“And now you know… the rest of the story.”

Talk about headlines you never thought you’d see: “Broadcaster Paul Harvey had close ties to the FBI.”

This week, major media outlets reported that, “at the cusp of his national career, he was an FBI target whose network bosses fretted about whether he should be fired. Paul Harvey, who died last February at 90, enjoyed a 20-year friendship with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, often submitting advance copies of his radio script for comment and approval.”

It’s hard to believe, but a Freedom of Information request revealed a huge – 1400 page! – dossier on the beloved broadcaster. So what put Harvey on the FBI’s radar?

Industry watcher Al Peterson explains: “In a story already well-known to many broadcasters, young newsman Harvey decided to scale a fence at the Argonne National Laboratory to get a story proving reports that security at the nuclear research sight was lacking. Caught and arrested almost immediately after scaling the fence, Harvey did get a lot of publicity – albeit not the sort he was hoping for – from the stunt. He was investigated by the FBI, but was ultimately never indicted on any charges.”

Rush Limbaugh

This week, Rush Limbaugh dealt with spurious accusations of anti-Semitism made against him by Anti-Defamation League President Abe Foxman.

Once again, Limbaugh’s comments were taken out of context to whip up controversy. Immediately, Michael Ledeen, John Podhoretz and other Jewish conservatives defended Rush, calling him a great friend of Israel and the Jewish people.

Sitting in for Rush as he prepared for his stint as a Miss America judge, Mark Steyn called Foxman a “disgusting, craven little twerp” and a “buffoon.”

Steyn’s rant against traffic “roundabouts” (FREE audio clip), however, generated a much larger reaction from listeners, who wrote him to share their frustrations with those “safety” constructs popping up on roadways all over America.

Rush returned to the airwaves on Wednesday, broadcasting from Las Vegas as he waits for the live Miss America Pageant this Saturday (Check out these FREE video clips of Rush discussing the judging process at a press conference).

Like every conservative talk radio host this week, Limbaugh focused on Obama’s first State of the Union address.

On Wednesday, Rush offered some suggestions for Obama’s speechwriters, while on Thursday, he read “A Letter to Barack Obama” he’d written in response to the State of the Union, calling the President “delusional and delirious.” It was so well received in hour one that Rush reread it in hour three and immediately posted the audio online (FREE audio).

Like Rush, Glenn Beck delivered his own “State of the Union” address on Wednesday morning (complete with comically timed “applause” lines) and slammed the President’s real speech the next day:

“I have never been so outraged by a president. I don’t think I’ve never seen anything like it (…) I don’t even know where to begin. (…) This is beyond arrogance,” Beck said.

“Hang on to your chalkboards, folks. The only person more popular than Glenn Beck is Oprah,” declared one media watcher, responding to stunning Harris poll results.

“According to the breakdown,” comments Glynnis MacNicol, “‘Glenn Beck is the favorite for both Republicans and for conservatives, but, interestingly, also for independents. Oprah Winfrey is number one for Democrats and moderates, while Jon Stewart is the favorite for liberals.’”

“Also for independents. That’s the kicker,” MacNicol continued. “I’m not sure whether this is a measure of how politicized the country has become over the past year, or merely of Beck’s appeal … I would imagine a combination of the two.”

Sounds like a good time for Beck to launch “Insider Extreme,” a new level of premium membership for his radio listeners (FREE audio).

A few clips of the “Bold Fresh Tour” have found their way online. The sold-out events feature Beck and Fox News colleague Bill O’Reilly entertaining fans across the country:

Not everyone, however, is applauding.

“Beck seems poised to inherit both Rush (Limbaugh’s) radio mantle and O’Reilly’s TV throne,” said Alexander Zaitchik, who is writing a biography of Beck due out in May called ‘Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance.’”

Mark Levin

Writing about judicial activism, columnist Paul Mulshine bashed “fake conservative” “radio clowns” and singled out Mark Levin for particular scorn, calling him a “salesman” who didn’t understand the Constitution.

On Facebook, Levin shot back: “Paul Mulshine, or Moonshine if your prefer, believes justices should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they do what he wants them to do. Moonshine believes a judge’s job it is to do good, or justice, or spread liberty, or whatever. The problem, of course, is that liberal judicial activists believe they are … doing exactly the same thing. The standard is to apply the Constitution as best as possible. That’s what ‘originalism’ means. That’s what great conservative judicial and constitutional scholars have argued from the beginning. Moonshine is a jackass.”

