As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2.  In March of 2001, just two days after EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman’s strong statement affirming Bush’s CO2 promise former RNC Chief Barbour responded with an urgent memo to the White House.  Barbour, who had served as RNC Chair and Bush campaign strategist, was now representing the president’s major donors from the fossil fuel industry who had enlisted him to map a Bush energy policy that would be friendly to their interests. His credentials ensured the new administration’s attention. . . .

“A moment of truth is arriving,” Barbour wrote, “in the form of a decision whether this Administration’s policy will be to regulate and/or tax CO2 as a pollutant. The question is whether environmental policy still prevails over energy policy with Bush-Cheney, as it did with Clinton-Gore.” He derided the idea of regulating CO2 as “eco-extremism,” and chided them for allowing environmental concerns to “trump good energy policy, which the country has lacked for eight years.”  . . .

On March 13, Bush reversed his previous position, announcing he would not back a CO2 restriction using the language and rationale provided by Barbour. Echoing Barbour’s memo, Bush said he opposed mandatory CO2 caps, due to “the incomplete state of scientific knowledge” about global climate change.  Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.  Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.  In 1998, Republican icon Pat Robertson warned that hurricanes were likely to hit communities that offended God. Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast.

The problem--among many with these idiots--is that the science is far from clear.  The scientific "community" is and has always been at great odds over the very existence of the "greenhouse effect" and "global warming," and the debate has been politicized by the fringe eco-lobbies (you know, the ones who burn down houses at construction sites and blow-up cars at dealerships, and the like) and used primarily as a tool to bash conservatives.  Studies such as the one Jr. references above fail to rise above the level of junk science.  Whatever acceptance global warming has received--on either side of the aisle--is a result more of political correctness, than hard fact and science.

But onward plod the left-wing, neo-commie freaks, espousing semi-/pseudo-science as the basis for their closely and dearly-held beliefs.  Ironically, they harken to such things as global warming as their new gods, apparently filling the void left when religion was banished.

The Governor, along with Pennsylvania Senators Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter, filed a law suit last month challenging BRAC's recommendation that the 111th Fighter Wing of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard, stationed at Willow Grove Naval Air Base, be deactivated.  According to the suit, the federal government is prohibited by law from deactivating a state's national guard unit without first seeking and obtaining the permission of the state's governor.  The suit states that if asked, Governor Rendell would not consent.

United States District Judge John R. Padova issued his ruling yesterday in a 52-page opinion, held in favor of the Governor, with respect to his claim that the federal government violated the law in seeking to deactivate the 111th Fighter Wing of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard.  The provision violated, according to Padova, was 32 U.S.C. § 104(c), which reads:

To secure a force the units of which when combined will form complete higher tactical units, the President may designate the units of the National Guard, by branch of the Army or organization of the Air Force, to be maintained in each State and Territory, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. However, no change in the branch, organization, or allotment of a unit located entirely within a State may be made without the approval of its governor.

The Court found that the effort to deactivate the unit violated the second part of the provision, that: "no change in the branch, organization, or allotment of a unit located entirely within a State may be made without the approval of its governor."  While the legal wrangling will no doubt go on for some time, for the moment, the Court has issued an injunction permanently (at least until and unless the ruling is overturned) preventing the deactivation of the 111th Fighter Wing.

Though an apparently somewhat staggering ruling, it may be a hollow victory for Governor Rendell. 

Although Judge Padova's order prevents the Department of Defense from "deactivating" the 111th Fighter Wing, it does nothing to stop the closure of the Willow Grove Naval Air Station.  If BRAC determines that the base should be closed, it will be closed.  The parties in Rendell v. Rumsfeld did not dispute the authority of BRAC or the DOD to close the base itself, only whether the guard unit could be deactivated.  The only option open to Rendell would be the move and consolidate the 111th Fighter Wing with another of the state's guard unit's at another location.  This would have been the same result had the 111th actually been "deactivated" by BRAC; the actually membership of the 111th Fighter Wing would not have been lost, but consolidated with some other unit.

Congratulations to Governor Ed Rendell, for winning the skirmish, but probably losing the war.

