My take on Savage V CAIR

by Infidelesto on December 4, 2007 · Comments

Well, another advertiser has caved to the Religion of Tolerance pressure group, CAIR. Universal Orlando Resorts became the latest Dhimmi company to drop all advertising on Savages radio program. The list includes:

Savage is fighting back though, filing a lawsuit against CAIR that is sure to make headlines for many weeks to come. This is the first time anybody has stood up to the Islamic lobby group who has been called the “legal arm of Al-Qaeda”. If you’re wondering what Savage actually said, here’s a short video of his comments: via Mosquewatch

I am an avid Savage listener, and I think most people don’t understand the entertainment, satirical, sarcastic aspect of his show. In the same way that Rush has a satirical arrogance to him when he constantly boasts about “running America”, some of it to an extent is true, but he makes fun of it because he thinks it’s ridiculous himself. That’s what Savage does as well. There’s some truth to his satire, but you understand when he is being serious and when he is being satirical for the sake of entertainment.

I commend Laura Ingraham, Jerry Doyle, and the rest of the conservative talk shows who’ve stood up for Savage on this issue. But, as an avid talk radio listener, I am really disheartened to see some of the big conservative talk radio shows be silent on this issue. Rush, Hannity, Hewitt, Medved, Oreilly, WHERE ARE YOU? I’ve heard nothing from these leading conservatives about the Savage v CAIR case. Why? Why haven’t they stood up for Savage? Sure they don’t always agree on things, but why be silent? for politics? for personal reasons?

I’m really annoyed to not hearing anything about this from them. I know they read the front page of Drudge and that’s where this case was a few days ago. Laura Ingraham had the decency to talk about it but where are all the other conservative talk show hosts that we so look up to? Sure Savage is on the fringe sometimes when it comes to his political views, but that doesn’t take away the fact that he’s still a conservative.

Do they not understand that this is the first of many? If CAIR is successful in this case, who do you think will be next? If they know they can crush any critical analysis of Islam on the air, what’s to stop them from going after some of the other big dogs in talk radio? And let me add that Savage IS A BIG DOG in talk radio, over 8 million listeners a week.

CAIR will, no doubt, go after the next conservative talk show host who says something critical of Islam. They will go one at a time, re-defining how ANYONE in the media speaks or discusses Islam. If we can’t get conservatives to stick together, regardless of their political viewpoints, we are in deep trouble.

CAIR is without a doubt the most dangerous Islamic organization in America. They are single handedly crushing any critical analysis of Islam with their frivolous lawsuits and pressure tactics. They continue to be legitimized by the mainstream American left-leaning media. They continue to operate by the Saudi funded Wahhabi sect of Islam that is sweeping this country. They are supported and defended by all “human rights” organizations who blindly see Muslims as victims of hate and oppression in America.

They also have the unlikely alliance of the far-left which has swept this nation and deemed the Democrat party useless and ineffective. Liberals are not what they used to be. No longer does a liberal defend free speech unless it is forwarding their own agenda. The unholy alliance between far-left groups like the ACLU and Islamic organizations like CAIR and the American Muslim Council, is very, very dangerous for America and her sovereignty.

My friends, we are witnessing a slow infiltration of the American legal system. We are blindly allowing political correctness to supercede and rational thought of what is happening in this country. This case between Savage and CAIR is ONLY the beginning.

This is a battle that our children will have to wage if we don’t start doing it ourselves. Sadly, the baby boomer hippies have taken this country down a dark dark path. If we don’t stand up to this obvious invasion of Legal Islamic Sharia, we will have nothing left. We will have no free speech.

Can you imagine an American society where saying anything critical of Islam is a “hate crime” but saying anything critical of Christianity is revered as “free-analytical-critical thinking”???

