Sunday, 30 December 2007

POLL COMIX

Ken Berwitz

As ron paul continues to do well with the online crowd - either in spite of or because of the love affair nazi and White supremacist groups have for him - it is important to note that things are just as whacky on the Democrat side. 

Here is an example, courtesy of the Dennis Kukucinich campaign:

Kucinich the Surprise Winner in Virginia Dems Poll

Fri Dec 28, 8:07 PM ET

To: POLITICAL EDITORS

Contact: National Press Officer: Tom Staudter, +1-914-762-0097, staudter@verizon.net, National Campaign HQ: Andy Juniewicz, +1-216-409-8992, ajuniewicz@aol.com, or Washington, D.C.: Sharon Manitta, +1-202-506-6683, Sharon.manitta@kucinich.us, all of Kucinich for President 2008

WASHINGTON, Dec. 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The strong showing of grassroots support for Ohio Congressman and Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich continues to be evident across the United States, as the people's choice has just earned another victory in an online poll, this time sponsored by the Democratic Party of Virginia.

With the voting ended and the results of nearly 7000 responses in, Kucinich captured first place with 30% of the votes. Hillary Rodham Clinton followed in second place with 27% of the votes, and the rest of the Democratic contenders lined up under in totals under 15%.

The Democratic Party of Virginia poll was conducted between December 20 and 23. The question was simple: If the Virginia Democratic presidential primary were held today, which of the six Democratic candidates would you vote for? It should be noted that Chris Dodd was not included in the poll choices because he had not filed with the State Board of Elections by the December 14, 5:00 PM deadline.

Dennis Kucinich was the winner. In fact, even as polling continued past the deadline, Kucinich has maintained his lead over his rivals. This bodes well for the candidate and his supporters across America as the February 12 presidential primary date in Virginia nears, with a substantial 103 delegates at stake. (Results are available at http://www.vademocrats.org.)

"This is a surprise victory for me in some ways, but I don't think it is entirely unexpected," said Kucinich today while campaigning in New Hampshire. "Since the beginning of my campaign I have been talking with people across the United States about the issues that matter most to them -- affordable health care for all Americans, ending the war in Iraq and a return to a truly constitutional government. My vision for this country is really mainstream, and that's why people are turning to me for real leadership."

Just last week Kucinich was the runaway winner in yet another poll of the Democratic Party's progressive, grassroots base, scoring a landslide win by capturing almost 77% of the vote in a nationwide poll sponsored by a coalition of Independent voting groups across the country. Of the more than 80,000 votes cast for Democratic candidates at http://www.independentprimary.com by self-described independent voters, the Ohio Congressman received 61,477 -- more than three times the combined total of all the other candidates.

Also, The Nation, one of the country's leading political publications, concluded an editorial recently by stating, "In his stands on the issues, Dennis Kucinich comes closest to embodying the ideals of this magazine."

SOURCE Kucinich for President 2008 .

So, there's going to be a ron paul/Dennis Kucinich race in 2008, right?  The netroots have spoken, haven't they?

If you say yes, you probably are so deep into the kickapoo joy juice that you probably won't sober up in time to see the real election next November. 

But if you're sober, this may tell you - again - how ridiculous it is to rely on polling and how very especially ridiculous it is to rely on online polling.


FEAR OF JOHN MCCAIN

Ken Berwitz

If there is one candidate that Democrats must truly fear it is John McCain. 

Partly this is because they spent so much time elevating him - first when he was running for the nomination against George Bush in 2000 and then when john kerry was pretending to consider McCain as his vice presidential nominee (an outright fraud if there ever was one). 

They also fear McCain because he has the potential to take so many votes from them in places they would like to think they have locked up.

Maybe this explains some of the utter silliness being pumped out by Democratic loyalists in mainstream media, now that McCain has surged into contention again. 

Want an example?  Ed Morrissey of www.captainsquartersblog.com provides it and then adds some more at the bottom of his post:

Did Reporters Get Born Yesterday?

