my neighborhood that's all their is is illegal mexicans. i already know that illegals are not only mexican. if you took a walk through my neighborhood just one time you would see how ugly it is. i dont wish anything bad on you, but i wish you would get a reality check so you could see what innocent, hard working Americans are trying to put up with these days. soon i wont be in california anymore to be around it, but i shouldnt have to move? i was born and raised here in oakland. i know moving somewhere else wont stop the problem, but im sick of the 3rd world feeling when im in America. obviously it's not a problem in your neighborhood. what if your father had his own construction business that he started 25 yrs ago, and slowly started losing business over the yrs and really started struggling to support his family due to illegal's stealing those jobs? it's not fair. that's where im coming from. i am far from being a bigot, not even close. i just dont think this is fair.

Good to know you've taken it upon yourself to check everybody's papers.
I'm from Texas, and I live in a minority majority city, so I think I'm aware of the "Problems" of which you speak. I just don't see them as problems on a daily basis.
Blaming immigrants for our problems has been a pastime since America was founded, once we had decimated the Native population to the point we could no longer blame them. First Americans blamed the Irish, then the Germans, then the Jews, then the Italians, and on and on, till we all carved out our own niches.
It's only natural, given American history, that Hispanics would be the Next Big Threat.

"in my neighborhood that's all their is is illegal mexicans."

if that's "all their is" then that makes kelli an illegal mexican? self-hating it sounds like.

"if you took a walk through my neighborhood just one time you would see how ugly it is."

we don't need to walk through the neighborhood. we can just stop at your place.

So let me get this straight, if you become a victim of identity theft from an American citizen, or when a friends 9yr old niece gets run over by a car and dies and the car was driven by an American citizen, do you stop loving American citizens?

I understand perfectly what Kelli is saying. She May be coming from a place of emotion but this is understandable. You would think that you "enlightened" socialists would understand this since you tend to "think" with only your emotions. Please all "compassionate", "enlightened" socialist who called Kelli a bigot, read this all the way through!!! According to the Center for Immigration Reform, Treating uninsured illegal alens costs about $2.2 billion a year. Hospitals are going broke in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California because they are forced to subsidize Mexico's poorest people, hospitals must absorb the costs providing federally mandated emergency room services to illegal aliens. Here is a list for you illegal loving socialist to suck on. $2.1 billion to lock up illegal criminals in prisons, $2.5 billion in Medicaid, $2.2 billion in uninsured medical costs, $1.4 billion in federal aid to schools, $1.9 billion in food stamps, WIC and free school lunches. All taken without permission from our pay checks. They get driver's licenses, medicare, school lunches, college grants and we get to foot the bill while you enlightened socialist pick our pockets. How can I blame these poor people for coming here to earn ten bucks/hr uner the table, when the most they can make in Mexico is 60 cents a day? Mexico is not our problem, America is being bled dry. Many schools in states with huge illegal populations are being destroyed, hospitals are bankrupt and are closing, and the legal bills in many communities debour tax dollars earmarked for capital improvements. In some of these border hospitals, the illegals crowd us out , demanding Spanish interpreters and free medical care even as the AMerican citizens who actually foot the bill are denied. Mexican ambulances routinely bring uninsured Mexican patients across the border to U.S. hospitals. Mexican ambulance companies are instructed by hospital officials in Mexico to take ailing and uninsured patients to the United States. All of this costs U.S. hostpitals in the neighborhood of $200 million a year and more. Those hospitals that can, pay the tab,and so many others can't and therefore are closing their doors. In 2000 San DIego's Scripps Memorial Hospital was forced to close because it was losing $5 million a year, mostly due to having to provide care to illegal aliens that was not reimbursed. Border area hospitals report that they are short of physicians and surgeons because they left for positions where their salaries wont be tied to a mass of illeal aliens who skip out on their bills. Did you know that as of 1996, god knows what it is now, it cost about 8 billion a year to provide a primary education for illegal aliens at the federal, state and local levels. Who pays for this? Even though we do not have adequate resources to take care of our legal citizen's and their education challenges. No, Kelli, dont let these "enlightened" socialists on this blog intimidate you or cause you to become defensive. WHen they call you a bigot, they are relying on their politically correct arsenal to disparage anything justifiable grievances or injustices you may be experiencing. It is one of the oldest and effective marxist tricks in the book. I lived in Lost Angeles for nearly 20 years. I witnessed that city transform from a comparative Utopia, into what is quickly approaching a Mexico City, one of the worst sewers in the world. If you want to know what your wife will look like when she gets old, look at her mother. Unfortunately the democrats and the neoconservatives (BUsh and his cronies) are selling us down the tubes for the interests of multinational corporations who are essentially monopolies. They are all socialists. SOcialism and communism are the same. A small group of elitists with their buttlickers on the top, and the rest living in a dirty filthy pond. Cheers keep on loving your little aliens, and keep on with your thought and word policing....and remember there is only so much room out of the dirty pond, and there is no guarantee that you will be saved a place.