This week, Levin told listeners he’ll have a new book out just in time for Father’s Day! It’s an illustrated guide to Lincoln’s Gettysberg Address (FREE audio clip).

Michael Savage

After being dropped from his longtime San Francisco affiliate last year, Michael Savage is back on the Bay Area airwaves.

Starting Feb. 1, “The Savage Nation” will now be heard on all-sports station KTRB-AM.

“Sports fans are generally tuned out of politics, and I want to tune them in to what is happening in this great country,” said Savage. “Sports fans love an underdog, and in the uber-socialist Bay Area, I am the biggest underdog the media has ever heard.”

San Francisco media watcher Rich Lieberman offered an insider’s insights on the move: “Savage’ shtick has long played well, yes, even in the ‘liberal’ Bay Area, although outside the SF/Pacific Heights area into the burbs of Walnut Creek, Pleasanton, Modesto and the like, the Bay Area is a conservative hotbed. … Full disclosure: I have guested on Savage’s show twice and got lambasted by liberal bloggers and pundits for being his ‘lapdog.’ My e-mail included a few choice thoughts too, which I won’t disclose.”

On the air this week, Michael Savage reviewed Apple’s new iPad reading tablet (FREE audio).

Speaking of Michael Savage: His official biographer (and WND columnist), Ellis Washington, is now hosting a weekly radio program out of Atlanta.

“The Washington Report” airs Thursdays on America’s Web Radio, 1620 AM. You can listen live at America’s Web Radio website.

Laura Ingraham

Along with a “State of the Union” address of her own, Laura Ingraham slammed Obama’s “arrogance” and his “phony spending freeze.” Plus she took on Jehmu Greene, who wants to ban Tim Tebow’s pro-life Super Bowl ad (FREE audio).

As she wrote on her blog: “Of course we know why pro-abortion types are so upset – they see public opinion slipping away from them on this issue. … The Tebow story will resonate with millions of people across America, and especially women who may be confronting similar personal quandaries. As for those who are ‘offended’ by this ‘divisive subject matter,’ there are countries around the world – China, for one – where contentious debates don’t happen in public at all.”

Sean Hannity

Speaking of “divisive,” Hannity reported on new polls calling Obama “the most polarizing president in history.”

“People see right through [Obama's] lies,” Sean told listeners. “This nightmare just continues, and they keep digging deeper, telling us that black is white and white is black and that everything is just fine.”

On his pre-State of the Union show, Hannity predicted that yet again, Obama would blame his problems on former President Bush.

“What the liberals are trying to do is both focus on blaming Bush and secondarily trying to divide us conservatives. Liberals are just mad that Obamamania is fading; after all, they’ve invested so much in this president, and they’re almost taking it personally. There are conservatives who are lecturing we should acknowledge when Obama is moving in the right direction,” warned Sean, “and that’s about as dumb as it gets, because he’s not moving anywhere. … All of this is just politics. It’s irresponsible socialist spending regardless of the words on a teleprompter.”

On the left side of the dial

Why did liberal talk radio network Air America really fail? The question has occupied political and industry minds all week.

“Quite simply, Air America failed in the radio business because it was never run by radio people,” declared Radio Business Report.

Veteran talk media executive Gabe Hobbs agreed: “Most of what Air America did was about politics and promoting an agenda first, when that should have been last on their list. They should have been on a mission to create great, entertaining radio shows, let the politics fall where they may, and the agendas emerge organically as a byproduct of success. Instead the ‘money’ people always felt the political mission was the thing – cue buzzer sound effect here – wrong!”

Not everyone got the message. A Clear Channel rep insists the company is committed to their progressive talk format on their Portland, Ore., station, despite a “dramatic decline in KPOJ’s ratings now that Arbitron’s Portable People Meter is being used” in the area.

That’s right: As I told you weeks ago, the technology radio stations use to calculate their ratings now is much more accurate than the old method – and the results show many “popular” formats weren’t so very popular after all.

An Oregon blogger put it bluntly: “Portland liberal talk radio listeners lie.”