Read the Complaint in Rendell v. Rumsfeld.  Read the Opinion of Judge Padova, holding that the DOD and BRAC exceeded its legal authority in recommending that the 111th Fighter Wing be "deactivated" without first seeking and obtaining the Governor's consent.

MORE==> AP | Chi Trib | Reuters |

The neo-commie Leftists in this country were all aghast when on September 20, 2001, President Bush declared, just nine days after terror attacks of 9/11, that the nations of the world had to make a choice, and decide whether they were with us or with the terrorists:

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes.  Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.  It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.  We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest.  And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.  Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.  From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Truer words have never been spoken.  President Bush was absolutely right.  No entity, no person, no group, no nation, no religion, can be exempt from this principle.  Terrorism is such an insidious creature, that it can be aided, supported and grown just as much from inaction as from action.  Shadowy, hidden, usually invisible, terrorists exist only through the good graces of those who don't live in the shadows, like nations, politicians, religious leaders, organizations.  Only with their help, can terrorists function.  Without the active and the tacit assistance of nations, politicians, religious leaders, organization and individuals, terrorists simply cease to exist.  Without their help, a terrorist becomes nothing more than a loathsome, pathetic pile of dung.

This is why the one nation on earth with the ability to make the demand, must and has made that demand which President Bush articulated so excellently on September 20th, 2001.  You are either four square with us in the fight against terrorism--or you are (as the neo-commies on the Left like to rephrase it) against us.  Although, the President's phraseology is more accurate.  If you are not with us in this fight, you are not only against us, but you are on the side of the terrorists, for even inaction in the war on terror serves as support to the terrorists.

The clarity of some of those who are not "with us" has been stunning.  Most (if not all) Islamic nations can be counted upon to lie in the "against us" category.  Clearly Syria and Iran.  Less obviously, but still clearly, is Saudi Arabia.  And every other Islamic nation to one degree or another, excepting (now) Iraq and Afghanistan, and with some difficulty, at the least the present government in Pakistan.  Dictatorships, Islamic or otherwise, the world over, of course, are against us in our quest to quell terrorism.  And a wide variety of so-called Western nations who have their own selfish agendas have, most disappointingly, been in the "against us" category.  France and Germany, clearly, as well as Russia, have all demonstrated succinctly, that they will either cooperate outright with terrorists and terrorist-sponsoring nations--for political and financial gain.  Appeasement and greed serve well as foundations for the actions (and inactions) of these nations.

The latest demonstration of both tacit and active support for terrorism was revealed today, when some of the details of a "deal" forged between the Italian arm of the International Red Cross and a group of terrorists who had kidnapped two female Italian aid workers last September.  According to the head of the Italian Red Cross, members of that group entered into a secret deal with four Iraqi terrorists, responsible for kidnapping the British, in which the hostages were apparently set free in exchange for their own freedom, courtesy of the Italian Red Cross.  According to Maurizio Scelli, of the Italian Red Cross, the group snuggled the four terrorists, who were in need of medical attention, in a Red Cross ambulance, through two U.S. military checkpoints, to an Italian hospital located in Baghdad.  Said Scelli:

There were two American checkpoints outside the hospital. We had to trick them. We dispatched an ambulance and a Jeep, officially to deliver medicines. In reality it was a way of collecting the wounded men. Hidden under covers and boxes of drugs, the four terrorists

While Scelli termed the four terrorists as "presumed" terrorists, it is clear that he and the officials involved knew that U.S. forces were looking for the four, and believed them to be terrorists.  Again, according to Scelli:

The mediators had asked us to save the lives of four presumed terrorists whom the Americans were looking for and who had been wounded in combat.

Officials in the Italian Prime Minister's office were involved in and approved of the arrangements, including specifically concealing the deal from the United States, also according to Scelli.  The Prime Minister, predictably, is now denying that his office was in any way involved in the deal. 

You may also recall, earlier this year, that an Italian security officer was killed by U.S. fire at a checkpoint in Iraq, when it failed to slow and stop when ordered.  The vehicle in which he was traveling also contained an Italian journalist who had also just been set free from her kidnappers.  This "deal" with terrorists for the release of an Italian hostage was, likewise, conducted in secret from the United States, and ended, because of the secrecy, in death for the security officer.