The dumbest political controversy this week, a prize that one wins with some difficulty, comes unsurprisingly from the Boston Globe. Michael Kranish found it necessary to breathlessly report that John McCain used a proverb that is so well-known that it has probably appeared on tens of thousands of blogs before yesterday. Somehow, however, Kranish and an unnamed reporter on McCain's beat managed to turn it into a nasty personal attack on Mitt Romney:

Asked how he intended to respond [to a Mitt Romney attack], the Arizona Republican said: "Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty -- and the pig likes it."

The back-of-the-bus compartment in which McCain was holding forth went silent for several seconds. Finally, a reporter asked: was McCain comparing Romney to a pig? McCain laughed and paused as he formulated his response: "That was a general philosophical approach to American politics."

No wonder no one takes the media seriously. A quick Google search on a few key words in this phrase comes up with 145,000 hits. According to one site, it has been in use in American politics for at least 60 years, and some even ascribe its use to Abraham Lincoln. It's well-known enough to keep it from rendering a group of supposed experts on politics speechless at its use.

So no, John McCain did not call Mitt Romney a pig. He gave a cliche answer as a demurral from further engagement with Romney in sniping about immigration, and the proverb explained why; it's a battle neither one of them will win, especially in sound bites. Anyone who has graduated from high school before 2007 would have realized the context and the meaning of the remarks.

Anyone reaching for this as a personal attack on Romney is showing signs of either desperation or incredible inexperience. Coming from the Boston Globe, one could apply either.

UPDATE: Rick Moran and James Joyner note more traditional journalistic hijinks, this time in mishandling a Fred Thompson statement on his effort to win the Presidency. .

Interesting. 

I wonder how many paragraphs Kranish has devoted to the dealings between Barack Obama and Antoin "Tony" Rezko in Chicago.  Dealings that would sink a candidate not anointed by media.

I wonder how many paragraphs he has devoted to the large, almost certainly incomplete, list of dirty-money donors to the Hillary Clinton campaign.  The ones she doesn't have to talk about because media absolutely will not challenge her on them. 

As readers of this blog know, the list does not end with Norman Hsu.

If you are asking "Antoin who?" or "Norman huh?" right now, you are living proof of the point I am making. 

And even if you do know these names, do you also know the name Abdul Rehman Jinnah?  Do you know what Milberg Weiss is and what it did?  Do you know about the multi-thousand dollar contributions to the Clinton campaign from impoverished Chinese waiters and dishwashers?

But then again, who cares. Let's talk about wrestling matches with pigs instead.  That's much more significant.


WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO BENAZIR BHUTTO

Ken Berwitz

It's a lesson that is learned and relearned whenever an unexpected act of major violence occurs:  never believe initial reports and never assume official government reports are true.

With this in mind, here is what appears to be the most accurate recounting of Benazir Bhutto's assassination so far. It comes from the Sunday London Telegraph.  The article is accompanied by video which my lack of proficiency causes me not to be able to show here.  But you can see it all by linking to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/30/wbhutto130.xml.  :

A face in the crowd: Benazir Bhutto's assassin
By Massoud Ansari in Ghari Khuda Bakhsh, and Julian Kossoff

Last Updated: 9:39am GMT 30/12/2007

 

"Long live Bhutto," Benazir Bhutto shouted, waving to the crowd surging around her car. They were her last words before three gunshots rang out and she slumped back on to her seat.

  • Pakistan offers to exhume Benazir Bhutto
  • Watch: The 'assassination video' released by the Pakistan government
  • Watch: Eyewitness account of the killing (Note: Graphic content)

    "She did not say anything more," said Safdar Abbassi, her chief political adviser, who was sitting behind her.

    In the first eyewitness account from inside the car, Dr Abbassi told The Sunday Telegraph: "All of a sudden there was the sound of firing. I heard the sound of a bullet.

    "I saw her: she looked as though she ducked in when she heard the firing. We did not realise that she had been hit by a bullet."

