Savage fights back, sues CAIR

The truth-challenged unindicted co-conspirators of the Council on American Islamic Relations have been targeting radio host Michael Savage, as they have targeted so many others before him. They've been pressuring advertisers to stop advertising on his show, and they've been succeeding. Background here.

But Savage, unlike Fox, unlike National Review, unlike so many others, is unwilling to play the dhimmi and kowtow to these lying Islamic supremacist thugs in their continued assaults on the freedom of speech. It's about time that somebody with the resources to do so has fought back.

The text of Savage's suit can be found here. A few highlights:

The conduct of CAIR (in addition to raising money) in violating the copyright interests of Michael Savage was to gain media attention and control so that CAIR would be seen as the “moderate” voice in the media. In fact CAIR is a radical voice that deliberately attempts to be seen as centrist so that media time goes to CAIR and once on the air, CAIR directs its rhetoric to the benefit of its extremist clients. This is a deliberate tactic and the theft of the copyright material was part of a pattern and practice advancing this tactic.

30.

As set forth herein, CAIR is not a civil rights organization but is instead a political organization designed to advance a political agenda that is directly opposed to the existence of a free society that includes respect and dignity for all people and all religions.

The copyright infringement herein is part of this plan. CAIR’s fundamental purpose is to be a lobbyist for foreign interests.

[...]

34.

CAIR while claiming in its paperwork to be a civil rights organization was in fact co-founded in 1994 by Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad, and Omar Ahmad, all of whom had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook.

35.

The director of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation counter-terrorism unit has stated that IAP is “a Hamas front…(that is) controlled by Hamas, it brings Hamas leaders to the US, it does propaganda for Hamas.”

36.

CAIR opened its first office in Washington, DC, with the help of a $5,000 donation from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a self-described charity founded by Hamas operative, Mousa Abu Marzook.

37.

At a 1994 meeting at Barry University, CAIR co-founder Nihad Awad stated that:

"I am a supporter of the Hamas movement." Awad wrote in the Muslim World Monitor that the 1994 trial which had resulted in the conviction of four Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who had perpetrated the previous year's World Trade Center bombing was "a travesty of justice."

38.

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, and the United States. Hamas is banned in the Muslim nation of Jordan, Australia and the United Kingdom.

39.

Plaintiff contends that CAIR is still associated with foreign groups as set forth more fully herein and that the wrongful intent in violating the copyright as set forth herein was based in part upon a desire to silence a vocal critic of Hamas.

40.

The involvement of CAIR’s founders in illegal conduct was addressed on February 2, 1995, when U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named CAIR Advisory Board member and New York Imam Siraj Wahhaj as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in Islamic Group leader Omar Abdel Rahman's foiled plot to blow up numerous New York City monuments.

41.

On May 7, 1996, CAIR coordinated a press conference to protest the decision of the U.S. government to extradite Marzook for his connection to terrorist acts performed by Hamas. CAIR characterized the extradition as "anti-Islamic" and "anti-American."

42.

Prior to 9/11, CAIR continued in its claim that it was a civil rights organization. They made this claim when in October 1998, CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy," asserting that this depiction "offensive to Muslims."

43.

Also in 1998, CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the two al Qaeda bombings of American embassies in Africa. CAIR’s leader Ibrahim Hooper, claimed the bombings resulted from "misunderstandings of both sides."

44.

In a July 1998 news article CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad is quoted speaking to a group of California Muslims expressing his hope of seeing an America under the domination of Islam. In that article, Ahmad is quoted as saying,

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.

45.

On October 5, 2001, just weeks after 9/11, CAIR’s New York office sent a letter to The New York Times arguing that the paper had misidentified three of the hijackers and suggesting that the attacks may have been committed by people who were impersonating Arab Muslims.

46.

CAIR further exploited 9/11 as it put on its website a picture of the World Trade Center in flames and below it a call for donations that was linked to the Holy Land Foundation website.

47.

The HLF is the Holy Land Foundation. On December 4, 2001, the Attorney General of the United States stated that “the Holy Land Foundation, received much of its early money from Mousa Abu Marzuq, a top Hamas official who, the U.S. courts have determined, was directly involved in terrorism."

48.

The use CAIR’s website to misappropriate the spirit of 9/11 charity to raise money for a terror organization is a pattern of conduct of CAIR that has been repeated with the appropriation of Michael Savage’s material for CAIR’s own purpose. While the outrage of diverting 9/11 charity is unmatched in its callousness, the success of that enterprise may well have emboldened CAIR in its present conduct.

49.

When the President of the United States closed the Holy Land Foundation in December 2001 for collecting money "to support the Hamas terror organization," CAIR decried his action as "unjust" and "disturbing."

50.

On April 20, 2002, CAIR’s director spoke at a rally in Washington D.C. He spoke from a podium next to a Hezbollah flag.

51.

On December 29, 2004 Wagdy Ghoneim, an extremist Egyptian cleric known for his advocacy in support of violence and hatred for Jews, decided to voluntarily leave the country after being accused of immigration violation, CAIR’s director in California, Hussam Ayloush, told The Los Angeles Times that the case demonstrated “the selective application of laws on Muslims.” CAIR has never publicly criticized the radical statements made by Ghoneim.

52.

In a July 7, 2004 interview with BBC, Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s spokesman, defended Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi, a Qatar-based Muslim cleric known for his support for terrorism, as “respectable,” adding: “I don't think there's any incitement of violence on his part.” Qaradawi was an open supporter of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, as well as groups targeting U.S. forces in Iraq. Qaradawi is barred from entering the U.S. because of his advocacy of violence.

53.

On April 13, 2005: Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR’s Texas chapter, and two of his brothers, were found guilty of supporting terrorism by funneling money to the leader of Hamas. They were convicted in a federal court in Texas of handling and trying to conceal an investment by senior Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzuq. In July 2004, Ghassan Elashi was convicted on separate charges of illegally exporting goods to Syria and of money laundering. At that time, a representative of CAIR’s Dallas-Fort Worth chapter, Khalil Meek, argued that the only thing the Elashis were guilty of was the “crime of being Muslims in America.

54.

On February 21, 2006, CAIR National Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar appeared on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country debating the Dubai side of the U.S. ports story. Michael Savage was the leader of the public opposition to the purchase of major U.S. ports by Dubai and Savage herein alleges that the misappropriation and misuse of his content as set forth herein was done in part in retaliation for Savage’s opposition to overseas ownership of such a strategic asset.

55.

Such political conduct in favor of foreign organizations supporting violence has continued to the present up to and including the time of the copyright infringement and during all times known to plaintiff up to the date of the filing of this lawsuit.

56.

At 8:00 pm on June 6, 2006, the Ohio affiliate of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OH) honored one of the unindicted conspirators in that 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Siraj Wahhaj. Wahhaj had also served as a defense witness at the trial of one of the men convicted for that terrorist attack, the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman (a conviction that CAIR has labeled “a travesty of justice”). More than 400 CAIR-OH supporters gathered at this fund-raising banquet.

57.

On August 7, 2006: Altaf Ali, executive director of CAIR-Florida, published an opinion piece in the Sun-Sentinel, in which he compared Israel and the U.S. government to Al Qaeda.

58.

On August 12, 2006: CAIR participated in and endorsed several rallies in support of Hezbollah and the “resistance” fighting American forces in Iraq.

59.

In October, 2006 a CAIR affiliated publication, InFocus, printed an article supporting Hezbollah. The commentary claimed that the war was part of an American-British conspiracy, a “phase of the larger plans of the colonialist superpowers.” It also praised the “epic heroism of the resistance fighters”.

60.

In May 2007 CAIR was identified by the government as an unindicted co-conspirator in a case involving a charity that was allegedly affiliated with Hamas. Federal prosecutors in the case of the Holy Land Foundation listed CAIR under the category: “Individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.” The government also listed Omar Ahmad, CAIR’s founder and chairman emeritus, under the same category.


61.

In August 2-7, 2007 during the Holy Land Foundation trial in Texas, FBI agent Lara Burns testified about evidence connecting CAIR and two of its founders to the Holy Land Foundation as well as to the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood movement that established Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank. The agent identified CAIR executive director Nihad Awad as one of the scheduled participants at a meeting of Hamas officials in a hotel in Philadelphia in 1993. At the time, Awad was a representative of IAP. Burns also identified CAIR co-founders Awad and Omar Ahmed as members of the Palestine Committee set up by the Muslim Brotherhood.

62.

Attacks on other public figures have included an attack on Presidential candidate, Rudy Guiliani for using the phrase “Islamic Terrorism” and for accepting the endorsement of Pat Robertson whose endorsement of Guiliani included a reference to the “bloodlust of Islamic terrorists”.

63.

CAIR also attacked Guiliani’s choice of Daniel Pipes as foreign policy advisor. Pipes is the person who first published (in 1998) the quotation from CAIR’s cofounder that:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.

64.

CAIR has a pattern and practice of attacking critics. On or about January 6, 2004, an attorney and agent for CAIR wrote a “cease and desist letter” to Andrew Whitehead who runs a website www.anti-cair-net.org. In this letter, CAIR attacked Mr. Whitehead’s exposure of CAIR’s foreign ties deeming those facts as being “sociopathic and xenophobic,”. When Whitehead would not yield to CAIR’s demands they filed a

$ 1.3 million dollar libel lawsuit against him.

65.

Whitehead countersued and in his allegations made assertions similar to those of Daniel Pipes where he asserted that “Douglas Hooper, a/k/a “Ibrahim” Hooper (“Hooper”), CAIR's Director of Communications, also worked for the IAP before joining CAIR. He has stated: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future…” Hooper has defended payments of bounties to the families of suicide bombers who kill Jews.”

66.

CAIR later dismissed that lawsuit at a time when Whitehead’s attorneys started demanding information relating to CAIR’s sources of funding.

67.

The theft of Michael Savage’s copyrighted material and the destruction of the proper context of that material is yet another tactic to silence critics of CAIR. CAIR was specifically and by name attacked by Michael Savage in his October 29, 2007 statement but CAIR did not contest the truth of Savage’s attack on CAIR but instead sought to steal and sully his copyrighted work. Clearly CAIR did not wish to defend themselves and lose in the same manner that they failed in the lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead, therefore this new tactic was employed.

68.

Based upon these facts and further facts to be produced at trial, plaintiff alleges that CAIR is not a civil rights organization but instead is a political vehicle of international terrorism and that the copyright infringement itself and the manner in which the material was used, was part of a deliberate practice and pattern to do material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR’s clients. The attack on Rudy Guiliani, Daniel Pipes, Andrew Whitehead and Michael Savage are part of a pattern and practice to silence critics of CAIR and critics of CAIR’s foreign agenda under the false guise of civil rights.

69.

In the summer of 2007, CAIR supported international terror when, in response to renewed fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian terror organizations in Gaza , CAIR did not condemn the terror organizations that provoked the fighting but instead launched an anti-Israel media campaign. This has nothing to do with the civil rights of Muslim Americans. When CAIR is criticized for these tactics, it unleashes campaigns against these critics under the guise of “civil rights” as set forth above and as will be further proven at trial.

70.

Therefore CAIR seeks to silence its critics including those who use strong language but do not advocate violence while CAIR itself supports people who use even stronger language and advocate and urge actual violence against innocent civilians; all this under the guise of being a “civil rights organization”

| 207 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

207 Comments

I heard a rumor that Savage intended to sue CAIR.Since it's Savage suing CAIR. CAIR will not be able to hide once the discovery process starts. The discovery process will go forward and CAIRs already established ties to terrorists will be reveal. Good job Savage.

Thank you for posting this, Robert!

Go get 'em, Doc!!

SAVAGE: Alright, so you're one of those sodomists? Are you a sodomite?

CALLER: Yes, I am.

SAVAGE: Oh, you're one of the sodomites! You should only get AIDS and die, you pig! How's that? [off-screen crew can be heard shouting 'Whoa!'] Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig? You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You got nothing to do today? Go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis. OK, do we have another nice caller who's busy and didn't have a nice night in the bathhouses, angry at me today? Huh? Get me another one, put another sodomite on! No more calls? I don't care. Let's go to the next scene. I don't care about these bums, they mean nothing to me. They're all sausages. Next scene; onto the next scene on the 'Savage Nation'.

