A glimpse of the PC-Left’s version of “free speech”
The British Labour Home Secretary Jacki Smith has banned radio talk-show host Michael Savage from entering Britain because his controversial opinions allegedly constitute “hate speech.” In doing so, the Labour minister put Savage in the same “excluded” category as a number of terrorists and mass-murderers.
The Home Office’s explanation for each person on the list appears here.
Also included was Fred Phelps, a Baptist minister who has sharply criticized American society for tolerating homosexual practices, and his daughter.
Two quick points:
(1) I don’t have any use for any of the people on this list. (For example, I turned down an opportunity to be on “Savage Nation” because of the inflammatory speech of its host.) But our personal views really should be irrelevant to whether we value freedom of speech, right?
(2) The equating by the Left of those with strongly conservative views with mass murderers, etc., did not begin with this episode, as those who remember the Johnson-Goldwater campaign will recall – when dominant liberal opinion repeatedly put members of the John Birch Society and similar right wing groups into the same category as Communists and the Klan.
Funny, I didn’t see the good Rev. Wright on the list.
Another reason we left England
Please define “the left”. You’re broadbrushing. The left that I know is far more supportive of the first amendment than the Dixie Chickers of the right.
You’re right Mark.
The pedophiles are now protected.
Anyone else here find this “ironical”?
Dave – I’m your special target lately. I find it complimentary, knowing that you are so sensitive. I got to you, and it wasn’t even difficult.
Keep dreaming.
Your worst response yet. Not even creative or insulting. Losing you mojo?
This is a transitional, a flash in the pan. Fast forward 20 years and the Home Office list will become Islam’s chop-chop list with sharia the law of the land in jolly old England.
Sorry, but it’s their country. They have a right to refuse entry. They banned him for hate speech, and from what I’ve read of what he’s said, I’d say that’s an accurate representation of many of his comments. I cherry-picked a couple of them:
“We need to do the same thing to Muslims that the good Germans did to the Christ-killers!”
If he were President: “”I can guarantee you [liberals], you wouldn’t be in business too long. I can guarantee you you’d be arrested for sedition within six months of my taking power.”
“They say, ‘Oh, there’s a billion of them.’ I said, ‘So, kill 100 million of them, then there’ll be 900 million of them.’”
“You know, when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi.”
“I would also make the construction of mosques illegal in America and the speaking of English only in the streets of the United States the law.”
Yea, this guy is a real stand up individual.
But on par with terrorists and mass murderers? lol
They’re making a statement, both to their own people and to the world. Let the intimidation begin!!!
And Mark, broadbrush or not, left or right, it should be about what is right and less about the “who”. Do you agree with it or not?
I don’t like the idea of banning morons just because they’re morons, but Rob, you may have let loose with the understatement of your life when you described Fred Phelps as having “sharply criticized American society for tolerating homosexual practices.”
I don’t think England was objecting to sharp criticism. I think it objected to the loathesome activities of a man who protests at the funerals of dead American soldiers and tells their families that the soldier is going to Hell because he died defending a country that “loves fags.”
Maybe the English have figured Phelps out. If he was banned merely because he was insane, which is the common assumption, it would seem pretty bad. But the man appears to be in it for the money. He encouraged several of his kids to become lawyers, and apparently what he does is goes around being as obnoxious as humanly possible, hoping some regular person will finally punch him in the mouth or conk him on the head, so that he can sue.
As for Savage, he is also loathesome for indulging in gutter-scraping rabble-rousing, all in pursuit of higher ratings. Hate for hate’s sake is bad enough, but hate as a business model is despicable. (And the funny thing is, when Savage, apparently under the influence of drugs, or maybe whiskey, relaxes and starts talking about interesting things, like good food or books or his childhood, he can be the most charming damned guy on radio. Go figure.)
Funny you should ask that question, Ripley. Mihalis already gave the best possible answer, which is that we are no position to agree or disagree. We can’t impose our Constitutional rights on another country. All we can do is respect and endorse those rights here at home, (and lamely attempt to brand our ideological opponents with having already agreed, right Rob?) After all, we would never deny entry to America just because of something that someone said, would we? Free speech and all that, right?
Anybody around here ever heard of a guy by the name of Yusaf Islam?
Who is imposing anything Wulfgar? I’m a commenter on a Montana blog, saying that Savage’s comments don’t rise to a level where he’s one of the top ten or so least wanted by Britain.
And we’re not talking about even being denied entry… Savage hasn’t tried to enter the UK.