    He had looked up to see Miss Bhutto sliding back through the aperture in the roof of the white Land Cruiser. Moments later, the car was rocked by a huge explosion.

    There was no sound from the fallen leader.

    Dr Abbassi leant forward to see what was wrong. At first glance, she appeared to have escaped injury. Then he noticed the blood. It was seeping from a deep wound on the left side of her neck.

    His account is confirmed by photos that have surfaced in Pakistan showing a man in dark glasses aiming a handgun and standing only few feet from Miss Bhutto, moments before she died. His accomplice, the suspected suicide bomber, is further back amid the heaving crowds thronging around the cavalcade.

    Naheeb Khan, Dr Abbassi's wife, cradled the injured woman's head in her lap, reaching up for her own headscarf, pulling it from her head, pressing it into the wound, trying to stem the flow. But the wound was deep and the blood seeped out, spreading down her neck and across her blue tunic.

    The official Pakistani government line is that Miss Bhutto caught her head on the sunroof's catch as she ducked inside, fracturing her skull. "Absolute facts - nothing but facts," it said of its account. But Dr Abbassi leaves little room for doubt. There was too much blood, he said, and a gaping wound in her neck. She had been shot.

    A Pakistan TV station has been broadcasting the dramatic images taken by an amateur photographer of the suspected assassin, apparently contradicting the government explanation, and a man shrouded in white standing further back, believed to be the suicide bomber who blew himself up killing 20.

    It was the first rally that Miss Bhutto had addressed since the attempt on her life in October, and she was on a high. As she walked from the podium, she had turned to Dr Abbassi, her friend as well as adviser, and urged him to join her in working the crowd. "Why don't you join me?" she said.

    They headed towards the two waiting Land Cruisers, Miss Bhutto leading. The charismatic leader would never decide until the last minute which car to ride in; not even her head of security was party to the decision until she opened the car door. On Thursday, she chose the lead vehicle.

    "She was smiling and she was extremely happy," Dr Abbassi said. "She took me inside the car and she sat in front of me. I started chanting slogans because there were crowds all around."

    Undeterred by the previous attempt on her life and repeated assassination threats, Miss Bhutto clambered on to her seat and lifted herself through the sunroof to wave to supporters. Behind her, Dr Abbassi took up the chanting again. "Nar-e Bhutto [let's cheer for Bhutto]," he shouted. "Jeay Bhutto [long live Bhutto]," Miss Bhutto replied. Then the gunman opened fire.

    "We thought she had ducked in but she had not, she had fallen down," said Dr Abbassi. "She did not say a single word. For a few seconds we thought she was confused by the firing and that is why she was not talking. We did not realise"

    Before anyone had a chance to speak, the attacker detonated his explosives, peppering the vehicle with ball bearings.

    "There was a big bang. Some of the shrapnel hit the car and then the driver sped away." In the following car, Farhad Ullah Babar, Miss Bhutto's chief spokesman, saw his leader disappear back inside her car. "There was a huge bang and everyone was running from one place to the other but the vehicle was still moving," he said. "She disappeared. So we thought, because she had gone inside, that she was safe."

    But inside the car in front, realisation was dawning. "We saw the blood: the blood was everywhere, on her neck and on her clothes and we realised she was hit. She could not say anything," Dr Abbassi said, his shirt still stained with Miss Bhutto's blood.

    Able to do nothing more than stanch some of the bleeding, they made for the nearest hospital. Miss Bhutto was still alive when she was carried into the intensive care unit, but her injuries were so severe that she stood no chance.

    "The doctors really tried their best but it was too late," Dr Abbassi said, amid tears. "I was so optimistic: I thought nothing would happen to her. I still feel she is alive. I cannot believe she is with us no more."

  • .

    Please keep in mind that, detailed though this article is, we still are not sure of exactly what happened and may never know it all.

    What we should know full well, however, is that we live in a volatile, dangerous world in which no person and no country is entirely safe.  That is something it would be well for the people of the USA never to forget. 

    No other issue is more important.  Because no other issue is relevant if our culture is ended and we are subjugated by the people who do things like this.