That’s where we are today, folks. That’s how deranged the far-left has become. sad, sad, sad

The Axis of Evil inside America: the Far-left agenda combined with the Islamic Lobby

Infidels beware, it’s only going to get worse…

Want automatic updates?
4 choices: Twitter, Facebook, RSS feed or get daily email updates
  • The latest: The national press is reporting that our brave and courageous Mr. Savage has now pulled out of any further appeals of is lawsuit. He claims that death threats made him do this:

    http://cbs5.com/local/michael.savage.lawsuit.2.796005.html

    How convenient.
    What made him quit his lawsuit was that it is totally baseless and frivolous and the further up he would have gone in the appeals process the louder the laughs would have gotten from the bench.
    If Michael Savage was 1/10th the champion of free speech that he has spent the last 6 months touting himself to be, he'd be willing to risk his life in the face of death threats, just as our brave men and women in the U.S. armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan do every day.
    But does anyone really believe the death threats story? Michael Savage is a whimp and a coward who promoted a lawsuit that, had it been successful, would have reduced the scope of free speech for everyone in America.
  • um, Tony, ....newflash? I brought up the fairness doctrine because I'm ALREADY AWARE OF WHAT IT MEANS hence me reiterating that it's "as socialist as you can get" because the fairness doctrine is a socialist document.... you didn't clarify yourself until after your initial mention.  And, again,  thank you for doing so.

    Tony, you're right this is silly.  Until you learn the definition of "sarcasm" I will have to suppress your right to free speech on this blog...
  • Okay.  This is getting silly.

    Until you actually learn the difference between the "Fair Use" Doctrine and the "Fairness" Doctrine, I really don't know how I can continue dialoging with you.
  • Um, Tony, thanks for the definition of the fairness doctrine...cause I really had no idea what it was...</sarcasm>

    Well, I don't know that I've ever been repeatedly accused of "suppressing the fair use doctrine" , "supporting Islamofascists" and  being "ideologically close to Nancy Pelosi", but I guess I can go ahead and laugh at that one...your comments are comical, Tony.  Thanks for clarifying your comments about the fairness doctrine, though.  You obviously did not make yourself clear. 

    How you came to the conclusion that I do not support free speech, you are lost in another world, dude...again, FREE SPEECH HAS LIMITS.  Maybe you should (as you obsessively repeat over and over) re-read my statement and retract what you said and admit that you're wrong... lol

    As far as being Ideologically close to Nancy Pelosi... The simple fact that you refuse to read anything about me or my blog shows how (and forgive me for the insulting language) ignorant you are.  I'm suppressing free speech? We're still having this conversation aren't we?

    Just because we disagree about the Savage case, does not mean that your claims that I am a left-wing raging socialist liberal who supports Islamofascsism and supports suppressing free speech...

    btw, don't be so obsessed about getting your counterpart to admit something.   You were vague about your fairness doctrine comments so don't pretend like you articulated yourself well...
  • Infidelesto:

    The "Fair Use Doctrine" is a completely different kettle of fish than the "Fairness Doctrine".  Despite the similarity in their names, they are about 180 degrees different from one another.

    The "Fair Use Doctrine" expands free speech.  It is the result of both Supreme Court decisions and an Act of Congress.  It spells out the conditions under which those practising free speech can include in that speech the copyrighted material of others.

    The "Fairness Doctrine" -- a horrible policy which people like Nancy Pelosi supports -- restricts free speech.  It is a proposal whereby radio and other media outlets will be required, by law, to provide what is deemed by Liberals to be other points of view that must be heard (ie., THEIR point of view).  The Fairness Doctrine is an infringement and a violation of free speech and must be combatted by all freedom-loving Americans.

    Please reread what I wrote because I only talked about the "Fair Use Doctrine", Infidelesto.  You have obviously mixed up the two.  Once you understand the difference, get back to us here, tell us you acknowledge your mistake, and stand corrected.  Thanks.
    As for sedition, I very well may agree with you regarding CAIR.  But -- and correct me if I'm wrong here -- Michael Savage is NOT an employee of the FBI and a civil lawsuit is NOT the correct medium through which to bring CAIR to justice.  Let Savage apply for and become an FBI agent or a U.S. attorney if he wants to prosecute CAIR for this crime.
    You write that I sound like Islamists in Britain. May I suggest, Infidelesto, that you consider that it is YOUR position on this issue that is closer to those of the Islamo-Fascists.  You see, both you and the Islamo-Fascists are for suppressing freedom of speech.  As such, you and they are anti-American.