...I'm sorry, but suing CAIR or not suing CAIR, I can't respect a homophobe.

Ok, so where can we send money to help out Savage?

Saudi Arabia VIP's and CAIR will fight this and there will be legal expenses. We should start helping now.

Does Savage need any 'John Doe's' to join in as Plaintiffs?

Ok, so where can we send money to help out Savage?

Go to Michael Savage and follow the link.

Media Matters "may" turn up as one of the "Does"

Media Matters "may" turn up as one of the "Does"

Oooooops mis-read your post.

Proper contexts make a big difference...
http://friends.macjournals.com/mattd/stories/storyReader$565
...even if it is from militants on their own "-phobe" agenda, who were setup artists to begin with...and deserved what they got.
(He doesn't attacks passive gays...He went after the hypermilitant ideologues so obsessed with their own hatred they can't see it for what it is, and have to resort to F**king with people they themselves hate with more fervor than those they accuse of the same thing, like this episode was all about).
Case-in-point, from the TV show:

CALLER: "Hey Michael Savage, a pleasure to speak with you today. I was flying out of LaGuardia, and there was two undercover security guards. Somebody was smoking in the bathroom"

SAVAGE: "Someone was smoking in the bathroom."

CALLER: "Unbelievable."

SAVAGE: "What happened?"

CALLER: "Half-hour into the flight, I need to suggest that Don and Mike take your [silence] cause your teeth are [unintelligible]

SAVAGE: "Alright, so you're one of those sodomists? Are you a sodomite? "

CALLER: "Yes, I am."

SAVAGE: "Oh, you're one of the sodomites! You should only get AIDS and die, you pig! How's that? [off-screen crew can be heard shouting "Whoa!"] Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig? You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You got nothing to do today? Go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis. OK, got another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse and is angry at me today? Huh? Get me another one, put another sodomite on! No more calls? I don't care. Let's go to the next scene. I don't care about these bums, they mean nothing to me. They're all sausages."

Savage also has said: "I don't care what anyone wants to do with their own bodies"..."just don't shove it in MY face." which is NEVER reported bythe one-sided haters in their own rite.

Hyperpartisan Ideology never wins in the end...that's why CAIR is also in serious trouble.
;-)

Savage has disappointed me in one respect.

Nonetheless, I've got to stand with Savage on this one. Of course I will and have stood with him. I called in on our central Fla. radio program where Savage is syndicated (WSKY 97.3 FM). Our radio hosts are well aware of CAIR's Muslim terrorist associations.

My beef with Savage. Like me Savage is a Jew, yet he will not stand with the good people of Israel, with Jews the world over, against what the Bush administration is trying to do. Savage equates this traitorous prime minister with all good and faithful Jews who are living in faith and obedience to God in the Holy Land.

Savage, like Bush, supports a Muslim terrorist state in the Holy Land. Before the Gaza retreat / expulsion, I challenged him on it, live on the air. He said he favored a Palestinian Muslim state in Israel. Now his call-screeners will not take my calls. Savage is a huge disappointment on Israel. During the second Lebanon war (Aug 2006), he appeared to be condemning Israel for defending herself against these killers.

Savage likes to read from the Bible to his listeners. Perhaps he's missed Gen. 12:3, "I will bless those who bless you and the one who curses you, I will curse."

Bush is cursing the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Perhaps Savage missed all the prophecies stating that God gave the to the sons of Jacob all the land of Israel as an everlasting covenant; to the Jews. Read Gen chapter 12, 13, 17, 22, 26, etc. Savage is no friend of the Jews or Israel.

Still, I am with Savage against these jihadist zealots who are allied with Hamas and Hezbollah, allied with the Bush White House -- Bush meets and prays with them in their mosques; those who are persecuting Savage and attempting to replace U.S. law with Sharia law. I am with Savage, even if he is not with me.

"Hyperpartisan Ideology never wins in the end...that's why CAIR is also in serious trouble.
;-)"

Hey, I'd like nothing more than to see CAIR go under. I just hate homophobes, that's all.

Mr C
Just go to http://www.michaelsavage.com and it will direct you there.

Re: Savage fights back, sues CAIR

I love Savage (though I think he's a little over-the-top with the very pretty Ann Coulter). In fact, I never heard of JW until I heard Robert interviewed on Savage's program on WOR. I came, I saw, I liked the site. A regular Outdoor cat site (as Fitzgerald puts it: you can't herd cats.)

I think Savage and myself lived in the same Jamaica Section area of Queens (at different times) from his comments on his program and references to area public schools (though I went to catholic school). It's always been a tough area and Savage is typical of the type that comes from the area. Jimmy Breslin (though he's a liberal nut) also came the area (89th Avenue). I lived on 90th Ave and also on Jamaica Ave., at the corner of 183rd Street. The area breeds Outdoor cats-LOL.

Monk,

Savage has been an outward opponant of the dissection of Isreal by Bush/Sharon/Olmert.


I hope this really shines light on the Muslim American Bund Party, and I hope that other talk shows start circling the wagons. If they take him out they will be next.

I hope more people follow Michael Savage's lead and sue groups like CAIR. If CAIR and other similar organizations are bombarded by lawsuits, then they will realize that they can no longer get away with intimidating people into silence.

King, do you have anything specific? Right after the September 11, 2001 terrorist atrocities, Bush announced his "vision" of a Palestinian terrorist state in fulfillment of a pledge he gave to then Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz.

Savage made known then, he supported a Palestinian state. I challenged him on the air. He gave me this nonsense, "What do you do with a couple of million Palestinians" or something to that effect and then he cut me off saying, "That's all! That's all!"

Just as he does with many callers that disagree with him. Now perhaps he's realized his position was a huge mistake in light of the Gaza fiasco but has he apologized? No.

He does not know where he stands on Israel; only to condemn all Jews in Israel because of this traitorous prime minister. Savage often says he's sick of Israel. He says if Israelis don't want to defend themselves, he could care less.

Has Savage ever visited Israel? Has Savage gone to Judea and Samaria and talked to these wonderful Jews living in faith?

No, he condemns the Jews in Israel and crows about what a great American patriot he is.

"I'm an American," he says. "Get out of my country!" he says. For a Jew to forget that he is a Jew is deadly. Savage forgot his heritage and he has denied his people.

Well, for sure Savage will learn a lot more about islam and CAIR before this is over.

Christian-

Savage will not back down. He's got a good heart, but he can be mean when anyone messes with him or his family. "Don't back down" is typical of the area where he grew up. You might get your brains beat in, but you gain respect because "you don't back down". He means business. He will follow through.

"For a Jew to forget that he is a Jew is deadly. Savage forgot his heritage and he has denied his people."

So he shouldn't call himself American?

King, Michael Savage should have been condemning Bush for this Annapolis fiasco every night the last few weeks!

What did he say about this anti-Israel / pro-Muslim Arab president? Nothing. What can you produce in his behalf?

I've not seen such Jew-hatred from a Secretary of State as this Dr. Rice; from a US president as Mr. Bush. Savage has been silent. What has he said?

Did you read this fine piece by J. Post editor Caroline Glick? Look at this racism coming from this US president and his Secretary of State. Where is Michael Savage?


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546767168&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"So he shouldn't call himself American?"


I'm an American citizen and a loyal American but I am a Jew first. If I were a Christian, I would be a Christian first.

Your faith in your Creator must come first, then family, then nationality.

Savage is an American first, like many American Jews. It is sad. German Jews were great Germans even after Hitler rose to power.

I read a prominent American Jewish Zionist who was asked this question. He said I am an "American Jew?" In that order.

No. If a Jew forgets that he is a Jew first, he will be the first into the gas chamber.

First I am a Jew. There is no contradiction between being a Jew first or a Christian first and then family and then nation or country. God commands us to seek the welfare of our country.

God must come first.

"Your faith in your Creator must come first, then family, then nationality."

But isn't that what so many Muslims say--"We are Muslims first, Americans second"? I mean, it just makes me uncomfortable whenever someone says this.

...but in all fairness, you did say that "There is no contradiction between being a Jew first or a Christian first and then family and then nation or country. God commands us to seek the welfare of our country." Maybe it is only in Islam that allegiance to Allah and allegiance to country can contradict one another.

So I don't know. I'm probably wrong on all of this.

"Walmart and AT&T have now joined forces with Cair and pulled their advertisements."

...no surprise there. Wal-mart are just freaking WEIRD. I've never understood what their deal was.

I don't particularly care for the continual anger expressed by Michael Savage.

However, he, being Jewish, is indeed one of the People of the Book (as am I, a Christian), and therefore the radical Muslims consider him fair game, especially since he would dare to stand up to them.

Therefore, Michael, count me in as one of your supporters in this savage and brutal attack on your rights (and, if you think about it, an attack on the rights of ALL of us).

People like CAIR remind me of the schoolyard bullies I had to contend with when I was a young kid.

Well, there's been far too much sand kicked in our faces by these thugs. Let's fight back!

I am proud and honored to be one of the People of the Book, the REAL Book of the REAL God, the Bible!

The hatred and bullying that CAIR and others exhibit show the kind of god that they serve.

...but in all fairness, you did say that "There is no contradiction between being a Jew first or a Christian first and then family and then nation or country. God commands us to seek the welfare of our country." Maybe it is only in Islam that allegiance to Allah and allegiance to country can contradict one another.>>>>


Absolutely. You answered your question. There aappears to be a contradiction to being a devout Muslim first (at least a Wahhabi Muslim) and a loyal American citizen because as we've seen, pure Islam has no respect or tolerance for governance other than Islamic law.

Orthodox Jews may not agree with everything in the U.S. Constitution but they are not seeking to undermine it. The same cannot be said for devout Muslims like these CAIR officials. They have made clear, Islam must replace U.S. law. Haven't they?

Roobart,

Savage (about whom I know practically nothing) may be over the top and abusively tasteless, and yet be dead right on this issue. I don't like Howard Stern; would anyone argue with me if I call him a misogynist? If I say he's a pottymouth, that he revels in smuttiness? (I'm content to ignore him.) Yet, if Stern sued CAIR similarly, I would extoll him as a champion and cheer on his legal team.

Back to Michael Savage--this, after all, is not about him, but about us. Free speech is a two-edged sword--either all of us wield it, or none of us do. Our fundamental right to conduct public discourse freely and without intimidation is at stake here.

"if Stern sued CAIR similarly"

Now, THAT I would love to see.

"Where is Michael Savage?"

Michael Savage is on the front line making a stand for Western Civilization. He doesn’t have the anonymity that we have when we post comments. He doesn’t have Robert Spencer’s secure undisclosed location. People have circulated his address on the internet.

His lawsuit is a direct frontal assault on the spread of Islam here and abroad by forcing society to examine the ‘religion’. Very powerful forces do not want CAIR’s funding sources revealed. Savage is placing himself in harms way for the benefit of all of us. I’m going to send him some money.

This has the potential to be a very significant court case.

Mohammedan barbarians
attack an American Savage.
Let the major battle begin
and let us hope
the best man will win.

michael savage was the only human being in the west that gave me any hope after being in london after those bombs went off.
he shot down tony blair and ken livingstone. no one said a word in the UK but savage blasted those degenerates for not speaking out against islam.

if michael savage told me to go out onto the streets to end socialism with the barrel of a gun, i would do it.

michael savage is a revolutionary leader.

this is probably one of america's great struggle for 1st amendment rights. if savage loses this then we have the right to take back this country using our 2nd amendment rights.

they are either with us or against us.

Michael Savage is on the front line making a stand for Western Civilization.>>>

I agree. He is on the front line making a stand for Western Civilization; minus the Jewish state.

I'm disappointed he does not stand with Israel and the people of Israel who are opposing these traitorous leaders; these traitorous leaders would include Bush.

Michael Savage is with Bush in his determination to dismantle Israel, leaving her defenseless. Israel is America's ally in our war against the global jihad. Bush is sacrificing Israel to our enemies in order to appease our Saudi enemies. In this respect Savage is with Bush.

This is my only complaint about Michael Savage. Otherwise I am with him against CAIR.

