Rotating Header Image


SchumerBurnsDemocracy More about the illness besetting the sick Democrats in our Senate, with the added infection from the City of San Francisco and vicinity contributing to their fever:

Fairness Doctrine Watch: The Crush Rush Democrats’ agenda; Wesley Clark crusades to kick Rush off of Armed Forces Radio. Read the details and write to Clear Channel in support of Rush Limbaugh.

Democrats have lost their balance and I’m concerned for our country – Limbaugh and Talk Radio are but the tip o’ the Far Left jaw that’s aimed at the jugular of the Constitution, and, at any remaining regard for decent behavior. The Democrats gloves are not only off, they appear to be clawing with infected stumps at the essence of our national integrity.

I’m immensely disappointed to read that Wesley Clark is attempting to get Rush Limbaugh silenced from Armed Forces Radio — I thought Clark still had some shred of sense but he clearly has lost whatever competency he once had.

I’ve written quite a bit about this in the last two days, so please refer to my two categories, if interested: DEMOCRATS FREAK-OUT IN THE SENATE and TALK RADIO.

Michelle Malkin and HOT AIR are covering the issues involved well and thoroughly.

Related and worthy:

San Francisco supervisors condemn Savage – Officials pass resolution against talker for ‘hate speech’

Here it comes, the use for abuse of the “hate speech” meme-schematic by the Left to silence and harm opinions they disagree with. While David Horowitz (hero) offers to represent Talk Radio host Michael Savage in a civil rights lawsuit against the City of San Francisco (Board of Supervisors). I hope Savage sues and I think Horowitz is a real hero in offering to represent him.

…One of the nation’s top civil rights attorneys offered his assistance to Savage in suing Sandoval.

Daniel A. Horowitz of Oakland, Calif., wrote to Savage after Sandoval introduced his resolution.

“You have a strong federal civil rights action that you can file against Supervisor Sandoval and the city of San Francisco,” he advised. “You have a constitutional right to state your political opinions and no city official has the right to lie about what you said or to call for a mob to come to your door to threaten you and to try to have you fired.”

Horowitz said the Civil Rights Act of 1871, designed to tame the terror of the Ku Klux Klan, can be used as the basis for a federal civil rights action against the official and the city.

“You are protected by this civil rights act because you are the victim of the same type of mob terror that (the) Klan used to inflict,” wrote Horowitz. “This terror is being organized against you simply because people do not like what you say. Translated into legal language, you are being attacked by a type of terrorist because you have exercised your First Amendment rights.”

Horowitz wrote: “The Klansman in your case is wearing a suit and not a white robe. He is doing his dirty work under the hood of his elected position instead of under the coward’s hood of the Klan.”

The call for action against Savage came at the same time city supervisors were considering using taxpayer dollars to pay for immigrants’ green cards and citizenship.

Sandoval’s resolution condemns Savage for “defamatory language … against immigrants.” The resolution was in response to Savage’s July 5 broadcast, when the talker commented on a group of students who had announced they were fasting in support of changes in immigration policy.

“I would say, let them fast until they starve to death,” quipped Savage, “then that solves the problem.”

Sandoval’s resolution calls Savage’s comments “symbolic of hatred and racism.”

“I really for the life of me cannot understand why there is not more media outrage to what Michael Savage said,” Sandoval said. He plans to hold a press conference on the steps of City Hall Tuesday just before the entire Board of Supervisors votes on his resolution against Savage.

“The intolerant and racist comments of Michael Savage demand a strong condemnation,” Sandoval insisted.

In response, Horowitz wrote: “This Sandoval fellow accused you of using ‘defamatory language … against immigrants.’ Of course, this statement by Sandoval is slander. I have listened to your show. You are very complimentary of immigrants. In fact, you frequently mention that your parents were immigrants. The slander by Sandoval arises because he claims that your opposition to illegal entry into this country is somehow a stand against Hispanics. That is like saying that every Border Patrol agent and every Congress person is anti-immigrant because they don’t condone illegal border crossing.”

“I will back you, Michael, and file this lawsuit if you wish,” concluded Horowitz.

I reassert my earlier comments here that the City of San Francisco should be boycotted by all Conservatives.

C O M M E N T S : now closed