So do those comments rise to the level of terrorists and mass murderers?? Thoughts V. actions…
Who is imposing anything? What a dumbass question. The very point of this post is that the home minister of England *imposed* a ban on Michael Whiner (misspelling intentional) and Rob wants us to be outraged at their insensitivity to *our* free speech rights. Does that clear it up for you, Ripley?
Gosh aren’t we American constitutionalists so much better than those silly lefty Brits.
Of course you still haven’t answered the question, Rip. Have you ever heard of Yusaf Islam? Let me make it easier for you. The guy used to be known as Cat Stevens, before he converted to Islam. He was denied entry into this country because he wrote such jihad friendly ditties as the songs Peace Train, and Morning Has Broken. Our government, that means you and I, hypocrite, put him in the same category as terrorists and mass-murderers because he used to be a folk singer and anti-war activist who just happens to now hold a religion that scares us … well, you at least.
Now, Rip, why don’t you commit yourself to answering the very question you asked. Who’s imposing anything? And while you’re at it, ask yourself who the real threat to your free speech rights are. It ain’t “the left”, and it ain’t England. You’ve met the enemy, and the enemy is you.
LOL
Imposing as in- I’m not imposing MY beliefs on Britain.
Your logic is seriously flawed.
Yet, once again, you can’t explain how my logic is flawed. All you can do is whine about how you being unclear and idiotic is somehow my fault.
And, since you still wish to sweep your hypocrisy under the rug, allow me (or not) to point out that you are indeed imposing your beliefs on Britain when you hold another to the standard of whats “right” (your term) without a) explaining what is “right” while castigating another for not agreeing with it, and b) admitting that your stance is hypocritical in light of our own country’s actions contrasted with those of Britain.
Let me break this down all simple like so that even you might get it, syd. IF putting people who say things you find unsavory on the par with terrorists and mass-murderers (and traitors) is wrong, then our country, the good ole’ USA, is vastly more guilty of it than Britain is, and you ignore that for your own convenience. IF such labeling is “intimidation” , then you right wingnuts are far more guilty of that ‘wrong’ than the left. Yes, syd, actions speak louder than words. And the American right has exposed themselves, through their actions, to every ounce of ridicule that the rational folk can heap on them. This post is the perfect example.
By the way, Rip/syd, I do have an honest sympathy for your ignorance (no slight intended by the word.) You kinda got left hanging by your folk. As soon as I mentioned Yusaf Islam, every other hypocrite fled leaving you holding the ball. On their behalf, I do apologize.
Now that’s, LOL.
Yes, I do think the title to this post ought to have been:
“A glimpse at Great Britain’s version of free speech.”
Attribution of Britain’s border policy to the PC left seems a bit of a stretch. Britain has previously disallowed entry to Jamaican reggae singers whose songs promote violence against homosexuals.
It cannot be doubted that Americans of all political stripes, have a somewhat different view of free speech than our friends in the commonwealth, including our neighbor to the north.
I believe that these people (Savage and Phelps) hold foul and monstrous opinions (a significant difference of degree between them, though) and their speaking of them and actions relating to them do harm to American society. I do not begrudge them their right to use whatever platform the law and our free society, with its respect for liberty, allows them.
Ed Kemmick, Allen (and others):
The most fundamental problem with the British entry standards is not merely that the British Labour government has a different freedom of speech standard than we do. The most fundamental problem is the asymmatrical nature of it.
There are some Leftists on the list, but they are basically terrorists or murders. You won’t find Leftists on the list who merely orate or demonstrate, however hatefully, as Phelps and Savage do. Big Swede hit the nail on the head exactly: By the standards applied to Phelps and Savage, Jeremiah Wright (and a host of others like him) belong on the list. But you will not find them there.
The problem is that many of the Left draw a moral equivalence between the rightists who don’t engage in violence and subversion with Leftists who do. The example I gave from the ’60s is a good one: The attempt to draw an equivalence between the JBS (peaceful conservatives with a weird conspiratorial slant) and International Communism.
Despite Mark T.’s suggestion that I was being selective, the double-standard applied here is almost universal on the Left. The same people who readily excused Obama’s 20 years of attendance at the “church” that gave its highest award to Louis Farrakhan would demand the immediate withdrawal into public life of any conservative who did the same thing (e.g., the near destruction of Trent Lott’s career over a single joke). The ACLU — so concerned for the First Amendment “right” to produce porn with other people’s money at UM — did nothing to assist the Christian Legal Society last year, which remains barred from campus funding while the money keeps flowing to the Kaimin. (For that matter, the Montana ACLU didn’t help me either, when I faced a First Amendment problem with UM in 2004-05; in fact, it didn’t return my phone call).