Hyubris always leads to this. Here's Confucius:

"The inferior man is not ashamed of unkindness and does not shrink from injustice. If no advantage beckons he makes no effort. If he is not intimidated he does not improve himself, but if he is made to behave correctly in small matters he is careful in large ones. This is fortunate for the inferior man."

This is why appeasement and kowtowing never work with bullies. CAIR has become emboldened and reckless.

"If good does not accumulate, it is not enough to make a name for a man. If evil does not accumulate, it is not enough to destroy a man. Therefore the inferior man thinks to himself, 'Goodness in small things has no value,' and so neglects it. He thinks, 'Small sins do no harm,' and so does not give them up. Thus his sins accumulate until they can no longer be covered up, and his guilt becomes so great that it can no longer be wiped out."

Looks like CAIR's cup is full and their time has come. It takes a Savage to bring down a bully.

CAIR may get some well-deserved publicity, if Savage's points are brought out and made to stick. This is a high-stakes game, and Savage has called CAIR's bluff. BRAVO! Deus vult!

RoobartSbunsar

remember that phobe is a fear of. he doesn't hate them according to your logic but he fears homosexuals.

is fear a reason to hate him?

savage is a good man. just love him and you will feel better.

So I guess one of the ways to get this story out to the MSM is to come up with a publicity stunt like Hollywood does now and then.

Any ideas? Something on a lot of blogs? Something on YouTube? What will work? I guess over the net if you just type 'Savage' a lot that will register a blip somewhere?

I am off to a few other blogs and throw an OT comment about Savage just to force attention. If we all did it, who knows. I know it worked a few months back when there was a stink about some law (can't remember).


This subject isn't about homosexuality, or "homophobia."

This forum isn't either. At least Savage won't publicly hang gays. Those who organizations like CAIR run interference for certainly would, and will.

That's the problem with some of those on the left, they're too ignorant to see that Islamists are using them to forward their agenda while at the same time hating them with a passion.

Eyes that remain closed see nothing, mates.

"This subject isn't about homosexuality, or "homophobia.""

True--but we are dealing with a man who said, "I hope you get AIDS and die, you pig." I would think it's something worthy of being brought up. Doesn't mean Islamists are "using" me.

I am so happy that someone of means and with a microphone can expose these frauds.

My only disappointment is that Savage and his attorney, Daniel Horowitz, still seem not to understand the true nature of their (and our) foe.

Horowitz was just on the radio saying that he believes that the true nature of CAIR is not religious at all. Rather, their agenda, like that of the Saudis that are funding them, is to turn Muslim anger towards the West, Christians and Jews as opposed to the rich Arabs in Saudi Arabia who are swimming in petrodollars, but don't help the poor in the Middle East.

He readily admits he doesn't know very much about Islam (if he wants to understand the motives and beliefs of his adversary, he would be really wise to!) but believes that the "moderate" Muslims never have a chance to get media airtime because "people like CAIR are stealing their voices".

Horowitz also told Savage, "...you speak for the Muslims who believe that their religion has the same peace message as Christianity and Judaism".

AAAGGGGGHHHH! I just want to pull my hair out!!! I mean, he is the attorney suing these people and he is COMPLETELY IGNORANT about who he is suing!!! He doesn't understand their motives AT ALL!

What can we do???

"AAAGGGGGHHHH! I just want to pull my hair out!!! I mean, he is the attorney suing these people and he is COMPLETELY IGNORANT about who he is suing!!! He doesn't understand their motives AT ALL!

What can we do???"

...send him a copy of Mr. Fitzspencer's book, maybe?

Horowitz also told Savage, "...you speak for the Muslims who believe that their religion has the same peace message as Christianity and Judaism".


Lawyers are not always too bright.

...send him a copy of Mr. Fitzspencer's book, maybe?

Fiztspencer?

monk:

ignore roobart.. he's only here to disrupt.

Isn't Walmart going against Savage, with CAIR?

I guess I am going to have to stop shopping at Walmart? Isn't Walmart going with CAIR.

O'Reilly and Limbaugh supported Dubai Ports takeover. Savage is saying this now. I remember Limbaugh mocked his listeners for opposing the Dubai Ports deal.

Rush Limbaugh is with our enemies? Is he?

"...send him a copy of Mr. Fitzspencer's book, maybe?

Fiztspencer?"

...you know, Robert Spencer + Hugh Fitzgerald = Hubert Fitzspencer?

*sigh* nevermind. Seems I'm the only one who appreciates a good conspiracy theory these days.

RoobartSbunsar?

-"Hey, I'd like nothing more than to see CAIR go under. I just hate homophobes, that's all."-

I’m not so sure homophobe is the correct term when referring to the Savage statement you mention. He doesn’t seem to fear homosexuals.
Matter of fact, I don’t know any heteros who fear homosexuals simply because of their lifestyle choice.
Outraged at educators who advocate the homosexual lifestyle to other people’s children? Sure. (http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/parker/main.htm )
Horrified by bureaucrat's who ignore the at-risk behavior of a homosexual and transplant his HIV and hepatitis infected organs into unsuspecting recipients? Absolutely.
(http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/A/AIDS_TRANSPLANTS?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-11-13-10-50-43 )
But scared? Hardly. I just don’t see it.
I do wonder, though, why the homosexual community (and the feminists for that matter) hasn’t taken a much stronger stand against the jihad. Sexual relations between Muslim men is a death sentence isn’t it? Why the apparent lack of concern?
Jamie Glazov, in ‘Boys of the Taliban’ (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={D51B2383-01A0-4896-B174-19F115EC0942}) states, “There is a basic and common sense empirical human reality: wherever humans construct and perpetuate an environment in which females and their sexuality are demonized and are pushed into invisibility, homosexual behaviour among men and the sexual abuse of young boys by older men always increases.”
Is that why American homosexuals appear so sanguine at the prospect of dhimmitude?
Just askin.

dt

This about CAIR and Islam. Why are we talking about homosexuals? Come on.

Micael Savage doesn't hate homosexuals. I've listened to him. Why are we wasting space on this non-issue?

Final comment re the Jamaica section of Queens. I'm almost certain that Savage comes from this area. It's always been a mixed ethnic and mixed racial area, but very turfy. When I grew up there one knew the Irish, Greek, Italian, African American, etc. areas. There were also a lot of Jews (pretty secular) from Russia. Somehow we got along. The area produces a lot of NYPD cops. Lately the area has an influx of Indian (Hindu) people. (You'll see a lot of Indian COPs from the area in the future-LOL.) It's a tough area made up of smart people from the lower classes of wherever they came from. (My mother still lives there and does NOT want to ever leave the area.)

In America, a lot of where we end-up depends on our jobs. We generally go where we get a job. However, the area is a good place because the people are good. They are aggressive and want to succeed. Savage made it.

"Micael Savage doesn't hate homosexuals. I've listened to him. Why are we wasting space on this non-issue?"

Then why did he say THIS?

"SAVAGE: Oh, you're one of the sodomites! You should only get AIDS and die, you pig! How's that? [off-screen crew can be heard shouting 'Whoa!'] Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig? You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You got nothing to do today? Go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis. OK, do we have another nice caller who's busy and didn't have a nice night in the bathhouses, angry at me today? Huh?"

Savage often has the correct take on things, but when he doesn't he so offends and is sometimes so extreme that it tends to negate his proper positions and thus makes it deuce difficult to support him across the board. Do I like his suing CAIR? You betcha'. But do I wish it were Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt or Dennis Prager doing so? You betcha'.

"do I wish it were Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt or Dennis Prager doing so? You betcha'."

Me too.

Oh, am I going to enjoy watching this. Savage may not make a dime, but he and his attorney can twist CAIR into knots. The first poster is correct, CAIR can't dismiss this case when the discovery starts to get a little to close to some information they'd rather not have released.

I bet the paper shredders are working overtime as we speak at CAIR's offices.

"I bet the paper shredders are working overtime as we speak at CAIR's offices."

That would imply the people at CAIR are literate. I'm not so sure about that.

I believe that there are signs presented to us. This is a true story. I'm having a surreal moment. Like that Soprano's episode where Tony is sitting across from Anne Benning in a dream and says 'something bad is going to happen.'

I’ve been hitting up one of my Senator’s Regional Representatives on CAIR and have pushed him to push her to use her position to investigate CAIR’s funding sources. My requests for a meeting with the Senator have not been successful.

Five minutes ago, I was standing in line at the local Panera’s and that Senator just stepped up behind me. I addressed her as Senator, introduced myself, and thanked her for representing my family. Nothing but some plastic thousand-yard smile on her face. Maybe a little alarm. But she did shake my hand. It was clammy. She’s now fifteen feet away blabbering with some kid about schools. The man accompanying her keeps looking at me.

She’s not going to make a difference. Go Savage.

Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt or Dennis Prager doing so? You betcha'.


These are all George W. Bush apologists. I don't know Hugh Hewitt but these others are G.W. toadies and Republican party apologists. At least Michael is an independent conservative. I'll give him that. Limbaugh, Prager, Medved and Hannity are pathetic political prostitutes. Sorry if you like these "men."

"political prostitutes"

That's the same term Lenin used to describe Trotsky. Kind of relevant, I guess.

If Micheal Savage goes through with this lawsuit and wins, it will be the start of the end of CAIR. They are toast.


Let's stay on point, please. This issue is too important. I have little to no doubt that there are homosexual sites that discuss Savage regularly. This ain't one of them, bloke.


“If Allah says stone them to death, through the Prophet Muhammad, then you stone them to death, because it's the obedience of Allah and his messenger -- nothing personal.”

CAIR's Siraj Wahhaj

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={E941EF20-26E2-4489-853C-90BB1B13CCDF}


Sorry

About the stoning of women accused of adultery: “If Allah says stone them to death, through the Prophet Muhammad, then you stone them to death, because it's the obedience of Allah and his messenger -- nothing personal.”

CAIR's Siraj Wahhaj

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={E941EF20-26E2-4489-853C-90BB1B13CCDF}

monk said:

These are all George W. Bush apologists:

Sean Hannity,
Rush Limbaugh,
Michael Medved [No he's not],
Hugh Hewitt [No he's not] or
Dennis Prager [No he's not]

Nice try

monk: You are simply wrong when you assert that Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are Bush apologists. As examples, Limbaugh was adamantly opposed to Bush's backing of the immigration bill last spring and said so on numerous occasions and in great detail. Hannity has consistently said he is an American first, a conservative second and a Republican third. This has led him on almost countless occasions to convey to his listening audience that while he admires Bush personally very much, he is deeply troubled by some of his positions, the immigration bill I mentioned above is but one example here. As for Dennis Prager, he is something akin to a moral genius and is no one's toady. You know this or should know it.

Of course, all of the above mentioned have said that, while disagreeing with Bush here, there and sometimes the other place, he is far preferable to any Democratic alternative. How true. I'm in that camp too. Does that make me a Bush apologist? Hardly. My last two communications to the President have been critical (though respectfully written) of his take on things. As for Michael Savage being a conservative, sometimes he is, but sometimes he goes further right of where he should go and reveals himself as a reactionary. Big difference between a conservative and a reactionary. Huge. That's why I prefer all the conservatives I mentioned whom you, I would respectfully but strongly contend, have assessed wrongly.

The word Islamophobia was coined for the same purpose that Homophobia was coined, to marginalize and denegrate the critics. The homosexual lobby started it first, and they also destroyed a very good word - gay.

A commenter who used "homophobia' to describe Savage, will probably scream at being called an Islamophobe. Well, stop with throwing around the
-phobias.

I do not fear Islam, homosexuals, or Democrats. Am I to be called a Democratophobe?

"Your faith in your Creator must come first, then family, then nationality."

Posted by: monk
----------------------------------

Well said!

RoobartSbunsar,

Michael Savage is abrasive, hateful and sometimes bigoted. But that's part and parcel of free speech. However, I suspect that he makes statements like the one you quoted in order to push the limits of speech. As you well know, on occasion I've pushed those limits at this site and sometimes have even been deleted.

Nevertheless, if free speech is truly free, then we have to tolerate even that speech which is disgusting to us. I despise bigotry but must still defend a bigot's right to verbally express himself. The answer to hateful speech is more speech, not it's suppression.