First of all, I respect what Michael Savage stands for ( our country and our freedom of speech) and believe he will come out a victor in this recent attack against him.
It is crystal clear to me that he said nothing racist in the remark he made about those hunger strikers. Secondly, I have a suggestion to the solution of the illegal immigration problem in the United States. It may not work, but nevertheless it could make an impact, here it goes: Upon students'(any age) enrolling in a public educational school system, you must show prove of legal status, i.e., parents of those underage must show proof of their child's and their own legal status. If they don't have it, you deport them. That might stop illegals from coming here. Remember that is their second free ride. The first was in the U.S. hospital where they were born from their illegal parent, remember they received that for free (at the tax payers expense). I would not ask for their legal status there because how can you stop an illegal mother from having her child. Once they know that a school will not accept them, and they will be deported, that might stop them. If our government can't control the borders, and greedy employers won't stop hiring illegals, then our government should enforce a law in the educational system. I think most people would think twice about coming here illegally if this were made into law.

Chris:

Sorry if I seem to keep obsessing on this, but is the "fleshyglassbits" of comment #108 posting from the same IP address (yes, yes, I nailed the terminology this time) as the person who has been commenting under that name upthread?

It's just that the command of English, writing style, opinions and grasp on reality appear to be rather different.

Yep, one and the same Dr. Dreadful. I was only having a friendly debate with stm in the above threads concerning the constitution and free speech. I acknowledged that stm was correct when he stated that not all speech is protected, however I pointed out that his Chaplinsky vs Hampshire "Fighting words" clause did not hold up when the ACLU successfully defeated Abe Yellin and the town of SKokie and the subsequent attempt to ban a nazi group from demonstrating in their town with swastikas. However, I am an independent conservative who is deeply offended by illegal immigration, and what may be confusing you is how could I actually be civil with someone with an opposing viewpoint. In other words, perhaps someone with my opinion about illegal immigration could not possibly be as intelligent as a left wing extremist? Is that it? enlighten me.....I would be happy to aid you in ending your "obsession". If you would be so kind as to re read my above posts with stm, you will see that I did not stray from my views... I believe, Dr. Dreadful, that what you detected was a tone of anger towards the people who were attacking a woman named Kelli, concerning her views on illegal immgration and how it had adversely affected her life.... much as it has for me. So much so that I finally decided to leave my beloved Los Angeles because it is a shit hole now. WHen the far right is in need of protection from the ACLU, that should tell you that we have come full circle since the inception of the civil rights revolution of the 1960's. I despise the Democrats and the Neoconservative Republicans, they are ruining this country, and that is my informed, liberally educated opinion. If I did not express myself eloquently enough, do forgive me, I did not realize I would be scrutinized by a literary critic.

"So how DID we acquire California and the Southwest then???"

It's not as simple as saying we stole it. Go visit the Alamo in San Antonio. There is a list of all the people who bravely fought for their rights. You will see that there were A LOT of Mexicans who fought with the Americans. They didn't want to be part of a corrupt government that still ruins Mexico today. They wanted their independece from Mexico. It wasn't simply whitey killing the minority, though the liberal socialists that have taken over our public school systems will tell you that.