Italy has clearly postured itself as one of the "not with us" nations, and has taken substantial steps in the direction of a "with the terrorists" nation.  Actions such as these, even when taken in its own, momentary, cowering self-interests, cannot be countenanced by the United States.  Doing some monetary deal with terrorists to free a citizen (like the Italian journalist), and then scurrying away under cloak of darkness, may be one thing.  Failing to stop for the checkpoint in doing so wrought its own costs.  But doing a deal with terrorists in which the very terrorists being sought by the United States are snuck through one of our own checkpoints, under the guise of a Red Cross ambulance bringing medical supplies to a hospital, is nothing short of criminal.  Such a step, if directly taken by Italian government officials would be virtually an act of war.  That it was a private organization such as the Red Cross that committed these acts makes them no less despicable.

Likewise, the International Red Cross has made its anti-American bent well-known over the past few years.  With respect to terrorism, the Red Cross pretends to maintain an air of aloofness, as if it can exist and operate independent of the demands of reality.  In perhaps the most outrageous commentary from the Red Cross thus far on the incident, spokesman Fabrizio Centofanti explained that "the Red Cross is an impartial organization and it does not depend on the Italian government.  It did help presumed Iraqi terrorists, but it did so in the spirit of the Red Cross to help out everyone in need."

Such acts of cooperation with and assistance of terrorists, history has shown, fail to "inoculate" the participants from the effects of terrorism.  No doubt, it is only a matter of time, if they continue in such "dealings" with terrorists, that Italy and the Red Cross will move from being partners to being targets.

More==> AKI | AP  | CNN |Times UK |UK Ind

The City of Dallas, Texas is presently beset by a good ol' FBI City Hall corruption probe, which first became public in June, relating in large part to allegations of kick-backs and other corrupt practices surrounding low-income city housing and tax credits. 

The FBI's Dallas corruption probe appears to be as wide-ranging as the one still underway in Philadelphia.  Those who are either under investigation, "persons of interest," or subjected to questioning or subpoena is growing on a daily basis.  This list includes:  Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill; city plan commissioners D'Angelo Lee (and wife, Toska Medlcok-Lee), Melvin Tarylor and Carol Brandon; City Council members James Fantroy, Leo Chaney, Maxine Thornton-Reese; DART board member Lynn Flint Shaw; State Sen. Royce West; State Rep. Terri Hodge; and Dallas Independent School District trustee Ron Price.  And this list is only of public officials who figure, one way or another, into this investigation.

Once the FBI "bug" was discovery in Philadelphia Mayor Street's office in October, 2003, both the local and national wings of the Democratic Party, as well as black activists around the nation, almost immediately sprung into action.  The "usual suspects" became involved, including highly-placed Congressional politicians, as well as the self-appointed so-called "leaders" of the American black community, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and so on.  Thus, a legitimate probe into Philadelphia political corruption, which has netted so far, an impressive listing of indictments, prosecutions and convictions, was instantly converted, for purposes of the 2003 mayoral campaign, into a disgusting spectacle of race-baiting, in which such local political luminaries and sterling citizens such as attorney Ron White set the tone early on:

Because I am a black man in America doing what I think needs to be done, and people resent that. They resent that, that black men in America are supposed to be bowing down all the time and not doing nothing but having babies and not taking care of them.

White just about said it for all those screeching "racism" in their "outrage" at the revelation that a black mayor (John Street) might be somehow the focus of an FBI investigation.  White, by the way, was likewise indicted and charged in connection with the "pay-to-play" probe.  The only thing that saved White from trial, conviction and a nice state-sponsored vacation, was that he died before he could be tried.

Look for this same lack of common sense to prevail in Dallas.

Already so-called black "leaders" are bellying-up to the trough of political race-baiting and racism.  Dallas Nation of Islam minister Jeffrey Muhammad has weighed in: "Our leadership is being attacked all over the country.  We need to realize this and come together with a local and national agenda for the betterment of our own community." 

