A comparison of how the Left treated Michael Savage and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's respective speech.
Leftists agree that their speech should be protected in the public forum. But the speech of conservatives is a different matter. Such is the case at Columbia University in New York. The school would not tolerate Minuteman Jim Gilcrest's freedom of speech. The students disrupted Gilcrest's appearance to the point of terminating his speaking engagement there last fall. Bollinger and his liberal friends wouldn't "tolerate" the ROTC on their campus -- but they welcome Ahmadinejad with open arms.
What is frightening about this is that Ahmadinejad is a dangerous person. He has real power. It has been proven that his regime actively supplies improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to terrorists in Iraq that have killed American soldiers. His regime is challenging the world community with his country's expansion of its nuclear program. And on numerous occasions Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of the United States, as well as for the extermination of Israel.
I ask you: With Iran's link to terrorism and this man in power, how safe is the world community? Yet leftists are more anxious to censor the speech of radio talk-show hosts such as Michael Savage.
I guess liberals don't understand that Michael Savage doesn't have the kind of power that is at the disposal of the president of Iran. The radio talk-show host can't order the annihilation of a people, as Ahmadinejad has called for with the Jewish people. And while his afternoon radio program does reach close to ten-million people per week, Savage is not the leader of a nation. He is a U.S. citizen and is protected by the First
Amendment.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a U.S. citizen, and as such has no right to freedom of expression in America. Yet he gets to say anything he wants and Leftists are fine with it. On the other hand, the Left wants to silence Michael Savage, who hasn't said anything wrong at all, just things that the Left disagrees with. Does this mean that the Left, therefore, agrees with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Draw your own conclusions.
My own conclusion: The Left in general, as a movement (not to finger specific leftists, so may no specific leftists take it personally, please) is intolerant of speech with which they disagree but will defend speech with which they agree or speech by those they fear and/or to whom they submit.