“Under the old diary system where a listener wrote down what they claimed to listen to and how long, KPOJ was thought to have 3.5 percent of the audience listening to them,” writes Gregg Clapper. “But when the electronic gadget registered what was actually listened to and for how long, KPOJ’s rating plummeted.

“It’s interesting to note that two of the three conservative talk stations actually increased their ratings under the new system,” he adds. “Apparently, conservative news talk listeners didn’t lie under the old system of writing down what stations they listened to and for how long.”

In other words: liberals are lousy capitalists. And they lie. Oh well, no surprises there.

Ellis Washington, authorized biographer for the conservative intellectual Dr. Michael Savage (see www.MichaelSavage.com), is former editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute. He is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

 

WesternFront America

The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it’s indifference.

– Elie Wiesel

Anybody that can enlighten the people, motivate the people is a danger to the New World Order.

– Michael Savage, Aug. 24, 2009

The enduring words of Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor of Hitler’s death camps at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, are a poignant reminder that bombs, bullets, tanks, torture and gas chambers are not the most the demonstrative examples of hatred of man against humanity. It is, after those ghastly, terroristic acts are perpetrated against the innocent, that those who are in a position to say something, to do something to stop such senseless genocide, are all too quiet … too indifferent of the plight of another.

The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.

Scotland has recently received tepid condemnation by President Obama and many world leaders for releasing Lockerbie bomber Abdulbaset al-Megrahi, a Muslim fanatic responsible for the deaths of 270 innocent people in the bombing of Pan AM flight 103 which ignited as the plane flew over Lockerbie, Scotland, just before Christmas 1988.

The international controversy was due to Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi giving the Lockerbie bomber a hero’s welcome much to the chagrin of America, Britain and Scotland. In a U.K. Guardian article, it was reported that “the Scottish government … responded defiantly, insisting the U.S. had made clear in discussions that, while it opposed Megrahi’s release, it regarded freeing him on compassionate grounds because of his terminal cancer as “far preferable” to a prisoner transfer deal that would have seen him in custody.”

The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.

Last week my friend and intellectual mentor, Michael Savage, at hearing news of the egregious insult Scotland and Britain did against the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims, as well as against all Americans by releasing this murderous terrorist, rightfully drew the parallel on his radio show between the secrecy and duplicitous treachery of the governments of Scotland and Britain for what appears to be a quid pro quo for oil contracts with Libya, and how Michael Savage was unjustly banned in Britain and essentially put on an enemies list because of his conservative ideology and his Jewish heritage. Perhaps we will later learn through legal discovery that ranking members of the Obama administration thought blacklisting Savage would be a Machiavellian pretext for their real objective – the official banning of conservative talk radio in America via the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”

The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.

If the Obama administration is anything, these Chicago thugs are Machiavellian to the core. Putting Michael Savage’s name on an enemies list was not by accident. He was specifically singled out because he is the most effective, singular voice against the fascist tactics of “The Chicago Way” in American media. Savage is an existential threat to Obama’s power which this arrogant, political opportunist cannot abide.

The Obama administration knew that professional jealously, divide-and-conquer tactics and what the Germans call Schadenfreude would continue to isolate and marginalize Savage. Philosopher and sociologist, Theodor Adorno, defined Schadenfreude as “largely unanticipated delight in the suffering of another which is cognized as trivial and/or appropriate.” Obama’s minions knew that the GOP, the RNC, Rush, Fox News, et al., would take delight in the plight of Michael Savage’s suffering at this vile international attack upon his character because his conservative colleagues on talk radio, like effete harlequins or the tragic figure, Dorian Gray, are transfixed by their own outward reflection even as they rot from inside by their hypocritical silence.

As it was with the Michael Savage affair, so it was with the Lockerbie bombing affair: utmost secrecy and treachery from the Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s administration as evidence mounts that Brown had “discussed with Colonel Gaddafi detailed conditions for the Lockerbie bomber’s return nearly six weeks ago” during the G-8 Summit in Italy. That “when we met [there] I stressed that, should the Scottish executive decide that Megrahi can return to Libya, this should be a purely private family occasion” rather than a public celebration. And that those conditions centered around giving Britain access to Libya’s lucrative oil reserves.

Where is the left on this issue? Where is Cindy Sheehan and the useful idiots of the environmental movement with their “No blood for oil” signs?

