There has apparently been some movement in the Michael Savage vs. Jacqui Smith libel suit. According to the venerable World Net Daily, letters have been exchanged between the government's lawyers and Savage's British attorneys.

As background, Savage is suing Smith, the former British Home Secretary, for including him on a list of people banned from Britain. Savage claims that his inclusions with murderers and terrorists is defamatory.

Anyway, according to the WND article, the British government lawyers told Savage's people that Savage needed to "repudiate" the comments which resulted in his banning before the government would consider taking him off the list.

In response, according to WND, Savage's lawyers said their client had nothing to repudiate:

The United Kingdom accused Savage, the third-most popular talk radio host in the United States, of justifying the deaths of Muslims.

His representatives, arguing on his behalf, said that was ridiculous.

'We made it clear that our client does not believe that it is right to kill any Muslims,' said a letter today to the government. 'It is simply outrageous that you suggest that either we or our client should 'justify calling for the murder of Muslims.' As we have made clear, that is not something our client would ever seek to do.'

Continued the terse letter, 'Moreover, we ask that you explain how our client can repudiate views which are not his own and why he should satisfy your client that there has been 'a true shift of position' when the only issue has been the misunderstanding by your client as to what his views are. To ask him to do so is plainly oppressive.'

Really. Savage never called for the murder of Muslims? Then how does he explain this, from April 17, 2006:

There are too many RDDBs [red-diaper doper babies, Savage's term for people supposedly raised by Marxist parents] in high places and in the media and in the courts for us to stand up to this fanatical enemy. And so unless the RDDB is reined in somehow or taken out of power, we're going to die as a nation. I swear to God that's what people are saying to me. And these are intelligent people, wealthy people. They are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, "Oh, there's a billion of them." I said, "So, kill 100 million of them, then there'll be 900 million of them." I mean, would you rather die -- would you rather us die than them? I mean, what is it going to take for you people to wake up? Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later.

Now, Savage says that quote was taken out of context (which he claims about everything that shows him in a bad light). He says the statement was made in the aftermath of a Mumbai bombing. But that argument doesn't hold water. Who cares why he said it? The point is, Savage advocated killing 100 million Muslims before, as he put it, they killed us. He didn't say, "now, I was only trying to make a point." No, he backs it up by saying, would you rather they die or you die, because you're going to have to make that choice.

Sounds to me like a man who's certain of what he's saying. He can backpedal all he wants, but the simple truth is that Savage advocated killing Muslims.

And no high-priced mouthpiece can change that.

Keep the faith.