Such may be the case with radio talk show host Michael Savage, re. The Savage Nation. If you are not familiar with Savage’s ongoing battle with the United Kingdom, it may be because the media and most bloggers, radio talk show hosts and virtually every person who makes a living exercising their freedom of speech have refused to cover Savage’s story.

Savage has been banned from visiting the U.K. because he was placed on a list with murderers and terrorist because of being accused of saying bad things that might incite “intercommunity violence”. World Net Daily reports it this way.

In a legal complaint against Smith, Savage noted the home secretary’s office said in a press release that the “controversial daily radio host” is “considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence.”

Smith was the head of the U.K.’s Home Office who placed Savage on that list. Savage has since been embroiled in a legal battle to clear his name. The new government of the U.K. announced that they will leave Savage on the list.

Much of this is very troubling and should tatter the fabric of every person who embraces liberty – in this instance, freedom of speech. Who cares which side of the aisle Savage might sit on? Why should those of us who adore liberty care if Savage is a libertarian, a republican, a conservative, a liberal, black, white, green or purple? What has happened to Michael Savage in the U.K. shows us the evil that exists in the world and within the boundaries of one of our greatest democratic allies.

Why hasn’t American Media jumped to help Savage? Should it really matter? Savage walks his own walk and as often as he might ruffle your feathers, he speaks his mind. Love him or hate him, he loves liberty, as we all should.

Savage is no murderer! He’s not a terrorist either! The U.K. has cherry-picked fragments of things Savage has said in order to demonize the man and get his name on this famed list. But why? Once again, World Net Daily gives us extremely troubling evidence that perhaps Savage has become a victim of the U.K.’s use of political correctness to protect themselves from appearing bigoted toward Muslims.

Savage has documented his battle over the U.K. ban in his book “Banned in Britain,” which includes official correspondence, released under the U.K.’s freedom of information law, that reveals a decision was made at the highest level of government to use his name to provide “balance” to a “least wanted” list dominated by Muslim extremists.

“We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists,” reads a draft recommendation, marked “Restricted,” that was obtained as part of Savage’s libel lawsuit against the government and Smith…..

Can this be true? Did Savage become the target of political correctness in which he was added to a list of banned people in order not to make the list contain only Islamic names? Think about that for a moment. Is this the equivalent of adding a Catholic, a Jew and a Protestant to the list of terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center, in order that this list not include all Muslim extremists? Is this also a matter of the U.K. showing it’s fear of retribution by their own Islamic communities should they put out a list “dominated by Muslim extremists”?

Regardless of how extraordinary all of this has become for Savage, the most perplexing matter of contention, is the lack of action from Savage’s fellow media people who should be climbing the walls to clear this man’s name. This same savage act of barbarism to destroy our inalienable rights can just as easily be cast upon any one of us who use the pen or speak with words.

It matters not whether you like or dislike Savage. The man is unique and speaks from his heart. This certainly doesn’t make him a terrorist who incites violence in other people. Is there no longer responsibility of self, that we simply blame others for what we choose to do?

I could compile quite a list of people who write and talk that I dislike immensely and some I disagree with but it is far from my thoughts that I would seek to shut them up or ban them from coming to my town. Regardless of who the person is, we should never squander our liberties for personal or political reasons.

I am just a little guy in the big scheme of Media but it is my desire that Michael Savage can get this issue resolved. I believe it would have been concluded months ago, had Americans, including our own Secretary of State, Congress and Media voiced outrage toward the United Kingdom for conducting acts so antithetical to the liberties Americans and Brits died to protect.

Tom Remington

Washington, D.C. – The following is a statement by David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Now that both Turkey and Iran are on the record supporting the violation of another nation’s waters so long as the ships doing so are providing humanitarian relief, a huge impediment to two ideas of mine – the Free Turkey Movement and the Free Iran Movement – has now been lifted.

The main project of both groups would be “Free Minds Flotillas,” collections of ships loaded with sufficient servers and broadcast equipment to ensure that the citizens of Turkey and Iran have full access to Google, YouTube and Facebook.

Both countries have been running blockades of these services. Earlier this week – and with the “Freedom Flotilla” incident still fresh in our minds – Turkey banned YouTube and blocked access to more than 30 Google websites.

Iran permanently suspended Google’s email service this past February and YouTube and Facebook have frequently been filtered or blocked by the Iranian regime.

Unfettered communication between people is a basic human right and people of Turkey and Iran are crying out for the world’s help.

The “Free Minds Flotilla” can now respond now that both Turkey and Iran have given the green light for such operations.

We’ll need substantial funding for these two projects, of course, if we’re to be successful. And it is unlikely we’ll be able to count on the kind of support Weather Underground leaders William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Code Pink founder Jodie Evans and Noam Chomsky provided to the Free Gaza Movement.

