Radio Talk Show Host Michael Graham Suspended

I wrote the following to the station:

I disagree with your decision to suspend Michael Graham. He spoke an opinion that many people agree with and isn’t inaccurate. For years people on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN have been saying opinions that were offensive and stating facts inaccurately. The people still do this on these stations. There are never consequences for thier offensive opinions and inaccurate statements. The people are still doing this on these stations.

Michael Graham hasn’t said anything inaccurate. This is what people are doing on CBS, NBC, ABC every day. You can’t point to one statement that wasn’t true.

As far as the opinion portion of the piece, Michael Graham’s statement of facts supported his opinion. It may be offensive to people who don’t believe it or want to believe it but what is more than offensive is the suicide bombings and beheadings by Islamofacists and then Islamic clerics refusing to flatly say this is wrong.

It seems that you have aligned yourself with the terrorists.

I received an undeliverable message.

They must’ve disabled that email box.

I used their contact form and sent the following:

How cowardly of you to suspend Mr. Graham. Let me ask you folks this. Do you think he was wrong or are you just on the side of that evil, terrorist organization called islam?

Let me ask you another question. Since when is a media outlet who champions the truth acting hypocritical? Maybe when they suspend one of its stars for calling a spade a spade?

I shouldn’t be surprised in your actions since you are owned by Disney. Disney being one of the first companies in the world to provide benefits for homosexual couples.

For once, I would like to see an American company show some spine and backbone in the face of our enemies. You can believe what you want and cow tow to those murderous cult members called muslims and their satanic god, but the fact of the matter is that America is fed up with them. ALL of them. We do not call them all the pretty names you on the left, that’s right I said LEFT, call them. To us REAL American, they are not “islamofascists”, or “extremists” or ” bombers.” They are muslims.

If anything, these discussions clearly demonstrate the anger the world has towards islam. It will take centuries for the muslims to repair the damage done to their already damaged cult.

Americans are fed up. We are tired of feeding the world, changing its diapers, burping it, changing its crappy drawers and spanking it. At some point a man reaches his breaking point and can tolerate no more.

Never in history has one nation given so much and received so little in return for its benevolence only to be repaid with attacks and death.

This nation will not fail. We will prove that this experiment called America works. Mess with us if you want to, but understand that you are signing your own death warrant when you declare war on the USA.

We welcome you to our house, but you must behave. We have a culture which you must adopt. Your culture is not relevant anymore in the general context. If you want to be muslim, Mexican, Peruvian, Russian or Somali, then be that at home, but when you walk out the door of your house in America, you are AMERICAN!

We don’t pick fights, but we love to get in the ring. To the muslims, I say, If you want a jihad, you’d better pack a lunch. We don’t play that crap and you can keep pushing and pushing and pushing and one day you will know the soul of the American.

Do not pick a fight with the Red, White and Blue unless you want a size 3000 boot on your backside.

Shame on you WMAL. Your actions were predictable yet still feminine and cowardly.

Whose side are you on?

USA Forever!

Do you actually believe and endorse the statement, “Islam is a terrorist organization”?

You support that 100%???

That’s beyond the pale. And if Graham said that without qualification, then he’s a bigot and an ignoramus, and he richly deserved to be suspended — and fired.

Did you read the man’s column, Scott? If not, please don’t comment on this thread again until you do. – Admin

Scott,

Is it their policy to kill the infidel or not?
Have cleric’s flatly rejected the policy of suicide bombing or not?
Do they teach their children hate (everyday) for the non-believer or not?
Have they declared that they will kill 4 million Americans or not?
Are then involved in 100% of the 23 war/conflicts around the world or not?

Is the truth the truth or not?

Well, he was wrong, and the free market is what is at work here. If his opinion wouldn’t potentially cost the station money, or if his opinion would jeopardize the stations advertising, he probably wouldn’t have been suspended. If his opinion was such a majority opinion, he probably would be suspended.

You can’t argue for free market dictating behavior on one hand, and simultaneously disrespect it when it functions in this fashion. Go Milton Friedman.

Dell, Then the station should be honest enough to say that they suspended Graham because they were afraid they were going to lose money and not because his comments were somehow insulting. His comments were true and dead on.

On CNNSI.COM

Ump’s language ban incites protest
Little Leaguers told to stop speaking Spanish on field

ANOTHER Great American stands his ground! I hope this kind of behavior is contagious. Is America rising up? I sure as heck hope so.

While it is within the stations right to suspend or even fire Mr. Graham for his comments, a more discretionary action could have been reached. I have seen many media outlets disaffirm a commentators statements with a disclaiming phrase, ie “the remarks made by Mr. Graham do not necessarily reflect the policies of this station or our sponsors …”. Freedom of speech sometimes means making a statement that is unpopular or offensive to some, but that does not diminish the importance of the message to the speaker or his right to speak. Terrorists and moderate muslims get alot of free press from their activities, why not allow a balanced rebuttal.

Mike M.

Censorship is defined as the government censoring what is said, written, broadcast.

Companies do have the freedom to air whatever content they want. To the point they keep Dan Rather on board in spite of the lies and fire conservatives for their point of view backed up by facts.

Thanks for the contact info to WMAL, La Shawn. Here is what I sent to those pc imbeciles.

WMAL management:

So much for the first Amendment rights that you media hypocrites get your shorts in a knot if someone outside your organizations censures or tries to restrict you. One of your own people says something like ‘Islam is a terror organization’ which many of your listeners believe to be true and you suspend him. Talk about double standard. The sad thing is that what Graham said is essentially true. Let me ask you these questions. Do not most (probably all) of the terrorist profess allegiance to Islam? Are there not Islamic imams that preach hate against infidels (all non-Moslems) in mosques everywhere in the world? Are there not other Islamic organizations that collect money to finance terrorists? Are there not Islamic countries e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria that export terrorism to Iraq and throughout the world? Can you honestly answer these questions and not conclude that Islam is directly associated with terrorism?

It is true that one cannot win a war if they do not identify the enemy. You and the rest of media who has a responsibility of helping reveal the enemy by truthful broadcasting are doing the people of this country a disservice by censuring one of your own who is not afraid to tell the truth.