    We're picking a president in less than a year.  For our future's sake let's make this the primary consideration.


    DODD, CORNERED

    Ken Berwitz

    Corner an animal and it becomes desperate so it lashes out.  That is its only chance.  

    Corner a politician and.......you get the picture?

    For months we have had Republican and Democratic debates in which all candidates are treated more or less equally.  In context, this has been like spring training in baseball.  We see every team hit, field, run and throw, we see wins and losses, but none of it counts for the regular season.  Regular season-wise, every team from the strongest to the weakest remains tied at 0-0. 

    But now it is less than a week to the Iowa presidential caucuses.  And just as baseball's regular season eventually puts the contenders and non-contenders back in their place, so are the presidential contenders and non-contenders going to be exposed as what they are by Iowa and the subsequent primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc.

    Among the going-nowhere presidential hopefuls being cornered by this reality is Chris Dodd, the Democratic Senator from Connecticut.   And, like the cornered animal, he now has to lash out to have any chance at all.  So, as reported by www.politico.com,  here he goes:

    Dodd unloads on Obama and Clinton

    By: Roger Simon
    Dec 28, 2007 06:32 PM EST

    DES MOINES, Iowa Chris Dodd is a warm and friendly guy, a charmer, a hail fellow well met. But when he hits you, he wants to raise a bruise.

    And he hit both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at an afternoon rally at his headquarters Friday, less than a week before the Iowa caucus.

    It isnt just a question of giving a great speech, giving an ennobling idea, Dodd said of what the presidency takes. It isnt enough just to be sitting on the sidelines and watching your husband necessarily deal with problems over the years.

    Take that, great speech-giver, ennobling Obama! Take that, sideline-sitting Hillary!

    Dodd may be polling at about 1 percent in Iowa right now, but clearly he is not going to go down without a fight.

    After his speech, reporters asked Dodd to expand on his remarks, and he was happy to oblige.

    Laura Bush is a wonderful person, a delightful first lady, but I dont think anyone would assume necessarily she is ready to be president of the United States, Dodd said. Now, Hillary Clinton has been elected to the Senate, and that adds a bit more to all this.

    A bit.

    Dodd went on: But the idea that, for the last 10 or 15 years, because youve been next to events as theyve unfolded somehow qualifies you to do this job is an exaggeration. Thats not experience. Thats witnessing experience. Theres a distinction.

    Dodd used his own wife, Jackie, as an example.

    Jackie would tell you first off she has been around to witness a lot of things, but she wouldnt take credit for the Family and Medical Leave Act, Dodd said. The experience of witnessing history is not the same thing has having helped create it. And I think that is a distinction that people ought to be aware of.

    Dodd also expanded on remarks directed at Obama.

    Barack Obama, I mean, how I mean, talking about the future and giving soaring speeches is very good, and its a good experience, Dodd said. But I dont think its as deep as what people are looking for in a Democratic candidate that can win the election and bring our country together.

    Dodd did not spare even Bill Richardson, who said yesterday after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan: President Bush should press [Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately. Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government.

    Though Richardson often touts his foreign policy experience he was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under Bill Clinton Dodd dismissed Richardsons proposals in strong terms.

    I think that is a dangerous idea, and I am sort of surprised Bill Richardson would make that recommendation, Dodd said. Can you tell me who is going to then be controlling the keys to the nuclear weapons in Pakistan when Musharraf is not there? And if you cant answer that question, then be careful what you wish for.

    Dodd went on: The idea of dumping Musharraf and cutting off aid, which I think Bill Richardson also suggested, is the worst possible thing we could be doing right now. That is the height of danger.

    Dodd has been living in Iowa and if spending the most time here was a guarantee of victory, he would win the caucus next Thursday.

    The tally as of Friday for days spent in the state was: Dodd, 93 days; Joe Biden, 88; Obama, 77; Edwards, 75; Hillary Clinton and Richardson, 66 each; and Dennis Kucinich, 11.