Justice Scalia once said something to the effect that it was not fair to allow one side to battle like streetfighters while holding the other to Marquis of Queensbury rules. That is what the British Home Secretary is doing here, and in doing so she is applying the same sort of hypocritical double-standard so charactistic of those who want government to control all our economic resources and nearly every other aspect of our lives.
Rob – you are so typical of the right wing in your selective indignation, but it goes much farther than just an ability to see crimes of the left. You are blind to crimes of the right wing, which are massive in scale, such as the death of hundreds of thousands in Iraq – just the most recent manifestation of the disease of the right – mass murder on a scale unimaginable by the fictional group “Al Qaeda”.
So reading your words presents me with a dilemma – do I want to erupt in rage, or vomit. In this case I do neither. I only condemn you as an extreme hypocrite.
Regarding the British actions, they are cause for amusement. They are wrong to do what they did, but Britain does not have a Bill of Rights or freedom of speech. We have those things, but as Mark Twain so wisely observed, “It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.” (He must have dealt with his own Natelson’s of yore.)
Your attacks on the Kaimin are an assault of press freedom, but you are characteristically blind to the contradictions of your own existence. It takes others to point it out to you, but a club to make you see it. It is yet to happen.
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the darling of the Left, the Fairness Doctrine. Then there is the Cybersecurity Act. See: http://birkblog.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/04/will-new-internet-congressional-legislation-enable-socalled-right-wing-extremist-blogs-like-this-one.html
==================
According to the current drafts, under the Cyber Security Act of 2009 the President may “declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shut down of Internet traffic to and from any comprised federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network”. He may also “order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security.”
What constitutes “cybersecurity emergency” or “critical infrastructure information system or network” is left completely up to the President to define. We know that the Administration, according to Rahm Emanuel, never wants “a serious crisis to go to waste”. We also know the Administration supports the regulation of free speech on the Internet.
President Obama’s choice to lead the powerful Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is none other than Cass Sunstein, a radical Harvard law professor and supporter of the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. According to Sunstein, “A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.”
====================
All of the personal canards demonstrated here only confirm the misdirection.
Mark T said, “You are blind to crimes of the right wing, which are massive in scale, such as the death of hundreds of thousands in Iraq”
Mark do you give blame to the left for all the deaths in the Vietnam conflict and all deaths Iraq and Afghanistan post Obama’s election? If not then your hypocrisy has no bounds.
By Mark’s standards, Obama is a war criminal, since several hundred innocent civilians have died in Predator attacks in Pakistan since he became president. And don’t forget that he ordered that bullets be put into the brains of those 3 Somali pirates. Didn’t bother me, but I can understand how folks on the Left must have been horrified to learn that simple thieves were summarily executed without the benefit of a trial.
As for the “hundreds of thousands” killed in Iraq, the National Journal investigated that claim thoroughly and did a report on how how that was highly exaggerated based on Soros-funded “research” intended to influence the 2004 election. The Journal found another report that pegged casualties at a little under 100,000, including deaths from such things as disease, to be a lot more credible.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm
It should also be pointed out that both CAIR and the ACLU have specifically condemned the British government for this ban. That’s the intellectually honest thing to do – and doesn’t exactly lend itself to the broadbrushing that Rob did in this post.
“The Left” that he speaks of is simply a construct created in his own brain. He can push anything on them that he doesn’t like, whether the facts back him up or not.
Wulgar, that’s kind of lame if you have to go back five years to find an example. And then you mislead everyone about why Cat Stevens — who used to do some fine music — wasn’t allowed in the US.
It wasn’t because he’s in a religion that “scares us.” It was because intelligent services believed that he was a financial backer of Hamas. He denied being so, but who knows. You certainly don’t know that he wasn’t. He also had spoken out earlier in support of the fatwa issued for the death of author Salman Rushdie. Now, he’s since said he didn’t really mean it. Again, who knows. Rushdie certainly took the fatwa seriously. And his crime? Using his freedom to speak.
By contrast, the speaking rights of conservatives are regularly violated on college campuses.
Just recently, on April 14, former Congressman Tom Tancredo was forced off the U of North Carolina campus by left-wing protesters. The local paper reported: “Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism …. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event.”