I have some liberal tendancies myself. However, there is a line to be drawn when distinguishing legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. This isn't about humanity, this is about CRIME! I've worked in the public school system in Southern California and know, by direct experience, that many of these illegal aliens and their families hate us in a very ugly way.

Dr. Dreadful,
I just scanned through some of your threads, and I just realized that you are some kind of moderator, and you were trying to determine if I was a spammer or something. My bag. I noticed you referred to us as "You Americans" and I couldn't help but get the impression that the subject of this entire debate is rather frivolous in your eyes. Just out of curiosity where are you from??

daryl d,
I too believe that it is vital to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It is the far left, the neoconservatives and the illegals themselves who are blurring the lines. THis is not a racial issue. If I saw our country invaded by 20-30 million Western Europeans I would be just as pissed.

Doc D, yes, you are obsessing, yes it is all one person and yes, I will always let people know if there is any identity spamming going on. Read in peace.

fleshyglassbits, firstly, congrats on having the wildest name I've seen this week; what's it mean? Moving on, the Doc isn't a moderator but I am; he is a Brit like me, except he now has to suffer living in the land of the not-so-free-as-they-think-are, unlike me!

Christopher,
That is what I like about you Brits - you guys really are the masters of diplomacy. No where on the planet is there a people who can so endearingly insult you, but somehow, simultaneously inspire a certain fondness. I used to play in old shcool punk and rock and roll bands,(retired from that now, thank you very much) and fleshyglassbits was a throw away bandname that I could never convince or con any of my bandmembers into actually using. However, I use it as a handle and in other ways, more out of spite than anything else. As far as your buddy Dr. Dreadful having to "suffer" in the good ol' U.S., he can always go back to the U.K. I hear it's a great place for illegal Immigration as well. I've toured your beautiful country on a few occassions ( but not since 2000), and I hope things haven't become as dreadful as what I've read. Truly a marvelous civilization - you English have, would hate to see your Island completely over run by Islam.

"It's not as simple as saying we stole it. Go visit the Alamo in San Antonio. There is a list of all the people who bravely fought for their rights. You will see that there were A LOT of Mexicans who fought with the Americans. They didn't want to be part of a corrupt government that still ruins Mexico today. They wanted their independece from Mexico. It wasn't simply whitey killing the minority, though the liberal socialists that have taken over our public school systems will tell you that."

I lived in San Antonio for a number of years, so I know the story well.

You neglected to mention that the defenders were NOT fighting to become part of the USA. They no more wanted to be American than Mexican. They were fighting to become (and did, for a few years) an independent republic.

In any case, the territory taken from Mexico involved much more than Texas, as you know. And it was taken by force, which, from the viewpoint of the Mexicans, amounts to stealing, and I think they're right.

Even the Gadsden Purchase was opposed by the Mexican people, and Santa Ana's acceptance of it is widely believed by them to be a result of bribes paid to him by the gringo government.

Exceptional writing, Clavos. Almost perfect.
(MCH)

Thanks, emmy!

If I saw our country invaded by 20-30 million Western Europeans I would be just as pissed.

But your country was invaded by 20-30 million Europeans. They just happened to be you.

In my absence, I've been called an elitist, a socialist, a neocon and a communist--and that was all in one comment (#108)!

I'm not even going to argue about one-sided statistics, since they mean nothing unless placed in the context of the larger picture. And I'm certainly not going to rely on stats from 1996.

Obviously, there are immigration issues in this country. What I object to is how "illegal immigrant" is somehow synonymous with "Mexican." That's where the racism comes in, and that attitude prevents any meaningful discussion.

And for the record, fleshy, I despise racism whatever form it takes. That includes taking the negative behaviors of a few and projecting them onto an entire population, or blaming one group of people for a perceived drop in standards that's more than likely due to a number of different factors. It's lazy, and while anger and xenophobia might make you feel better in the short term, it's a hollow outlook on life.