    But Iowa isnt just about face time though face time doesnt hurt. It is also about money and message and organization.

    Dodd hopes recent world events will also make people focus on his nearly 27 years in the U.S. Senate and his ability to deal with unexpected events.

    He also said Friday: I know how to bring people together.

    Just dont bring him together with Clinton, Obama and Richardson anytime soon.

    .

    Is this going to turn Chris Dodd into a serious presidential contender?  Nope.

    But is it going to put the wood to Obama and Clinton in a way that a) has a lot of truth to it and b) can be exploited by Republican candidates if either of them wins the Democratic nomination?  Yep.

    Stay tuned.  There is going to be a lot of this on both sides of the aisle.  In the immortal words of Al Jolson, "You ain't seen nuthin' yet"


    MIKE HUCKABEE: GAME, SET, MATCH

    Ken Berwitz

    Earlier this month I blogged that I would not vote for Mike Huckabee because I did not want a professional clergyman in the oval office.  And I certainly did not want one who thought his mission was to take the country for Jesus Christ, as Huckabee said he would ten years ago.

    Jesus Christ is not my savior.  But even if he were he would be my RELIGIOUS savior, not my political one.

    Even so, I have to admit I held out the hope that Huckabee would come to his senses, start acting like this is a diverse nation, and renounce that statement.  While I still wouldn't vote for him it would at least make him marginally palatable.

    But, to say the least, he didn't.  Here, courtesy of the Associated Press, are the details:

    Huckabee stands by 'Christ' comment

    DES MOINES, Iowa - Mike Huckabee, a Republican relying on support from religious conservatives in Thursday's hard-fought presidential caucuses, on Sunday stood by a decade-old comment in which he said, "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

    In a television interview, the ordained Southern Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor made no apologies for the 1998 comment made at a Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Salt Lake City.

    "It was a speech made to a Christian gathering, and, and certainly that would be appropriate to be said to a gathering of Southern Baptists," Huckabee said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

    He gave the speech the same year he endorsed the Baptist convention's statement of beliefs on marriage that "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ." Huckabee and his wife, Janet, signed a full-page ad in USA Today in support of the statement with 129 other evangelical leaders.

    The former governor, who rallied Christian evangelicals to make him a surprise force in Iowa, has put his faith front and center in his campaign. His stump speech sounds like a pastor's pitch from a pulpit. Campaign ads emphasize faith and call him a Christian leader. He frequently quotes Bible verses.

    As his fortunes have improved, Huckabee has faced a drumbeat of questions and criticism about his gubernatorial record and the role of faith in his administration. He also has made some missteps while trying to fend off a challenge and critical TV ads from Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and Mormon whose faith unsettles some religious conservatives.

    Four days before the caucuses Thursday, a new poll found Huckabee's surge may have stalled; his once double-digit lead over Romney has evaporated. Private polling shows the two in a dead heat.

    The television interview was Huckabee's only campaign appearance Sunday.

    With the media throng following him having grown immensely, Huckabee scrapped a public event at a church in favor of attending a private service closed to reporters. Instead of courting voters, he hunkered down to film new TV ads, perhaps spots responding to Romney's barrage of critical commercials.

    As recently as Friday, Huckabee insisted he wanted to run a positive campaign. He also reserved the right to respond aggressively.

    "Hopefully we'll just be talking about issues," Romney told reporters Sunday. In contrast to Huckabee, Romney had a full slate of events on a bus tour of eastern Iowa.

    In the NBC interview, Huckabee, a longtime opponent of legalized abortion, said he does not believe that women should be punished for undergoing the procedure, but that doctors might need to face sanctions.

    "I don't know that you'd put him in prison, but there's something to me untoward about a person who has committed himself to healing people and to making people alive who would take money to take an innocent life and to make that life dead," Huckabee said.

    He also argued that his emphasis on his Christian beliefs does not mean he's alienating atheists. He said, if elected, he would have no problem appointing atheists to government posts.

    "The key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone. And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else's faith or to restrict," Huckabee said.