Conservative speakers such as David Horowitz and Anne Coulter also have been physically attacked on several college campuses as they have tried to speak, and forced to stop.
Moreover, students have suffered the same sort of fate. A student at a California school last fall was assigned to give a speech on any subject. When he talked about the importance of marriage and his Christian faith, his professor interrupted his speech, called him a “Fascist bastard,” and he refused to give the student a grade for the course, saying that religion had no place in a public school.
Down in Colorado, several students were dragged before a review board after publishing a flyer that parodied feminists on the campus. Many campuses have speech codes that prohibit words or phrases that are deemed to be politically incorrect. (One can find dozens of examples of these sorts of attacks on the speech rights of students who aren’t deemed to be sufficiently politically correct at the web site: thefire.org )
The action of the Brits in banning the bigot Savage is called: dhimmi.
They fear that Muslims may be offended. They woul
Sorry, I continue:
The action of the Brits in banning the bigot Savage is called: dhimmi.
They fear that Muslims may be offended. They would easily admit
an anti-Nazis or anti-Communist speaker, and even a Muslim cleric
that preached death to all infidels and gays. The Brits have evolved
their own self-destructive standards for political correctness. Think:
the Islamic factor.
dad: “It wasn’t because he’s in a religion that “scares us.” It was because intelligent services believed that he was a financial backer of Hamas. He denied being so, but who knows. You certainly don’t know that he wasn’t.”
He was never charged with any crime, plus, in this country you’re suppose to be innocent until proven guilty. You certainly don’t know that he was, and in this country, the burden of proof is on you.
dad: “He also had spoken out earlier in support of the fatwa issued for the death of author Salman Rushdie.”
Wait. He “spoke”. Isn’t that his right? So let me get this right. You’re saying that it was OK to kick Yusaf Islam out of the United States for a crime he was never actually accused of, let alone proven guilty of, and because he said something? Interesting. I was pretty sure up until now you were arguing against that.
dad: “Now, he’s since said he didn’t really mean it. Again, who knows.”
Better question, who cares?
dad: “Rushdie certainly took the fatwa seriously. And his crime? Using his freedom to speak.”
Apparently, that was Yusaf Islam’s crime too. And Michael Savage’s. It’s wrong for Michael Savage and OK for Yusaf Islam? Michael Savage has done far worse than Yusaf Islam. “kill 100 million of them” Savage said, meaning Muslims. Michael Savage has called for the Murder of 100 million Muslims, just because they’re Muslim. This is the man you’re defending.
dad: “By contrast, the speaking rights of conservatives are regularly violated on college campuses.” “Tom Tancredo” “David Horowitz” “Anne Coulter” “A student at a California school” “several students”.
Funny how people who speak out trying to suppress or deny the rights of others seem to have their rights suppressed or denied. Weird how that works isn’t it?
Attention closer to home might be enlightening. HR 1913, Hate Crimes bill. Pedophiles are included by the Left as a protected class. Speaking out against them and their behavior may constitute a hate crime. Forgot about Savage, defend pedophiles from verbal sanction.
Mihalis, I see you are the sort of guy who gets his exercise jumping to conclusions.
Here’s a little more background. First of all Cat Stevens was not “kicked out” of the US. He is a citizen of the UK, and he was trying to fly into the US. When customs officials checked and found his name on the manifest, they realized there was a problem. He was on the no=fly list. That means they could not let him into the US.
Now, they have no ability to hold a trial or do anything like that, they just have to act on the information they have at hand — gathered by US intelligence officials — and not allow him into the country. Stevens, I suppose, could have appealed or sued, but as far as I know, never did.
Now, if Stevens had been a US citizen, it would have been a whole different matter. Or if customs officials had grabbed him off the street –as you seem to suggest — and shipped him out, that indeed would have been outrageous.
His problem, by the way, wasn’t just with allegations of backing Hamas and expressing support for the Rushdie fatwa, but also that he helped lend support to the blind sheik who planned the first bombing of the World Trade Center.
Again, customs officials followed proper procedure. You seem to be suggesting that the US no longer prohibit people from entering the country if they show up on a terrorst watch list. Personally, I find that ridiculous. Would you want to be the guy who explained to the American people that the US is no longer going to ban people from entering the country if they show up on a terrorist watch list?
If you think that’s a political winner, I’d encourage you to run for office. I’d enjoy seeing how far you’d get with that.
dad: “Mihalis, I see you are the sort of guy who gets his exercise jumping to conclusions.”