Not being from Dallas, I am not conversant in the individuals involved in this particular mess.  However, according to local Dallas talk radio host, Darrell Ankarlo, in a national broadcast this morning, subbing as host on the Glenn Beck Program, every single person thus subpoenaed in the investigation is African American.  Thus, the results become all too predictable.  But like Philadelphia, accordingly to Ankarlo, Dallas is predominantly non-white.  In fact, whites Dallasians are third in population, following hispanics and blacks.  So too, Philadelphia is populated by more African Americans than white Americans.  In both instances, rather than race-baiting and jumping at the opportunity to vent their own racist tendencies, those critical of the such investigations--both Philadelphia and Dallas--should open their minds to a bit of common sense: When political corruption rears its ugly head in great American cities, those involved in the corruption are going to be those in power, those in charge, those with the ability to abuse that power.  As Philadelphia Mayor John Street said a couple of years ago at a get-together of his supporters: "The brothers and sisters are in charge of this city, now!"

Summoned before NAACP officials, representatives of the FBI met privately this past Monday, to give the group assurances that the investigation was not targeting black officials because of their race.  Following this private meeting, the Dallas NAACP led an "emotional" community meeting.

Dallas City Council member, James Fantroy, who himself has surfaced in the probe, warned those involved in the FBI investigation that they had better watch-out, or serious consequences would come from the city's black community:

What are they saying?  That we can't be honest and serve on the boards and commissions and council?  I tell them, they better stop what they are doing, because it is not looking good in our community.  . . .  This has gotten, and is getting, way out of hand . . . and they better stop it.  They mess around, and (it'll) make the Los Angeles riots look like a picnic.

At the community meeting, Fantroy's comments appeared to have had the desired effect.  The rhetoric was seething, including one woman who supported councilman Fantroy's expectations for the city:

I really want burning it down.  I come from Los Angeles, California, where they burn.  That's all these folks understand.

Keep your eyes peeled for further helpful hints from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the other "usual suspects" who are sure to be flocking to Dallas, as the federal criminal probe into corruption in city government continues.

More==> Dallas Morn News | Dallas Morn News | Dallas Morn News | Dallas Observer | Wash Times | WFAA-TV

According to a report by Cybercast News Service, the protestors, who like to do their vile thing in the entrance to the military hospital, are carrying signs bearing such slogans as: "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."  With many soldiers inside recovering from serious injuries, protestors display a series of mock caskets along the sidewalk outside the hospital.  (Watch the video) 

He neglects, however, to reconcile this rebirth of some his comments with the rest of his comments, in which he referred to Chavez' belief that the U.S. was out to assassinate him.  Said Robertson, "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."  Might as well what?  Take him out to that really bad dinner.

You're only making things worse, Pat.  Please, just. . .shut. . .up!

More==> Reuters | UPI | Wash Post

Finally! I'm going to be back on the radio again--and the best part is, they'll be able to hear it in Washington, DC!

Starting this Monday, I'll be on Rightalk.com every weekday at noon for a one-hour edition of a new radio show, "Michael Graham, Unleashed!" No liberal network execs, no advertisers, not even the FCC. You'll be able to listen live, or the show will be available for podcasting or downloading every hour, on the hour. And that includes INSIDE The beltway, too.

I'm very excited about Rightalk.com, not just because they're fellow conservatives, but because they're on the cutting edge of the future of radio as the technology moves from an AM receiver to digital, satellite, wifi and even CELLULAR radio technology. Rightalk.com has asked me to do this show, not because they necessarily agree with everything I say, but because they understand that free speech and open discourse are key elements in successful talk radio, not to mention successful democracies and thriving societies, too.

"Michael Graham, Unleashed," is going to be a very exciting experiment for me and I can't wait to get started. And yes--you will be able to call in live during the show. You can find out more about listening, calling and downloading by going to www.rightalk.com.

Please, make plans to log on now! The very first show is this Monday at noon. Don't miss it!

I guess pissing-off a Muslim terror front group, and getting fired from a gutless radio station, may have its up-side after all.

Click here to listen to a stream of Michael Graham on the John Zeigler Show, on Friday, 7-9pm (Pacific), that's 4-6pm (Eastern).