    Those skeptical of the role of faith in his presidency, he said, should look at his record in Arkansas.

    "I didn't ever propose a bill that we would remove the Capitol dome of Arkansas and replace it with a steeple," he said. "You know, we didn't do tent revivals on the grounds of the Capitol." .

    Folks, you do what you want, of course.  You can mix politics and religion to your heart's content.

    But for me, there is not a chance in hell (or heaven) that I would ever vote to make Mike Huckabee president.  None.

    I would sooner vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or the human oil slick John Edwards.  I might even consider voting for Dennis Kucinich over Huckabee.  (ok, ok, that's a stretch.  If it were a Kucinich/Huckabee election I'd write in my wife's name.  She's in charge of policy in my life anyway).


    MICHAEL SAVAGE RAISES THE ANTE

    Ken Berwitz

    I can't say I'm a Michael Savage fan.  Apart from the fact that I don't agree with some of his positions (no big deal there, I don't agree with some of everyone's positions) I find him abrasive, unpleasant and too willing to make reprehensible statements about people and groups.

    But there are good points to Michael Savage as well.  And one of them is that he is no quitter and won't back off from a fight.  Nowhere is this more evident than in his growing battle with CAIR (the council on American-Islamic Relations). 

    CAIR, in my opinion, is a phony organization, a front for supporting terrorists and the kind of fundamentalist islamics this country should fear and repel. 

    Because of information uncovered during a remarkably foolish lawsuit brought by CAIR a few years ago, we found out that the group's actual membership is a tiny fraction of what it claimed/implied.  We also found out that member after member of CAIR's "leadership" has supported terrorists and terrorist groups.

    The only reason anyone pays any attention to what CAIR says is that media in this country keep reporting on the group as if it were a major, influential organization.  Just as media have done with code pink, al sharpton and cindy sheehan. (Well, maybe not sheehan anymore.  She butted up against another of their icons, nancy pelosi, so they retaliated by no longer pretending she had any importance.  Now cindy sheehan is a ghost.)

    And as media have elevated CAIR, the group has exploited its artificial status by attacking a number of high profile detractors, with varying degrees of success. 

    But when it started up with Michael Savage, it started up with the wrong guy.  Let me show you why, courtesy of World Net Daily:

    Michael Savage lawsuit links CAIR to 9/11 plot
    Talker amends lawsuit against organizer of Muslim boycott to include RICO charges

    Posted: December 29, 2007
    11:58 p.m. Eastern
     2007 WorldNetDaily.com

    WASHINGTON It's no longer just a charge of copyright violation in the case of Michael Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations.

    Now the radio talk star is going for the legal jugular in his battle with the group that bills itself as a Muslim civil rights organization.

    The San Francisco-based talker has amended his lawsuit against CAIR for misusing audio clips of his show as part of a boycott campaign against his three-hour daily program to include charges the group "has consistently sought to silence opponents of violent terror through economic blackmail, frivolous but costly lawsuits, threats of lawsuits and abuses of the legal system."

    The amended lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California, also charges CAIR with using extortion, threats, abuse of the court system, and obtaining money via interstate commerce under false and fraudulent circumstances calling it a "political vehicle of international terrorism" and even linking the group with support of al-Qaida.

    The federal government recently named CAIR, based in Washington, D.C., as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged scheme to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas.

    And as WND has reported, CAIR has been associated with a disturbing number of convicted terrorists or felons in terrorism probes, as well as suspected terrorists and active targets of terrorism investigations.

    "Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States," said U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus.

    Savage and celebrity civil rights attorney Daniel Horowitz are attempting to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to make the case that "CAIR and its co-conspirators have aided, abetted and materially sponsored al-Qaida and international terrorism."

    CAIR launched a campaign against "The Savage Nation," as the program is called, using extended audio clips of the show to make the case that advertisers who supported the talker were actually endorsing "hate speech" against Muslims.

    Savage turned the tables on the activist group by initially suing for copyright violation of the show's material. This week the suit was expanded with some of the strongest allegations ever made against CAIR publicly.

