| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Michael Graham explains how and why he was fired by WMAL in Townhall via FrontPage, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
The First Amendment and I have been evicted from ABC Radio in Washington, DC.On July 25th, the Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded that I be “punished” for my on-air statements regarding Islam and its tragic connections to terrorism. Three days later, 630 WMAL and ABC Radio suspended me without pay for comments deemed “hate radio” by CAIR.
CAIR immediately announced that my punishment was insufficient and demanded I be fired. ABC Radio and 630 WMAL have now complied. I have been fired for making the specific comments CAIR deemed “offensive,” and for refusing to retract those statements in a management-mandated, on-air apology. ABC Radio further demanded that I agree to perform what they described as “additional outreach efforts” to those people or groups who felt offended.
I refused. And for that refusal, I have been fired.
It appears that ABC Radio has caved to an organization that condemns talk radio hosts like me, but has never condemned Hamas, Hezbollah, and one that wouldn’t specifically condemn al-Qaeda for three months after 9/11.
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at August 23, 2005 4:14 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
So, do we call the house of Saud to call for the firing of Ibrahim Hooper and Nihad Awad, or do we call Hamas?
Posted by: DCWatson
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 23, 2005 9:34 AM
Good point DC. I have grievances against Hooper and CAIR. Who do I complain to and get them out of here?
Posted by: pedestrian infidel at August 23, 2005 12:20 PM
Is there any practical way that readers can assist Mr. Graham?
Posted by: Athena at August 23, 2005 12:59 PM
C.A.I.R. is currently being investigated by Congress, which will most likely conclude that it is as legitimate as Islam itself. If Islam, its diabolical agenda, and its proclivity for barbaric acts of terrorism do not preclude continued muslim immigration to America, why should Congress be concerned about C.A.I.R.?
Muslims are free to practice their savage death cult here only because of a technicality----the failure of our founding fathers to anticipate a future muslim invasion. We cannot blame them for their lack of vision; such an incongruous event would have been unfathomable to them. They were well aware that Islam and muslims were enemies of freedom and democracy. They would have promptly thwarted any attempts by muslims to infiltrate America and amended the Bill of Rights to exclude Islam. But that will never happen in today's politically correct, suicidal atmosphere. I'm sure they're turning over in their graves.
Eliminating C.A.I.R. from our midst will be as difficult as eliminating muslims. It seems that as fast as its executive officers are convicted of charges related to terrorism, they are replaced with equally sinister but unindicted clones. The best lawyers in America are on the Saudi payroll to keep them out of trouble. I guess lawyers have no loyalty or morality conflicts; C.A.I.R.'s seditious agenda is of no concern to the legal profession.
The politicians will be the first ones to tell you that the right to free speech that C.A.I.R. is slowly eroding is guaranteed to all of us, just like religious freedom. Isn't that encouraging?
Posted by: Susanp at August 23, 2005 1:26 PM
The Saudi Prince.....the one that looks like Father Guido Sarducci from Saturday Night Live...the same rake that Giuliani handed a ten million dollar check back to after 9-11.....he owns 50 million in Disney stock, and is also, or at least was, a donor to the jerks over at CAIR.
We are being sold out by the ones we put into office folks........Send all you know about CAIR to your Congressman and Senator. If we show them in masses what we know, they'll change their tune, beause no block of Muslims can keep them in office and they know it.
Posted by: DCWatson at August 23, 2005 2:20 PM
Susanp,
I think the case to proscribe moslem practice could be made even without amending the U.S. Constitution. First the relevent passage is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercist thereof:". If by my reading of the "Original Intent". It could be argued before the SCOTUS, as follows. In order to prohibit the U.S. from having a state church, or to have the states have the same thing, with the different DENOMINATIONS as we'd understand them, in each state; the framers gave us the loose words above. This allowed the various "establishment(s) of religion" or denominations, of Christianity to freely be practiced without national or state interference or advocacy, and the practice of the related Judaism. Some Founders also said that we could include the "Mohammedens" when the time came that they'd come to our shores. I don't think they all knew the wicked ideology behind Islam.
