Remember how CAIR folded like a snowman in a sauna when Andrew Whitehead's lawyers started asking uncomfortable questions during the discovery process. They seem to have a great deal at stake here, and will be working hard to quash Savage's lawsuit again.
"Michael Savage vows to take Islam fight to Supreme Court: Popular radio host seeks to expose CAIR's 'international funding sources,'" by Aaron Klein for World Net Daily, August 10 (thanks to Doug):
Talk-radio host Michael Savage has announced he will bring his recently dismissed copyright infringement lawsuit against the Council of American-Islamic Relations to the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes of making public the Islamic group's sources of funding.Savage's suit – originally filed in San Francisco district court – alleged CAIR illegally published singled-out quotes and audio excerpts from his show regarding Islam, misappropriated his words and used the clips for its own fundraising purposes, damaging the value of his copyrighted material.
Indeed CAIR last year waged a public campaign using excerpted Savage remarks to urge advertisers to boycott his top-rated program. CAIR stated its campaign successfully resulted in Savage losing $1 million in advertising.
Part of Savage's lawsuit alleged CAIR received millions in foreign funding and that it may have been wrongfully acting as a lobbyist or agent for a foreign government, violating the Islamic group's nonprofit status.
Savage also alleged CAIR was engaged in racketeering, describing the group as a "mouthpiece of international terror" that helped fund the 9-11 attacks, a contention strongly denied by CAIR.
But his lawsuit was tossed last month by San Francisco District U.S. Judge Susan Illston, who ruled it is legal to use excerpts of a public broadcast for purposes of comment and criticism.
Illston, nominated to her position by President Bill Clinton, wrote in her ruling that Savage could try to rewrite the racketeering portion of his suit to better fit the specifics of his case.
Savage's attorney Daniel Horowitz told WND he is reworking the suit to directly address Illston's "respectful" ruling. He said the new suit includes over 200 pages of supporting documents, including 200 pages of transcripts of the meeting in which CAIR was founded.
On his program last week, Savage announced if Illston again rejects his suit, he will bring the case to the higher 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and then to the Supreme Court.
"I'm going to open up this case. I'm going to sue CAIR. I'm bringing a lawsuit back against them. It's going to cost me a fortune. And when Judge Illston rejects it again, which she will do because she's a minion of the Bill Clinton crowd, I'm going to take it over her head and I'm going to go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where again I'm going to hit a stonewall. And then I'm going to take it to the Supreme Court until eventually I force CAIR to describe who their funding sources are," Savage said.
[...]
"Don't you understand what they're doing to this country?" asked Savage. "How they're targeting the Midwest, talk radio, one talk show host at a time? One company at a time? Don't you know that CAIR is going to come for you?"
Continued Savage: "First they came for Michel Savage, and you didn't raise your voice and you laughed. Then they came after Abercrombie and Fitch, and you didn't raise your voice because you weren't in the retail business. Tomorrow they'll come after you and your business."
Addressing CAIR directly, Savage warned: "One day you're going to hit the wrong judge in the wrong city at the wrong time and then the American people are going to find out where your funding is coming from."...
Read it all.
Admirable but seemingly quixotic; in any case, I hope that it helps "Savage Nation" ratings.
Savage is a pit bull and will not relent. CAIR may have very well met its match with this guy. I might add that Savage, somewhat like Daniel Pipes and even George Bush, distinguishes between "Islamism" (radicals who have hijacked a good religion, blah, blah, blah) and Islam. Many who post here at JW, including myself, don't discern a difference, but, what the hell, anything that can marginalize or even eliminate CAIR (and maybe even put Ibrahim Hooper in jail------wow, is that a Christmas wish or what?) has to be supported wholeheartedly by those who love America, the Constitution, democracy, freedom and free-flowing beer. Go Michael.