Unfortunately, CAIR is opposed to free speech and to almost every other freedom we should hold dear. So in this matter, I applaud and support Michael Savage's attempt to take them down a notch.

The word Islamophobia was coined for the same purpose that Homophobia was coined, to marginalize and degenerate the critics.
Posted by: Pelayo at November 30, 2007 9:25 PM

Absolutely. It's well thought out bullshit. It's "poopaganda" (a term invented by the JW poster "Champ"). Fortunately for truth, and too-bad for CAIR-LIARS, the poop is not sticking to the wall. Fibrahim Pooper and the CAIR-LIARS have reached the limit of their retarded botch of logical thinking.

God bless, Michael Savage!

Islam is the result of how low men and women can go without God -- of how BASE our sin nature can go left unchecked.

Islam is void of God, that's why it is full of evil. Don't believe in sin or a sin nature? Well, studying Islam will quickly change your mind.

Islam = the best choice for the worst of people.

Savage is the only, the only person in the media with enough stones to actually pull this off.

Shame on those who use this time to bring up out of context rantings from a censored MSNBC show(years ago), where he was set up with that caller by MSNBC to bring him down, and he knew it, so he went off on the guy and gave them what they wanted.

Savage is the last true media sage who can make a significant difference; this wishy-washy, "..Oh, I don't know, kinda wish it was someone else filing the suit.." talk is pathetic, and people should be ashamed of themselves. You have no credibility in my book if you actually feel that way.

Savage has a tough fight ahead of him because we know which side the media will take, he'll need all the support he can get.

I'm certainly not a defender of CAIR's political agenda. They are part and parcel of the Islamic Brotherhood and its Islamist project. I'm not a fan of Michael Savage's extreme rhetoric either. I think it's extraordinarily hypocritical of him to scream about "free speech" when he himself once proposed that some of his political opponents be "stripped naked, shaven bald and sent down main street" or something to that effect.

So, lets get a few constitutional points clear: Michael Savage has every right to state the following:
"What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don’t tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don’t need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. "

American Muslims, on the other hand, have every right to say that this is a bigoted hatefull and narrowminded statement. I've listened to the 4 minute clip and its full of generalizations, stereotyping and intolerant bigotry. So, I am in the regrettable position of agreeing with CAIR in this description of Michael Savage. Furthermore, individual corporations, such as Wal-Mart, have every right to make their own decisions with respect to who they are going to purchase advertising time with - free market and all. CAIR has every right to say to these companies that Savage is an extremist xenophobe and encourage them to drop their advertising - That's CAIR's free speech.

I understand CAIR used a 4-minute clip from Savage's show, posting it on their own website. Savage has claimed this is a copyright infringement - I'll let the courts sort that one out. Savage's claim that this 4-minute hate-speech clip was somehow "taken out of context" and that CAIR's publishing of his own speech has somehow "defamed" him is quite laughable. We should reject this claim for the same reason we reject the identical claim that so often comes from Islamist circles. How many times has some Imam been publicized for making hate-filled statements about "the filthy Jews" or "Jews are Apes and Pigs" etc., etc. How many times have we then heard them try to backpedal and spin their statements claiming that they are the victims and that they were taken "out of context". Come on Ahmed, you don't get to tell your listeners to look forward to a day when the very rocks and trees will join in a mass orgy of anti-semitic genocide and then claim "That was taken out of context, I was just criticizing some of Israel's policies, some of my best friends are jews". In the same way, we should not let Mr. Savage off the hook when he makes such absurd claims. If the Muslim world doesn't want to see speeches in the media connecting Islam with violence all they have to do is stop publishing them. If Michael Savage doesn't want Wal-Mart to hear him making speeches demonizing Muslims all he has to do is stop making them.

I would like to volunteer to be on his security detail.

Three Cheers for Dr. Savage. CAIR gave The Savage a Tool to crack their Armor. Court enforced disclosure of their Finances.

As for His views on Israel. I am of the impression that he is a supporter of Israel. Just not blindly. He is always vocal about Israel defending Itself.

I would think that Dr. Savage would agree when I say that an awful lot of People I knew, Died very horrible Deaths. Simply because they were grossly irresponsible with regards the Aids Virus. For fear of tarnishing the Gay Rights Movement, an Incurable Disease was allowed to spread unchecked. Until equality was reached by all. To be Fair about it.

God forbid that even when getting Married, an AIDS Test is not required. The test only shows up when you want some types of Insurance.

Do any of you tell your kids not to have sex without at least getting and receiving an AIDS Test. Do you consider it yourself. All that Viagra and all.

Was pandering to such a small minority for Political protection really worth the cost in Human lives? It is a Biblical style Plague. Especially to the Willfully Ignorant.

I cannot speak for the Dr. but such a presentation would receive a little more than a dead line and a "That's All"

It isn't so much what "Gays" do, as was what they wouldn't do. Like being responsible. An aspect of life the Dr. goes on about all the time

"The never ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way."

Please donate a few bucks to MS

http://www.savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_suit.html

Large Caliber pistol, check. Body armor with stab plate, check. K-Bar knife, check. Comm check, check. Executive armored vehicle...still working on that one.

"do I wish it were Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt or Dennis Prager doing so? You betcha'."

Not me, this issue calls for someone with guts.

You are talking about talk show hosts, not gods.
If you want a show that agrees with all your views, then start your own. Everyone has their supporters and detractors, Savage included, but this issue is above petty personal issues, like homosexuality, or if Savage is Jewish enough. Every one of the talking heads listed, has said something I thought, or knew, was sht. Savage included. So what, they are talk show hosts. They don't structure their shows for me, they do it for ratings. Savage is taking on the work of the cowards, who won't go past a certain line drawn by CAIR/Muslims in the sand. Savage should be supported, spouting negative stuff about him is not helpful...

It's about time someone crush CAIR. The GOP should have done squashed them in the 90's.
Matter of fact, CAIR should never have been allowed to organize in any state in the first place.

Think hard about which political party supports CAIR, takes money from CAIR, and meets with CAIR in our congressional bldg's. Democrats. And Debbie Schlussel writes about this all the time.

I support Michael Savage 100%

Well thats done, called and emailed Office max, Walmart, JC Penny and Auto zone.

Oh ya, they did the same thing to Robert Spencer.
I think between the 10 million savage listeners, and the milions who read Jihad Watch, we can put the 1500 CAIR members out of business.

From above: Three Cheers for Dr. Savage. CAIR gave The Savage a Tool to crack their Armor. Court enforced disclosure of their Finances.

Yep, and I bet Cair is sweeping as much of that as it can under the carpet. Damage control predestination style. They can see the slap coming, and will duck and cover the best they can. I think Cair will probably be knocked off it's feet.
I heard they just got a 23 million dollar donation from some foreign country. Does that mean they will have to register as foreign agents? Can Savage ask for damages to the tune of 23 mil? This is one sticky plot, stay tuned for further developments...

Fank, I meant denigrate not degenerate. I misspelled a word that realy screwed up the meaning.

duh_swami: I hardly think talk show hosts should be gods, as your post implied. Also, I don't expect that I have to agree with everything a person says before I support him or her. I don't agree with everything Prager, Medved or Hannity aver. For instance, all of the above have stated they are religious. I am not. But what I do expect is that extremist assessments be avoided and Savage, though I often agree with him and am even at times greatly amused by some of his comments, violates this necessarily tacitly understood imperative from time to time. In fact, he plays into the hands of his opponents too readily with some of his comments. Ann Coulter, whom I also agree with on most things, makes the same mistake. Let me put this another way, do you think that Abraham Lincoln, the greatest statesman in American history, would invoke Savage's approach? Hardly. Lincoln should be our model when asserting deeply held convictions with diplomacy. By this test, Limbaugh, Prager, Hannity, Hewitt and Medved come closer to this ideal by far than does Savage. Savage has the right message by going after CAIR but he's not the right messenger. But, in any case, thanks for your comments nonetheless.

Wellington,

I think we are past diplomacy.

What's important about this lawsuit is the discovery process.The American judicial system is a search for truth wherever it leads. That's why CAIR has always dropped suits at the point of discovery, before the organizations ties to HAMAS could be exposed.If this suit goes forward CAIR will not be able to escape by dropping the suit they will be in for the long haul and subject to the discovery process possibly for years. Savage can demand documents about CAIRs finances and backers. CAIR can also use discovery to obtain documents about Savage though I suspect CAIR has much more to hide.Savage may be a potty mouth but he's never been named as an unindited co-conspirator in a terror financing trial.

AmericanTiger, several years ago at a business that sold military surplus equipment on Montana Ave. in El Paso Texas there were two armored cars on the lot.

They looked similar to this: http://www.armyjeeps.net/V100/v100.htm

Islam is the result of how low men and women can go without God -- of how BASE our sin nature can go left unchecked.

Posted by: champ at November 30, 2007 9:51 PM

You are right re "poopaganda" (a very juicy word) and on this too.

On 9/2/1945 General MacArthur, at the surrender of Japan on the battleship Missouri, did not exult in the defeat of Japan, nor blame them for the supremacist "Hakko ichiu" concepts that led them on their jihad, but spoke about the theological problems that faced all humans, and hoped we find some alternative to these supremacist concepts that have dominated human history. We all have blood on our hands in this regard (though Muslims-especially Arabs-think they are exempt from this pattern of history).

Macarthur deliberately set out to implement an occupation of japan based on the teachings of Jesus. It worked. The occupation set out to protect Japanese culture and only required a truly popular government (non-militarist) before the US left Japan in 1952. That was it.

We face today Islam's "Hakko ichiu". Islam's "Hakko ichiu" is totally incompatible with human survival. Though I am not a religious man, I think Jesus will become the center of human hope in the future. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer prayed to God, "Look upon the temptation of your Son Jesus Christ and deliver us from temptation". He bravely went to his end with that. We will, some day, be given mercy and love from God in that prayer, without question from Almighty God, sometime in the future.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:wKmEw1UutLoJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakko_ichiu+hakko+ichiu,+japan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

P.S. The "Hakko ichiu" is reflected in our treatment of the American Indians (and in their mistreatment of each other), it is reflected everywhere, it is reflected in Islam today. We humans are a bad act-especially when we finger point..

Elric 66: Well, if we are past diplomacy, then, among other consequences, the present approach I endorse of working with some Muslims against others (even Israel does this) is no longer of use and an assault against all of Islam will then be the next chapter in this long war we're in.

Roxane said:

"What's important about this lawsuit is the discovery process.The American judicial system is a search for truth wherever it leads."

Yes, this is an absolutely critical point.

(Although I would not quite agree with your second sentence (the outcome of lawsuits go either way, regardless of the preponderance of evidence, all too often, and money is just too much of an advantage to make this argument convincingly).

Discovery is a great weapon against the patently false. It is also a weapon against those who are themselves sued. CAIR and others have withered during the discovery process.

On the other hand, whether an organization or person is suing or sued, the whole process takes money. The whole discovery process can be enormously revealing but costs money.

The counter-jihad movement, and, in more fundamental terms, anyone who is a victim of intimidation, defamation or legal jihad, needs a network of pro-bono lawyers or else a legal defense (and occasional offense-defense) fund. Not everyone or even every small business or organization has the means to defend themselves, much less sue or counter-sue, when faced with Islamist assaults. Otherwise, the Gulf State millions behind CAIR and Co. will steam roll many: even if most CAIR actions don't stick, money is needed to defend against CAIR's jihad. A means needs to be found to match Islamists buck-for-buck.

Roxane: Your point about the importance of the discovery process is a good one. My compliments. Would that the person suing CAIR was someone more beyond reproach than Savage. But, when push comes to shove, if he's the best we can do, so be it. More power to him. But folks should be prepared for dilution of Savage's message and action because of his indiscretions from time to time. It's a virtual guarantee that such dilution will occur.

"an assault against all of Islam will then be the next chapter in this long war we're in."


Unless you want to wait for the Islamic demographic bomb to explode thats the next step.

Hey Frank -- I think you liked my poopaganda -- how funny!

I agree with you that Jesus will take center stage one day in the (hopefully) not too distant future and put all this evil nonsense to rest once and for all. It's a day I long to see -- even though I am short on patience for His coming.

I am tired of being patient, but what choice do I have?