I am a legal immigrant to the US, and as such people often assume that I must be pissed about all the illegals because I made the effort to do things the right way. Well, no, because I stood in lines and sat in the INS office alongside the crowds of Latinos and saw the preferential treatment I got. These were hard-working people trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, and the USA used to be a place which welcomed people who wanted to do that. What happened to that ideal?

We do quite often get people, for shady reasons of their own, using someone else's name or posting under multiple aliases - especially on topics such as immigration, which tends to attract those whose debating styles are... er... unconventional. In your case, the following things aroused my suspicions: (1) Your earlier posts had a URL, that one didn't. (2) Your spelling and punctuation was suddenly down the toilet. (3) The tone of the post was an unadulterated anti-immigrant rant, which seemed out of keeping with your earlier, reasoned debate with STM.

Clearly I was mistaken, and while I still find your views extremely unpleasant, I do extend my apology for appearing skeptical as to your credentials.

Well said, Dr. D. As my wife still maintains her German citizenship, I'm well acquainted with the IRS workings you describe--and the veiled racism you describe, as well. In her case, she gets comments like "Aren't you glad to be living in a free country now?" Ignorance boggles the mind sometimes.

oops--INS

The comments your wife gets are illustrative of the incredible ignorance many Americans have about the world at large. Somewhere in the smoky recesses of the neglected areas of the brain marked 'general knowledge' is some vague recollection that Germany was once upon a time under the auspices of a Mr Hitler, who wasn't a very nice chap. Apparently, there's no reason to suppose that things in German-land have improved much since then.

But perhaps that's a different discussion entirely...

Perhaps.

What's even more astounding/amusing to me is how many Americans can't figure out how to pronounce "Elke."

Excellent article, Michael Savage has more support from real Americans then anyone can imagine, I agree with Michael Savage 99% of the time. Keep up the good work.

A little bit for everybody,
East Germany was also under communist control up until the last decade Mr. D, Ray Ellis, - (and please permit me to demonstrate my "inferior" American phonetic prowess)... El-keeeeeeee!!! Maybe that is what those insensitive, inhumane IRS workers were referring to- that and the fact that probably not too many West Germans were making a mad desperate dash to climb over onto the east side of the wall. Oh, but wait a minute, perhaps that doesn't count in your eyes, since a lot of you Western Europeans seem to be so fond of socialism (I know, maybe we can spend more tax dollars so that we can give our Immigration workers sensitivity and phonetic lessons so we won't offend anymore of you liberals out there. It's not like we are spending it on protecting our borders, language and culture anywaaaay. After all, it only costs the American tax payer a paltry $36,000 a year for each illegal alien in this country. I've been to England and Germany my friend, and like America, your average citizen is no prize either. I especially admire the way you admonish me for racism and xenophobia, based on your perception that it is unfair to lump all people together based on the misdeeds of a few, which by the way, on that point I happen to agree with you. Yet , conversely you reprove Americans by lumping them all together into some contrived, unenlightened , red neck trick bag you and your European socialist companions seem to be holding and pointing to. I also find it rather amusing that it seems perfectly acceptable for you to drudge up events concerning the vanquished American Indian and the European "Invaders", but you dismiss Germany's" little Adolph Hitler" incident as something no longer worth acknowledging, since after all, "that things in German-land have improved much since then. " (Or the fact that the English Empire, before its collapse, was unprecedented, except by perhaps the Roman Empire, for its proficiency in dividing, conquering and colonizing foreign lands and people.) Well, I agree with you, Germany has come a long way, and in many regards but unfortunately not perfectly, so has England and America. When you pass such inane judgments, you are arbitrating the convictions of people who preceded 20th century concepts such as civil rights, or the Geneva Convention. It is a weak argument, and it always will be.