My comment above has been completely distorted. As well, 75% of what I wrote is missing. Kindly disregard the above as it is totally out of context.

It needs to be known and understood that all those that name the enemy (Islam!) are being quieted and shut down by the aiders of the enemy -the liberal establishment. They are traitors of all that we and past generations have held so dear. To fight the liberals and the democratic party that enables them is the first step in protecting the future of our country and those we love. If we want to see to it that Islam is stopped, then we must vote for those that would see it crumble. So far only one politician has been willing to name the enemy. Let’s see to it that Tom Tancredo becomes president. It can be done if the American people end their complacency and decide to fight the plague that is Islam.

ABC did screw up. They should not have suspended Michael Graham without pay. They should have fired him. ABC/WMAL has every right to expect their commentators to have the ability to think, and to think with reason. Mr. Graham has embarrassed himself completely with his puerile writing, his ignorant thought processes and his willingness to share both with the public.

Islam is not an organization. It is the world’s second largest religion. He compares the ‘organization’ of Islam to the Boy Scouts stating >> If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization.> As I’ve said many times, I have great sympathy for those Muslims of good will who want their faith to be a true “religion of peace.” I believe that terrorism and murder do violate the sensibilities and inherent decency of the vast majority of the world’s Muslims. I believe they want peace.> Sadly, the organization and fundamental theology of Islam as it is constituted today allows for hatreds most Muslims do not share to thrive, and for criminals they oppose to operate in the name of their faith.

Well Phoenix, those “good” muslims better start fighting off the “bad” muslims in a bloody civil war. Anything less can only be viewed as consent. Do you actually believe ALL the Germans were nazis? Do you really believe All the Japanese were our enemies? Do you honestly think that All of Stalin’s Russia were actually murderers? Sometimes doing absolutely nothing makes you complicit to the crime. If Islam is not the enemy of the west, then they had better start cleaning house. To not do so, makes all of Islam the enemy by default.

Andy, I’m glad you agree. Sometimes I feel like I’m screaming into the wind. I’m glad I started commenting on La Shawn’s blog. I don’t feel quite so alone now. I’m not going to lie to you, I am scared of the future unless we really start to fight. I have three year old twins – a boy and a girl. They are the most precious things in this world to me. They, more than anything else, have woke me up to what is happening. Things have got to change and fast.

I’m surprised (and glad) we haven’t seen Islamic extremists start kidnapping and beheading any in the media who speak out, a la Theo Van Gough. How long til that happens? Never, I hope. But one wonders.

Phoenix,

I read your post and twobabesandabrain and I have to say – there is nothing to respond to. There wasn’t one coherent thought that made sense. Sorry. I think it’s just me and the fact that it’s 12:00 midnight on Friday.

Anyone who adheres to the idea that Islam is the ‘Religion of Peace’ has not read Chapter 9 from the Qu’ran. Chapter 9 of the Qu’ran instructs Muslims to engage in absolute violence, death and mayham if it leads to submission. According to Chapter 9 in the Qu’ran, Islam believes that war is caused by infidels who fail to convert. Submit or Die.

Unless Islam abrogates Chapter 9 in the Qu’ran, this religion will never be peaceful.

This is why I don’t think the “don’t want to get involved” are morally innocent within the Muslim community. Let’s say there is a crowded bar with at least one hundered people in it. In a back storage closet two men are raping and murdering a woman. A few more men are standing aroung the closet watching and cheering them on. Those closest to the closet are exchanging nervous looks and saying “maybe you guys should cut that out,” but they really don’t do anything to stop the men in the closet. The people in the bigger barroom can’t see what’s going on though they hear some shouts and there are rumors coming to them that someone is being raped in the back room. They start talking about the terrible state of the world and keep on chugging their beers. They decide they “don’t want to get involved.” Now if you look at this from a purely legal stand point, the two men who actually raped and killed the women will face the major charges. The guys cheering them on will face a lesser charge. However, the ones that knew it was happening but didn’t see it will probably get away within the limits of “reasonable doubt.” However, I contend that everyone in that bar was morally responsible for the crime. That is how I view all of Islam. They have a moral responsibility to get involved. If they do not do so, then they are the enemy of all those that do no wish to lose a loved one in the same cold-blooded manner.

Phoenix, now it all makes sense. If you really must use “arrows” then you have to type the unicode, ie
“&lt;” without the quotes for < and
“&gt;” without the quotes for >

Indy, I too have 4 small kids and want to see them to grow in the Grace of our Lord and to be all that they can be. I will take any measure within proportional reason, to ensure their right on behalf of country and humankind to be fre of this islamic plague.

However, to paraphrase Golda Meir, I won’t forgive the terrorists for making me kill their kids if push comes to shove.

Tried to send in my opinion via the WMAL input submission form. Guess what? Its suspended out in cyberspace somewhere….guess I’ll just have to let the little hourglass spin a few more hours and see where it goes.
I’ve worked as a web master and I know this little trick…when you really don’t want to hear what folks have to say.

Lets’ take a look;
Estimates of the total number of Muslims in the world vary greatly:

0.700 billion or more, Barnes & Noble Encyclopedia 1993
0.817 billion, “The Universal Almanac” (1996)
0.951 billion, “The Cambridge Factfinder” (1993)
1.100 billion, “The World Almanac” (1997)
1.200 billion, “CAIR” (Council on American-Islamic relations)

Estimates for the numbers in America also differ;

2001- 2.8 million- “American Jewish Committee”
2001- 4.1 million -”Britannica book of the Year’
2001- A little over 5 million – ‘Abdul Malik Mujahid”
2001- 5.78 million – “World Almanac”
1995- 6 million – “CAIR”

In 2004 terrorist attacks around the world by Muslim extremists rose from 175 in 2003 to 655 in 2004.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040827-5.html

For the sake of simplicity, let’s say each death was caused by a single individual terrorist. If you do the math that comes to (let’s just round it off and say) just about one,one millionth of one per cent of the Muslims in the world that has actually commited a terrorist act.

True, the numbers are growing.

Using the principles of Thomas Malthus, factor in the growth rate of the religion, the growth rate of world population and the ability to feed the masses(with consideration to those countries in Europe that will lose population).