But plenty of support should be forthcoming…

To the executives of Google, Facebook, and YouTube: I await your calls.

Note: David A. Ridenour most recently commented on Israel, Gaza, Turkey and the Freedom Flotilla in “Turkey Responsible for Flotilla Deaths” on June 1.

Washington, D.C. – The following is a statement by David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research:

The international community should be denouncing Turkey, not Israel, for the loss of life on the so-called “Freedom Flotilla.”

That’s because Turkey, the flag state of the ship, had an obligation to ensure that the ships making up the flotilla adhered to international law.

It didn’t.

Though neither Turkey nor Israel are parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the treaty presumably spells out what the states ratifying the treaty believe to be acceptable rules of behavior. Many of those countries are now, rather hypocritically, denouncing Israel.

The Free Gaza Movement announced its intention to breach Israel’s barricade of Gaza – requiring it to violate Israel’s territorial waters.

Article 19 of the Law of the Sea Treaty specifies that “any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal state” or “the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws or regulations of the coastal state” are deemed “prejudicial to the peace, good order or security” of that state. This flotilla – as with ones before it – would have done both if allowed to proceed.

While Article 19 only gives the coastal state the authority to act within its territorial waters, the bloodshed may well have been greater had Israel waited until then. If reports are accurate that some activists carried arms, Israeli commandos would have lost the element of surprise.

It also appears that Israel may have been within international norms in boarding the ship as all states have an obligation under Articles 109 and 110 of the treaty to stop unauthorized broadcasts (those intended for the general public, but not distress calls), including in international waters. The so-called “Freedom Flotilla” was broadcasting their voyage live.

Blood is on Turkey’s hands.

President Obama should do the right thing and recall the U.S. ambassador.

Note: David A. Ridenour is the author of “Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: A Not-So-Innocent Passage.“

I’m sure it began long before our obsession with self-esteem. So consumed we became with making sure our kids’ feelings were never hurt, we lost all reason and understanding and began teaching that exceptionalism wasn’t “fair”. (Oh, there’s the four-letter word that should be banned.)

Was it diversity? We were being indoctrinated that diversity was admirable, that some was good and more was better. Lost in all this was the importance of retaining identity, for without identity how can a child’s self-esteem have a foundation?

I’m afraid it all began a long time ago. Little by little we lost the focus of what made America great.

Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison and Edward Rutledge, are only a few of the exceptional people who signed our Declaration of Independence. One trait that made them exceptional was their desire for and understanding of freedom. They didn’t want to be like England or any other. They wanted to be like America.

John Adams at a very young age wrote of his dreams that someday America would be the greatest nation on earth, not to look down on others but to draw them up unto this country’s greatness. Adams’ dream came true. America did become the greatest nation on earth, doing more to help other people than any other nation. It came from liberty, the freedom to excel, the desire to be the best of the best. It was called exceptionalism. It is what made America a magnet that draws others to come here. Why do we want to extinguish the magnetism?

As I sat yesterday and watched the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderone, stand at the stage of the greatest legislative conclave on earth, the symbol of liberty and everything great, and ridicule America while members of that Congress stood in applause for such treasonous, anti-American sentiments, I wondered if the above mentioned exceptional men had been sitting in that audience, what their reaction would have been.

As President Barack Obama stood outside the White House with Calderone, in what certainly appeared to be an affirmation from our President of his hatred toward America, I pictured George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson gathered amongst the bushes of the Rose Garden, standing in utter disbelief.

Tom Remington

Read the editorial here.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

By Jim Beers

“My name is Jim Beers and I am a treatyphobe.”

I grew up in the period of wildlife abundance in the 1940’s and 50’s. From the first time I hunted with my Dad, the dream of spending my life managing and preserving the use and cultural heritage provided by US fish and wildlife was always in my mind.

When I studied wildlife management in college and when I worked for the Utah Fish and Game and then the US Fish and Wildlife Service after a stint in the Navy; fish and wildlife management and use, like American freedoms and the American way of life were still intact. Today, fish and wildlife management and use, like American government, American freedoms, American culture and traditions, and American society are in tatters and on the verge of disappearance.

I lay much of the blame for this decline on the sordid manipulation of the Treaty powers contained in the US Constitution by persons with hidden agendas. That is not to say that this power is wrongly described therein, it is to say that this power as it has evolved in the past century has eroded the strong foundation of Constitutional government and fish and wildlife use and management as we knew it.