    You are also ideologically close to Nancy Pelosi who, like you, wants to restrict free speech.  Pelosi wants to do it through the Fairness Doctrine; you through the supression of the Fair Use Doctrine, one of the greatest tools freedom has.
  • @Tony Kondaks:
    Wow, how the hell can you say you support Free speech while bringing up the fairness doctrine as being legitimate???Are you freaking kidding me?

    and then start calling people "leftists"??? bwahahah! You can't get much more socialist than the fairness doctrine...

    Oh and about CAIR, have you ever heard of Sedition? CAIR could very well be brought up on sedition charges if we were ever able to see where their money comes and goes. Let me remind you that several CAIR leaders have already been convicted of terrorism, if you don't believe it, check www.anti-cair-net.org

    Think about it, when you have a well funded organization in America saying stuff like this:

    “I swear by Allah that war is deception,”... “We are fighting our enemy with a kind heart ... Deceive, camouflage, pretend that you’re leaving while you’re walking that way. Deceive your enemy ...” "Politics Is A Completion Of War" -CAIR

    or maybe this from CAIR's founder Omar Ahmad:

    "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

    You must deem yourself stupid defending this kind of rhetoric while knowing the obvious.

    You see Tony, political free speech is protected under the first amendment, but Sedition is a term of law which refers to covert conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.
    It's called political Jihad against the Constitution, the American government body, and the judeo christian value system this country has held since we became independent.

    Guess what Tony? Sedition is a CRIME.

    You see, Tony, you sound more like the dhimmi's of the United kingdom who are letting their country get overrun by radical Islamists, allowing radical Imam's to preach hatred and violence towards the West, while still being defended by multicultural morons like you who "will die to defend their speech".....

    I have no doubt you would,Tony, die defending the enemie's speech....That's pathetic and sad and we call that Dhimmitude. purposely allowing one's own destruction for the sake of a misguided and radical principle.

    Please use some common sense, Tony...there are LIMITS.
  • Dear Infidelesto,

    Thank you for your "Moron" comment.  You seem to be overly sensitive by my calling you a "Leftist".  I usually don't resort to name-calling and I wouldn't have called you a "Leftist" despite your leftist-like behavior (Leftists love to curtail everyone's free speech but their own, something you obviously support).  But I made an exception in your case because you were so eager to pepper your responses to my initial posts by hurling your nasty little insults my way.  I direct your attention to the series of exchanges you and I have had on this forum so that you can remind yourself of the name-calling you engaged in at my expense: "ignorant", "dyslexic", "moron". 

    Tell me: did I call YOU names?
    As for your comments of 8-29-08: you wrote that "CAIR was sued for using copyrighted material to spread disinformation for the purpose of pressuring advertisers into puling their sponsorships."

    You see, Infidelisto, America is such a great country that we even extend free speech to terrorist sympathising Islamists such as CAIR.  Here's the idea: if we can have a free marketplace of ideas and a free exchange of opinions between opposing viewpoints, a greater truth and a greater knowledge will arise as a result.  Both Congress (through their passage of the Fair Use Doctrine) and the Supreme Court have determined that reproducing snippets of others' copyrighted materials is absolutely essential in order to have that free interchange of ideas.

    When those we disagree with are prohibited from reproducing portions of our copyrighted materials -- as Savage was attempting to do -- freedom as a whole is the loser.  You and I are the losers.