Let me put it this way: The media and the Left spread enough damaging lies about allegedly-lunatic evil conservatives. . .we don't need a legitimate former-icon like Robertson, doing their job for them.  I don't know whether Robertson thinks he is cleverly making some point.  I don't know whether he's mixed up his medications and is out of his head.  I don't know whether he has simply lost his mind.  But it is time for someone appropriately positioned to take Pat aside, and tell him that it's time for him to ride off into the political sunset.  He's doing no one any favors by suggesting that the United States assassinate the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

Says Robertson, Chavez intends for Venezuela to become "the launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."  He might be right.  Says Robertson, Chavez is a "strong-arm dictator" and a "terrific danger" to the United States.  Yes and maybe yes.  And, yes, Hugo Chavez and/or some other Venezuelan dictatorship may need to be dealt with at some time in the future.  But we haven't spent the last 15 years--since Gulf War One--dealing with a peace treaty, U.N. sanctions ad infinitum, years and years of inspections and negotiations, several years of windup to a second Gulf War, and two more years of post-Saddam Iraq, just to turn around to another possiblw problem country and just "off" its leader.  That's not how we do things in this country.  Does Robertson think we went through all of this just to fool the Democrats?

After a year's worth of the most personally disgusting, vituperative run-up to a Presidential election ever seen, in which every possible unfair charge was leveled against George W. Bush over going to war in Iraq--every iota of which was shown to be nonsense, to the satisfaction of at least 63 million voting Americans--is it really necessary to explain to Mr. Robertson what this was all about?  If he of all people didn't get it, and thinks that we can or should engage in what would really be an illegitimate foreign or national security policy. . it is finally time for him to beat a hasty retreat from the political scene.

If Ronald Reagan was still with us, he'd be able to take Pat Robertson for that quiet little talk out back behind the tool shed.  Since he's not, who's up for the job?

More==> AP | BBC News | Bos Globe | Chi Trib | CNN | Forbes | Knight-Ridder | LA Times | MSNBC | NYT | Pravda | Reuters | Time | UK Ind | USA Today | VOA | Wash Post | WorldNetDaily

Remember that this is talk radio. . . . We don't do the dainty minuet of the newspaper editorial page. It's not 'Washington Week in Review.'  It depends on pungent statements to drive it.  Michael is rattling the cage.  It's designed to start and further a conversation, and it has certainly done that.

Tough talk, from WMAL's crusading management, in proud defense of their own, and of the First Amendment, the stuff of which any good talk radio station is made.  Oooops!  Not so fast!   Evidently, Mr. Bloomquist must have spoken out of turn, for his bosses--be they ABC Radio, the Disney company, or the Council on American-Islamic Relations--has taken hold of Randy's family jewels, and has countermanded the principled stand he previously articulated to the Post.  Now having canned Graham, we can see that Bloomquist is simply full of hot air.

Graham has been discussing the problem of over-all-Islam's relationship to "Extremist"-Islam's terrorism for quite some time, and has been under attack from CAIR for more than a year.  But is his position really so extreme in itself.  Explained Graham:

Because of the mix of Islamic theology that — rightly or wrongly — is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization.  It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn't have to stay this way if the vast majority of Muslims who don't support terror will step forward and re-claim their religion.

Even more striking is how relatively little a nudge Bloomquist and WMAL required to sink their own boat.  Remember how many e-mails and calls were received by the station in support of Graham during the days following his suspension?  Over 15,000!  How many do you suppose were sent to the station as part of CAIR's efforts to gin up Islamic ire over Graham's comments?  According to Bloomquist, about a hundred.  I can't wait to see what WMAL's next ratings period is like.  I understand it has not been doing too well in any event.  A fall over the ratings precipice is certainly fitting for any talk station that punishes their own talkers talk.

What is the crime committed by Graham, for which ABC's capitulation to terrorist-front group CAIR has resulted in wholesale abrogation of all that talk radio is about: The First Amendment?  While I attempt to obtain an exact transcript of Graham's commentary, the few oft-repeated quotes include the following:

"Islam is a terrorist organization."  -  "Islam is at war with America"  -  "The problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam"  -  "We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam."