Using U.S.Govenments figues, calculate the terrorist increases and a continual trend. A close estimate shows that by the year 2512, all Muslims will be (or could) committing terrorist acts. Thats roughly an 8th of one percent (.007997) increase every fifty years or so.

Conversely, 10,667 children were allegedly victimized by 4,392 Catholic priests from 1950 to 2002. “U.S. Roman Catholic Church suffered an epidemic of child sexual abuse involving at least 4 percent of priests” according to the New York Times. Using the exact same calulation methods, all Catholic priests will victimize children by 2029 (4 percent increase over a period of years). (the calculations are NOT meant to be exact, simply estimates)

Whats my point? It’s wrong to fault an entire religion for the actions of a few. We can only give our due diligence, while striking out against those who perpetrate act of violence against us. Amen

This is what I sent these mokes:

This looks like a simple economic problem. CAIR wants you to fire Michael. You’re afraid that your sponsors will pull the plug if you don’t kowtow to them. Give this message to your sponsors:
If you suspend/fire this man, I, among many, many more will start a personal crusade to boycott ALL of your sponsors and will contact your sponsor’s marketing departments and tell them exactly why we are doing what we are doing.
Listening to the majority this time could make or break your station/CBS.
Your choice.

Phoenix,

You go on with a lot of hyperbole yourself. I’m not trying to be flippant or aggravating here. Let me just simply say that you try to tear Michael’s points to shreds but fail.

It is perfectly legitimate to say, “Hey, I’m not an expert here but here is my viewpoint from what I’ve seen in the last 4 years.”

Muslims should learn from that viewpoint because what Michael writes is what MANY of us see. Many of us weren’t experts. We witnessed 9/11. We woke up to the fact that Islamofacists have issues and we’ve been trying to grapple with the facts. We see muslims on TV when being interviewed UNABLE to FLATLY without buts reject the tactics of suicide bombings and the like.

It is perfectly legitimate for someone to write from the perspective of being awaken to the facts of a certain population. It would be like a husband writing from his perspective that he didn’t know what an alchoholic was like until 4 years ago until his wife became one. Ever since then he has awoken to that issue and witnessed 10 other alchoholics break apart families and when he has asked their perspective this is what they had to say. “…”. Nobody has to ask EVERYBODY in order to write about something. He set up his limit of knowledge. He wrote about the clerics and their inability to flatly reject suicide bombings and he wants to see what a good percentage of conservatives want to see…. a good percentage of Muslims calling for the terrorists to stop and FLATLY informing them their tactics make them non-muslims. Excommunication was just a word. He knows that isn’t what applies to Islam. It’s the process that many of us are looking for. We want a rejection of terrorists from Islam.

They should look at our point of view and learn from it. To erase the point of view by suspending Michael is the exact wrong thing to do. It makes Muslims feel that they are “righteous” in their behavior.

Phonenix, When you wrote, “I do not know why Muslims withhold their public condemnation of terrorism.” it shows that you have some sense of what many of us are saying including Michael.

You also wrote, “I am waiting for the time when a global fury takes place to end this.”, and I think it would be much more responsible for muslims to learn from Michael’s column about MANY American’s perspective rather than reach that point of global fury.

You also wrote, “and I am hoping the backlash will be ferocious.”, and I think that’s what many of us conservatives were hoping to see from the “peace loving muslims” themselves. We’d rather see Muslims weed out thier own than have to battle the 10% (estimated by some) that are interested in following the Koran literally.

I find it very hard to respond to what you are saying because you are ALL over the place. And then you write in closing, “I disparage Graham’s essay because it is ignorant,” yet you failed to point out one part of his article that was untruthful. He formed an opinion based on legitimate facts and you simply seem to DISAGREE with him. That doesn’t make the person you disagree with ignormant.

You then go on to ignorantly state, “as I do not believe that wiping out 1.5 billion Muslims because of the acts of the few will solve a thing.”. My question to you is who asked for that? Point to the sentence in Michael’s article that says that’s what he’s advocating. I say ignorant because you did exactly what I think would be an indication. Distort the facts. You implied a statement of fact that simply hasn’t been present.

You write close to the end, “Condemnation of the many for the actions of a few is flawed thinking.”, and I point out a few of your statements in this response that are similar to Michael’s. All we want is to see Muslims FLATLY reject terrorists in their midst.

There is no parallel between pedophilia and militant Islam. Pedophilia has plagued both the Christian world and the world of Islam.

It is heterodoxy in the Christian world, but has some basis in the scripture of the Koran.

Militant Islam is firmly grounded in the orthodoxy that is specific in the Koran.

Catholic bashing has a long history and pedophilia charges against the priests is not a pretty picture for anyone. But the priests have acted out of lust, not orthodoxy.

Stoning women, killing women who have been raped, blowing up infidels is firmly rooted in the history and nature of Islam. It stems directly from the Koran. Sharia law stems directly from the Koran. They are not heterodox.

As to the mathmatic exercise of extrapolating numbers and creating exponential permutations from the extrapolated precedents……….well that calculus can go on for ever. Any smart number cruncher can come up with whatever outcome you desire. Ask Ken Lay.

The issue here is basic and begs a clear answer. There are volumes written about the destructive history of Islam and the roots for violence in the Koran. There is are strong threads to this in the present world and they are readily traced.

If there are volumes that show the productive, progressive and peaceful nature of Islam, then bring them forward. If there are volumes that show that the Koran clearly does not create an orthodoxy for violence, then bring them forward. It there are strong threads running through the present world of Islam to assure that it is a “religion of peace,” then put it before us so that we can support it with all our might.

Here is just one example of where the “divide” in Islam stands:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072900478_pf.html

We have no time to waste waiting for the civil war between the “religion of peace” Muslims and the terrorist Muslims to break out and be settled.

This country dilly-dallied around with the politics of slavery for better than 100 years until it was finally settled by civil war. And we all know that the fall-out from that war has not fully subsided yet.

Islamic terrorism is not going to be defeated in debating societies with a Chamberlain umbrella as the main weapon.