Susan Yvonne Illston is a San Francisco, California-based judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. She was nominated by President Bill Clinton on January 23, 1995 and confirmed by the Senate on May 25, 1995. Prior to her appointment, she had served in private practice in Burlingame, California. She is a graduate of Duke University and Stanford Law School. She is considered to be a liberal activist judge.
US District Judge Susan Illston Block Law Passed By California Voters Against Sex Offenders
http://missingexploited.com/2006/11/09/us-district-judge-susan-illston-block-law-passed-by-california-voters-against-sex-offenders/
Bravo, Savage. Bravo!
But the worm is in the system: if Savage gets another Clitman appointed judge you know the case goes straight down the loo.
Infiltration! America has to get rid of its 'liberal activist judges'- and a lot of commie & Islamically motivated and financed congressmen (and women)
Infiltration! America has to get rid of its 'liberal activist judges'
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 10, 2008 11:34 PM
Sheik, getting rid of its 'liberal activist judges' is fine but will serve no purpose. The POTUS will appoint more of the same. Real progress lies in electing the right POTUS/commander-in-chief. But Americans are about to elect:
- Mobarak "God d**n America" Obama.
- Juan Hernandez McCain.
Not that 'liberal activist judges' are the problem but see the REAL problem?
I don't listen to Savage any more, but he used to refer to the 9th Circuit as the "9th Jerkit Court of Schlemiels." Hope it doesn't come back to bite him.
Sounds good to me, someone should do it. Good for him.
Alert: I would contend that there is a HUGE difference between the kind of federal judges McCain would appoint versus the kind Obama would. McCain backed and voted for Thomas, Alito and Roberts. Obama would never come close to appointing such judges. He would appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburg type judges all over the place, from federal district level through circuit court level to the Supreme Court. Please reconsider.
Good for Savage. It's time we gave CAIR and their ilk a taste of the same legal intimidation they've been wielding against us Islamophobes.
Please reconsider.
Posted by: Wellington at August 11, 2008 12:15 AM
Like I thought, you are missing the point. Mobarak "God d**n America" Obama and Juan Hernandez McCain do not need 'liberal activist judges' to destroy America.
They can do it without any help, if you see the point.
I hereby submit my nomination for Michael Savage as "American Anti-Dhimmi of the Year" 2008.
The court system needs to be shaken up.
The idea of judges sitting for life has got to be changed - it allows them to go off on their political bents without any accountability and become little tyrants. The general decline in morality of the country includes the bench, which often cannot rule except through a political prism; new rules are needed to control the law-writers.
The regional court judges should not be appointed but rather elected for fixed terms - say 12 years, by the states in the region.
District and Appeals judges should be subject to impeachment not by Washington but by any one of the states in their districts.
He is a great American who is making CAIR sweat.
Alert: Respectfully, I submit to you that you're not seeing a very important point and it is one I've mentioned before here at JW. Judges are appointed for life. There are at least two Supreme Court judges that the next president will appoint, not to mention all the lesser federal judges at the district and circuit levels. Long after McCain and Obama are gone, these appointed judges will still be around. Even assuming we get more realistic politicians in the executive and legislative branches some four, eight, twelve, sixteen years from now, a very liberal judiciary could negate the efforts of these other two branches time and time again. And McCain is far, far more likely to appoint sensible people to the bench who will be strict constructionists and neither legislate from the bench nor bring their relativistic morality into decision making. Think long term.
Also, neither Obama nor McCain are going to destroy America. Harm it perhaps (Obama far more so than McCain), but this country is resilient and has reservoirs of strength that should not be underestimated. Realism is key here as well as long term thinking. Sometimes I sense many who post here at JW want to give up too easily. Resist this impulse. There's no upside to it.
The savage Savage Nation.
I can save Savage a great deal of time and money by announcing here and now that much of CAIRs funding comes from [drumroll please]...
SAUDI ARABIA
Is anyone really surprised by that bit of info?
I suspect that CAIR has two sets of books. Likely, a court order will bring out only the whitewashed set.
