The Gall Of Some People

I am an alternative media nut. I work it everyday I can on our site. I listen to talk radio. And I read tons of blogs. (Yes, we both read some MSM coverage, but not for news. We read them to see how they re twisting the news.) This morning, Michelle Malkin and a host of others are commenting on the suspension of talk radio host Michael Graham for his supposed "bigoted" comments towards the Muslim faith is a bit disconcerting to me.

Michelle has an excerpt from his column on her site. Let me say that I do not believe all Muslims are terrorists. I do not agree with that assessment. But Graham paints with a broad brush in his column.

I take no pleasure in saying it. It pains me to think it. I could very well lose my job in talk radio over admitting it. But it is the plain truth:

Islam is a terror organization.

CAIR threw a hissy fit over his comments, and finally got him off the air. I do not condone the move made by WMAL in DC. They backed Graham last week, and now his head is liable to be on the chopping block. I do like our side of the aisle when it comes to debate, and the exchange of ideas. There are hosts that I dislike. Mostly because all these people do is ramp up the rhetoric, and push a liberal, emotional reaction to their listeners. Michael Savage comes to mind. The man may have good ideas, sometimes, and may be on our side, but his show is just too over the top. How he conducts his show lends nothing to the realm of serious debate. I can understand why CAIR got so upset, but even they have quite a bit to answer for, as I will illustrate momentarily.

But Graham, and Tom Tancredo, really need to learn how to control themselves. Yes, he may have his views, but one does not indict an entire religion for the actions of a few. Hitler did that in Nazi Germany, blaming the Jews for all of Germany’s problems. Granted, Graham did not call for the extermination of all Muslims, but he did refer to their religion as a terrorist organization.

Tancredo was, and still is, willing to "nuke Mecca" should an act of nuclear terrorism strike this nation. Like Graham, Tancredo immediately dove into an emotional response during an interview, and he is riding the wave high on his statement. A lot of people support the idea. Probably close to the same amount of people that agree with Graham. But that does not make their statements correct, just, or even educated. They may come from frustration or emotion, but they should be controlled. Tancredo still will not apologize, and I would wager that neither will Graham.

When I posted last week my fisking of Ann Coulter’s column regarding her dislike of Judge Roberts, I did not delve into the emotional side of the debate. Emotion clouds the logic of civil debate. I simply pointed out that while her objections are noted, the screed was not well-researched. There is absolutely nothing in his decisions or his past that would give many a level of pause. Of course people like myself and Thomas, and whole host of other originalist thinkers are holding our breath. He could turn out to be a Souter, but I just do not see the evidence for him to be the "second coming of Souter," as Ann stated in that column.

Now, back to Graham, he has legitimate gripes about Muslims. So do I. A fatwa recently made by Muslim clerics. The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) and CAIR point to this fatwa as a shift in the Muslim ideology. The problem with it is it is bogus. It is a sham. Nowhere in the fatwa do they condemn the Islamic extremism ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism. It does not renounce nor even acknowledge the existence of an Islamic jihadist culture that has permeated mosques and young Muslims around the world. It does not renounce Jihad let alone admit that it has been used to justify Islamic terrorist acts. It does not condemn by name any Islamic group or leader. The fatwa, in short, is window dressing so people will leave them alone. Graham did not state anything in regard to the fatwa, but his logic is well-grounded in the simple fact that these leaders will not denounce the violence. To them, it seems justified (a recent Muslim group in London was questioned about the legitimacy of suicide bombers, and their answer was "It depends") and they are grossly offended by anyone who questions them, or their religious beliefs.

Never mind the simple fact that many leaders of CAIR have been indicted in terrorism-related crimes, and that CAIR refuses to acknowledge groups like Hamas as a terrorist organization. Hugh Hewitt recently had a two day interview with Hussam Ayloush, the spokesman for the Southern California chapter of CAIR. Hussam refused to acknowledge the legitimate right of Israel to exist, refused to criticize the attacks on Israel in ’48 and ’73, and basically attempted to sluff off any serious question raised about the animals in the Muslim faith. Hussam finally admitted that, yes, he believed Hamas to be a terrorist group, but then reminded everyone listening that he was only an engineer, and not an "expert." The man actually tried to play the role of the victim on the second day when Hugh also had Frank Gaffney. Needless to say, Hussam was shown to be much like what this fatwa was. A sham.

I dislike the fact that a talk show host was yanked from the airwaves over his comments regarding Muslims. The last time I checked, we still had freedom of speech, and radio hosts, much like the MSM, still have freedom of the press. I understand it was a business decision for WMAL to yank him because of the pressure that CAIR placed on them, and I understand that CAIR has a right to speak up and defend their people. However, that is all they are doing. That is all the major Muslim groups are doing. They are protecting their people. They are quick to point to any possible violation of their rights, and to play the victim card. But I expect them to criticize the radicals within their religion that are making victims of innocent men, women, and children when they blow up a car bomb, or plant bombs on subways and buses.

Were a group of Catholics to begin bombing America over the fact that abortion is still legal, I would disavow them, and I am sure the Catholic Church would, too. Actually, they would probably be excommunicated for such acts. Why can the Muslims not do the same for the radicals they claim do not follow "true Islam?" I can understand those that are fearful of the repercussions, especially in the Middle-East. But spokespeople for CAIR and other Muslim groups can speak out here in America. They can do so in Europe. But they are quite silent. And they issue fatwas that are complete bravo-sierra.

Based on their reaction to the terrorists we are fighting, one would almost believe that what Graham said was true. I still hold out a tiny sliver of hope that Muslims will wake up and smell the java. The world is starting to look in their direction for answers, and they refuse to acknowledge the problem. And that problem is that the religion still exists with a Seventh Century mindset, and those animals are fighting what they believe is a holy war against the infidel West. We cannot allow the war to devolve to that.

The Global War on Terror is a war on the animals that refuse to evolve, that struck us on 9/11, and that continue to strike against nations and people who believe in freedom. It is not a war on their religion. Those days are long gone, and civilized society has condemned the actions back then. But the Islamo-fascists that continue their jihad seem justified, and they feel that way because their religion—those that command the power and respect of the Muslim faith—have not condemned them. It is time for a serious condemnation from the Muslim faithful. And until they do so, there will be more Michael Graham’s and Tom Tancredo’s out there.

The Bunny ;)