Define said Mohammedism as an ideology. Then we'd have to argue that the framers never intended this to be anything other than the Christian nation that the SCOTUS has ruled that we are; and that they never intended that the Mohammedens were to come here and change everything.
Thus I believe we could outlaw Islam in the U.S. without an amendment of the Constitution. While I hope that we'd not find it necessary to do so, I think if push came to shove, we could do it. It it up to the "Mohammedens" to decide to live with us as we are, or find themselves proscibed from practicing in whole the idelogy that is so dangerous to the rest of us and the cherished blessed way of life we have. Many have said that the Constituion is not a suicide pact. With thoughtful argumentation it isn't.
at August 23, 2005 2:39 PM
Is there any practical way that readers can assist Mr. Graham?
Posted by: Athena at August 23, 2005 12:59 PM
Athena,
I think it was him filling in for Mike Gallagher this morning. I only caught a few minutes of the program so I don't know for sure.
at August 23, 2005 4:35 PM
??????????????
I'm just wondering if the FCC was called in to determin that the "Alleged" offensive comments did actually occur , or do we now an Islamic style State where you're punished before a trial .
Graham should sue CAIR for the "Constructed Dismissal" via proxy , the Courts have now accept law suits under the labour laws for businesses that construct a situation where the employee is forced to either quit or be fired.
This tactic was used by a large Company in my City , in order to save money from severns packages they re-located the workplace and re-titled the positions as to force the workers to decline further employment since they may not want to move to a new City .
CAIR was party to ABC's constructive firing by hounding the Network and demanding he lose his job , any Lawyer out there that want to make a name for themselves may want to do a pro-bono
case to help Graham sue CAIR and bring back the Free-speech clause in the Constitution that CAIR has now quashed in the name of Islam and Muhammed .
at August 23, 2005 7:00 PM
Some Founders also said that we could include the "Mohammedens" when the time came that they'd come to our shores. I don't think they all knew the wicked ideology behind Islam. Posted by Mr. Christian
I was not aware that any provisions were made for the future practice of Islam in America by the founders. I do know that the early colonists were forced to wage a naval war against muslim pirates to put a stop to their raids, extortion, kidnappings for the slave markets, and other assorted criminal activities. The colonists had nothing but contempt for the muslim barbarians and sought to drive them as far away from our shores as possible. If they ever considered making provisions for the practice of Islam in America, it's news to me.
Posted by: Susanp at August 23, 2005 10:39 PM
Susanp,
I was not aware that any provisions were made for the future practice of Islam in America by the founders.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I guess you missed the point because of that.
The Founders who said that were just a tiny minority. I think they were seriously ignorant of the tenents of Islam. I wish I could remember who said it. I caught it years ago. It is possible it was only one of them. Time has faded the reading.
I was pointing out that under the Constitution as it is written, we could OUTLAW Islam in the U.S. if we went to the original intent and the SCOTUS's 1890-something ruling that this is a Christian nation.
Therefore there'd be no reason to amend it. Congress could do it tomorrow and under proper argument it could stand up to the scrutiny of the SCOTUS.
at August 24, 2005 1:23 AM
Susanp,
I was not aware that any provisions were made for the future practice of Islam in America by the founders.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I guess you missed the point because of that.
The Founders who said that were just a tiny minority. I think they were seriously ignorant of the tenents of Islam. I wish I could remember who said it. I caught it years ago. It is possible it was only one of them. Time has faded the reading.
I was pointing out that under the Constitution as it is written, we could OUTLAW Islam in the U.S. if we went to the original intent and the SCOTUS's 1890-something ruling that this is a Christian nation.
Therefore there'd be no reason to amend it. Congress could do it tomorrow and under proper argument it could stand up to the scrutiny of the SCOTUS.
at August 24, 2005 1:24 AM
OOPS -second post.
Posted by: Mr. Christian at August 24, 2005 1:26 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)