Joseph Farah "Who's Hunting Michael Savage?"

There's got to be a million different theories on why this is happening, when where or how it will be implemented but today Joseph Farah lays out his hypothetical and like anyone's at this juncture has as much credibility and probability of occurring as any other.

He claims Obama is behind the Savage ban from Britain and this is why. Before reading you can hear what Savage had to say this evening on his show with this 6 minute clip



Here's another released this morning of an interview done with the BBC

BBC NEWS | Americas | US DJ demands apology from UK: "US talk show host Michael Savage has said he was 'shocked and angered' at being placed on a list of people banned from entering the UK.

The Conservative political commentator whose real name is Michael Alan Weiner, is one of 22 people barred for fostering extremism or hate.

He told his radio audience that he was intending to sue British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who he described as the 'lunatic ... Home Secretary of England'.

Speaking exclusively to the BBC Mr Savage said he would drop the threat if he received an apology."

Who's hunting Savage?: "I don't believe for a minute that the United Kingdom decided to ban entry to U.S. talk-radio star Michael Savage on its own initiative.

First of all, Savage was not asking to enter the U.K.

Second of all, while Savage is a big fish in the U.S., his program is not widely known across the pond.

What would possess Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to single out Savage on a short list of 16 people worldwide who would not be welcome?

I think I know the answer.

But first, you have to understand the backdrop to this story.

Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress are conducting a scorched-earth war on the First Amendment. The Federal Communications Commission will soon be headed and controlled by an appointee who thinks government, not the free market, should control broadcast programming.

The appointee to be regulatory czar for the administration has flirted with ideas like a "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet and mandatory 24-hour, cooling-off periods before sending angry e-mails.

As we speak, local "commissar commissions" are being established in every radio market to monitor programming and challenge broadcast licenses on the basis of content. Hate-crimes legislation has passed the House and is headed for the Senate – a bill that would punish thoughts and speech and provide, for the first time, special protections to a new "victim class" of pedophiles.

There is little question for any serious and objective observer that the new Washington power structure is targeting the most significant voice of dissent left in America – talk radio.

I believe with near 100 percent certainty, though I admit I can't prove it, that the initiative for this symbolic effort to ban Michael Savage from a country he had no intention of visiting came not from London, but from Washington.

Savage commands the third-largest audience of all talk shows in the country. He is also the most critical of Obama and the Democrat-dominated Congress. He is the edgiest. He pushes the envelope. He has been falsely accused of being a "hater" and engaging in "hate speech" plenty of times.

That's why he was the perfect target for a pre-emptive and insidious attack on his character. Here's the way I imagine it going down

Someone in Washington with good connections to the socialist government in the U.K. made a call one day.

"Listen, you could really help us out there," that someone likely said. "We've got this talk-show host who is really poisoning the minds of the American people – saying unspeakable things about our president and other officials in Washington. Next time you put out a list of people unwelcome in the U.K., why don't you include this guy? His name is Michael Savage."

It was an easy favor for Jacqui Smith to fulfill.

She has a long track record of hating free speech, embracing the fascist code of "political correctness" and promoting Big Brother ideas and regulations.

How would this help Savage's foes in Washington?

When they up the ante in their campaign against talk radio, it will be Savage they point to as an example of all that is dangerous and irresponsible on the broadcast airwaves.

"Look," they'll say, "this guy spews so much hatred, the U.K. banned him from even visiting the country. Our greatest ally in Europe won't even allow him entry into the country. It is just plain wrong to allow people like this unfettered access to the public airwaves."

That's the game plan.

Mark my words.

And this move will, once again, have a "chilling effect" on other hosts, on other radio programs, on syndicators, on radio stations that air controversial talk.

Like Savage or hate him – and I like him – it's time for all people of conscience and goodwill to stand behind him and his right to air his views, views that represent many millions of Americans.

If we don't all hang together, as they say, we'll all hang separately.

---

Pelosi Backs The "Little Dick Doctrine" AKA The New And Improved Fairness Doctrine

The introduction last week of the Anti "Fairness Doctrine" bill we covered weeks ago that was a lame attempt to lay cover for a little gem quickly identified by blogs and radio hosts as a trojan horse which actually contained a hard to disguise new and improved version of the supposedly scrubbed "Fairness Doctrine" and replacing it with what I call the "Little Dick Doctrine" or the "Turban Durbin Special".