    Among the charges is that CAIR is "part of a deliberately complex and deliberately confusing array of related organizations" and that its "organizational structure is part of a scheme to hide the illegal activities of the group, funding, the transfer of funds and to complicate investigation of the group."

    Other highlights of the suit:

    • "CAIR is not a civil rights organization and it never has been. CAIR was and is a political organization that advocates a specific political agenda on behalf of foreign interests."

    • "The copyright infringement was done to raise funds for CAIR so that it could perpetuate and continue to perform its role in the RICO conspiracy set forth in Count Two and to disseminate propaganda on behalf of foreign interests that are opposed to the continued existence of the United States of America as a free nation."

    • "CAIR would have to register as a foreign agent if their activities were not hidden under the false claim that they are a civil rights organization that enjoys tax-exempt status."

    • "CAIR was tied to terror from the day it was formed. The group was incorporated on or about 1994 by Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad. Both men were officers of a terror organization known as the 'Islamic Association of Palestine.'"

    • "CAIR's parent group, IAP, was founded in or about 1982 by Musa Abu Marzook. Marzook was IAP's ideological leader and controlling director from the date of its founding until shortly after his deportation from the United States in 1997. At all time relevant, Marzook was an operative of, and/or affiliated with, the 'Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah,' or 'Hamas.' Hamas is an international terrorist organization."

    • In 1998, "CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as 'the sworn enemy,' asserting that this depiction [was] 'offensive to Muslims.'"

    • In 1998, "CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the two al-Qaida bombings of American embassies in Africa. CAIR's leader Ibrahim Hooper claimed the bombings resulted from 'misunderstandings on both sides.'"

    • "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."

    • "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." The Holy Land Foundation, the suit charges, is "a terror organization."

    • "CAIR receives significant international funding. For example, in 1999 the Islamic Development Bank gave a $250,000 grant to CAIR to purchase land for a national headquarters. In 2002, the World Association for Muslim Youth, a Saudi government-funded organization, financed distributing books on Islam free of charge and an advertising campaign in American publications. This included a quarter page in USA Today each Friday, for a year, estimated to cost $1.04 million. In 2003, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $500,000 to distribute the Koran and other books about Islam in the United States. In 2005, CAIR's Washington branch received a donation of $1,366,466 from a Saudi Arabian named Adnan Bogary. In 2006, Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum, deputy ruler of Dubai and UAE minister of finance and industry, financed the building of a property in the U.S. to serve as an endowment for the organization. This gift is thought to generate income of approximately $3 million a year."

    • "The role of CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to wage PSYOPS (psychological warfare) and disinformation activities on behalf of Wahabbi-based Islamic terrorists throughout North America. They are the intellectual 'shock troops' of Islamic terrorism."

    • "The Council on American-Islamic Relations is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It works in the United States as a lobby against radio, television and print media journalists who dare to produce anything about Islam that is at variance with their fundamental agenda."

    • "CAIR has links to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorism expert Steven Emerson has stated before Congress that CAIR is a front for Hamas."

    Savage's case also cites another ongoing suit against CAIR filed by the estate of John P. O'Neill, the former head of security for the World Trade Center. It alleges a RICO conspiracy involving CAIR led to the 9/11 attack.

    "Throughout this period," the Savage suit alleges, "CAIR conspired to support terrorism and to obfuscate the roles of the various participants and conspirators in Radical Muslim Terrorism, and/or al-Qaida and/or the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, which conspiracy culminated in the 9/11 attack."

    It continues: "The pattern of racketeering activity conducted by CAIR is separate from the existence of Radical Muslim Terrorism, and/or the al-Qaida, and/or the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, but was a necessary component of the 9/11 attack. The RICO enterprise conducts terrorism all over the world; the racketeering activity conducted by CAIR funds that activity, which activity culminated in the 9/11 attack."

    CAIR has refused to comment on Savage's suit to date. But it has claimed a host of companies have stopped advertising on Savage's show as a result of its boycott campaign.