Hah! That’s really very funny. I did a search on Google with the word “exercise”, and the phrase “jumping to conclusions”. I got over 43,000 hits.
dad: “Here’s a little more background. First of all Cat Stevens was not “kicked out” of the US. He is a citizen of the UK, and he was trying to fly into the US. When customs officials checked and found his name on the manifest, they realized there was a problem. He was on the no=fly list. That means they could not let him into the US.”
You might want to do some actual research on this. Let me clue you in on what happened, and then let you revise your statement. On 21 September 2004, Yusuf Islam (which is his REAL name, not Cat Stevens) was travelling on a United Airlines flight from London to Washington. While the plane was in flight, the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System flagged his name as being on a no fly list. The TSA diverted his flight to Bangor, Maine. Yes, that’s right, they LANDED in the United States. He was detained by the Department of Homeland Security overnight, and flown back to the UK. So, he was here, we grabbed him, and had him “kicked out”. Any more hairs you’d like to split?
dad: “Now, they have no ability to hold a trial or do anything like that, they just have to act on the information they have at hand — gathered by US intelligence officials — and not allow him into the country.”
Interesting, yet the New York Times has reported that we are currently holding British citizens at Guantánamo. Also, you might want to do some research about Martin Raul Soto-Fong and Javier Medina. Javier Medina especially if you’re naive enough to think that we have no ability to hold a trial or “do anything like that.”
dad: “Stevens, I suppose, could have appealed or sued, but as far as I know, never did.”
Seems “as far as you know” doesn’t get you very far. He never sued the United States, but he did have his name removed from the watch list, and successfully sued the British newspapers The Sun and The Sunday Times for libel over the incident. Apparently, the sum he received for the settlement was “substantial”.
“His problem, by the way, wasn’t just with allegations of backing Hamas and expressing support for the Rushdie fatwa, but also that he helped lend support to the blind sheik who planned the first bombing of the World Trade Center.”
Again, something that was never proven (most likely because it never happened). Again, innocent until proven guilty. Care to attempt to prove guilt?
“Again, customs officials followed proper procedure.”
It’s not a question of customs officials following proper procedure. The question is why was he on the list in the first place? You REALLY need to pay better attention.
“You seem to be suggesting that the US no longer prohibit people from entering the country if they show up on a terrorst watch list.”
See, now it’s you getting your excercise by jumping to conclusions! Hah! That just gets funnier and funnier all 43,000 times.
wolfpack:
I have said and written on many occasions that American foreign policy does not change when we switch from Democrats to Republicans and back again. Of course Obama is responsible for atrocities committed on his watch, just as Bush/Cheney are. The thing is, the presidency does not control these events – it’s above their pay grade.
Not all of the 2-3-4 million (mostly civilian) deaths in the Vietnam conflict were committed by Americans. Just most of them.
The wingnuts have lost this argument, (BADLY), and so they move on …
Wow. This discussion sure wandered all over the place, but I think my point still stands. That was that Wulfgar was trying to mislead people into thinking that Cat Stevens was denied entry into the US because of his religion. Clearly that’s not the case.
I certainly was aware of his real name and the situation of his flight to Maine and so on. I didn’t get into all the detail because I was trying to be brief about a topic that had run on too long.
It doesn’t change any of my point, and the reason I corrected Wulfgar in the first place. That is, that Stevens wasn’t denied entry into the US for his religion. He was denied entry because Customs officials had him on a no-fly list. Maybe he shouldn’t have been on that list. Who knows.
One ironic and amusing thing about this discussion is that, at the beginning, Mihalis this about Great Britain and Michael Savage: “Sorry, but it’s their country. They have a right to refuse entry.” But then he completely reverses himself on the issue of the US and Cat Stevens.
Then Wulfgar jumps in and says the “wingnuts” have lost the argument. That’s funny, I always thought that when anyone resorted to name calling it was a sure sign that they had lost the argument. Mihalis’ double standard confirms it.
dad: “Wow. This discussion sure wandered all over the place, but I think my point still stands.”
Um, no. This was your original point I believe: “It wasn’t because he’s in a religion that “scares us.” It was because intelligent services believed that he was a financial backer of Hamas. He denied being so, but who knows. You certainly don’t know that he wasn’t.”