Hipstreet said, “You’re absolutely correct in the assertion that a huge population around the world holds’ steadfast to the belief that the West brought it upon themselves. Even though many of them don’t have the right to their own [and/or certain] opinions, as Americans we can extend them the right. (Just one small offering to help spead Democracy, pursuant to The Bush Doctrine)”

I support the war in Iraq and believe that the “Bush Doctrine” has promise in the long term. However, I don’t believe Islam as it is practiced now and democracy can coexist. I hope that democracy itself will help reform Islam, but in the mean time we have a very real threat.

You also said, “By the way, how could anyone phantom the idea that “young boys just brought it on themselves.”
(I would hope you were merely being facetious)”

Of course I was, but that is just the point. It is inconceivable to the western mind that the victim is responsible for the crimes of the perpetrator. However, the innocent are routinely forced to pay with their lives for the sins committed against them under Islamic law. There is simply no basis for comparison in present day western and Islamic society.

Heliotrope made the strongest point, “We have no time to waste waiting for the civil war between the “religion of peace” Muslims and the terrorist Muslims to break out and be settled.”

We simply can’t wait decades or centuries for Islam to work things out. The technology has changed and the threat is too great. Right this second, a terrorist leader may be purchasing a WMD. The WMDs might already be here. They have the money and there are certainly those willing to sell to the highest bidder. I’ve noticed our government rhetoric is changing. We have gone from “The Global War on Terror” to “Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism.” That viloent extremism is pretty much exclusively Islamic. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize the government is making a veiled statement that Islam is the enemy. They are still trying to make a distinction between the “good” muslim and the “bad” muslim. The west is not doing the Islamic world any favors by holding onto these distinctions. We need to make it crystal clear that the west is challenging the Islamic world to choose their fate. A wake up call is inorder. However, if a WMD is used on our country such distinctions are going to cease to be a matter of controversy. In the event of the worst I see the following happening:

1. We ban the practice of Islam.
2. All Muslims that are not citizens are exported to their country of origin, imprisoned for information, or killed by angry mobs.
3. All Mosques are closed or burmed to the ground.
4. Muslim citizens are restricted in travel and must notify authorities of their movement or placed in a temporary camp. I fear many of them would fall to the angry mobs as well.
5. The border is completely shut with limited access.
6. ME governments that sponser and fund terrorism will be bombed back into the seventh century (there era of choice).
7. Islamic holy sites become fair targets.

Many of those things (the nonviolent suggestions) could be enacted now to prevent the worst, but I fear it will take the worst to see them happen. So it would seem the fate of the Islamic world rests in the hands of the “moderates.” The left makes the argument that the terrorists are a small number of the muslim world. Then the rest of the “peaceful” folks better start a rebellion and end the tyranny of the few. If they don’t do this then they will have to share a collective fate.

The Islamic world has a lot of power right now. They can choose to usher in WWIII or they can openly fight the most extreme elements of Islam. The ball is in their court.

Mak, it is very simple. There is no evidence to support Christianity as a terrorist orgainization. Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph were not Christians by there own admission. Even if they had been, they were openly condemned, and imprisioned/executed by a Christian majority. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that Islam is a terrorist orgainization. You have those that carry out acts of terrorism and those that enable them to do so. I don’t see your argument. Michael Graham just spoke the truth, but many are just too indoctrinated in their own PC rhetoric to hear it.

Independent:

#32 Hunh? Thank you for making my point in the first part of your paragraph. Too bad you blew it by making that last ridiculous statement.

Mak, the Good Sheperd was all about calling a spade a spade and killing the wolves to protect the flock. Crack open your Bible for once before you “crack” your keyboard.

Baklava:

Show me my hyperbole and I will be happy to address it.

“Nobody has to ask EVERYBODY in order to write about something.” Then don’t make grand statements that NOBODY can say Islam is a religion of peace. That is hyperbole and flawed reasoning.

He made a big deal out of excommunication. It was not just a word he tossed in his essay. He used it as proof that Islam was a terrorist organization.

“They should look at our point of view and learn from it.” Is there any chance you think the Islamic world might NOT know our viewpoint of terrorism?

My statement about a ‘ferocious backlash’ incorporates Muslims as well as any sane government/people/country on this planet. However, most Muslims are not armed, are oppressed by totalitarian governments, and their chances of internal rebellion are slim in comparison to the well-armed terrorists who have no problem killing their own. This does not make them complicit in the terrorism.

I am not ‘ALL over the place’ in my responses. I went line-by-line and addressed his statements in that manner. His essay is ignorant. I point out in my opening statement, for which I offer support all the way through, that his statement that Islam is a terrorist organization is wrong. That statement is ‘untruthful’ if you’d rather I said that. His facts are nowhere near legitimate. Generalization, ludicrous comparisons, and flawed thinking do not make ‘legitmate facts’. That is what makes him and his piece of work ignorant – to say nothing of arrogant. And YES, I DISAGREE with him.

My statement: “as I do not believe that wiping out l.5 billion Muslims because of the acts of a few will solve a thing.” is a response to J Rob. I was defending my entire point, not quoting from Mr. Graham’s article. I did not distort any facts. That was my opinion.

My statement that, “Condemnation of the many for the actions of the few is flawed thinking.”, is in no conceivable manner similar to Mr. Graham’s statements. It is the opposite, in fact. Mr. Graham declares that Islam is an organization of terror. Note that my statement is directly opposite that viewpoint.

I wonder how many of our soldiers will die as a result of this fool’s moronic assertions?

Oh I see Phoenix, we must have been writing at the same time.

You wrote, “However, most Muslims are not armed, are oppressed by totalitarian governments, and their chances of internal rebellion are slim in comparison to the well-armed terrorists who have no problem killing their own. This does not make them complicit in the terrorism.”

You see, this is where we differ dramatically on this issue. You can’t have it both way. You can’t say one minute that the evil practitioners of Islam are so few as to not be representative of Islam and then turn around and say the Islamic people are so overwhelmed by the evil as to have no power. Throughout history, people have had to rise up in revolution to fight off opressive regimes. According to your argument, the whole of Islam should be able to win against the extremists based on sheer numbers. Are you saying that the Islamic population is more cowardly then other groups of people? Because the numbers that you and others site just don’t paint a picture of helplessness. You say they are basically unarmed. Well what has prevented the muslims of noble intent from infiltrating the armies under fasle pretenses to stage a coup? Others have done it throughout history. What makes these swarms of “peaceful” people so very helpless? Could it be that they like things just the way they are?