RS: "...these lying Islamic supremacist thugs...".

Down goes the gauntlet, CAIR. (we know they read this site). Ya goin' to pick it up?

Didn't think so. Add "cowards" to the list.

Elric 66: In complete agreement with you about Muslim demographics. That's the greater threat, not Muslim terror. That's why, though I support a divide and conquer strategy for now (e.g., establishing a good working relationship with most Kurds in northern Iraq against Islamic extremists), it doesn't mean I want more Muslims coming to America. If these positions seem inconsistent, my reply would be let inconsistency be damned and do what works for the time being. When such an approach no longer works, go to another one. Pragmatism more than theory should guide us and often what is pragmatic is, at least on paper, contradictory. Besides, we will have to be as resourceful, determined and effective as possible to thwart the Islamicization of the West. Many leftists in the West will function in useful idiot mode par excellence as another impediment to insuring we stay free as we move into a future fraught with dangers. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

I was not referring to you personally Wellington.
I have listened to most of these guys for years.
They have all developed a cult of personality. That's what a ditto head is. Thats what 'Your a great American Sean', is. I really don't care all that much, I know about the talk show business. But there are people who take the word of talk show hosts as gospel. They are the ones who need to be reminded that talk show hosts are not gods. The Dems know that also, thats why they want The Fairness Doctrine etc...I don't want that, but neither do I accept some talking head as a hierophant of superior knowledge, or wisdom. Sometimes maybe, but not daily. Personally, while some of these guys have some merit, I would not equate any of them with Lincoln. Some people just don't like Savage's, loose and cranky style. For others, thats his appeal. If one is more comfortable with a gentle man, try Prager, if you want to wind it up, try Savage.
I think Savage is the superior man to sue CAIR for two reasons, he has the goods on them, and he is doing it...

duh_swami: Oh, I didn't take your remark personally in the sense I was insulted or anything like that. I don't take much personally unless someone goes after my family or interrupts my supply of good beer, which Islamic religious law would do-----just one more reason to hold Islam in contempt.

And I agree with you about the cult of personality issue. One should always distinguish between admiration and adoration. As for any talk show host I have mentioned (or really anyone for that matter), I don't equate any of them with Lincoln but rather hold to the idea that our 16th President's masterful capacity to never waiver about convictions, only strategy, should be the model to which we should aspire. Some do that better than others.

I predict CAIR will try to settle but Savage will decline. They will then fold up CAIR, burn everything, deny everything and then disperse to other organizations or create new ones. It's a game of "whack a mole" but an important one to be sure. Go Savage!

Speaking of CAIR, does anyone have the latest and greatest about the "flying imams" lawsuit trial?

Savage is great that suit is incoherent as hell Am I his lawyer?

champ-

I wish I invented "poopaganda". It's very good.

I share your hopes re ancient dreams that will come true. Death will not be seen as final on earth in that day. All people alive then will see beyond time. We will see it beyond time.

Savage isn't the champion we want but he's the one we have. And regardless of his warts, if and when he needs financial support for his fight against CAIR I think we ought to chip in.

And to the leftists who are more concerned with him than the Salafist agenda that CAIR is pushing can go pound sand.

The left won't come around and never will. Their values are too out of sync with the rest of society and the west in general. This is why the biggest supporters of Islam are leftists.

Wellington...I have no personal problem with you at all. This is what you wrote that prompted me to say I was not addressing you:

duh_swami: I hardly think talk show hosts should be gods, as your post implied.

Please study this sentence carefully, and see the humor, it can be looked at in several different ways. It will never hold up in court LOL...

Thanks for the clarification, JCOM.

GO MICHAEL SAVAGE!

Perfect name for the job = SAVAGE!!!

Mr. Savage now has his opportunity to make history and help in this war of Western values against islam.

He is a brave man who deserves wide support.

One hopes that the fighters who understand the issues and the implications on these threads, will help him, because his defeat would be our loss, and his victory will be our victory.

Michael Savage is the only person in talk radio that tells it like it is.
If CAIR mannages to get rid of Savage,others will follow,they will attack Hannity,Limbaugh,O Reilly,Laura Ingraham,Michelle Malkin,Denis Prager,Michael Medved and everyone else who dares to tell the truth about Islam.
It is now or never,and Savage needs to win this one,for the sake of our freedom of speech.

big-pete said:

"I predict CAIR will try to settle but Savage will decline. They will then fold up CAIR, burn everything, deny everything and then disperse to other organizations or create new ones. It's a game of "whack a mole" but an important one to be sure. Go Savage!"

If only this were a possibility. CAIR is not anywhere near to folding, simply because the US government is not serious or is not capable of shutting down Islamist pro-sharia organizations in the US. The HLF trial just shows how the US justice system is not equipped (yet) to handle terrorism or terrorism-funding cases. It will have to go to a more military tribunal-type setting, because a stupid jury (or judge) can derail even clear-cut cases. CAIR is going to be a much harder fish to fry than HLF, because any direct action against CAIR will reveal a far more extensive range of funding source from oil-rich Gulf State nations, on the one hand, as well as directly challenging the idea of NGO civil rights organizations.

CAIR is dirty as all heck but somewhat more clever about laundering its dirt than HLF, while being a lot more politically connected. It's propaganda of being a civil rights organization has been effective, thanks to uncritical news media and craven politicians. CAIR also has a much larger and decentralized cadre of Islamist zealots, including a very large number of lawyers. So if HLF was not a slam dunk, the CAIR entity is going to be very hard to extirpate.

On the other hand, CAIR is being marginalized. It has done great damage to many individuals, and it has been successful in pushing its pro-sharia agenda forward in weak areas of American society (universities in conjunction with MSA, large urban areas, etc.). It has also been somewhat successful in its other broad aim: making it easier for Muslims to get fast-tracked into citizenship. But all of this has come at the cost of more and more people, the public and certain politicians, become aware of its pro-sharia agenda. On the big cases, of course, CAIR has bombed in the courts, although it has been quite successful on a smaller scale in the courts, mostly by wearing down its less-well-funded opponents.

CAIR going away, though? Not soon. CAIR has too much money and too many useful idiot friends. CAIR is pretty transparent, but the US is still too PC to take on CAIR in a meaningful way.

Wellington sez:

'Muslim demographics. That's the greater threat, not Muslim terror.'

Both works in tandem. Its the Muhammedan strategy.

And the millions of 'law-abiding, peaceful Muslims' will keep telling us that we can't paint all the billion peaceful ones with the same brush because 'Islam is not a monolith' and there is all this 'diversity'- and the nutroots will buy it and the lefty-looneys will swallow it, whole.

This, however is the reality. 'We will conquer your country with the bellies of our women'-

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/01/26/we-will-conquer-your-country-with-the-bellies-of-our-women/

jcom972 thanks for providing context!

RoobartSbunsar nice try in paring that down to make your agenda and not giving full context!


Savage, I don't always agree with you..who does with anyone? Fight these guys it's about time we do. Savage is a passionate guy and is a true patriot. Often he's taken out of context and made into something he's not, I notice.

Danish newspaper prints cartoons of Mohammad = riots, church burnings, murder, threats.

Saudi woman sentenced to six months imprisonment and 200 lashes for being raped = hardly a peep.

Monte Gardner, your attempt at moral equivalency between these murderous jihadists and Michael Savage fails. Savave in not likely to murder anyone or behead anyone nor likely to send his son out as a suicide bomber, Monte Gardner.

What you wrote is really sick my friend.

"I don't take much personally unless someone goes after my family or interrupts my supply of good beer"

...what? Someone is trying to take away our beer?!

DEATH TO THEM!!!

Monte Gardner wrote: "American Muslims, on the other hand, have every right to say that this is a bigoted hatefull and narrowminded statement. I've listened to the 4 minute clip and its full of generalizations, stereotyping and intolerant bigotry. So, I am in the regrettable position of agreeing with CAIR in this description of Michael Savage."


Monte Gardner, as far as I am concerned CAIR has no rights. I watched those atrocities on September 11, 2001. CAIR is with the perpetrators and so are you. You are with our enemy. It is as simple as that. Bush rightly said -- then later abadoned his own doctrine --- "You are either with us or you are with the 'terrorists'." You are not with us Monte Gardner.

Monte Gardner wrote: "So, I am in the regrettable position of agreeing with CAIR in this description of Michael Savage. Furthermore, individual corporations, such as Wal-Mart, have every right to make their own decisions with respect to who they are going to purchase advertising time with - free market and all. CAIR has every right to say to these companies that Savage is an extremist xenophobe and encourage them to drop their advertising - That's CAIR's free speech."


While I might agree with you when it comes to Hispanics -- I tend to disagree with Savage about Hispanics --- you are wrong about CAIR, an organization that sympathizes with violent jihad. I also have every right to boycott Walmart. I spend a lot of money at Walmart. I intend to speak to my Walmart manager this evening or tomorrow. I would not at all mind participating in a demonstration in from of our Walmart with signs reading, "WALMART SUPPORTS JIHAD AGAINST AMERICA!" "WALMART IS WITH THE TERRORISTS!" etc....

Vince wrote: "monk said:

These are all George W. Bush apologists:

Sean Hannity,
Rush Limbaugh,
Michael Medved [No he's not],
Hugh Hewitt [No he's not] or
Dennis Prager [No he's not]

Nice try?"

I said I do not know about Hugh Hewitt. Never heard the guy. I'm guessing you are conceding Limbaugh and Hannity are both George W. Bush / Republican party apologists? As far as Prager and Medved, let me know when they come out strongly and publicly behind Savage in his law suite agaisnt CAIR and I might reconsider. Prager has long supported the Middle East "peace" process with the Muslim jihadists. Prager supported the murderous Olso accords! You know with mass-murderer Yasser Arafat. My goodness. Has Medved taken a public position in support of Savage against CAIR? Where is Michael Medved? My guess is Medved is a pretty weak Jew. Does he like Prager support negotiating with jihadist killers?

Has anyone noticed the similarity between Savage’s and McCarthy’s almost lonely campaign against the moles of the West’s deadliest enemy in their respective times?

Both are despised by the liberal establishment and smug leftist imbeciles while identified with by the great unwashed for screaming the ugly truth?

Both ruffians hollering that emperor is naked.
Both great, courageous, bad-mannered patriots.
Go Savage! God bless you.

I clicked over to read the lawsuit and immediately started grinding my teeth over a spelling error. Not being a lawyer, I don't know, if this could affect the lawsuit, but they write 'Counsel on Islamic-American Relations' for CAIR. Ah, it's the COUNCIL, not counsel. They've misidentified the defendant in the case.

Now to two other points:
1.Monk wrote:
O'Reilly and Limbaugh supported Dubai Ports takeover. Savage is saying this now. I remember Limbaugh mocked his listeners for opposing the Dubai Ports deal.

Rush Limbaugh is with our enemies? Is he?

My question is, where are the politicians and mobs opposing Dubai's investment in Citibank? The opposition to the Dubai Port Snort claimed they had a security issue with the deal. Dubai Ports World wouldn't be handling security. So, my first reaction was to oppose Dubai buying the ports. When I learned they weren't buying the ports and that the security issue was answered, there wasn't a reason to oppose the deal.

2. Monte Gardner highlights the key issue in this lawsuit. Is taking a 4 minute clip from Savage's show a copyright infringement or is it Fair Use? Is using this 4 minute rant against extremist Muslims, portraying this and Savage's only views on Muslims, ignoring his pro-Muslim comments, to advertisers to harm Michael Savage, his program and his right to free speech a violation of Savage's rights? If yes, then Savage can sue for damages.

We'll see what happens in the courts. For me, I'm making some popcorn.

"Both are despised by the liberal establishment and smug leftist imbeciles while identified with by the great unwashed for screaming the ugly truth?

Both ruffians hollering that emperor is naked.
Both great, courageous, bad-mannered patriots.
Go Savage! God bless you."

I take it I'm among these "smug leftist imbeciles," given that I despise both of thse men, especially McCarthy. He was a bully and a fatuous drunk who met a sad, lonely death--the end of all bullies.

I'll repost, just in case people failed to read it the first time:

"SAVAGE: Alright, so you're one of those sodomists? Are you a sodomite?

