| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
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”
Posted by Robert at November 30, 2007 5:07 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
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.
Posted by: Roxane![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 30, 2007 5:31 PM
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.
at November 30, 2007 5:38 PM
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?
Posted by: alaskan1000 at November 30, 2007 5:41 PM
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"
Posted by: Mr.C at November 30, 2007 5:44 PM
Media Matters "may" turn up as one of the "Does"
Oooooops mis-read your post.
Posted by: Mr.C at November 30, 2007 5:46 PM
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.
;-)
at November 30, 2007 5:51 PM
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.
Posted by: monk at November 30, 2007 5:52 PM
"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.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 30, 2007 5:53 PM
Mr C
Just go to http://www.michaelsavage.com and it will direct you there.
at November 30, 2007 5:57 PM
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.
at November 30, 2007 6:01 PM
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.
at November 30, 2007 6:12 PM
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.
Posted by: Christian at November 30, 2007 6:22 PM
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.
Posted by: monk at November 30, 2007 6:25 PM
Well, for sure Savage will learn a lot more about islam and CAIR before this is over.
at November 30, 2007 6:27 PM
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.
Posted by: Frank at November 30, 2007 6:27 PM
"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?
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 30, 2007 6:28 PM
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
at November 30, 2007 6:33 PM
"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.
Posted by: monk at November 30, 2007 6:42 PM
"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.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 30, 2007 6:45 PM
"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.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 30, 2007 6:48 PM
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.
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at November 30, 2007 6:49 PM
...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?
Posted by: monk at November 30, 2007 6:50 PM
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.
Posted by: John C at November 30, 2007 6:54 PM
"if Stern sued CAIR similarly"
Now, THAT I would love to see.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 30, 2007 6:55 PM
"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.
at November 30, 2007 6:56 PM
Mohammedan barbarians
attack an American Savage.
Let the major battle begin
and let us hope
the best man will win.
at November 30, 2007 6:58 PM
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.
at November 30, 2007 7:00 PM
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.
at November 30, 2007 7:03 PM
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.
Posted by: rishika at November 30, 2007 7:04 PM
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!
Posted by: John C at November 30, 2007 7:05 PM
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.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at November 30, 2007 7:10 PM
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).
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at November 30, 2007 7:30 PM
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.
at November 30, 2007 7:32 PM
"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.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 30, 2007 7:34 PM
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???
Posted by: islamophobe at November 30, 2007 7:35 PM
"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?
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 30, 2007 7:39 PM
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.
at November 30, 2007 7:48 PM
...send him a copy of Mr. Fitzspencer's book, maybe?
Fiztspencer?
Posted by: monk at November 30, 2007 7:49 PM
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?
Posted by: monk at November 30, 2007 7:53 PM
"...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.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 30, 2007 7:54 PM
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
at November 30, 2007 7:57 PM
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?
Posted by: monk at November 30, 2007 8:00 PM
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.
Posted by: Frank at November 30, 2007 8:01 PM
"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?"
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 30, 2007 8:01 PM
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'.
Posted by: Wellington at November 30, 2007 8:02 PM
"do I wish it were Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt or Dennis Prager doing so? You betcha'."
Me too.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
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.
at November 30, 2007 8:05 PM
"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.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 30, 2007 8:07 PM
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.
at November 30, 2007 8:08 PM
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."
at November 30, 2007 8:16 PM
"political prostitutes"
That's the same term Lenin used to describe Trotsky. Kind of relevant, I guess.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 30, 2007 8:17 PM
If Micheal Savage goes through with this lawsuit and wins, it will be the start of the end of CAIR. They are toast.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 30, 2007 8:26 PM
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.
at November 30, 2007 8:32 PM
“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}
at November 30, 2007 8:37 PM
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}
at November 30, 2007 8:39 PM
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
at November 30, 2007 8:41 PM
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.
Posted by: Wellington at November 30, 2007 9:03 PM
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?
Posted by: Pelayo at November 30, 2007 9:25 PM
"Your faith in your Creator must come first, then family, then nationality."
Posted by: monk
----------------------------------
Well said!
Posted by: Provoslavni at November 30, 2007 9:30 PM
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.
Posted by: Provoslavni at November 30, 2007 9:43 PM
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.
Posted by: Frank at November 30, 2007 9:43 PM
God bless, Michael Savage!
Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 30, 2007 9:43 PM
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.
Posted by: champ at November 30, 2007 9:51 PM
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.
Posted by: An_Arbreshe at November 30, 2007 9:52 PM
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.
at November 30, 2007 9:54 PM
I would like to volunteer to be on his security detail.
Posted by: AmericanTiger at November 30, 2007 9:58 PM
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
Posted by: flowerknife_us
at November 30, 2007 10:01 PM
"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
at November 30, 2007 10:03 PM
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.
Posted by: AmericanTiger at November 30, 2007 10:05 PM
"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...
at November 30, 2007 10:15 PM
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%
Posted by: chardonnay at November 30, 2007 10:20 PM
Well thats done, called and emailed Office max, Walmart, JC Penny and Auto zone.
Posted by: Elric66 at November 30, 2007 10:21 PM
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.
at November 30, 2007 10:26 PM
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...
at November 30, 2007 10:28 PM
Fank, I meant denigrate not degenerate. I misspelled a word that realy screwed up the meaning.
Posted by: Pelayo at November 30, 2007 10:35 PM
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.
Posted by: Wellington at November 30, 2007 10:38 PM
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.
Posted by: Roxane at November 30, 2007 10:53 PM
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
Posted by: Pelayo at November 30, 2007 11:07 PM
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.
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..
Posted by: Frank at November 30, 2007 11:12 PM
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.
Posted by: Wellington at November 30, 2007 11:28 PM
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.
Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 30, 2007 11:34 PM
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.
Posted by: Wellington at November 30, 2007 11:39 PM
"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.
at November 30, 2007 11:40 PM
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?
Posted by: champ at November 30, 2007 11:45 PM
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.
Posted by: Brett_McS at November 30, 2007 11:58 PM
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.
Posted by: Wellington at December 1, 2007 12:07 AM
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...
at December 1, 2007 12:08 AM
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.
Posted by: Wellington at December 1, 2007 12:35 AM
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!
Posted by: big-pete at December 1, 2007 12:37 AM
Speaking of CAIR, does anyone have the latest and greatest about the "flying imams" lawsuit trial?
Posted by: awake at December 1, 2007 12:48 AM
Savage is great that suit is incoherent as hell Am I his lawyer?
Posted by: GrennBeck at December 1, 2007 12:51 AM
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.
Posted by: Frank at December 1, 2007 12:57 AM
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.
Posted by: waltc at December 1, 2007 12:58 AM
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...
at December 1, 2007 1:12 AM
Perfect name for the job = SAVAGE!!!
Posted by: champ at December 1, 2007 2:50 AM
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.
Posted by: dgene
at December 1, 2007 2:59 AM
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.
at December 1, 2007 3:02 AM
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.
Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 1, 2007 3:08 AM
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/
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 1, 2007 3:22 AM
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.
at December 1, 2007 3:51 AM
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.
Posted by: rational
at December 1, 2007 4:19 AM
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.
Posted by: monk at December 1, 2007 6:19 AM
"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!!!
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 1, 2007 6:32 AM
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.
at December 1, 2007 6:42 AM
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....
at December 1, 2007 6:48 AM
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?
at December 1, 2007 7:05 AM
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.
at December 1, 2007 7:55 AM
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.
Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at December 1, 2007 7:55 AM
"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.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 1,
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)