"I would say let them fast till they starve to death. ... Because then we won't have a problem about giving them green cards because they're illegal aliens."
And bleeding-heart liberal San Francisco went ablaze in fervor over the remarks. They went so far as to waste taxpayer money (because taxpayers are responsible for paying their representatives' salaries) by having Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval introduce a resolution Tuesday condemning the "defamatory language used by radio personality Michael Savage against immigrants." And soon, more will be wasted as the Supervisor plans to call a vote on the official condemnation.
I'm asking of you: Who did he defame, and how were they defamed?
The protesters on the hunger strike trying to get amnesty for illegal immigrants? How did he defame them? By disagreeing with their stance on an issue? By not taking their method of protest seriously? If not agreeing with a method of protest or the reason for the protest and verbalizing it is wrong, then all counterprotests would result in "condemnation" and "defamation" news, wouldn't it?
The illegal immigrants? The ones who want us to help pay for them to go to college and cheat their way into legal citizenship? How were they defamed? Michael Savage doesn't want them to get green cards. He called them exactly what they are - illegal aliens. That's not defamation at all. It's stating the obvious. They're not citizens, and they're here illegally. They are criminals. Okay, Michael Savage didn't say that, but I am. Does that mean I've defamed illegal immigrants by posting this?
Good. Defamation is a way of reducing the fame and popularity of someone. And the less famous and popular we make the criminals walking amongst us and the less public support they're receiving as a result - the better.
Now let's get to the idea that this is "hate speech" or a "hate crime":
As for hate speech, I think the only appropriate response is, "SO WHAT?" Speech can be hateful. As long as there are hateful emotions, there will be hateful words and hateful speech to express that hatred.
As for calling it a crime? No f-ing way. The man has done nothing criminal in the least. In fact, he's expressing hatred and outrage about CRIME being committed by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! How can it be a "hate crime" to hate a crime? The only criminals here are the illegal immigrants - especially those who want more support and help to continue their criminal lives here and seek amnesty for the crimes they've committed.
Here's the real problem. Government officials are going out of their way to officially condemn this radio show host for the comments that he made. But here's the thing: he was telling the government officials themselves to stay the course and NOT give in to some piddly little hunger strike. In his own words (which you wouldn't hear in the biased liberal media who's comparing him to Imus), "the logical conclusion of a hunger strike is starvation. That's their right."
Savage went on to explain that the hunger strikers are illegal aliens, "who stole free college educations and then had the audacity to demand citizenship because they were slippery enough to beat the system out of a college degree!" The strikers, he said "owe the U.S. taxpayer reimbursement for their college degrees, and any other public benefits they may have cadged over their years here illegally. Then they should be deported."
If it's condemnable to speak up and speak out against illegal immigrants robbing citizens of so many resources, demanding that we be reimbursed for what they've stolen, or calling for their deportation - then I'm willing to bet that some hippie in San Francisco is writing up a proposal to condemn me as well.
And I'd welcome it. After all, there's no such thing as bad publicity. And illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. Strange how not a single Latino-based or Civil-Liberty-based organization will accept that...
(A story about the Michael Savage condemnation)
No comments:
Post a Comment