The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.

The article continues: “Tonight the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, redoubled calls for the government to release official records of conversations about the release, as Gaddafi increased the embarrassment by publicly thanking “my friend Brown, his government, the Queen of Britain, Elizabeth, and Prince Andrew who all contributed to encouraging the Scottish government to take this historic and courageous decision.”

Can you appreciate the bitter irony of the once great British Empire of Queen Elizabeth I and Sir Winston Churchill has devolved down to the buffoonery of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Andrew colluding with her puppet government, Scotland, to release an unrepentant Muslim murder with the blood of 270 Americans still on his hands, so that England can get oil contracts from Libya, while the Jew, Michael Savage, an American patriot and self-confessed Anglophile is on England’s enemies list demanding that he recants statements and ideas he never espoused?

While Chairman Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown beg for legitimacy and approval by wishing one billion Muslims “Happy Ramadan,” can you imagine in 1940 Winston Churchill wishing Hitler and the Nazi empire “Happy Kristallnacht” during the Battle of Britain? America! We are at war with the liberal-Muslim axis powers of the Obama administration, the ACLU, CAIR and these fascists want to silence our strongest voice of truth.

Why is the Lockerbie bomber praised while Michael Savage is hated and unjustly put on an enemies list while the conservative and state-controlled media are silent?

Because the opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.

© Ellis Washington

Ellis Washington, authorized biographer for the conservative intellectual Dr. Michael Savage (see www.MichaelSavage.com), is former editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute. He is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

 

WesternFront America

And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

~ Matthew 13:57

Hoover Institution fellow Robert Conquest, in a fascinating article, “Inside Stalin’s Darkroom,” detailed the extent of communist tyranny of the Soviet Union under Stalin, whereby people who fell out of Stalin’s capricious favor could literally be “disappeared” from life, as well as from history. Mr. Conquest writes:

Two groups of people were removed from the visual record. Members of the first group had their revolutionary pasts destroyed (and were murdered) but were remade in Soviet history as terrorist agents of Hitler. Members of the second group simply disappeared and were not heard of again.

Regarding the Stalinist tactics used in the May 5 blacklisting of Michael Savage by the United Kingdom in collusion with America and the Obama administration, must we add a third category of the disappeared – those unmentioned souls who are left alive but are treated as though they were dead?

It is the Savage silence of the lambs.

In an earlier article titled, “The Savage Silence of the Lambs,” I compared the Machiavellian and unjust blacklisting of Savage by our strongest ally, England, to the movie “Silence of the Lambs.” Here is Part 2 of that offering. As a reference, I quote in part from my original article of May 20:

In the 1991 movie “Silence of the Lambs,” based on a novel by Thomas Harris, Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), a brilliant but evil psychiatrist, begins a game of quid pro quo with Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster), a young FBI trainee seeking the advice of the imprisoned Lecter on capturing a serial murder with the alias, “Buffalo Bill.” In one telling scene, Starling tells of how she was orphaned, relocated to an uncle’s farm, discovered the horror of the lambs going to the slaughterhouse and unsuccessfully tried to save one of the little lambs.That horrific, indelible scene that haunted her all those years was the lambs’ seeming indifference and silence in the face of utter slaughter.

Do you hear that sound, America? It is the tormenting sound of crickets chirping. It is the sound of Prometheus groaning in utter agony as his liver is daily eaten by a giant eagle commanded by Zeus. … It is the sound of the Savage silence of the lambs.

Why, after two weeks since the release of a major profile of Michael Savage by the venerable liberal magazine The New Yorker, has not one TV network, not one major newspaper, not one conservative, libertarian or independent think tank, not one liberal or conservative talk show host invited Michael on their show to interview him regarding this unique and monumental achievement?

It is the Savage silence of the lambs.

New Yorker magazine writer Kelefa Sanneh did an excellent job in profiling my friend and intellectual mentor, Michael Savage, not because he was complimentary or unduly fawning of his subject, but because he was fair, honest and introspective in his psychological treatment of this authentic American conservative intellectual. Kelefa effectively moved himself out of the way and allowed the reader to use his own intelligence to understand Dr. Michael Savage, the man.