    I probably disagree with 100% of what CAIR says.  Yet I will defend until my death their right to say it.  If CAIR is defaming Savage, Savage doesn't have to resort limiting your's and my free speech in order to do it.  That's a completely separate issue from free speech and Savage is a complete hypocrite for donning the mantle of free speech advocate when he is, in fact, doing everything he can to limit everyone's free speech.
    If CAIR is spreading disinformation (something, by the way, that perfectly within the bounds of free speech), Savage has a bully pulpit 5 nights a week in order to set the record straight.  He doesn't have to run to the courts crying like a baby into the aprons of his mother.  This is, simply, frivolous, and an abuse of the court system.
    May I also suggest that like Kal-El, you should also read up on the Fair Use Doctrine.  It really isn't a complicated issue.  That Savage was ruled against was a forgone conclusion.  Had he won it just would have been overturned on appeal anyway.  Indeed, the case should never have been accepted by the court in the first place.
    Savage says he is appealing the verdict.  I will be very surprised if the Appeals Court accepts the case.  If they do it will be an insult to freedom.
  • Hi Kal-El,

    Sorry for the delay in responding to your 7-29-08 posting.
    Savage was trying to curtail free speech because had he been successful in his lawsuit against CAIR, this would have set a precedent that would have severely limited anyone's right to reproduce portions of people's copyrighted material in order to comment upon it.  CAIR used snippets of Savage's copyrighted material in precisely the manner envisioned by Congress when they enacted the "Fair Use" Doctrine.
    As to your suggestion that CAIR was attempting to silence Savage: CAIR cannot silence Savage because Savage has the right to free speech. 

    CAIR has every right, however, to attempt to influence Savage's advertisers in order to both hurt him financially (by getting advertisers to pull advertising from his show) and, by doing so, get him off the air.

    But getting Savage off the air is not limiting his right to free speech; if that were the case, you and I and every other American would have the right to a syndicated radio program with 8 million listeners each week over dozens of radio stations across the country.  The First Amendement doesn't guarantee LISTENERS to our speech; it only guarantees our right to speech. 

    If CAIR were ever able to succeed in getting Savage off the air through their reproduction of parts of his broadcasts, Savage could still say exactly whatever he wanted Monday to Friday for 5 hours a day just as if he had a microphone in front of him with 8 million listeners.  That's curtailing Savage's listeners and his income, NOT his free speech.

    Did you read my essay at the link I provided?  I go into more detail there.  I also suggest you google "Fair Use Doctrine" as well as Wikipedia which has an excellent explanation.
  • @Tony, don't be a moron.  Read my about page if you think I'm acting like a leftist...

    I pride myself on debating leftists everyday.  CAIR was sued for using copyrighted material to spread disinformation for the purpose of pressuring advertisers into puling their sponsorships.  Savage had every right to sue for defamation purposes and to expose CAIR for who they truly are...a front group for Hamas who's goal is to propagate political Islamism in the United States. 
    CAIR is an organization comprised of terrorist sympathizing Islamists who despise American values and our Constitution.  One day CAIR will get their due...just wait
  • Kal_El
    How was Savage trying to curtail freedom? CAIR used copyright material in an attempt to silence Savage, even calling on companies to boycott him for his negative opinion of islam, an opinion I share.
  • I didn't SAY you were a lefist, I said that you were acting like a leftist.
    Leftists hate freedom and do what they can to curtail it; by your support of Savage, you were doing the same thing.
    Thank God justice prevailed.
  • @Tony Kondaks: I'm a leftist? wow, you really don't read this blog...
  • Aw, poor little Michael Savage lost his lawsuit against CAIR.  Thank God.
    Had Savage prevailed, freedom under the first amendment would have been reduced for all of us.
    Michael Savage, enemy of free speech:
     

     
    http://tinyurl.com/27ladx

    Hey, Infidelesto, aren't you going to comment on the wonderful success of the Savage lawsuit and its assault on the freedoms we hold dear?  By his support of Savage, Infidelesto has shown himself to be just like the typical Leftist who will use any occasion to stifle freedom.
  • Tony Kondaks
    Am I to assume then that you haven't looked at any of the links I provided. Okay. I must then assume that both you and Jeff only want to accuse CAIR of sedition without providing any basis whatsoever for that charge.