CALLER: Yes, I am.

SAVAGE: Oh, you're one of the sodomites! You should only get AIDS and die, you pig! How's that? [off-screen crew can be heard shouting 'Whoa!'] Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig? You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You got nothing to do today? Go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis. OK, do we have another nice caller who's busy and didn't have a nice night in the bathhouses, angry at me today? Huh? Get me another one, put another sodomite on! No more calls? I don't care. Let's go to the next scene. I don't care about these bums, they mean nothing to me. They're all sausages. Next scene; onto the next scene on the 'Savage Nation'."

Well we can expect this from Fox, as Fox allowed a Saudi Prince to buy into their paper, and this Prince has skited that he has forced news to be changed as it involved Muslims, which lets us know where his allegiance lies, and it sure isn't to help stop terrorism..

Yep we sure have freedom of speech, as long as you are a Muslim, or left wing...
The people are getting fed up, and will soon revolt, and Muslims are wondering if they can keep pretending to be our friend long enough until the time is right and they have acquired the needed weaponry...

RoobartSbunsar wrote: I'll repost, just in case people failed to read it the first time:>>>

What do you want from me? He's rude. I've called into his program. His call screeners are rude. I don't know how many times Savage's call screener have hung up on me. I don't like the way Savage talks over his callers and shuts them off only because they disagree with him. Hannity and Limbaugh are gentleman. But unlike Savage, they are partisan Republican / George W. Bush apologists. I prefer an independent conservative who does not carry any party's water.

CAIR is trying to shut him down. They are trying to intimidate him as they've done with many a public figure. I've got to side with Savage on this one. CAIR will shut down anyone who is in any way critical of Islam. CAIR is with our enemies. CAIR is our enemy. CAIR is a bully. We can't stand on the sidelines because Michael Savage is rude to his callers. Not on this issue. It's too important.

I take it I'm among these "smug leftist imbeciles,…”

No, you are not.
You are not a smug leftist imbecile, but a smug imbecile who happens to be leftist.

But above all you’re a buffoon starved for attention.

Monk asks Roobart (above)

What do you want from me?

He wants attention.

I would like to say: ignore the buffoon, like the rest of us, and he will go away. Except that he won’t. But at least you could stop wasting your time taking him seriously

RoobartSbunsar, let's pretend that you are lost in the Mojave Desert and are about to die of thirst. Along comes a fellow with three hundred gallons of water. I expect that you would proudly refuse the water; you would prefer to die because this fellow with the water just happens to be Michael Savage. You certaily would not want your life saved by someone who does not meet your standards, now would you?

Your manufactured, high minded sense of morality is boring.

Roobart:

You stance re Savage b/c of his anti- militant homosexual rant strikes me as the same sort of ideological puritanism that Charles Johnson at LFG is trying to enforce w/r/t the political parties in Europe opposed to the islamization of Europe.

Over the years, he has made his position clear: What goes on between 2 consenting adults behind closed doors is their affair. But he draws the line at "gay pride" parades featuring excessive displays of every type of what normal society regards as deviancy for the whole world, including children, to see. I suppose it's legal, but he condemns it. And I do, too.

Savage's word is certainly not gospel. And on the muslim question, he comes suspiciously close to D'Souza's position that orthodox muslims & American conservatives are natural allies in the fight against our pornographic culture. But in this lawsuit, he should get our unqualified support.

"You are not a smug leftist imbecile, but a smug imbecile who happens to be leftist."

Well said!

"But above all you’re a buffoon starved for attention."

Starved for it? Nah. I get plenty. Receiving insults from people like you is all the amusement I need.

"Savage's word is certainly not gospel. And on the muslim question, he comes suspiciously close to D'Souza's position that orthodox muslims & American conservatives are natural allies in the fight against our pornographic culture. But in this lawsuit, he should get our unqualified support."

I agree, to an extent, and certainly I hope CAIR does down in flames as a result of this (or other) lawsuits. What I don't like is that so many people have essentially asked me to ignore Savage's comments and give him my unqualified support. He may be the enemy of my enemy, but that doesn't in and of itself make him my friend.

"But he draws the line at "gay pride" parades featuring excessive displays of every type of what normal society regards as deviancy for the whole world, including children, to see. I suppose it's legal, but he condemns it. And I do, too."

I see nothing abnormal or "deviant" about it. Unfortunately conservatives do, and it has made life hell for gays for far too long.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let's clear a few things up here, shall we?

RoobartSbunsar, please get your facts straight before spouting off about Joe McCarthy. You might want to read Anne Coulter's book "Treason" where she does a beautiful job of exposing the hypocrisy coming from the anti-McCarthy camp. McCarthy was demonized for doing exactly what Michael Savage is doing with CAIR, recognizing the threat of atheistic Communism to our way of life and national security and going on the offensive to expose and counteract it's effects. McCarthy's name was successfully linked to witch hunting by the people who were trying to destroy us and has been in the American vocabulary for over 50 years now as probably the most odious label that can be attached to anyone. You've already started the ball rolling by labeling Savage a homophobe. Good job! Way to support the opposition.

What was McCarty concerned about? Communists hiding out in Hollywood and in our government working behind the scenes to dismantle the Constitution and enslave the people of the U.S. under Communism. (Gee, where have I heard that recently?) He was lied about, treated with the utmost contempt and I think, driven to his death. Was he all bad? Was he all wrong?

Hmm, I'm thinking of a man named Whittaker Chambers of whom I've never read anything about when he wasn't described as a pudgy, disheveled man, yet he brought down one of the Golden Boys of the 50's when he proved that Algier Hiss, who had been his friend and fellow Communist, lied about his activities in connection with the Communist party in the 30's and 40's. We all remember Algier Hiss, the guy who went Yalta with FDR, Stalin and Churchill and helped enslave half of Europe behind the Iron Curtain. Chambers was eviscerated and left by all his friends and probably would have ended up like McCarthy if he hadn't had the foresight to keep the evidence and hide it in a pumpkin patch. Hiss went down, went to prison and until his dying day shouted to all his lefty friends, who blindly and vociferously defend him to this day, that he was an innocent man. Too bad for him that when the Venona papers came out they absolutely proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hiss was indeed a Communist. (Just like the Rosenbergs.)

"You might want to read Anne Coulter's book "Treason""

...Uh, no thanks. I may be a liberal, but I DO have principles. One of them is that I don't touch anything Ann Coulter-related with a ten-foot pole.

"You've already started the ball rolling by labeling Savage a homophobe. Good job! Way to support the opposition."

In other words, even if I have objections about what someone said, I should keep quiet about it as long as they're fighting Islam. To an extent that may be true, but not when the remarks in question are as bigoted and incendiary as the quote I posted earlier in this thread. If I believe homophobia to be detestable (and I respect the fact that not everyone agrees), should I just keep my mouth shut about it?

Roobart, it behooves you to worry more about the islamists will do with a knife and your neck than what savage might like to prevent you from doing with your orifices......he was educated in public health you know

"But he draws the line at "gay pride" parades featuring excessive displays of every type of what normal society regards as deviancy for the whole world, including children, to see. I suppose it's legal, but he condemns it. And I do, too."

I see nothing abnormal or "deviant" about it.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar

Wait just a minute, you see nothing wrong with gay pride parades? Oh, the many links I could post here.
I won't out of respect for this site.

Interesting,

I will.

http://thecastro.net/parade/pix2/PRIDE80-67.jpg
http://www.cgpix.com/images/Newyork/gaypri8.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/image_galleries/gay_pride_parade_gallery2.shtml?52
http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/image_galleries/gay_pride_parade_gallery2.shtml?57
http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/image_galleries/gay_pride_parade_gallery2.shtml?9

RoobartSbunsar, you are so right. Nothing abnormal, deviant or potentially confusing to children when acted out on a city street in the daylight hours.

You do not have to keep your mouth shut about your beliefs but a little discretion would be advisable. Time and place. Goldie is correct and reminds me of a conversation I had with my computer guy, who is in a gay relationship, when we were out to dinner last night. The first people to go under the knife if the Muslims get their way and take over the west will be homosexuals. My friend agreed with me. Since Muslims don't respect human rights it is doubtful that they will fear any retribution coming from the ACLU or any pro-Gay lobby. they will spill your blood and ask questions later.

Choose your battles carefully.

Roobert:

Take a look at these pics and tell us all how you see "see nothing abnormal or "deviant" about it."

http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/index.php

Do you think Savage has a point about the deviancy that sometimes follows expressions of "gay pride".
In any private setting, I am for whatever floats 'yer boat. But performing sex acts, homosexual or heterosexual, on one another in public pushes the limits of "civilized" behavior in even the loosest definition of civility.

And another thing, it is offensive to have to read a post that starts out, as in your case, "You didn't read the very important statement I made previously so I will copy and paste it again in another comment to force you to digest what you didn't the first time."

We are not idiots here. One post is quite enough to express your message.

Please control yourself.

"Do you think Savage has a point about the deviancy that sometimes follows expressions of "gay pride"."

In other words: out of sight, out of mind. As long as the gays keep their homosexuality to themselves, their existence will be tolerated; otherwise...

People deserve more than to merely be "tolerated."

Has the Rev found another identity in Roobart?

...go Savage!......


...so what if it sounds like a battle cry....

People deserve more than to merely be "tolerated."

So the people in the pictures Us or Them provided should be, what, embraced? Encouraged to walk around with their penises hanging out? Should they be allowed to enter public schools in this attire (or lack thereof) and tell kids about the glories of the homosexual lifestyle?

RoobartSbunsar you betray yourself. From your comments here it is plain that you do not believe in live and let live. You are just as much a part of the problem as militant Muslims. Just like them you are pushing an agenda and making sure it is in everyone's face, and daring anyone who opposes you to say so. Well, I feel sorry for you brother, that you can't differentiate between the activities that you claim aren't abnormal or deviant and the oppression that people living under Islamic Sharia law. For the record, you are not oppressed. Anyone who walks down the street with his penis hanging out in bright daylight or having it serviced by another naked member of the crowd does not have any room to talk about homophobes. Are you a decencyphobe or a Christianphobe. Or perhaps you are a commonsensephobe. If you can't see anything offensive about the acts posted above then your view is skewed and there's no point in you fighting against Islam. You won;t be able to recognize it enveloping you until it is way too late.

Heh heh heh, nothing deviant there.
Holy crap.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deviant

BTW, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home.
But to be in the public, engaging in sexual activity is deviant behavior.

People deserve more than to merely be "tolerated."
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar

Do you extend the same kindness to Christians?
Or Ann Coulter?

"No, he wouldn't see anything wrong with a public celebration of something as digustingly diseased, repulsive and endlessly miserable as sodomy. But he is very offended by those who call puke a puke.
Most probably a sodomite himself."

...thank you for proving my point.

No, he doesn't touch anything Ann Coulter-related with a ten-foot pole. He has his standards.

"No, he doesn't touch anything Ann Coulter-related with a ten-foot pole. He has his standards."

You're a conservative. Would you even consider reading anything by Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky without vomiting at the very thought of it?

...similarly, I see little reason to suppress my nausea at the thought of reading the garbage she writes.

What I find hypocritical is the simple fact that conservatives are always up in arms whenever gays are discriminated against in the Middle East--while they themselves aren't too fond of gays. It strikes me as illogical.

The "discrimination" gays face in the Middle East involves execution by hanging. Disapproving of homosexuality in the West is a far cry from public execution. Life vs death, do you understand the difference?Instead of lecturing Michael Savage and "conservatives" if you really hate homophobia how about traveling to the Middle East where you could do some real good for gays? Like saving their lives.

What I find hypocritical is the simple fact that conservatives are always up in arms whenever gays are discriminated against in the Middle East--while they themselves aren't too fond of gays. It strikes me as illogical.

Actually, it is supremely logical.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are American values. As a conservative, I believe all three can only be determined by the individual (within the framework of what is legally acceptable).

That includes the right of gays to lead their lives if they do so peacefully, productively, deal with consenting adults only, and keep their fingers out of my wallet. That is why we get upset when we see young men in Iran getting hanged for being gay.