    However, an investigation by WND shows some of those boycott victories are questionable. In one announcement claiming Universal Orlando Resorts "drops 'Savage Nation' ads," CAIR stated: "Advertisers that have already stopped airing, or refuse to air commercials on 'Savage Nation' include AutoZone, Citrix, TrustedID, JCPenney, OfficeMax, Wal-Mart and AT&T."

    But AutoZone told WND the CAIR campaign had nothing to do with its advertising decision, and it had chosen not to advertise on any radio talk shows of all parts of the spectrum years before the CAIR effort.

    CAIR officials declined to respond to WND queries about why it is listing companies as part of its boycott campaign that say they have not participated in the boycott.

    Officials of Talk Radio Network, Savage's syndicator, confirmed to WND that companies including AutoZone and JCPenney never advertise on such programs.

    "We do not sponsor syndicated radio talk shows," AutoZone spokesman Ray Pohlman told WND. "We have customers of all shapes and sizes and political persuasions. For us to sponsor [any radio talk shows] wouldn't make any sense."

    But that policy is years old, and wasn't changed at all by CAIR's effort, he said.

    "What I will tell you is the CAIR organization did, in fact, contact the marketing department [of AutoZone.] We responded with our full advertising policy which clearly states that we do not advertise on radio talk shows," he told WND.

    The announcement about Universal was made by the Hate Hurts America Community and Interfaith Coalition, of which CAIR is a prominent member.

    It said Universal Orlando Resorts "has joined a growing list of advertisers that have stopped advertising or refuse to place their ads on Michael Savage's 'Savage Nation' Radio program."

    The campaign also has triggered a lawsuit by Savage against CAIR over its alleged misappropriation of Savage's radio broadcast material. In the lawsuit, Savage depicts CAIR as a "vehicle of international terrorism."

    CAIR says it is challenging Savage's "hate speech," and referenced Savage comments such as:

    "I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear any more about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."

    The Savage suit says comments like that are taken out of context.

    Another major company CAIR claims has joined the boycott of Michael Savage is JCPenney. But as with AutoZone, JCPenney officials told WND readers they were not making any special provision in their advertising policy that would make them part of a protest campaign, but officials did not respond directly to WND inquiries.

    "JCPenney did not 'pull' advertising from the show. JCPenney has had a long standing policy about not advertising on any show that can be construed as controversial. An error in upholding this policy was made by a few local stations, and it has now been clarified," the company told a WND reader.

    "Wal-Mart does not sponsor or advertise on the Michael Savage show. We have asked radio networks to ensure that Wal-Mart ads do not run in programming that we deem controversial and are sending out content guidelines reminders to radio networks and stations," said that company.

    Savage's lawsuit alleges copyright infringement by CAIR, which the lawsuit says seeks to do "material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR's clients."

    Filed in U.S. District Court in California, the suit seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters "who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support" as well as "actual damages according to proof."

    A spokesman for Savage indicated the top-rated talk show host would have no further comment, saying the text of the lawsuit itself would answer questions.

    The focal point of the lawsuit is a series of audio clips CAIR has been using in its promotions and fundraising efforts.

    Those comments from Savage's show include his criticisms of Islam and Muslims. The lawsuit maintains such comments, taken in context, are Savage's verbal expression of the feelings of many Americans.

    "The audience of 'The Savage Nation' expects this type of from-the-heart outrage and when it is directed at a murderer such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ilk, the piece is far more understandable and far more American mainstream. While the strength of the outrage is remarkable and a hallmark of 'The Savage Nation,' the sentiment is shared by a huge number of Americans," the lawsuit says.

    You tell me;  is this a battle CAIR should be wishing it never started, or what?

    Personally I am on the 50 yard line cheering Mr. Savage every step of the way.  I hope he tears them a new one. 

    Go Michael go.


    Buy Our Book Here!


    Return to Current Blog
    We're Hopelessly Partisan

    hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


    About Us



    Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


    At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

    So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

    And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!