You know when CAIR sees lists like this they become like rabid dogs foaming at the mouth.

Because it means Spencer's message is getting out among the public, something CAIR most assuredly doesn't want.

And CAIR's attack dog Hooper, well let him spew his lies, it doesn't work on a lot of us who only have to read about the violence committed daily in the name of Islam and Mohomet.

The Muslim community is doing a good job at giving itself a black eye and many reasons why no sane country should allow Muslims in.

Posted by: waltc at August 15, 2007 8:31 PM

"Mr. Gin and Mr. Tonic"

-LOL

Posted by: mrockroll1969 at August 15, 2007 8:46 PM

waltc- was my first thought also when I saw this list.

Ibby Hooper sitting at his desk whining
"....how come they always call that guy and don't ask me to play along..whaaaa...whaaaa....whaaaa"

On a more serious note... I did not get to listen to any other of the radio shows today. I am grateful Robert posted the audio clip from Laura Ingraham. But I wonder if all these interviews are in a debate format with someone from the "other side" always sitting there and given time to speak.

I noted today that Dr. Esmiel was given alot more airtime than Robert and Ingraham had to interrupt him to give Robert time to speak. Esiel just hogged as much airtime as he was allowed and went off on every inconceivable tangent as if working under a principle that the more I speak the less he (Robert) speaks.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at August 15, 2007 9:01 PM

No Glenn Beck?

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at August 15, 2007 9:59 PM

Don't forget-lots of lime with the Bombay Sapphire

Posted by: DetectiveArbogast at August 15, 2007 10:12 PM

KAOSKTRL,

I agree. I am as disappointed as you are. Maybe I'll try to improve upon Traeh's initiative, send Beck a copy, that is of course if he ever actually returns to work.

Posted by: awake at August 15, 2007 11:00 PM

awake, if you do send Beck a copy, maybe leave a comment letting us know over at www.jihadawareness.blogspot.com

I hope people will come up with improvements on my initiative. Anything, just so we can maximize effectiveness.

Right now I'm researching citizen lobbying and trying to find out the best way to get a book mailing to congress noticed. I came across a lefty website that has gotten people to send to Nancy Pelosi like a hundred copies of a book arguing for the impeachment of George Bush. All the copies to Nancy Pelosi alone. Many of the copies were sent with an individualized letter urging Pelosi to push impeachment. Apparently still more copies are going to be mailed to her. Well, that strategy hasn't gotten an impeachment going. But that doesn't mean the strategy hasn't hurt Bush, and if it has, then as far as the lefties are concerned, it has been at least a partial success. But one would have to do a little empirical research to try to learn how ineffective or influential the strategy really was on Pelosi and her associates.

I'm thinking that perhaps the Spencer book mailing should be accompanied with a request for immigration legislation along the lines Spencer has suggested a few times -- a moratorium on visas for people from Muslim countries, because it's impossible to distinguish jihadists and proponents of Islamic law from "moderate" Muslims. Spencer mentions making exceptions for non-Muslim refugees and so on. I have to ferret out the details of Spencer's position on immigration, because I'm pretty sure many of the little details in his position are there for definite reasons. Specifically, I assume he has been talking to legislators or constitutional scholars and getting advice on how the legislation would have to be formulated to pass constitutional muster (i.e., not be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutionsl). The First Amendment's non-establishment and free exercise clauses could easily kill poorly formulated legislation on excluding Muslim immigration. I've seen a few people on the jihad watch threads criticize Spencer's formulations of possible immigration legislation, but I think those critics were not aware of the constitutional obstacles that have to be considered.

Posted by: traeh at August 16, 2007 2:11 AM