I suggest some undercover work to find the actual records.
Michael Savage is crude and rude, and hardly the ideal standard-bearer, but if he wishes to pursue and lay bare the finances of CAIR, this effort should be supported. And he can sometimes be funny, as in this use of that shopworn "first they came for.." that, like other similarly worn-out phrases (as the recently-discussed "speaks truth to power") should no longer be used except in clearly comical fashion:
"First they came for Michel Savage, and you didn't raise your voice and you laughed. Then they came after Abercrombie and Fitch, and you didn't raise your voice because you weren't in the retail business. Tomorrow they'll come after you and your business."
And he, Savage, does so to deliberate quasi-comic effect. At least, I hope it was deliberate. Otherwise...
Here in Zeropaland, we don't even have a man of such standing, like Savage... (I write from Switzerland, paradise for terrorists' funds)
So, whatever he does wrong, the bit he does right is really right...!
CAIR is one head of the hydra, but if nothing's done in Europe too, that will be no good for America...
"Michael Savage is crude and rude"
Yes and he often flip-flops on some of his positions in a maddening fashion. But he does open up for public discussion issues of race, immigration and, of course, Islam that are "forbidden" topics. And no other radio host, neither Limbaugh, Hannity nor anyone else comes even close.
If you want to hear information with a perspective that you will likely not hear anywhere else, listen to Michael Salvage. I support anyone who will try to do something to fight CAIR directly. We need more individuals who are willing to fight CAIR.
Stop Wellington, you had me at the free-flowing beer.lol
This case is going to be presented to the USSC. The 9th Circuit will uphold whatshername's judgment. Then what will the SC do? Who knows. Trying to get a read on the SC is like trying to tell a leftist the truth about islam.
And Savage does not deserve Anti-Dhimmi award. Would he even be suing CAIR if they hadn't gone after him? No. I hope he succeeds, their records need to be opened, but I do not for one second believe he is doing this for any other reason than revenge and ratings. Once this is done, he'll move on, every so often using it to show how he is persecuted and how "tough" he is.
Think twice. It's the only way to defeat the internal forces infernally destroying what we all stand for: morality in relation with ourselves and others. It is our genius for life that will sound the death knell of those who evilly oppose the normal behavior of normal people in a yet to be constructed all-around normal world. JMB
Savage has it wrong; first they (CAIR) came for Michael Graham on WMAL radio in the Washington, DC metro area.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2005/07/007419print.html
eve_anne_gelical - beat me to it. Remember Michael Graham.
The gimmick it appears to survive in talk radio is to commend Islam and its mostly peaceful followers while pointing out some irregularity, like oh, beheading infidels, etc. If its all bash Islam all the time, well, forget it.
What evidence do Muslims have that Islam is peaceful? When they aren't murdering or toruring someone? When they simply "Say" they are peaceful.
History is filled with Islamic hate speech, hate actions, beheadings, intimidation, rules against all non-muslims, hate for Jews, hate for Christians, hate for western culture.
The ONLY reasons there are some who can claim they are peaceful is (1) they don't want to acknowledge what is written in the Koran, or (2) they are just biding their time until they can install sharia law, and worldwide caliphate. Only then will they really be peaceful -- peaceful as sheep grazing in a pasture, not realizing that their fate is the slaughterhouse.
Muslims cannot simply wish away the obvious intolerance they have toward non-muslims, that is spewed out to the world in the form of fatwahs, hate speech, textbooks for children, beheadings, bombings, etc. Although the Nation of Islam is not actually Islam, they have taken from that religion the foundations for their hate as well.
CAIR is exactly what Savage says they are -- a front for Islam, not a group trying to improve relations, but simply to disarm folks in the west with their smooth talking BS about being peaceful.
Islam also appeals to prisoners, who want to destroy society, and are looking for a brotherhood, much like inner city gang youth -- bottom line -- I hope the truth about CAIR is exposed, but I also hope that the truth about Islam is better understood for what it is.