Regarding the Michael Savage affair, I would like to echo the comments by Jeff Kuhner who frequently hosts “The Savage Nation” in Michael’s absence, particularly his revelatory monologue on Aug. 5. Jeff eloquently voiced the passions and frustrations of Michael and “The Savage Nation” audience, pointing out that normally when someone is profiled in the revered New Yorker magazine, they are granted instant celebrity status and given entree to all of the major network news, cable, newspapers and radio media.

Note: Past New Yorker profiles are a virtual Who’s Who of literature, intellectualism, society and culture: Ernest Hemingway, John Updyke, Truman Capote, Rachael Carson, Martha Nussbaum, Vaclav Havel, Barack and Michelle Obama, and the iconic profiles of President George W. Bush by the curmudgeon Seymour Hersh.

In other words, everyone knows that a profile in the New Yorker is usually a career maker, not a career breaker. However, with the conservative nationalist Michael Savage, all one has heard over the past two weeks since the publication of his New Yorker magazine profile was the deafening Savage silence of the lambs.

The aspect of the Michael Savage affair I find most paradoxical is watching how these normally talkative media demigods daily rail against Democrats and “the liberal media” (who utterly hate them), yet are all so very silent regarding their fellow conservative presenter, Michael Savage. It makes no logical sense to me.

Another example of the Stalinist blacklisting tactics by Sir Winston Churchill’s once Great Britain and America can be found in Glen Owen’s article on the Michael Savage affair published in the London Daily Mail:

• One message, sent by an unidentified Home Office official on Nov. 27 last year, said that “with Weiner [Savage], I can understand that disclosure of the decision would help provide a balance of types of exclusion cases.”
• The documents include a draft recommendation, marked “Restricted,” saying: “We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists.”
• A further email confirmed the decision was approved at the highest level of Government, saying: “HO [Home Office] intend to include Weiner in their quarterly stats. … Both the FS [foreign secretary] and PM [prime minister] are firmly behind listing and naming such people.”
• One civil servant, again unnamed, counseled caution, saying: “I think we could be accused of duplicity in naming him” – without explaining why – and even added that “the fact that he is homophobic does help.”
• “We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists. Otherwise the exercise could play into the hands of radicals who allege falsely that the unacceptable behaviours policy is targeted specially at the Muslim community.”

On the other hand, Michael has repeatedly said on air, “This story is bigger than me, bigger than any single individual or cause.” Yet when emails expressing anti-Semitism and evil intent like: “… the Home Office chose him to balance the list of Muslim extremists because he is Jewish, are slanderously and libelously leveled against Michael’s reputation without just cause, what can any man do but zealously seek to redeem his name?

Where is the Nobel Prize laureate and Holocaust activist Elie Wiesel? Why the silence from the Anti-defamation League, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, The America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith International, Rabbinical Council of America, Zionist Organizations of America, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs? Will the nation of Israel lift a finger to help a fellow Jew who is suffering national and international condemnation without just cause?

It is the Savage silence of the lambs.

These people, organizations and nations don’t seem to understand that speaking up for the cause of Michael Savage will help themselves and their causes infinitely more.

It is self-evident from the information now available though legal discovery and the yeoman efforts of Savage’s legal teams in America and England that the administration of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and America’s Obama administration, both working in collusion with each other, singled out and remade Michael Savage as a terrorist agent who should be banned from Britain for “fostering extremism and hatred.” Michael isn’t fostering extremism and hatred; he is a singular champion of liberty and a tireless advocate of defending America’s borders, language and culture.

In conclusion, compare the Michael Savage affair to Josef Stalin’s redacting of history. Look at the pictures above: If Stalin’s own personal assassin and chief of his notorious secret police, the NKVD, wasn’t safe from Stalin’s “purges,” what makes the GOP, the RNC, conservative radio hosts, National Review, the Weekly Standard, Fox News and the rest of the state-controlled media think they will be safe from President Obama’s fascist and censorship tactics? Surely these people and organizations must know they will be next.

What, therefore, is the response from all the champions defending freedom of speech and freedom of expression regarding the case of Michael Savage, this modern-day Alfred Dreyfus affair?

… All I can hear is the hypocritical, unconsoling Savage silence of the lambs!

Originally posted at Conservative Hideout 2.0

The Liberty Pen

 

WesternFront America