#66 Independent

“According to your argument, the whole of Islam should be able to win against the extremists based on sheer numbers……….
……………………………………………………………………… What makes these swarms of “peaceful” people so very helpless?”

Well, now THERE if the nub of the question! Well done!

# 69 hipstreet

Thanks for the thoughful reply. May I deal from the bottom up? The “fall out of the civil war” is complicated. The 13th amendment ended slavery. The 14th amendment came along because men of ill will were saying that freed slaves were not citizens, just freed slaves. The 15th amendment came along and got rid of the grandfather clause that wiley old statemen came up with. This was followed by segregation, Plessy v. and finally, in 1953-4, Brown v. which shot a big hole in de jure segregation. It was the civil rights act of 1957 under Eisenhower that finally took aim at de facto segregation. After Kennedy’s assassination, LBJ went after de facto segregation with a big club. This broke down the walls of housing segregation and accomodation segregation by applying applicable interstate commerce laws to the problem.

No, the fall out of all of this does not lead naturally to affirmative action. Affirmative action is clearly in conflict with the due process clause of the 14th amendment and has been slowly but surely tested in the courts ever since. One of the great problems with affirmative action is curiously simple. You might like to research the genetic markers for race. There is no definitive set of markers that apply to the old classification of “Negroid.” Therefore, the only hope for the concept of affirmative action or reparations is to show a direct line back to those who were victimized by overt government policy.

I could say more, but you get the point.

My reference to 100 years of slavery is not coupled with St. Augustine, Florida in 1548 or Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. It has to do with the foundation period of the United States that began in the 1760’s when Washington was sent into Western Pennsylvania to distinguish the frontier of the colonies from French and Indian mischief.

Jefferson wanted to blame King George III for slavery in his list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence, but he was talked out of it by interests who feared it called their practice of indentured servitude might be into question. The constitution did call for the abolition of the importation of slaves by 1807 and as soon as that date rolled around slave importation was abolished. From 1807 until 1861 there is a rich history of political back and forth about slavery. During this time, the northern factories were careful not to jeapordize their right to use child labor, orphans and indentured servants. There really were very few “clean hands” in this period except for the rare, few abolitionists. I recommend to you a book of the period entitled “Cannibals All” by George Fitzhugh who was the rare, published abolitionist. I also recommend that you take a look at Cassius Marcellus Clay. No, not Ali the boxer, but Lincoln’s ambassador to Russia.

I can not help you with your understanding of the Koran as it is a complicated study. But I do suggest this. Christians load their quivers with Bible verses. Islamists load their quivers with quotes from the Koran. Take a look at the arrows on each side. Christians are like Eros, shooting love arrows. Islamists fire death arrows. There are many sites on the net that will take you to information for each. This is not really a fight between zealots. It is a fight for survival.

There is an ancient Greek saying that says: “The boys throw stones at the frogs in sport, but the frogs die in earnest.” Those of us who warn of deadly Islam are not warning in sport, we are in deadly earnest. These guys are not your garden party macho types. They are deadly dangerous and they believe their god is fully behind them.

I hope this helps. I do not wish to demean you or to appear superior to you. If I am not clear, give me the opportunity to clarify.

Hipstreet, Heliotrope’s eloquent and precise answer makes me wish I had kept my fingers off the keyboard. Heliotrope, you do have a way with words. I’m sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning in any way.

Independent:

Yes, you are correct that throughout history governments have fallen by internal rebellion. Governments and civilizations fail for different reasons: Implosion from within when the leadership does not provide for the people’s needs, invasion from external forces, giving the citizens too much that they become complacent, or from spreading one’s civilization too broadly to control. Philosophically speaking, government could be defined as the effective leadership of a society that acts as the parent to a national family, performing many of the same functions. This leadership may range from excellent to poor throughout the world, but all have one thing in common – they act with authority to control behavior. We are born as arbitrarily to a government as we are born to a parent, neither of us choosing the other. Allegiance develops through familiarity, not through objective evaluation. Ultimately, the goal of the government is to take care of the citizenry; the goal of the citizenry is not to need care.

Hierarchical and totalitarian governments such as those which govern Islamic states include all the factors I listed above with the most influential for failure the widespread dominion of the Islamic world. Someone earlier on this thread listed Germany, Japan, and some other small countries – I’ll add Poland and asked if I thought ALL of the citizenry were complicit in crimes committed by their governments. My answer is of course not. But in each of the countries mentioned, there were heroic underground movements that tried to overthrow dictatorships. How would it be possible for the wide-ranging Islamic countries to collectively engage in one huge underground movement to overthrow those leaders who promulate terrorism? We are not talking about a small country rising up in arms; we are talking about a global community of varying Muslim nations. It would be nice if Iran could start the ball rolling and then to have the ‘movement’ spread around the world, but I don’t see that happening. If it could be a peaceful rebellion, that would be fine, but where do approximately a billion people get weaponry to overthrow those who are adept at killing and who have seemingly unlimited finances to carry on their terrorism.

I never said the sheer numbers of Muslims should be able to win against the extremists. As well, I do not think for a minute they are a cowardly people. If, as you suggest, some large group could infiltrate the terrorist camp and be successful, I firmly believe the whole of the Muslim community would rally to fight the terrorists. They just need the leadership, the belief they have the power to succeed, and the assurance that the west will support them in their endeavor to fight the extremist faction of their religion. If ‘swarms of peaceful people’ like things just the way they are, it is because their governments have not provided for them in knowledge and modernity. Their governments, through repressive religious ideology, have suppressed, oppressed, and repressed these people. That is their governments’ manner of control. The BBC, Al Jazeera, idiotic statements by our own people, and now this Graham article does nothing to enlighten the oppressed into thinking there could possibly be a better world than the one they are living in. Knowledge is power. The problem is how to get the knowledge to the people who are too afraid to speak out.