The biggest mistake made by the US government is to call Islam peaceful, and the second biggest mistake is to title this war as "a war against terrorism" -- it's not against terrorism, it's against Islamic terrorism, and as a result, against their hateful and harmful religion.
Savage is right, this is a constitutional issue.
The federal courts must not allow a foreign government - esp. an oppressive one with no free speech rights - to inhibit our constitutional right of free speech just because it has the money to subsidize intimidation through limitless frivolous lawsuits.
I tune into The Savage Nation sometimes because Savage is entertaining. He also makes some very good points.
I don't know the amount of donations to his legal defense fund, but I bet neither Limbaugh or Hannity contributed to it. The conservative talk show world turned their collective backs on him, when they should be shouldering some of his support.
They are the fakes.
At least Savage is real.
He's sticking out his neck and lots of his own money.
He's another American with 'true grit', because he refuses to roll over, belly up, and play dead.
Those other guys are dead men walking (talking) because they lost their grit, if they ever really had any.
Kudo's to Savage and brickbats to those other guys, who ever they are...
I don't agree with everything Savage says, but good for him on this. Expose CAIR for what they are!
If you are going to the Supreme court . I would like to go with you.
The judicial system here is already waving a Saudi flag but what is more surprising is that we don't have more jewish lawyers taking a stand against CAIR.
No doubt some of the money comes from Saudi Arabia but also from all those brilliant doctors, businessmen living in this country, making a fortune using this money to turn against us.
On Sept 11,they used our own planes as bombs, now they are making here the very dollar that they are going to use to destroy us.
we need more Mr Savage , more Joe Kaufman to stand against Cair...
to Jimmy Bones
I dont know where you are from but we have the same idea and are trying to start a lobby here to change not only the status of judges but to challenge their immunity.
we are looking for more fans interesting in that club.
It is time to start rolling against those sitting judges .... and remove the glue from the bench they are sitting on..
a few of our life time members lost the election in the primary on August 7 ,but they are determined to keep the fight.
to Jimmy Bones
I dont know where you are from but we have the same idea and are trying to start a lobby here to change not only the status of judges but to challenge their immunity.
we are looking for more fans interesting in that club.
It is time to start rolling against those sitting judges .... and remove the glue from the bench they are sitting on..
a few of our life time members lost the election in the primary on August 7 ,but they are determined to keep the fight.
Jimmy Bones and Tartine, federal judges are not entirely immune. They can be impeached by Congress, just like the President, for "high crimes and misdemeanors", which means basically whatever Congress wants it to mean. I don't know if any of the Supremes have ever been impeached, but a number of lower-court judges have been impeached and removed from the bench, usually for corruption.
to Ebonystone
Yes, we tried , went in front of the legislature
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA0C7_3lwe0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49PLqdECp60
One member of the committee offered to impeach the judge
so far . it did not happen. The judiciary sent the judge in front of a panel. still nothing.
The truth is that predatory lawyers are buying their way in the court room and rule it. They dont care about the law. This particular judge broke as many laws as a priest can bless..... it does not matter.
Same thing as Mr Savage , it is all manipulated by the democrats.
One young republican representative is now trying to reopen the impeachment . He is fighting the devil.
I think the whole system should be revised.
I am a fan of the French system. 2 different sorts of justice..... the sitting one which is the judge and the standing one the lawyer.
if you chose to be a judge , it should be a choice after law school and you should receive another special training and judges should be paid by the city or the state.(ecole de la magistrature)
and they must be supervised by a committee.
Lawyers in private practice should never be able to become a judge.
and their fees especially in family court should be regulated.(some of those bills should be framed)
This is just some thoughts....in order to avoid the mess and the corruption .. but I know that the justice problem in on the blackboard. One law teacher at Vanderbilt ( an imported one , not a local)is working on it. He needs some support.