Action Alert for Michael Savage Haters on SF Board of Supervisors

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors: On two separate occasions in 2007, your august body attempted to condemn radio talk show host Michael Savage for his conservative positions on rule of law and Islamic sponsored terrorism.

---

In August, your efforts were thwarted by Ed Jew, a board member of Chinese descent whose grandfather came to America seven decades ago. Unfortunately, Mr. Jew is no longer a member of the board, and was not there in October when your board passed a resolution condemning Michael Savage. First of all, congratulations seem in order. Most municipal governments are absorbed with fighting budget deficits, rampant crime, drugs, AIDS, and other epidemics that voters expect responsible elected officials to solve. Very few cities outside San Francisco use taxpayers' time and money to monitor and censure radio talk show hosts. Which means that San Francisco must be without problems typical in other big cities. Rapes, murders and other violent crimes are not a worry? No budget deficit? No potholes in the streets? Population growing in a robust and productive economy? Terrific! With mundane issues satisfactorily attended to, it is quite understandable that San Francisco would take on a vile rascal like Michael Savage. After all, Savage had the impertinence to suggest that illegal aliens protesting the rule of law with a hunger strike should be allowed to succeed by starving themselves. Any good liberal knows that the more prudent course would to grant amnesty to the protesters, enroll them in welfare and food stamp programs, and raise the taxes of U.S. citizens in order to pay for feasting at the public trough by illegal aliens. To hell with borders, language, and American culture! What could be more San Francisco? But back to the role of the Board of Supervisors in policing the air waves. Can we assume that the Board is interested in all significant misdeeds by talk show hosts based in San Francisco, even misdeeds committed by leftists? Assuming that to be the case, I direct your attention to the shocking news concerning talk show host Bernie Ward, a stalwart of liberalism and other mental disorders common in the City by the Bay. Apparently, Bernie Ward dabbled in Kiddy Porn by securing and distributing said porn from the Internet. The federal government has decided that Mr. Ward has committed a very serious felony and has indicted him. Ward was arraigned in a federal court in San Francisco last week. Of course, a federal indictment is simply an accusation, and not a conviction. Bernie Ward deserves the presumption of innocence, a fundamental right of all Americans. But to place the Michael Savage and Bernie Ward situations in the proper context, Michael Savage has never been accused of sexual deviance or criminal behavior of any sort. Savage's "sin" is that he has very strong conservative views concerning the rule of law and Islamic sponsored terrorism. However, to the best of my knowledge, the First Amendment applies to conservative speech, regardless of how strong, just as it does to other ideological expressions. Surely, it is not against the law to express strong conservative opinions in San Francisco, right? Thank goodness Savage has never been reticent about expressing his views. Millions of Americans regard him as a patriotic American simply standing up for the rule of law and common sense, in a metropolis not known for an abundance of either. On the other hand, Bernie Ward is alleged to have engaged in the heinous felony of child pornography. Given the fact that Michael Savage was condemned by the Board although he has never been accused of a crime, does the Board have plans to condemn Bernie Ward for his alleged violation of federal law and standards of decency? Or is alleged dabbling in Kiddy Porn not all that significant in the City that Knows How?