    What I do conclude from your continual rant is that you want to remove CAIR's right to free speech. They have every right in the world to lobby Savage advertisers to pressure them to not sponsor his show. If you feel their reasons are wrong, you are as free as they are to put counter-pressure upon those same advertisers, which apparently you are already doing.

    The quote that you provide that CAIR feels that "the Koran...should be the ihighest authority in America" is not anywhere near evidence of sedition. If it was, 50 million fundamentalist Christians who feel that the Bible should be a higher authority than the U.S. constitution would be filling our jails. You're going to have to do better than that, Infidelesto.

    You, sir, seem very quick to remove freedoms from people. Why is that?
  • Tony you are so far out in left field, I don't know where to begin.

    What you don't understand is that CAIR is PRESSURING ADVERTISERS to stop advertising on his show, and they're doing it by using un-authorized airtime to publicly distort what he's saying taking everything out of context. CAIR is doing nothing but trying to silence anyone who is critical of Islam. What's to stop them from going after the other major radio show hosts after they're done with Savage? Answer: nothing. That's why savage must take a stand against this terrorist front group NOW. Savage is one of the few in the media to actually stand up to their pressure tactics, trying to change our culture and law by defaming anyone who is critical of their religion.

    You, again, show how ignorant you are by not even having a clue what Sharia law is. I don't have time to educate you on the threats of Islam, but you might want to start at faithfreedom.org

    Oh and you wonder where CAIR makes such statements about instituting Sharia law to the U.S.? Here's a famous quote from the FOUNDER of CAIR

    "If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." ---Omar Ahmad, Co-Founder of CAIR.

    Or this one by CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Cooper, ""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...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education.""

    I suggest you go read www.anti-cair-net.org and read about how several leaders of this organization have already been convicted of terrorism not to mention the fact that CAIR themselves have been labeled an un-indicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy land foundation
  • Tony Kondaks
    Dear Infidelesto,

    I take it that you haven't yet visited the links that I posted? I still urge you to as I am still eager to hear whether you will feel the same way about Savage's Cause of Action after you do. Oh, and here's another link for you to consider:

    http://tinyurl.com/275cmt

    Jeff: I am not very familiar with "Sharia Law", as you call it. You write above that CAIR is calling for Sharia Law over the constitution. Could you please (1) be kind enough to document for me where they are saying this; and (2) tell us why calling for Sharia Law over the Constitution constitutes sedition. Since you are so up to date on the law of sedition in the United States you are obviously aware that no one has been charged under this law in the United States since 1961...so please tell us why CAIR will be deserving of prosecution in this area.
  • Tony Kondaks , cair has the right too free speech, but it ends when they call for sharia law over the Constitution. That is called sedition. I take the side of Savage on this, cair can go straight too hell, and anyone, anyone that calls for the islamic rule above the Constitution should be booted out of this Land or put in gitmo. I don't care. I'm sick of the Muslims in this land preaching the death of America and we bend over backwards, grab our ankles and take it. No longer can we be sheep ready for slaughter. While we sit back and teach our children "heather has 2 mommies" muslims hide in their conclaves and neighborhoods in their mosques planning our death. INTOLERABLE !!
  • Tony Kondaks
    Dear Infidelesto,

    Have you read Savage's Cause of Action for Copyright Infringement? It's chock full of nonsense. If you haven't seen it yet, pleaseread it at: http://www.savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_s... .

    CAIR may be out to put a bomb under my mother's sofa, for all I know, and they may be out to Islamicize America and completely stifle free speech for everyone except Muslims. But until they do, they have every right to freedom of expression according to the rule of law. They also have the right to put economic pressure on whomever they like to combat what they perceive as anti-Islamic bigotry on the part of Michael Savage...this, again, is an American right which has served us in this country since its founding (remember a certain tea incident?).

    You say "no where in his case is he trying to silence CAIR." Well, he's certainly trying to collect damages from CAIR for expressing their right to speak. I would call that attempting to silence them, wouldn't you? Or, at the very least, make them pay a cost for expressing their free speech that no one should have to bear for expressing their God-given rights. Savage's suit is so ridiculous that I will be surprised if it isn't thrown out of court.