Does anyone else find the foregoing quotes to be simply statements of the obvious?  CAIR clearly has an agenda in attacking Michael Graham, and anyone else who has the audacity to speak beyond the new "Iron Curtain" of political correctness about the war on terror, terrorism, and the relationship between Islam, Islamic terrorists (called by the politically correct Islamic "Extremists") and the remaining "non-Extreme" bulk of Islam that is not personally involved in terrorism.  When one (such as CAIR) cannot defend their own actions, all that is left is to go on the attack.  CAIR knows how to do this, and to manipulate the politically correct.

But can anybody seriously dispute what Graham says?  That we are at war with Islam?  Whether the "Islam" that we are at war with constitutes 10% or 25% or 90% of those who belong to the religion may not be relevant.  Even taking the common "wisdom" that about 10% percent of all Islamists fall into the extremist category, what is then to be said about the remaining 90% who remain silent and/or slyly smile with content when American's are subject to acts of terrorism?  The dispute then--not with groups like CAIR, they are not interested in fairness, their agenda is clearly anti-American--among people of reasonable minds, is whether Islam as a whole, should bear responsibility for the actions of the so-called "Extremists."  Some people agree with this proposition. . .some disagree.  Graham happens to agree.  For this, Graham has been fired.

Still carried by ABC Radio's WMAL 630-AM on its weekday schedule are The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.  There is no question in my mind that neither Rush nor Sean would capitulate to demands by either CAIR or their syndication companies to retract comments made during a discussion of Islam or any other topic.  That is not to say that they necessarily agree completely with Graham's comments.  However, I can't imagine either supporting the action taken by WMAL in firing Graham.  What I would like to see (though I am not sure we will) are definitive statements by both Sean and Rush condemning WMAL's actions.

Actually, I'd really like to see both pull their shows from WMAL, but this is unlikely.  At least not immediately.  Gauging by the enormous response by Mike's listeners--some 15,000 or more e-mails and phone calls were placed in the first several days following his initial suspension--WMAL's ratings may be seriously impacted, as many have indicated an intention to "boycott" WMAL entirely because of Graham's firing.

Read a further explanation, by Michael Graham, of his views on Islam, which resulted in his termination from WMAL.

Following is a copy of the statement released by Graham today concerning his termination:

MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2005

WELL, THEY GOT ME...

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.

As a fan of talk radio, I find it absolutely outrageous that pressure from a special interest group like CAIR can result in the abandonment of free speech and open discourse on a talk radio show. As a conservative talk host whose job is to have an open, honest conversation each day with my listeners, I believe caving to this pressure is a disaster.

I for one cannnot apologize for the truth and I cannot agree to some community-service style “outreach effort” to appease the opponents of free speech.

If I had made a racist or bigoted comment -- which my regular listeners know goes against everything I believe in -- I would apologize immediately, and without coercion. When I have made inadvertent fact errors in the past, I apologized promptly and without hesitation.

But we have now gone far beyond that, with demands that I apologize for the ideas my listeners and I believe in. It is not a coincidence that, after my suspension on July 28th, WMAL received more than 15,000 phone calls and emails protesting my removal from the airwaves.

Why such a huge response? It wasn't about me; The listeners I spoke to said they felt betrayed by my suspension because the vast majority of them agree with me on the subject of Islam. By labeling my statements as unacceptable, these listeners felt that WMAL management was insulting them, too.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I care about the listeners of 630 WMAL. I respect them and I appreciate the amazing support they have given me.

I could not dishonor their principled support for free speech by giving into these demands. I cannot join ABC Radio in bowing to CAIR’s wishes. And I will not apologize for my opinions or retract the truth.

The whole point of the Michael Graham Show is what my listeners and I call the “natural truth,” those obvious facts about modern life that the p.c. police and mainstream media believe should never be discussed. That includes the tragic, but undeniable relationship between terrorism and Islam as it is constituted today.

The conversations my listeners and I had on this subject were not offensive or bigoted in the least. In fact, Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR (who has appeared on my show several times) credited “criticism from talk radio” in part for the recent fatwa against terrorism issued by a group of US Muslim scholars. Ironically, it was issued the day before I was suspended.

That’s the real tragedy here. The people who most need free speech and open dialogue on the issues facing Islam today are America's moderate Muslims. These are people of good will who have the difficult job ahead of reforming and rescuing their religion. They need all the help they can get.