However, it also includes MY right to raise my children without having militants gays trying to recruit them (and that includes public school-based indoctrination as well as hate speech and hate crime and "protected group" laws). I've seen how the program goes in the UK and in Massachusetts-there is no liberty for anyone to choose other then the gay agenda. In Canada I could go to jail for speaking openly about my views on homosexuality.

So-freedom for thee, but not for me?
Sounds an awful lot like the tactics used by Islamists.

I'm not ordinarily an "I told you so" kind of guy but having read the posts above I can't help but point back to my post at 11:39 P.M. last night which contended that Savage's going after CAIR (which I heartily approve) will be diluted because of Savage's going over the top from time to time. The more recent posts here precisely prove my point. Again, Savage has the right message but he's the wrong messenger. I'll support him but I wish it were someone a bit less controversial than he.

"Again, Savage has the right message but he's the wrong messenger. I'll support him but I wish it were someone a bit less controversial than he."

I suspect the less controversial ones will emerge from the woodwork, not wanting Savage to monopolize the anti-CAIR campaign. Or at least I hope so.


Some loose thoughts on this thread follow.

Yes, I, too, wish that Savage had a more compelling case of copyright infringement (GREAT tack to take, though) and a sharper legal team (COUNSEL{sic?} on Islamic-American Relations?? AAaurrgh!!)

"'Fitzspencer?'"--I also regret that some of us mistook your inside joke as a swipe at Hubert, Roobart.

Frank, about the efficacy of the expression, "poopaganda"--I think "fauxpaganda" would be more genteel and more fitting, don'tcha
think? Or is it just me?

The debate here is getting a bit goofy today.

Love Savage, hate him or regard him with indifference, he's doing the world a signal service and deserves support in the attempt.

Maybe he hates homosexuals, maybe he doesn't, maybe he hates redheads or pastry chefs, or mathematicians, hell, maybe he hates me personally.

Who cares as long as he exposes CAIR for the fifth columnist they are?

"Love Savage, hate him or regard him with indifference, he's doing the world a signal service and deserves support in the attempt."

...I suppose you're right.

Very well--I'll throw in my lot with him, but with great reluctance.

And I STILL won't read Ann Coulter. So there.

...conservatives are always up in arms whenever gays are discriminated against in the Middle East--while they themselves aren't too fond of gays. It strikes me as illogical.

It is illogical to be up in arms whenever homosexuals are publicly hanged, stoned, or decapitated in the ME - while not being “too fond” of them generally.

Which implies that for Roobart it would be perfectly logical to hang, stone, or decapitate persons he is "not too fond" of.

And then he tells me I belong in the Middle East.

RoobartSbunsar said....

"...In other words: out of sight, out of mind. As long as the gays keep their homosexuality to themselves, their existence will be tolerated..."

Right.

A) It's not "normal" as much as you insist it is.

B) You don't see "Heterosexual Pride" parades with people walking in leather chaps being led around with a rope.

C) Get over yourself, amazing how gays are so quick to get offended, yet are the first ones to offend with thier "pride" tactics, and then they are indignant about it.

If I was Robert Spencer, I would be pissed a person like you appropriated my name.

Some fitting platitudes:

Live and let live (akin to "Judge not lest you be judged).

We're all in this together.

We must all hang together, or we will all most assuredly hang separately.

"A) It's not "normal" as much as you insist it is."

Care to explain?

Shouldn't we speak to the managers of these companies? I shop at Walmart. I'm going to ask to speak to the manager. How can I give my money to Walmart if they are with our enemies?


http://www.hatehurtsamerica.org/


A HHA statement released today said in part: "We have a duty to make sure every person in America is treated with respect and human dignity. Diversity is what makes this nation so special. The many companies that do not want to be affiliated with Michael Savage's bigotry and have stopped advertising or refuse to advertise on his show include AutoZone, Citrix, TrustedID, JCPenney, and OfficeMax. Today, we are pleased to announce that Wal-Mart and AT&T have joined the growing list of companies that refuse to sponsor Savage's hate speech."

It's not normal to see half naked men walking down the street on a Saturday afternoon showing off thier gay "culture" which, IMO, would be fine, if the "culture" consisted of something more than the public recreation of kinky sex acts.

It doesn't though, so to me, that means it isn't normal and shouldn't be publicly accepted.

Explained well enough?

"It's not normal to see half naked men walking down the street on a Saturday afternoon showing off thier gay "culture" which, IMO, would be fine, if the "culture" consisted of something more than the public recreation of kinky sex acts."

Well, that I do agree with. I thought you were referring to homosexuality as a whole (as some people on this thread have done).

Actually, Roobart's tastes run to "loose slutty womens."

"Actually, Roobart's tastes run to "loose slutty womens.""

...and what, pray tell, is wrong with THAT?

Monk,

It would be a good indication of American’s will to defend freedom of speech (and freedom generally) and their realizing CAIR’s jihadi agenda if they strike back with boycott of the companies who withdrew their advertising at Savage’s show.
But I am not holding my breath.

Read somewhere in this thread in between the pro and cons of Michael Savage and the personal attacks, that Savage's lawyer seemed a little lax on islam education. Wondering how the staff at JW would feel about maybe offering to impart some of their knowledge in order to give the lawyer a leg up on preparation? At the very least it could help neutralized the coming onslaught from CAIR and its lackeys of racist, bigot and islamophobe epithets inside the courtroom.

Can you not stay focused? Even for a minute? What does this topic (homosexuals) have to do with Spencer's original post? Good grief.

That's another inside joke on this site.

On With The Counterjihad. Deus vult!

thomas. h, I am not a First Amendment absolutist. I believe there may be times when speech needs some restraints. Actually, I believe Savage crosses the bounds of decency at times. But so do I.

I am fairly liberal in terms of speech with the exception of hate speech along the order of White Supremacists like David Duke, Luis Farrahkan and many of these Islamic extremists and clerics. I have read their mosque sermons calling Jews the sons of apes and pigs. I do not believe they are entitled to spew their hatred without consequences here in the U.S.

In the case where we find ourselves at war with an enemy which Mr. Savage I believe has defined properly more or less, I do not know where his speech crosses the bounds into hate speech. Look at the derogation of Germans and the "Japs" during the second world war. Nazism was a terrible enemy. It seems to me there ought to be some leniency on speech when it comes to defining an enemy that is bent on your annihilation.

Such is the case with CAIR in my opinion. These are vicious enemies bent on our annihilation.

Monk,

Can you not stay focused?

I am not sure I understand your response to my musing about probability of American publics boycotting the companies who boycott Savage’s show.

The focus of today's on-line team debate:

"Resolved, That talk-show host Michael Savage offends every aggrieved minority and diverse others equally."

monk,

oops, it seems I reacted to a message not addressed to me. Sorry if I did.

@Roobart,

Surely I disagree with you on some things, and naturally, the reverse is true. I have to admit to getting a chuckle out of the "Fitzspencer" joke, though.

"wild, slutty womens" is a phrase often used to describe American females, by a certain poster who claims to live in Pakistan.

I am not sure I understand your response to my musing about probability of American publics boycotting the companies who boycott Savage’s show. >>>>

Thomas, at this point I intend to not do business with Walmart. Why should I give them my money if they are with our enemies? How 'bout you?

monk,

".....Such is the case with CAIR in my opinion. These are vicious enemies bent on our annihilation."

I agree entirely with what you so very well put in your last posting.
Let me point out that nowhere on that thread I have indicated otherwise, so while I am honoured by your addressing it to me I am also a bit puzzled.
Or do I misunderstand something here?

Win or lose, the victory is not in victory. It is in the discovery phase, as several posters have stated.

Open up CAIR's poorly concealed closet, and see what skeletons come clattering out, Mr. Savage.

RoobartSbunsar

Good fellow!

And I'll accept your refusal to read Coulter. (Who I think the world of).

Keep on keepin' on.

Oh, crap. My tag didn't work. Sorry about the excessive bold print.

"Resolved, That talk-show host Michael Savage offends every aggrieved minority and diverse others equally."

John,
If Savage offends a minority that should not be offended, I will come to the defense of that minority.

Savage comes close to offending Mexicans, though he couches it in terms of "illegals." Not knowing the man's heart, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I do often wonder if he's got it in for Mexicans and Hispanics. This is troubling to me if it is the case.

As far as CAIR is concerned, these are vicious enemies of America. I must defend Savage on this.

By God that's it.*slaps forehead* Ouch.
Wild, slutty women. That's the reason why non-muslim Americans don't bomb markets, crash planes into buildings, behead people, execute gays, whip and imprison rape victims, riot at the smallest insult, etc. We are too busy getting Busy.lol

Thomas, at this point I intend to not do business with Walmart. Why should I give them my money if they are with our enemies? How 'bout you?

As soon as they open their store in Copenhagen I will be first of people lining up to tell them to shove it.
And I will certainly ignore the bums on my next visit to the US.
cheers

Just a quick note to a few who seem to think this is a defamation suit (libel/slander). It's not, it's a copyright infringement lawsuit, based on CAIR's putting up unauthorized clips from Michael's show.

Having tried to do some libel suits myself, I've learned the hard way that they are next to impossible to do in the US. (I get libeled a lot unfortunately, because of my work.)

Anyone can file a defamation suit, but very few attorneys know anything about this area of law, so it's hard just to find an attorney. (Other than a specialized kind of defamation lawsuit, where a former employer badmouths you and you end up losing out on a new job....that's more common and there are many attorneys who can do that.)

If you *can* find an attorney who knows anything about this specialized area of law, they won't take it on a contigency basis because it's hard to win. Every lawyer I've ever talked to wanted 50 grand up front. That's a lot of cash to put out, particularly when the chances of ever seeing anything back are small.

And if you're a "public figure," it's a thousand times worse. (In my case, because of my work, I'm considered a public figure even though I'm not known outside my field.) The only case of NOT being a public figure would be if Joe Blow plastered posters all over town saying Mary Doe had herpes. The test of being a public figure is very low.

Savage and friends are obviously public figures and the standard for defamation is much higher. (Meaning it's a lot harder to win.)

The real trick, and this is the rub that very few people are aware of, is that in order to win a defamation suit you have to be able to prove ECONOMIC LOSS. That's the real key, and it's next to impossible unless you lose a job over it. (And can prove you lost your job because of what someone said or published.)

So you can find an attorney more than happy to take your money and file suit, but the chances of winning are next to nothing. Figure on spending fifty grand just to prove a point and drag the offenders into court. (On the other hand, if you've got money to blow, it's a good method to force discovery and cause hardship because they'll have to hire attorneys to fight it.)

The real trick is trying to come up with some kind of economic loss and have the case not tossed out of court because it's such a load.

The media knows all this, and that's why they have gotten so sloppy. There's no accountability.

I know this is off topic; it's just one of my pet peeves to see people flinging "Oh sue them for libel," or someone says something and it's "I'll see you in court, sucker." And I know it's so hard to actually follow through.

On the other hand, perhaps it's a good thing that it's so difficult. Otherwise, the courts might be clogged up with every Tom, Dick and Harry suing over something a neighbor said.

I'm glad Michael Savage has found a way to sue CAIR, and I hope he follows through with it...all the way. Make them spend their money on attorneys and their time preparing a case. Then bury them in discovery motions - that's the best part of all.

And cross your fingers that they miss a few key papers when they're shredding.

Mr. Savage may have one marketable commodity almost as useful as CAIR's petrodollars: CHUTZPAH. Mazel tov, Michael!

i hope cair gets their ars seud off.

personally monk, i believe israel souldnt have even showed up to this BS anapolis meeting.

seems alot of americans think its ok to accomodate this muslim nazi's which makes me sick to my stomach.

"By God that's it.*slaps forehead* Ouch.
Wild, slutty women. That's the reason why non-muslim Americans don't bomb markets, crash planes into buildings, behead people, execute gays, whip and imprison rape victims, riot at the smallest insult, etc. We are too busy getting Busy.lol"


Let it be known that RoobartSbunsar wholeheartedly endorses the wild slutty womens!

I love the idea of a Savage vs CAIR jihad.

Note to the others - can we stay on topic, and not dwell on what Savage thinks of gays, or whether Medved, Limbaugh et al are toadies for the Bushies?

Savage once read this article on his program, comparing the Quran w/ Mein Kamph. Nobody can say that he isn't fully aware of what Islam is all about.