The primary gist of the little Dick provision went like this for those who missed it

The primary text of the Durbin amendment reads:

SEC.9 FCC Authorities. (a) Clarification of General Powers. – Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:

SEC.303B. Clarification of General Powers. (a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required – The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest. …

It' s terribly offensive to me and millions of others that they even tried to slip this lame piece of unconstitutional garbage, couched in a bill proporting to permanently shelve it's namesake, (only a week after Barry the Boob sent out this fraudulent trial balloon to throw the dogs off the scent per se by proclaiming through his own Scott McClellan, Robert Gibbs, that "he wouldn't support the re-institution of the so called "Fairness Doctrine") was a completely intentional kick to the groin by cocky democrats to all their pro free speech and dissension opponents meaning you and I essentially.

These audacious crooks are now beginning to think they can get away with just about anything after shoving through the treasonous Stimulus bill without Americans storming and taking down the Capitol Building which they were quietly expecting after such a blatant assault on America's constitution.

So having been more successful than they ever dreamed so quickly and painlessly achieved, the west coast Super Skank known as President in waiting San Fran Nanny Pelosi has now come right out and admitted as such saying basically"Ok you caught us, so yes, we're coming after Free Speech on the airwaves and talk radio is in our crosshairs" and she said it right here to CNS news just to make sure we gun and religion clinging rednecks get the word straight from the queen of jacks ass's mouth....."here we come again America and you're free speech and thoughts are the target this week."

Here's Senator Jim Demint who was the only one to really speak out forcibly regarding this piece of shit legislation at the time it was brought a few weeks ago

Speaker Pelosi Backs Senate Amendment to Regulate Talk Radio:

CNSNews.com - (CNSNews.com) – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday that she supports an amendment to a Senate bill that would force the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.”

The amendment’s language is viewed by many media experts as a means to regulate conservative talk radio, particularly popular programs such as the Rush Limbaugh Show and the Sean Hannity Show, among many others.

House Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former radio broadcaster and one of Congress’ biggest opponents of the Fairness Doctrine -- an FCC regulation removed in 1987 that forced broadcasters to grant equal airtime to opposing political viewpoints -- told CNSNews.com that the amendment is a masked attempt to restore the Fairness Doctrine.

The amendment, sponsored by Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and attached to a bill (S.160) that would grant Washington, D.C., a vote in the House of Representatives, was approved by the Senate last Thursday in a party line 57-41 vote.

When asked whether she supports Durbin’s amendment, Speaker Pelosi said, “Certainly, I support Mr. Durbin in most things.”

“Diversity in media ownership is very, very, important,” said Pelosi.

Minutes after the passage of the ‘Durbin amendment’ last Thursday a separate amendment that would ban the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, which was proposed by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), was also attached to the same D.C. voting rights bill and passed by a vote of 87-11.

But Pence told CNSNews.com that Durbin’s amendment would mandate a “stealth Fairness Doctrine.”

“Its clear to me that Democrats, having failed in their frontal assault on talk radio in America through the Fairness Doctrine, are now shifting strategy to a form of regulation that is essentially the Fairness Doctrine by stealth,” Pence said. He added that he is not surprised Pelosi has endorsed Durbin’s plan.

“It should come as little surprise that Speaker Pelosi, who openly supports returning the Fairness Doctrine to the airwaves of American, would support a new version of it,” Pence told CNSNews.com.

But Durbin said last Thursday that his amendment should not be equated with the Fairness Doctrine.

"No one is suggesting that the law for the FCC says that you can give this license to a Republican and this one to a Democrat and this one to a liberal and this one to a conservative,” said Durbin at the time. “When we talk about diversity in media ownership, it relates primarily to gender, race and other characteristics of that nature."

Meanwhile, the amendment, which passed the Senate riding on the D.C. voting right’s bill, now goes to the House where Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he thinks Republicans may be able to muster the votes to stop it.