The decision to give CAIR what it wants—a group with well-publicized ties to terrorists and terror-related organizations--will make it harder for the reformers to successfully face Islam's challenges. Still worse, silencing people like me will make it easier for Islamist extremists to dismiss all sincere calls for reform as mere "bigotry."

When CAIR is able to quell dissent and label every critic a "bigot," the chilling effect is felt far beyond ABC Radio and 630 WMAL. If anyone is owed an apology, it is the moderate, Muslim community who have been failed once again by the mainstream media.

A VERY SPECIAL NOTE TO EVERYONE WHO EMAILED AND CALLED ON MY BEHALF: Again and again through this ordeal, as people pressured me to just give in, say what CAIR wanted to hear and get my job back, I thought of you. I cannot express how much your support meant to me. I don't know that I'm doing the right thing by fighting this fight. I only know that I believe it's the right thing, and I believe it with all my heart.

Your support, your words of encouragement, your anger that the forces of p.c. fear have this much power--these all helped me do what I needed to do. Thank you.

In the coming days, I hope I'll have some good news for you about how we can continue our conversation. So please stay tuned, please stop by here each day and check it.

Trust me, this isn't the last you've heard from me.

MICHAEL, ARE YOU *SURE* YOU'VE BEEN FIRED? I've had several people tell me that ABC Radio says I'm not really fired, that I have "chosen" not to go back to work. I don't know what to say to that except that I received a hand-delivered letter very late Friday announcing that I was "terminated immediately." If there is some other definition of that other than "you're fired," I am not familiar with it.

Read on, oh strong-of-stomach. . .

Subject: Re: Fw: Nightline Tonight Mon., March 14, 2005

That was my son's unit. He was killed on that day 04/04/04. Here is a letter that I wrote to NightLine about the broadcast:
Love

Cindy Sheehan

March 15, 2005

To Whom it May Concern:

Imagine my distress when I turned Night Line on last night and I was confronted with the gory details of my son's murder in Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq on 04/04/04. Imagine, also, my sorrow and rage at the side of the story that you presented to the American public.

I was on the Night Line Townhall Meeting in Washington, DC on 01/27/05. After I spoke (which I think was a fluke), Ted Koppel dismissed me as being "emotional." First of all, how can I approach this discussion without emotions, MY SON WAS KILLED, AND KILLED FOR LIES? Second of all, that show was not fair and balanced and I think the conclusion "Should we stay" was foregone.

The show last night was also not fair and balanced. To see all the wives being interviewed who had not lost their husbands and to hear what "hard work" it is to be left behind when their husbands are at war. How hard to you think it is to have a child killed in an illegal and immoral war? In this "wonderful" group of families left behind, we had exactly ONE of the wives call us..she is Diane Rose who was my son's Colonel, Frank Rose's wife. The last time we heard from Diane was in October and we feel we have been left behind by anyone connected to the 2-5 Cavalry. Is support only given if your loved one stays alive? One wife was quoted as saying that Sundays were the hardest for the families left behind. My son was killed on Palm Sunday last year..how does anybody think Sundays are for my family?

A distraught father who lost his son was shown telling how much his life was so adversely affected. Why wasn't a mother (like me) who has been an outspoken critic of this war and of the President's policies interviewed for this piece? Why wasn't I given a chance to talk about 04/04/04 and the series of lies, mistakes and miscalculations that led to my precious oldest child's death??

General Chiarelli was quoted as saying that 04/04/04 was a "wake up" call to the 2-5 Cavalry. If he thinks it was a "wake up" call, let me tell you how having 3 Army officers come to my door on 04/04/04 and tell me that my darling son was KIA. I have learned so many details of that day and of my son's experience in Iraq.

The very first thing that went wrong happened in November at Ft Irwin, California...the 2-5 Cavalry went for desert training. They received open desert warfare training and my son was killed in an urban guerilla attack, which he hadn't been trained for. Also, he was wearing an inadequate helmet and a Vietnam era flak jacket. Casey was stationed in a very dangerous place, like the General said: FOB War Eagle. I have subsequently learned that the soldiers of the 2-5 Cav who were stationed outside of Baghdad had Kevlar body armor. I have also found out that Casey slept in the back of his Humvee for the last 2 weeks of his life because there wasn't any room on post for him to have a cot. How tired and overworked was he before he went into that battle on 04/04/04?