As for Muslim leaders, I agree completely that it is they who must decry the activities of the terrorists. Could it be they like things just the way they are?

Phoenix, your arguments are frustrating, but I sense they come from a place of decency and goodness. The Islamic people have had centuries to affect change within their government structures. For whatever reason, they have not done so. At the present, the Islamic leaders that have managed to maintain control (despite the overall “peacefulness” of the religion), have declared war on all those that don’t go along with their agenda. I support the Iraq war and hope and pray that the overall result is a positive change for Islamic people on a whole. In the meantime, those of us that live day to day wondering what is going to happen next, have a right to say that Islam itself is dangerous to our way of life. We have a right to expect more than emply platitudes when our people are dieing at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. This sense of complacency on the part of the Islamic community is not just from the “opressed” of these fanatical regimes. Western Islamic leaders have been anything but enthusiastic in their condemnation of terrorist acts. There is always an equivication or a but at the end of most of their statments. Civilizations are preserved based on self-interest. Islamic interests and western interests are at odds. If I ever am forced to choose between these two civilizations, I am without doubt going to choose my own. I am lately coming to believe just such a choice may have to be made. That Michael Graham stated such an opinion, well such is his right. That he was suspended from a private industry, well such is the owner’s right. However, don’t get all shocked and bothered that the man is supported by a great number of Americans. Dissent is a two way street, and right now I think your way of thinking just might get a terrifying number of Americans killed.

Heliotrope, your reponse is appreciated, duly noted and very clearly understood.

But, do you really feel that the history lesson was necessary? I’m well aware of this history. I’ll give in to long winded diatribes, but JESUS CHRIST!

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not insulted nor I am insulting you. Granted it was me that strayed from the topic and hand. (Michael Grahams comments about Islam)I just thought I’d throw in a bit of mirth to, lets’ say “file the egdes off the square.”

The facts are people like Graham and some of the people on this thread believe that attacking the Islamic faith verbally is okay. We all know that mounting verbal threats will eventually lead to physical confrontations.

I can fairly say this to all who believe that Islam as a religion is a threat. A war is being fought as we speak in Iraq and Afghanistan. The miliitary is in dire need of personnel. (recruitment is still at an all time low) If you truly believe there is a threat, the time is now to do something. There are millions of people who live by the Koran in these war zones. Verbal attacks don’t kill terrorist, bullets and bombs do. Anyone 17 to 39 can join.

You have an opportunity to attack them NOW! Go, help spread Democracy. I’ll even bet in the end you’ll win.

For those who simply want to spread the hate, keep BLOGGING!

Phoenix #67 wrote, “I taught writing”. I hope you didn’t call your students ignorant just because you disagreed with them.

Phoenix wrote, “The man is too stupid for me to waste my time”. Yet you write many posts here wasting your time.

Phoenix wrote, “As for me speaking convincingly to the substantial evidence in history, tradition and the Koran that it is a religion of peace, I will refrain.” That’s all you should’ve done in all of your posts. Instead of name calling Independent and I would like you to prove why you think the way you think. We thing Graham did a wonderful job outlining why he thinks the way he thinks. It simply isn’t enough to just call him names.

The reason I say you are all over the place is because you condemn Graham for what he writes and then you write things like this “As for Muslim leaders, I agree completely that it is they who must decry the activities of the terrorists. Could it be they like things just the way they are?

And then you write again, “Since I’m forced to wander away from my original contention that Graham is an idiot”. Ohhh. With all of the name calling you’d think we could get an answer as to what statement of fact that Graham wrote was untruthful. Or could you prove the opposite as Independent asked and I’m asking. No. You say.

You then write, “I’m all for shoot first, check for bombs later.” Let me play your game. My that was ignorant and stupid. I can’t believe you’d write something so irresponsible. [just think of me as a mirror here, it'll help you understand my style]

It’s like this. It seems that you simply disagree with Graham’s statement. Many disagree. Many agree. Many who are either politicians or are in the media will even do as much as possible to distance themselves from Graham because of political correctness. Political Correctness comes from people being denigrated or ousted or spat upon for their speech. To me, it seems as if you are from the political correctness crowd. Will you admit that much? You still haven’t pointed to one statement of fact that was made that was untruthful. He formed his opinions from facts that you haven’t refuted and refuse to refute.

My whole point? I’m simply asking if you could moderate a little and say that you disagree with Graham. There is no need for the name calling. You have a right to your opinion and Graham has just as legitimate a right to his. And I still maintain [something you glossed over and didn't understand] that muslims could stand to learn from Graham’s article. They could use it as a realization that they need to do more to convince others that they aren’t interested in smiting or killing the infidel as the Koran states.

Someone so “disgusted” by the “Christian Right” shouldn’t be commenting on a conservative Christian’s blog. This is America (thank God), and you have a right to express your disgust against us, but you won’t do it on this blog. – Admin

Baklava:

In order of your comments to me in #80:

1. No, I did not call my students ignorant. They never disagreed with me. I taught English, not political science. Though, had any had the temerity to disagree with me on how to write correctly, I would have flogged them soundly with my ruler.

2. “The man is too stupid for me to waste my time.” This was in answer to someone’s suggestion that I stuff some proof down Graham’s throat to answer his declaration that NOBODY can say Islam is a religion of peace. You omitted the context of my statement. Read the whole.

3. Why should I refrain from commenting on Graham? I answered every comment addressed to me with the sincere intention of making my position clear. Do you run this blog? Are you its governor? Why not let Independent as me to prove why I think as I do. I think he did a great job asking me to clarify, explain and expand on the various subjects of last night’s postings. I agree that you think Graham did a wonderful job outlining why he thinks the way he thinks. I don’t. I detailed my reasons several times throughout my initial comments. I think Graham is an idiot. He cannot write. He is a fool. He is most certainly entitled to his opinion – just as I am entitled to mine. He called an entire race of people terrorists. I call him an idot. If you wish for me to prove why I think the way I do about Graham’s writing, go back and read my original comments.

4. “The reason I say you are all over the place…” I am not all over the place. The thread is. The sentence of mine you quoted in this paragraph is in response to something someone wrote to me that was way beyond my original intent to show what a fool Graham is. Once again, keep it in context Mr. Baklava.

5. “And then you write again, ‘Since I’m forced to wander away…’. You need to go back and reread that comment in context. You will see where I use the word ‘untruthful’. As for “or could you prove the opposite as Independent asked and I’m asking. No. You say.” Correct. There is no opposite to my declaration that Graham is untruthful and is an idiot. Graham is both. I don’t need to prove myself. Mr. Graham does. He is the one who wrote an article that is as sophomoric as any uniformed teenager with no writing experience.

6. “You then write, ‘I’m all for shoot first, check for bombs later.” So, you think the British police were irresponsible in shooting that guy in the subway?
[just think of me as a mirror here, it’ll help you understand my style] I already know your style, Mr. Baklava. I’ve been monitoring this site for a while, and I see your style is to peruse all commentary, go back and pick out bits and pieces out of context and to try to slam-dunk the commentor with your pseudo-erudite ramblings. Nice cheap-shot tactics in an effort to come off as smart and important.

7. “It’s like this.” I do simply disagree with Mr. Graham. I stated why, proved it and the rest of the thread’s rambling followed. As for the rest of your comments: Yes, anyone with a grain of sense will distance themselves from this idiot. You could not be more wrong in your definition of political correctness. PC is the attempt not to hurt anyone’s precious feelings to the point we have lost sight of our ability to stand for what we believe is right. I loathe PC. I have made many comments against it on other blogs, and have gone so far as to say it will bring down our civilization. The last two sentences of that paragraph are totally false. Go back to my original comments and you will see. Mr. Graham offers not one fact that is not subject to his own distorted world view. The man is an intellectual phony.

8. “My whole point?” You have no point, Mr. Baklava, other than to do what you do best: Insult the integrity of the commentors on this blog. If it makes you feel good to do it, go for it. Free speech is free speech, but I doubt you fool too many members of this blog with your snarky ways. “Muslims could stand to learn from Graham’s article.” I am not so sure Muslims who read Mr. Graham’s claim that ‘Islam is an ORGANIZATION of terrorism’ are going to take this man seriously enough to learn a thing from him. They are more likely to want to kill him for his blasphemy.

6 through 8 had an error making it snipped. I fixed the error and reposted.

6) “You then write, ‘I’m all for shoot first, check for bombs later.” So, you think the British police were irresponsible in shooting that guy in the subway?” There was an inability (lack of time) to get positive control of the guy before he got to a crowded area. I find it hard pressed to find something wrong with the police action there. Maybe there could’ve been some magic bullet that would’ve registered his thumb unable to trigger a bomb but yet not have killed him, but nice way to divert the attention from your statement. In almost every post of yours you had some hardliner type statement about terrorists and Muslims wishing to have a revolution, and my question is why? Was there some truth to what Graham said in your mind to warrant such statements of yours?

7) Skipped

“Muslims could stand to learn from Graham’s article.” I am not so sure Muslims who read Mr. Graham’s claim that ‘Islam is an ORGANIZATION of terrorism’ are going to take this man seriously enough to learn a thing from him. If they don’t learn then people will continue to perceive things just like Graham. They’ll all be stupid idiots in your mind but yet it’s our perception. It’s nice to be smarter than all of us who perceive things differently than you though.

Phoenix, I’ve been rereading the tread this morning and I think there is something I failed to express. Phoenix, I want YOU to be right. I hope I am wretchedly, miserably, ignorantly WRONG. However, every human instinct I have is telling me I’m at least partially right. Not exactly the scientific method, I know, but a powerful tool none the less. I’m not sure where you got the idea that anyone has been advocating preemptive violence toward muslims or other Islamic practitioners. What many are calling for is sensible profiling, deportation of non-citizen muslims, greater border control, and major surveillance of mosques. There is something to be said for that ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. Now, I can understand the confusion because I in particular went on a tangent and started talking about what I believed would happen if WMDs were ever used on our soil. I DO believe that response would be very violent toward the Islamic community. But they were differnt issues that I should not have mixed up.

What many of us want; ecspecially of western muslims, is to hear them saying we understand there is a violent element in Islamic society. We are also scared of the threat they pose to our society. We recongnize that statistically it is the Muslim community that pose the greatest threat. We submit to whatever precautions the government deems necessary to keep our country safe. We put the security of our nation ahead of our civil liberties, because we have nothing to hide. We want to see national loyalty, unequivical rejection of Islamic extremism as a legitimate political statement, and cooperation instead of law suits. If the Islamic community continues to hide behind organizations like CAIR and the ACLU, then they give the impression that our national security is a secondary issue for them. Phoenix, if your particular group was committing international acts of mass murder, would you be willing to deal with travel discomforts and a temporary strain on your civil liberties if such methods could save lives? I would be willing to do just that and for me that is a large part of the suspicion and frustration. If Michael Graham’s remarks serve to wake up the Islamic community to the impressions they are giving, then perhaps they will serve a greater good.

I do think it is interesting that you ended your last comment with this remark, “They are more likely to want to kill him for his blasphemy.” I, a Christian, and every other religious denomination are bombarded with blasphemy on a daily basis. It is completely acceptable to joke and profane almost every religion in the popular media. Of course, Islam is generally untouchable in this regard. I understand why we censor ourselves where Islam is concerned. Most people sense what you are saying, they just might want to kill us in retaliation.

Michael Graham’s firing appears to be a business decision. It’s within the rights of people to agree with Graham, (although I don’t), but this isn’t the first time ABC has let go a media figure for “controversial” statements.

Take this account for example:

>>>Bill Maher is a comedian, actor, writer and producer, most famous for his political satire, Politically Incorrect. The TV series, in which Maher hosted four guests from the world of entertainment and politics for a discussion of current events, ran from 1994-2002. The show was cancelled after comments Maher made responding to George Bush and others calling the September 11 terrorist attacks “cowardly.” Maher stated, “We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.” When several sponsors pulled their advertising, ABC cancelled the show.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-maher

Now, those on the conservative side may find Maher’s statements abominable, but were they “worse” than Graham’s? Maher condemns a millitary tactic, and the participants therein. Graham condemns a worldwide religion of a billion people or more. They both were canned, and no one in this room can accuse Bill Maher of being a “conservative.”

–Cobra

Mwalimu Daudi:

Okay.

Europe needs to purge all of it’s islamist people! These … cause trouble all over the world. Send em back where they came from, and let em open a used camel lot, or bag sand!

P.S. I happen to agree with Michael Graham. I don’t care how nuanced you want to make your selves, I believe he is correct in his assertations.

The Islamist need to prove it to us. From what I’ve seen I would never believe that they are a religion of peace.

The speeches that they have delivered over the weekend remind me of the non – apology – apology that Jane Fonda gave. It didn’t mean squat.

Phoenix wrote, “Part of your ‘gang-up’ approach to new commentors or just to females you don’t agree with?”

I didn’t know you were female. I would love it if you stuck to the topic of debate, stopped calling people names, and state what people have asked for you to explain (that is… the opposite set of statement of facts that prove Michael Graham wrong). Yet you refuse.

Heliotrope and Kathy, Thank you for posts 95, 96, and 97. It isn’t just one person (Michael) who thinks what he thinks based on a set of facts. It’s a lot of people. It would be wise for muslims to learn what we think and act accordingly. Even Phoenix sees this “uprising” starting (for what Pheonix?) that we all have wished to see for so long. 4 years after 9/11 is far too long to have a FEEBLE attempt at telling your muslim brothers and sisters to stop with the terror.

Send a letter Rep J. The more they hear from us, the more they see a bottom line effect.

Baklava:

” I would love it if you stuck to the topic of debate, stopped calling people names, and state what people have asked for you to explain (that is… the opposite set of statement of facts that prove Michael Graham wrong).”

Mr. Baklava, I have always made my comments germane to the debate when it was aimed at me. This thread has covered many, many different subjects beyond the original post. Could you point out a place I have not responded appropriately? I am not sure, but I think you want me to explain the ‘opposite set of statement of facts that prove Michael Graham wrong’. I’ll be happy to if you can explain what that means. If you mean MY reasons for disagreeing with Mr. Graham, I have done that many times. You did say you read the post at TwoBabes. I was clear in my description there, and since, on this thread, I have again commented in detail on my reasons for disagreeing with him.

As well, could you please point out where I have engaged in name-calling. I am well aware of calling Mr. Graham an idiot and a fool, but I do not believe I have called any commentor on this blog a name.

Phoenix, When a great number of Muslims start rooting out the terrorists from under their own feet, you let me know. I think Pakistan’s Musharraf is just now getting started on that, but it sure has taken him quite some time to get on the ball. When the whole of Islam stops enabling the radicals because they secretly want the same things, you just let us know. In the meantime, Mr. Graham’s assertions are the most correct.

Baklava:

Thank you for your comments. I’ve put together my original article in precis form so we can all shut up about this. But before I send it, let me say you could not be more wrong in stating that Graham did not mean to include 100% of Muslims. If he had meant to say a small faction of radical Muslims are terrorists, he would have said that. And he would not have been fired. He said ISLAM IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

As well….what is with all this ‘personal’ stuff you and a few others are bringing up? You are the one who told me to stop posting because nothing I wrote made any sense….that Graham’s writing was better than mine….that WE want you to explain yourself, etc. Hardly comments worthy of decent debate. But, it is your style, and if it makes you feel good, go for it. Just don’t play the transference game on me.

NOTE: What follows is MY take on Graham’s essay and why I think it is invalid in proving his statement that Islam is a terrorist organization. I used only the most salient points for my argument, though I could have used several more points in his essay to denigrate his position as being unsustainable not only in writing persuasively but in common sense. I think what I have used is enough to prove MY point.

Phoenix, you have your head fully immersed in the sand. That is a good position for you. It will make it easier to aim over your head when that terrorist organization, known as Islam, makes another run at the hill. It is always good advice to stay out of the fight if you will only be in the way.

Phoenix, no amount of aid to Africa or the ME can save the regions. Oh, we can keep some people alive another day through food or medicine, if the aid actually reaches the people that are suffering. However, all of our money and good intentions are just band-aids. Africa and the ME will have to save themselves in the long run. Unless we plan to use the military to overthrow all of the rotton dictatorships and use our own treasure for nation building, then these places are going to have to fight for themselves. Perhaps we should go back to western expansionism and colonization. These people would all be better off under western influence than under their present regimes.

Independent:

I couldn’t agree with you more. My comments were obviously in jest. I have to say I am impressed that you dared speak what so many think but are afraid to say. I read a documentarian’s book about Somalia, and it was thorough down to details that were horrifying to even imagine. The author lived there a year before he wrote the book. The very last paragraph of the book, just when the average optimistic mindset was looking for an answer, any answer for the problems of this nation, the author said: “Let Somalia float away and sink into the sea.”

I’m with you. Well, more specifically, I’m with Thomas Malthus and his theory. Let natural forces deal with Africa. No imperialism. Unless Britain wants to go back, or the Netherlands. But they have too much to deal with now to go back to the old days of colonialism.

You had to qualify with “on this blog”. Why?

Baklava:

Ha ha ha. You don’t give up, do you? Not a problem. I used “on this blog” to mean I did not call anyone ON THIS BLOG a name. I most certainly said Graham was an idiot, a fool, and whatever else I called him. Graham is not a commentor ON THIS BLOG if that makes it clearer.

“That’s what I’ve been asking you to say. Just say you disagree with him and why.” Um. Ground Control to Mr. Baklava: I believe I have done just this – over and over and over and over. You don’t seem to get it. Best? Get OVER IT.

“No need to name call.” Didya notice I did not name-call in my last attempt to explain to you why I think Graham is wrong????? I used PC words.. like ‘mentally-challenged’ instead of idiot. Alas, I could not resist the ‘dumb’ part, though. That was just for you because I like you.

Hahahaha…. If you are so averse to people referring to other people as idiots, morons, stupid, etc., why are you a bloglodyte? There was some ferocious name-calling on the Pick Your Top Ten Most Disliked Conservatives thread last night. I didn’t see you out there spanking the name-callers. Were ya too busy waitin’ for me to comment so you could jump me?

Bring it on, sugar.