“I think as we get into the appropriations process you will see us continue our effort to make sure the Fairness Doctrine is not put back into place,” Boehner told CNSNews.com at his weekly press conference on Thursday. “And I do believe the votes are in the Congress to make sure that happens.”

The primary text of the Durbin amendment reads:

SEC.9 FCC Authorities. (a) Clarification of General Powers. – Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:
SEC.303B. Clarification of General Powers. (a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required – The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest. …

The amendment is nearly identical to a policy position outlined by the White House that says:

“Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.”

Similarly, the Center for American Progress, headed by former Obama transition leader John Podesta, published a report that called for new “localism” and “ownership diversity” regulations to balance conservative talk radio with progressive talk radio.

The report, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” concludes with the following recommendations:

“[A]ny effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs. We suggest three ways to accomplish this:
-- Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
-- Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
-- Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.”

---

Washington Times - Senate nixes 'Fairness Doctrine' revival

While they passed this vote today my disgrace of a senator Suck My **** Durbin also sent up a measure that calls for "media diversity" that could just end up being the "UnFairness Doctrine" in sheep's clothing as he targets Clear Channel Communications to likely use the monopoly angle to try and break up the distributor of Rush Limbaugh's powerhouse show among others in their stable per se.

We all keep saying here in the conservative blogosphere that they will attempt to go "in through the out door" when it comes to the revival of this legislation aimed at silencing the conservative talk radio dial, and will rename the new legislation something innocuous like "Urban and Rural Radio TV Equal Measure of comparative programming measurable compatibility Bill" hoping to slide it under our eagle eye radar.

So not much stock can be put in this measure as passed today, as since it's a democratic dominated senate it's just a smokescreen to take the focus off this measure believe you me.

Here's Suck My D*** Durbin moaning and groaning about fairness and other mealy mouthed BULLSPIT we hear from Libs about the unfairness of the world etc. I'm so disgusted this man and Obama come from my state ....

Senate nixes 'Fairness Doctrine' revival:

Washington Times -

The Senate overwhelmingly put itself on record Thursday against any revival of the defunct "Fairness Doctrine," designed to require public broadcasters to air "balanced" coverage of controversial issues.

Conservatives have worried that the Obama administration and congressional Democrats were plotting to revive the policy, dropped in the last years of the Reagan administration, as a means of curtailing talk radio and other media dominated by right-of-center broadcasters.

The 87-11 vote came on an amendment to the bill that would give the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House of Representatives. It was offered by Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican.

The Federal Communications Commission first issued the rule mandating balanced coverage, but stopped enforcing it in 1987 after concluding that the explosion of news outlets and sources of information on public issues made the doctrine obsolete.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama last week said the president had no intention of reviving the Fairness Doctrine, but several of his aides had discussed the idea of reviving it at least in modified form. Mr. DeMint argued that his amendment was needed to guarantee that the FCC would not attempt to revive quotas or guidelines on programming.

Republicans and conservative broadcasters both said they feared the new administration was considering a renewal of aspects of the Fairness Doctrine to boost liberal media outlets.

Top-rated radio host Rush Limbaugh said recently he did not put much stock in Mr. Obama's declaration.

"Of course they're not going to bring back the 'Fairness Doctrine.' They're going to call it something else," he said.

The D.C. voting rights bill still must go to the House of Representatives, and it was not certain the FCC amendment would survive. But Mr. DeMint said the vote would put the Senate on record as strongly opposing any effort to resuscitate the doctrine. A majority of Democrats joined all of the Senate's Republicans in backing Mr. DeMint's amendment.

---

Limbaugh's Second WSJ Op Ed Hits Right At Obama

Since Obama chose to engage Limbaugh right at the start of his administration he has certainly given him plenty to talk about, so much that he has to keep authoring OpEd's to keep asking Obama questions that he would never be man enough to engage Limbaugh head on about, that much we know.

he also read it on his show Friday but if you missed it it's only available for 24/7 subscribers (hey, the man has to make a living, 40 to 50 mil a year just doesn't go as far as it used to)

Limbaugh: Keep the Airwaves Free

WSJ.com: "I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as 'local content,' 'diversity of ownership,' and 'public interest' rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous."

As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech. continued

---