Anthropologically speaking, there is no such thing as race anyway. Homo sapien sapiens is one species and one biological race- scientific fact- look it up. Race is an ill conceived scientific concept-turned cultural phenomenon- invented by early Western European anthropologists. It was anthropology in its infancy. It was a fledgling naive attempt to explain the world we live in. But like our Twentieth Century German "friends", science and democratic republics have also evolved. And like science and its practitioners, democratic republics such as the U.S; are far from perfect. So what? It's still one of the best games going, why else would you be here? So does racism and the concept of racism still exist? Well yes! However it is cultural and social, not biological. It is a phenomenon that in a way, has always been present in human beings, but was not categorically conceptualized until the Western European scientist attempted to biologically classify human beings through the early disciplines of physical anthropology.

So now that I have expressed my views on race and racism, let me tell you that I love the fact that the U.S. is multi racial. Multi racialism is a wonderful thing. However, I do not want to press 1 for English. I do not want to see people demonstrating in our streets, who are here illegally, wrapped in their flags, demanding their citizen's rights, and threatening to take back their land - As if it is merely land that makes a nation like America so desirable to live in. There is plenty of land in Mexico. They are not here because of the land. They are here because unlike Mexico, America, although far from perfect, is a land of opportunity and comparative freedom. Yet many do not want to learn the language or the culture. It is counter productive to a nation if its groups isolate into quarreling factions because they cannot unite under one culture and language, let alone one flag. This is what happens when immigrants are not legally naturalized my friends. Now, do I blame all of America's problems on illegal immigration? Duh-no. I clearly stated that the multi national corporations and their special interests in association with the Democratic Party and the neoconservative Republican Party is a huge factor here. This is not a racial issue; it is about protecting our sovereignty. Mexicans from Mexico happen to be the main culprit, because, duhhhhh - they are next to us. Why don't you take a look at how Mexico treats its immigrants, legal or illegal, look that one up. Yet, somehow Mexican citizens come here illegally and demonstrate for their rights, and demand sensitivity training for our citizens. However, before you reply to my post, I would urge you to go to youtube and type in "Immigration Gumballs". Watch this video in its entirety-I believe there are two parts. I think you may be persuaded to at least give this issue a second thought. But then again........

WHoops - I too meant INS not IRS.

Actually though, the IRS is inhmane, so I take that back.

To Savage Fan,

The government media complex? Savage meant the news media, not talk radio. But I see you didn't address any of my other points, either. That's OK, all is fair in love and war. I'll just continue to turn off Savage when he starts dissing other talk radio personalities. And Savage will continue to have very little support from his talk radio colleagues. It's no big deal. But how about Savage's Monty Python approach to dealing with the Sunni triangle? He wants to give all the residents there 72 hours to get out before he bombs it to rubble. How are we supposed to keep the terrorists in and make sure all the innocent people get out? I suppose Savage wants our troops to ask everyone who leaves if they are terrorists or residents. Who is going to admit to being a terrorist? This approach would have ended up killing millions of innocent people while the terrorists, disguised as women and children, would have been laughing at the stupid Americans as they left, forcing innocent residents to stay behind. And you think Savage is right all the time? Talk about a mind numbed robot! Take a good look at some of the things he says, and question them. But then I do that with everything I hear. I see you don't. That's your fault.

fleshy, if you have to pick fights at least pick them on the basis of actual facts. Where did I, Ray or anyone say that any IRS [sic] workers were having trouble with German history?

Still on the subject of Germany (if you insist), first of all, I was not making light of its "little Adolph [sic] Hitler incident". I was using that as an illustration of how ignorant some - SOME - Americans are about other countries. Second, I sincerely doubt that the people who make inane comments to Ray's wife are even aware that Germany was once divided in two, let alone that the Eastern half was Communist.

The sheer number of other spurious complaints in your comment is mindboggling, and it would be futile to even try to address all of them. I must, however, address the tired old "press 1 for English" whine. Myth. I have never called a company and been asked to press 1 for English. These systems automatically assume you want English. Only if you want Spanish do you have to push a number. If you do nothing, you will get English. Is that so tough?

And finally, please try to understand that everyone who disagrees with your worldview is NOT a socialist.

I've always wondered; "press one" what???