Why did the Intelligent (funny that) Services believe he was a financial backer of Hamas? There was never any proof that he had any involvement with Hamas in any way. Fact of the matter is, the only reason he was on the No Fly list is because he’s Muslim. The only reason that those Intelligence Services suspected he was funding Hamas was because he was Muslim. Wulfgar’s point stands. Yours falls.
dad: “I certainly was aware of his real name and the situation of his flight to Maine and so on. I didn’t get into all the detail because I was trying to be brief about a topic that had run on too long.”
I don’t believe that for a second. For someone that “certainly was aware” of all the little details, you got a lot of them wrong.
“Maybe he shouldn’t have been on that list. Who knows.”
I’d assume those Intelligence Services would know. You know, the ones that took him off at his request with a “Whoopsie, sorry about that.”
“But then he completely reverses himself on the issue of the US and Cat Stevens.”
I have not in any way reversed myself. You’re not big on details are you? As Wulfgar pointed out, Conservatives/Republicans have no grounds to complain about Michael Savage being banned from the UK when we’ve done the same (specifically with Yusuf Islam under the Bush Administration) for worse reasons. That was the point, not that we had no right to kick out Yusuf Islam. Like I said before, you REALLY need to pay better attention.
dad: “Then Wulfgar jumps in and says the “wingnuts” have lost the argument. That’s funny, I always thought that when anyone resorted to name calling it was a sure sign that they had lost the argument. Mihalis’ double standard confirms it.”
Actually, that’s not true. Me (or in this case Wulfgar) calling you a name in no way impacts the facts of the actual argument (almost all of which you’ve been wrong about by the way). I’ll give you an example. I say, “The sky is blue.”, and you say, “The sky is red”, and I reply back, “No, the sky is blue you color blind moron.” The fact that I called you a moron in no way means that I’m wrong about the sky being blue. See how that works?
So, let’s recap shall we? You were wrong about the reason Yusuf Islam was on the watch list. You were wrong about the details of Yusuf Islam being kicked out of the United States. You were wrong about whether he should have been on that list or not. You were wrong about me reversing myself. You were wrong about what the point of this conversation has even been. You were wrong about your little “name calling” argument. Finally, you were wrong about me having a double standard.
You have no idea if I was wrong about the reason he was on the no-fly list. The likelihood that he was put on the list simply because he was a Muslim is somewhere between slim and none, I believe. Federal officials were so hypersensitive to looking racist that they were checking little old ladies, etc, when boarding before checking Muslims. Maybe Stevens/Israel got on the list by mistake, or because of bad information, but I highly doubt he got there because he’s a Muslim. Of course I can’t prove it because I don’t have any contacts inside any intelligence service or the customs office. If you do, please list them here, and I’ll concede your point. Otherwise, its silly to say I’m wrong, because you have no way of knowing.
As for the next point I wasn’t wrong about the details when I said he wasn’t kicked out of the US. He wasn’t. I was correct to say they couldn’t let him in. You’re being disingenuous to say they kicked him out because he flew in to Maine and then was returned to Europe. I was aware of what happened, as I googled it, and that’s how I learned he was a citizen of the UK. Don’t you think I’d find out the whole story by googling himand getting the background? I just didn’t want to go into a lot of detail because it wasn’t necessary. The bottom line: Customs declined to let him into the country; they didn’t kick him out.
As for the rest of the points, you’ve got me shaking my head in wonder. So I’ll just say: Go ahead and think you are right about everything if that will help you feel better about yourself.
dad: “You have no idea if I was wrong about the reason he was on the no-fly list.”
Oh yes, you’re right, because he was suspected of funding Hamas, and lended support to the blind sheik. Only somewhere between September 22nd, when they flew him back to the UK (read kicked him out of the country), and the October 1st, evidence MUST have surfaced that exonerated him. Yea, that’s likely.
dad: “As for the next point I wasn’t wrong about the details when I said he wasn’t kicked out of the US. He wasn’t.”
Yea, he landed here, was in the United States over night, and escorted to the airport by Homeland Security and flown out of the country against his will, and that doesn’t qualify as being “kicked out”. Apparently, being in Maine isn’t the same thing as being in the United States. I’m sure all the residents of Maine will be interested in hearing that.
dad: “Don’t you think I’d find out the whole story by googling himand getting the background?”
No, I really don’t think you have a clue. If you did, you’d know his name is Islam, not Israel. Yea, I can tell you’re just a font of correct information.
dad: “Go ahead and think you are right about everything if that will help you feel better about yourself.”
It doesn’t make me feel better or worse about myself. It just is.