I am “taking pen to paper” here because yesterday I wrote about the potential for the current Administration (Obama et al) and the current US Senate (Reid et al) to cynically craft and line up a few nations to sign a UN Treaty “On Small Arms and Ammunition” that, when signed by the President (of the US) and ratified by 2/3 of the Senators “present” whenever old Harry (Reid) deigns to ask for a vote, automatically becomes “the Law of the land” per the Constitution. I further speculated that it would mean the inevitable demise of our 2nd Amendment rights.

A lawyer that I respect essentially responded that such a scenario was unlikely because such a treaty would not and could not change the Constitution and therefore would be challenged and found to be unable to change our rights. I was crestfallen but I accept that lawyerly advice.

Therefore I have joined Treatyphobics Anonymous and as my first step in overcoming my phobia about Treaties will try to explain my formerly inexplicable fear of Treaties so that I might return to societal confidence in the Treaty-making authority of federal leaders.

When I went to work for the US Fish and Wildlife Service in the late 1960’s I unknowingly entered into an era of societal turbulence and change that was not only reflected in fish and wildlife programs but indeed hijacked those programs and the powers they contained. I can only say this now, because while I was immersed in it until fired in 1999, it was truly like the old saw of not being able “to see the forest for the trees”. Allow me to explain.

US fish and wildlife were unmanaged and freely used until the late 1800’s. In 1896, new state laws about wildlife were upheld by the Supreme Court in GEER v. Connecticut wherein it was held that states “owned” all the fish and wildlife within their borders. This was the cornerstone that began the increased management and sustainable use of fish and wildlife by accountable (to state resident voters) State, not federal, politicians and managers.

In 1917, the federal government ratified a TREATY with Canada to protect about 200 species of birds (nearly all migratory game birds and songbirds) that Migrated between these two nations. The authority for the federal government to subsequently claim ALL authority over all of these named birds was upheld by the Supreme Court in Holland v. Missouri in 1920. Ray Holland was one of my (as a young duck hunter) early heroes and to this day I have a photograph of him standing, cigar in hand, on the Mall in DC in the early 1920’s. Federal authority for years protected and increased those migratory birds for uses from hunting and bird watching to protection of agricultural crops and wetlands. Today I would argue that they no longer do that, if anyone would care to debate the point.

Let’s fast forward to my 32 years with the USFWS. As societal turbulence (anti-war, drugs, “free”-love, etc.) shook the land, federal fish and wildlife management and use was subverted and perverted into something 180 degrees out of synch with American traditions and cultures. Treaty manipulation became a hidden factor in this perversion.

Consider two federal laws that have changed our world dramatically, The Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

1. An Endangered Species Act passed Congress in 1969 but it was found to have “no teeth’. So a UN Convention was concocted and ratified on “International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora” (“Small Arms Treaty” anyone?) in 1973. That same year (wow, did they do that quickly) the federal government enacted the Endangered Species Act we all came to know and (only a few of us) love.

2. The Marine Mammal Protection Act was introduced in 1976 by an Arkansas Senator (funny how those guys and gals keep popping up in these scenarios about subverting US society) who joked that “the best thing about this law (he was fishing for “environmental” votes at the time) was that there wasn’t one of them Marine Mammals within 500 miles of Arkansas”. It followed:

1931/49 – Whaling Convention Act and amendments.

1957 – Fur Seal (Alaska) Act

1958 – Convention on “Living Resources of the High Seas”.

1970 – 8 Species of Whales declared “Endangered”.

1972 – A Treaty on Seals.

1973 – A Treaty on Polar Bears. (As I write this, the paper reports that the US introduced a ban on the international trade by Canadian natives of polar bear skins, teeth, and claws from their own robust and sustainably-managed and hunted polar bear populations. Fortunately, this political trashing of the rural and native people of our strongest ally and neighbor was defeated by a surprisingly erudite UN vote.)

Now remember that I am ignoring a whole bunch of simultaneously nefarious stuff involving other fish and wildlife things during these years. For instance:

- Manipulating a Migratory Bird Treaty with Mexico and new Treaties with Japan and Russia to quietly add new “federally protected” birds that had been specifically excluded like cormorants (that soon overran hatcheries and fish farms) and pelicans (that soon became “Endangered” and now overrun docks) and hawks and owls that, like protected wolves and grizzly bears, soon grew in numbers and destruction impacts on other birds and desired wildlife.

- Closing public lands to access and management (Wilderness Act of 1964).

- Wild Horse and Burro Act (1971) giving federal protection to such destructive and overpopulated animals.

- Gradual reorientation of federal lands into being lands OUTSIDE state and local authority and lands oriented to “Native Ecosystems” instead of the purposes for which they were purchased.

- Closure of public lands to uses (and management tools) like logging and grazing.

- Proliferating designations by Executive Orders and bureaucratic regulations to close public land from energy access and development to closing more access with Roadless Areas, the destruction of trails, nuisance regulations, draconian law enforcement, and entry fees.