    Indeed, you should be afraid for your freedoms if this suit does succeed because it will set a precedent for stiflling our right to unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material that was NOT envisioned by the fair use doctrine (which, by the way, makes up not a substantial portion of the U.S. economy...can you say "Google"?).

    You say I shouldn't comment until I actually hear what's happening in this case. Well, may I ask the same of you? Please visit the above link, as well as the following links on what the fair use doctrine is (it shouldn't take too long to read them). The first is a great article on what the fair use doctrine is; the second is an analysis of the Savage/CAIR case that pretty well discards any notion that Savage has a snowball's chance in hell to win. Then, please, get back to me and tell me whether you still think that CAIR is not entitled to have done what they did and whether Savage has initiated a completely frivolous lawsuit:

    http://www.publaw.com/work.html

    http://www.freedomforip.org/blog.html (scroll down to the article "Free Speech v. Copyright, Michael Savage v. CAIR)

    Sincerely,

    Tony Kondaks
  • @Tony - Please spare the ignorance. CAIR is the most evil terrorist organization on Earth? So what would that make Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or the Taliban who've committed some of the worst terrorist attacks on earth against their own people and the western world.

    CAIR has the right to free speech?
    Savage is attempting to silence them?

    Are you dyslexic?

    Why do I have to be the one to inform the morons of the world who refuse to even pay attention to the facts of the case. Don't waste my time by trying to educate you and your worthless comment.

    let me remind you of the facts of the case. CAIR is trying to take Savage off the air by pressuring his advertisers to withdraw all advertising which could eventually take him off the air, so who's trying to silence who? who's trying to silence freedom of speech?

    Savage is suing CAIR for copyright infringment. No where in his case is he trying to "silence" CAIR. I'm appalled you have the nerve to make such backwards claims.

    CAIR is anti-freedom because they want to silence anyone who is critical of Islam. Islam is fundamentally anti-freedom and all Savage os doing is defending his right to speak freely over the airwaves, even if it does offend some muslims.

    Do you actually believe what you're saying or are you just trying to get a rise by completely flip-flopping the facts of the case. Please don't bother making a comment until you actually here what is happening in the case and not what's on the latest Islamic Jihad blog.
  • Tony Kondaks
    CAIR may be the most evil terrorist organisation on Earth but until convicted of any crimes they have the right to free speech and Savage is attempting to silence their freedom via a frivolous lawsuit that will be thrown out of court. Anyone supporting Savage in this endeavor are anti-freedom and should be ashamed of themselves.
  • you are contradicting yourself so bad, I don't even know where to start. Your completely missing the point.

    you said: "I must say that what has America come to when a
    company can not make their own decisions based on who they chose to advertise with"

    You're exactly right, why did you let the pressure of the Islamist front group, CAIR, tell you who you should or shouldn't advertise with? Surely you wouldn't have dropped advertising of the show if not first pressured by CAIR, would you? why didn't you stand up to them and say "free speech is Savage's right".

    you aid "Since when do we not have the right of Freedom of Speech"

    are you listening to yourself? you should be DEFENDING savage's right to free speech and NOT EMBOLDENING those who wish to take it away. You liberals are so backwards it baffles me.
  • Don'tWorry
    I work for one of the major companies that has decided to pull their advertising from Savage Nation; however, I am very liberal when it comes to polictics. I must say that what has America come to when a company can not make their own descions based on who they chose to advertise with. This almost feels like christians believe christianity should be a uniformed religion accross the board, and anything but is untolerable. Since when do we not have the right of Freedom of Speech, and Seperation between church and state? I simply think that each American who is choosing to condone corporations because they choose to excerise their right as a company not to advertise or affiliate themselves with certain organizations or sponsors. It is our right.
  • I think Savage may have burned bridges with them personally, at least that's what my gut says. Otherwise, there's no logical reason for their silence. It's too bad, because we should really have unity on this.
  • Swamp Rabbit
    I totally agree.
blog comments powered by Disqus