"Savage once read this article on his program, comparing the Quran w/ Mein Kamph. Nobody can say that he isn't fully aware of what Islam is all about."

The two aren't that far apart. Plus, I hear that Mein Kampf is a best-seller in many Middle Eastern countries. I didn't see it firsthand in Egypt, but I was told that it's a big seller at the Cairo International Book Fair.

(at this same fair, the wonderful people of Al Azhar routinely confiscate literature they deem inappropriate...ahh, the wonders of Islam...)

RoobartSbunsar

"You're a conservative. Would you even consider reading anything by Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky without vomiting at the very thought of it?"

Since this thread has gone in this direction, I cannot resist. What do you, RoobartSbunsar personally think of the writings and/or movies of Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky?

"Since this thread has gone in this direction, I cannot resist. What do you, RoobartSbunsar personally think of the writings and/or movies of Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky?"

Since you ask: I used to like them, years ago. I suppose I've moved closer to the "center" as the years have gone on. I don't particularly like them now. If someone is too far to either side of the political spectrum--left OR right--they're generally not very high on my list of people I admire. I hold Coulter and Moore in more or less equal disdain.

(I did like Bowling for Columbine somewhat, I suppose. that's about it.)

The point I was trying to make is that each side has some people they absolutely can't stand. The left generally can't stand Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and so forth; for the right, their counterparts are Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, etc.

There are extremists on both sides--and I don't like any of them. Not sure what that makes me.

Monk said:

Shouldn't we speak to the managers of these companies? I shop at Walmart. I'm going to ask to speak to the manager. How can I give my money to Walmart if they are with our enemies?

Monk, When you are talking to him about Savage, you might also hammer him for carrying the Gore propaganda film mendacity and passing it out to schools without a counter-balancing film, such as the Great Global Warming Swindle (at Junkscience.com).

The thinking of Walmart, AT&T, Officemax, etc., management on Savage is traceable to the leftist, secularist, feminist, anti-western civilization, anti-American, multicultural, educational environment that has brainwashed this generation of managers as well as upcoming generations. They are basically girlymen when it comes to defense of the nation. Savage is no girlyman, and they cannot deal with that.

Until now I had not considered Comcast's telephone option with cable. Now I am going to look into it and bye-bye AT&T.

Go Savage!

Islamophobia is a term coined by Infidelophobians.

Go Infidels!

"Go Infidels!"

They should put that on a t-shirt. I'd buy one. Or two. Or twenty.

RoobartSbunsar:

The reason I asked, is that their statements seem to conflict with some of your statements about radical Islam. I do not claim to be an expert on their writings, but from what I have read and heard, they both seem to believe that the problem is entirely U.S. provocation. They both reject the contention that there might be any underlying belief system or inherent predisposition that would make them prone to violent-terrorist actions without U.S. provocation. In other words, my interpretation is that they both believe that the problem is the United States of America.

Ruby,

Are you sure Savage is just suing for copyright infringement?

It seems that if he can prove CAIR was directly involved in causing sponsors to drop their association, that would be a claim also (tortuous interference with contractual relationship, something along those lines).

RoobartSpunsar: Chomsky and Moore are hardly comparable to Malkin or Limbaugh. The former two are far-left radicals, way beyond traditional liberalism. The latter two are Ronald Reagan type conservatives, no where near the John Birch far-right types. You know this or should know it. If you insist on maintaining that Limbaugh is in any way similar to Chomsky respecting where they are on the political spectrum, right versus left, it will only reveal for yet another time that the modern left, as opposed to the old left, has gone off the deep end and can no longer distinguish up from down, black from white. Nothing personal, but your juxtaposing someone like Malkin with Moore is ludicrous.

Nothing personal, but your juxtaposing someone like Malkin with Moore is ludicrous.

Posted by: Wellington at December 1, 2007 9:17 PM

The perfect statement.

UsOrThem,

It would seem a legitimate complaint, but from what I can gather, all he's suing for is the copyright complaint. A copy of the filing:

http://www.savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_suit.html

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing that copyright infringement is easier to prove in court? To prove Wal Mart and other advertisers dropped Savage, you'd need some kind of documentation, or someone to testify, that it actually resulted from CAIR's interference and not simply as an economic decision.

Of course during discovery, they may find the documentation they need.

I'm personally very excited that someone is finally suing CAIR. CAIR tried suing a website that is critical of the group, but once they started discovery motions, CAIR backed down and dropped the suit.

Hasn't ANYONE read Leon Uris' book QB VII? Someone really needs to send a copy to the folks at CAIR. It would be even more delicious that Uris was himself a Jew, and the book is all about a Nazi doctor suing because of things said about him regarding the Holocaust.

Or maybe they read here. If so, hey CAIR bois....you really, really need to read this book.

Rock on Michael Savage!!!

"In other words, my interpretation is that they both believe that the problem is the United States of America."

They do--which is why I don't read them.

"RoobartSpunsar: Chomsky and Moore are hardly comparable to Malkin or Limbaugh. The former two are far-left radicals, way beyond traditional liberalism. The latter two are Ronald Reagan type conservatives, no where near the John Birch far-right types. You know this or should know it. If you insist on maintaining that Limbaugh is in any way similar to Chomsky respecting where they are on the political spectrum, right versus left, it will only reveal for yet another time that the modern left, as opposed to the old left, has gone off the deep end and can no longer distinguish up from down, black from white. Nothing personal, but your juxtaposing someone like Malkin with Moore is ludicrous."

Malkin and Limbaugh not on the far right? I believe they are. I've met more than a handful of conservatives who consider them to be a tad loony. Malkin believes that internment is nothing bad (the title of the book says it all); and Limbaugh is a pill-munching fanatic. There are many conservatives whom I respect, but not these two. Never these two.

(the only time I found myself agreeing with Mr. Limbaugh is when he took a very forceful stance against Michael Vick during the animal cruelty scandal. I was rather thankful to him for that)

There are extremists on both sides--and I don't like any of them. Not sure what that makes me.
roobart

I my opinion it makes you a middle-of-the-road girlyman* with no real convictions.
Perhaps if you ever get out of college, you should consider a career with the MSM. You'd fit right (or left) In.

*as defined as having nothing to do with Heterophobia and everything to to with 'Blowing in the wind'

"I my opinion it makes you a middle-of-the-road girlyman* with no real convictions.
Perhaps if you ever get out of college, you should consider a career with the MSM. You'd fit right (or left) In."

...would you prefer that I was further to the left, then?

As for convictions: I am anti-capital punishment, pro-gay rights (including gay marriage), pro-civil rights, anti-racism (Islam isn't a race, however), I believe global warming is real and man-made, etc. I'm also pro-life, because it would be illogical to oppose capital punishment but support abortion--both being, in my view, a form of murder.

These are convictions I hold very strongly. So you're dead wrong on each and every count.

RoobartSpunsar: Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Malkin's and Limbaugh's ideas are virtually indistinguishable from Ronald Reagan's political, ethical and economic philosophies. You aver that you know conservatives who think these two are far-right types. I would politely suggest those with whom you have spoken are not conservatives but wishy-washy moderates posing as conservatives, perhaps even fooling themselves into thinking that they are.

As for Malkin being for internment, she wrote a very reasoned account of why, due to sabotage efforts by those of Japanese extraction, FDR concluded that internment of Japanese-Americans was justified. I don't quite buy this argument, and I am fully conscious of the fact that many Japanese-American males performed heroically as members of the United States Armed Forces in the European theater, but to simply dismiss Malkin's argument as evidence of prejudice is way too easy. Besides, don't forget that Malkin is of Philippine origin which is important for two reasons----1) it makes her a minority; 2) the Japanese were beyond brutal in their treatment of Philippinos and other fellow Asians (in William Manchester's biography of Douglas MacArthur, American Caesar, he detailed how Japanese soldiers would gouge out the eyes of Philippino babies and throw the ophthalmologic residue against walls for sport; in China even Nazi officials had to come to the rescue of Chinese during the "Rape of Nanking").

As for your comment on Limbaugh, you stooped to a personal insult to dismiss him because of his addiction to pain-killing drugs, a very common phenomenon in America today. I would ask you or anyone how does Rush Limbaugh's political and economic philosophy differ in any concrete way from that of the Founding Fathers. Limbaugh is hardly far-right. He's about as mainstream conservative as you can get. The fact that you think otherwise just once again proves to me how far left liberalism has gone since the 1960s.

Monk, So, you're a jew first. then you should have no problem with muslims who as we all know are muslims first. Therefore when they do the things they do to advance sharia and islamic hegemony you shouldn't have a problem with that. Hmmmmm?

"Limbaugh is hardly far-right. He's about as mainstream conservative as you can get. The fact that you think otherwise just once again proves to me how far left liberalism has gone since the 1960s."

If Limbaugh is mainstream (and I have to say I've never heard him designated as such before), I shudder to think what far-right is.

As for the painkillers comment: that was perhaps more frustration speaking than anything--I apologize if it was insulting. However, Limbaugh himself isn't above insulting his opponents. (some of said insults are quite humorous, and I do at times get a chuckle out of them; but many go too far). As I said, I hardly consider Limbaugh a moderate. But I guess we'll always disagree there.

...anyway, we both oppose jihad. That's what counts, I guess.

Monk, So, you're a jew first. then you should have no problem with muslims who as we all know are muslims first. Therefore when they do the things they do to advance sharia and islamic hegemony you shouldn't have a problem with that. Hmmmmm?

Posted by: imamerican
--------------------------------------

Imamerican,

There is a real difference. A Jew (or a Christian) is required to be obedient to the authorities as long as they don't require us to violate our faiths. A clear example are the martyrs who died rather than violate Torah when required to do so by Antochius Epiphanes or the Prophet Daniel who was thrown to the lions for the same reason.

As long as a government, like the US or Britian, allows Jews to be observant they are completely loyal... indeed, the greatest of patriots. Unlike the Muslims who want to "advance sharia and islamic hegemony" no Jew seeks to impose the laws of Torah on Gentiles.

If Muslims simply lived in the US or other countries and peacefully followed their religion as a free society allows, we would have no problem with them. The issue is that their religion/ideology does not recognize the legitimacy of any non-Ilsamic government and requires them to wage jihad in order to impose Sharia on the rest of us. There is no moral equivalence.

Wellington wrote:

“I would ask you or anyone how does Rush Limbaugh's political and economic philosophy differ in any concrete way from that of the Founding Fathers.”

RoobartSbunsar replied:

“As I said, I hardly consider Limbaugh a moderate. But I guess we'll always disagree there.”

Roobart,

Please take a moment to reflect on Wellington’s statement above. Can you now tell us, SPECIFICALLY, exactly how it is incorrect?

A take, from Accuracy In Media...
http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5947_0_3_0_C/
by Cliff Kincaid

AutoZone,
Citrix,
TrustedID,
JCPenney,
OfficeMax
Wal-Mart
AT&T.

..... Avoid these corporate dhimmis like plague, and let them know. Merry Christmas!

Dave,

I'm a fairly straight-line conservative myself (but a pro-sustainable-growth tree-hugger who thinks global warming may a chance to cut Dar al-Islam's petroprofits); still, I say it's off-topic to debate Rush Limbaugh's philosophy here today.

On with Counterjihad. Deus vult!

John C,

I'll take your point, sometimes I get distracted by idiots.

Kill the Jihadi, educate the Muslim.

As you say "Deus vult!"


Greybeard,

I sought a distinctive watchword to use, not an original one. Pope Innocent II closed his call for the First Crusade with the rallying cry, "Deus vult!"--"God wills it!"-- and the people responded, "Deus (lo) vult!"

"DEUS VULT" was the war-cry of the First Crusaders.

I think it works as an exclaimation and emphatic self-parodying affirmation.

Correction: Pope URBAN II

Thank you John C, I looked it up myself before I replied.

A war cry, elegant and shining in its simplicity,
Yet magnificent and robust –
An ancient weapon to wield once more
Against the skulking dragon
That spews its evil stink
Upon our fair land - yet again!

DEUS VULT!

DGB,

It even rattles NASEEM's cage!







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
Crucified Again by Raymond IbrahimDavid LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter