[1] Diana West refuses to capitulate, and has some words for those who do so:

Unbowed,if unemployed, Michael Graham issued a thought-provoking challenge as his airtime on "The O'Reilly Factor" ran down to a break. The topic under discussion was the conservative radio host's firing by Washington's WMAL — egged on by the terrorist-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) — for having made his case, logically, forcefully, even regretfully, that "Islam is a terrorist organization." Before discussing Mr. Graham's final words on "O'Reilly," it's worth mentioning that Mr. Graham's argument linking terrorism to Islam is posted at JewishWorldReview.com in a column he wrote after the second London Underground bombing. Sure, the stand-alonescare quote ("I. is a T. O.") collides head-on with 21st-century sensibilities, but Mr. Graham builds his argument carefully. He makes the politically incorrect kind of sense, supported by fact (e.g., more than one-in-four British Muslims said they wouldn't tell police of a planned terrorist attack) and observation (Islamic teachings drive terrorist jihad), that the open-eyed child in "The Emperor's New Clothes" would instantly recognize. But not his bosses at WMAL — not, it seems, after CAIR objected. When Mr. Graham refused to "apologize," the ABC-Disney-owned station fired him.

All of which is what he went on "O'Reilly" to discuss, offering a factually reasoned discourse on the controversy. (Good stats, conceded an outgunned Bill O'Reilly.) And then, in closing, Mr. Graham said this: Tell me one terrorist attack that's going to be stopped by ending this conversation — that is, by WMAL taking Mr. Graham off the air.

An interesting notion. WMAL is no bureau of Homeland Security, but given the line the radio station decided Mr. Graham crossed over global terrorism (jihad) and its central role in Islam, maybe it's worth wondering whether we are safer because Michael Graham isn't pursuing his on-air line of inquiry. Surely, we are more "sensitive," meaning more guarded, even nervous about what is currently permissible to say, at least according to CAIR's enforcers. Even so, ending a conversation about jihad and Islam doesn't end Islamic jihad. Nor does cutting the talk about links between Islam and terrorism cut the links between Islam and terrorism. The fact is, the train of logic doesn't change its destination no matter how many of us — radio stations, pundits, academics, politicians — hop off.

As I see how many media outlets on the Left and Right continue to ignore my book, even as it remains on the bestseller lists, I can't help but wonder myself at the large numbers of those who have jumped off the train of logic. Read it all.