Now remember, what I am about to say comes from someone that is not a lawyer. If I had a buck for every time I heard, in my federal career, that “we” had authority over private property and state governments because “we” (us federal guys, not you out there or any of those state “cowboy legislatures” or redneck farmers) had treaties and the laws implementing them on “our” side, well I would be fishing off New Zealand or bird shooting in Argentina (it is early fall there) right now. Government Solicitors and those bureaucrats that were promoted to ever-higher responsibilities (“responsive to management skills and abilities” types) were constantly maneuvering with New Age Lawyers and their environmental/animal rights clients and supporters to “interpret” the laws and treaties in supportive (of government expansion) ways. They also worked hard to identify and “suggest” new laws and regulations to “save” more and to “plug loopholes” that frustrated federal power growth. Writing suggested Treaty language and getting court findings to serve as precedents (the “right” court at the “right” time) and then writing regulations that served the original but mostly unnoticed federal/ “New Age” supporters agendas was what federal employees and their advisors were paid and rewarded to do in those days.

Those 2 federal laws (ESA & MMPA) created a federal and public mindset, and a whole trail and flow of increasingly un-American laws and regulations. This soon did two things:

1. Established the now-acceptable practice that the federal government could “Take” private property use and value from private owners for whatever reason it contrives, like “Critical Habitat”, WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. This broke the back as far as federal advocates were concerned of that old, out-dated concept about “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” that those old rich guys (Our Founding Fathers) wrote somewhere (the US Constitution, 5th Amendment). Who wouldn’t “take” all they could if there was no cost? Who could afford to “take” all the federal government has “taken” in the past 40 years if they had to pay for it?

2. Established the current belief that states no longer “owned” any fish or wildlife except what the feds have left alone thus far.

Once we accepted these two principles and their future place in our laws, our fate was and is sealed.

When federal bureaucrats and politicians saw that Treaties could give them absolute power over everything from private property to the authority and jurisdiction of states – THEIR FUTURE GROWTH AND MARCH TO ABSOLUTE POWER WAS ASSURED. No court would ever again uphold a citizen defending private property (be it dog, farm, chicken, or home.) No state would ever again be able to stop federal orders that closed public lands in a state or denied gun rights on federal lands in the state or stopped logging or farming or grazing on public and private lands within a state. The rest was academic:

- Federal lands, budgets, regulations, and power have grown dramatically over the past 40 years.

- State rights have all but disappeared.

- State employees have become mere extensions of federal policies, receivers of federal welfare (excuse me grants and assistance) and enemies of state residents.

- Federally protected overpopulations of Seals choke the mouth of the Pacific NW Rivers eating enormous amounts of salmon (thereby sustaining their overpopulation) while the same federal government protecting them tears down dams, shuts down irrigation districts, reduces human water supplies and power generation, and closes vast ocean areas to fishermen; all to “save salmon”.

- Federally protected and federally dispersed wolves spread disease, danger, and carnage in federally-designated states on both public and private property and thereby destroy rural culture, rural economies, and rural communities where federal lands and the destruction of animal (wild and domestic) husbandry and use is being federally driven to make way for ever-growing federal land enclaves.

- Marine Mammals that never leave state waters and were heretofore under state authority like manatee and sea otters are, like growing lists of other wild resident and therefore formerly state-controlled animals like sage grouse, pupfish, suckers, wolves, etc. placed under absolute and never-ending federal jurisdiction (every State move must be “approved by federal authorities” once such jurisdiction is proclaimed). This set the groundwork for the current cry for “federal laws” to “restore native ecosystems” and “eliminate invasive species” (what else is there given the nonsensical definitions of these “rubbery” concepts?)

A century of American Progressive challenges to the “ownership of the commons”, an ancient concept about whether “The King” or “The People” (now where have I heard that last term before?) owned “public” land and the fish and wildlife inhabiting it has become intertwined, like mating snakes with a century of “progressive” beliefs and actions about the “smart” few governing the “ignorant” (scientifically-challenged?) many.

Those 2 results of Treaties (ESA & MMPA) being (rightly or wrongly assumed by federal bureaucrats and their political bosses and an “evolving Supreme Court”) justification for laws demolishing the Constitution and leaving only the power of a majority vote (i.e. no “Rights” just power) have much to do with the state of America today.

As an old bureaucrat I may be way off base about how Treaties are supposed to work but I know what I saw and it is like a B-25 tail gunner walking through Dresden in1946: it ain’t pretty and you wonder how it all happened and how it ever went this far.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think I will come to any more of these meetings. All this baring your soul stuff is too stressful on an old-timer.

Jim Beers