In addition, my son was killed after L. Paul Bremer inflamed the Shi'a by taking away their tv station and newspapers. The Abu Ghraib scandal was about to break in America...but it was well known by the Iraqi people that their citizens were being tortured and defiled in the prisons. My son was a sitting duck by the time 04/04/04 rolled around.

The very worst thing of all, is that my son was sent to rescue some fellow soldiers trapped in an ambush in the back of a LMTV..which is basically an open air trailer. It would be the equivalent of driving through Dallas on 11/22/63 in a Convertible. The troops stationed at FOB War Eagle were sent ahead of their tanks and Bradleys!!! They had to go into battle in the back of LMTV's and non-armored Humvees. This is just proof to me that our troops are as important to their leaders as bullets are. It is a small miracle that only 7 of them were killed in the ambush. Luckily for the rest of the moms, it was dark. After my son's murder, there was an article in Stars and Stripes that quoted one of Casey's superior officers as saying. "04 April taught us a lesson. We won't send soldiers to battle without their armor any more." How do you think that made me feel? It was like "OOOPS, your dear son was killed. Life happens. Oh well, you live and learn." The General was also quoted as saying that the insurgency "surprised" them. Why? Has there ever been an invasion/occupation of a sovereign country that hasn't been resisted? Anyone with half a brain and an even rudimentary understanding of history would know that all occupations are resisted. The Pentagon and the Army brass did not plan adequately for an occupation.

Then Gen. Chiarelli said the thing that upset me the most. He said that the loss of life was terrible, but at least Iraqis had elections on 01/30/05. With the continuuing insurgency and with Iraqis and Americans losing their lives everyday there, how can he be proud of that? I may remind you and the General, that Iraqi elections was not the reason that our President and his Neo-Con war mongers invaded Iraq with our precious human resources. I will give the two reasons given for the invaseion here: Saddam had WMD's and he was an imminent threat to America. Saddam could have WMD's on our shores within 45 minutes. Condoleeza Rice used fear as a factor when she said: Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud. Rumsfeld and Colin Powell pointed out to us where the weapons were on a map.

The second reason that America was given before the invasion was that Saddam was the biggest sponsor of world terrorism and he supported Osama Bin Laden! Oh really??? The hijackers were predominantly Saudi Arabian as was Osama (who is still at large, by the way). The theory that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 was disproven by the 9/11 commission's report. A huge factor in Americans believing all this bull is that our media..the Fourth Estate didn't do any research and expose the lies for what they were: justifications for invading a country that posed no imminent or long-term threat to America.

One reason that the President DID NOT give for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was so that Iraqis could have elections. As a matter of fact, that was Ayatollah Ali al Sistani's idea..not Bush's. If the president in his lying and betraying in the lead up and rush to this insane invasion had told the world that we were going over there to give Iraqi's elections, would we the people have gone along with the invasion? Would we as compassionate Americans have thought that it would have been worth billions and billions of dollars; hundreds of our amazing children dead; tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children dead: a country lying in ruins? I don't think so. I certainly didn't raise my son to be an outstanding citizen of the world to go and die so some people could have ink-stained fingers!!! If anyone reading this has children, would you think it was worth it?? Instead of some Congress leaders showing ink-stained fingers at the SOTU address they should have held up blood soaked hands.

Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, becuase the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq...in fact it has gotten worse.

It would be so amazing if your show would put me, or another parent who lost their child on who disagrees with the war and this administration: to have just an entire show..without presenting the false side of the debate. That would take a lot of courage and integrity. I hope your program will exhibit these qualities.

I also think that Mr. Koppel owes me an apology for the rude way I was treated on his show. After I expressed myself about the war being based on lies and that the troops should be brought home immediately because the war was based on lies, I was not thanked for my comments, or my son's sacrifice. He just said to keep the discussion away from emotions. Then, the wife of a soldier who was killed was allowed to speak and she praised the policies of this deplorable and despicable administration, and she was thanked and praised by the panel.

Also, another aspect that Mr. Koppel refused to acknowledge was when a man walked up to a microphone and asked Richard Perle to explain PNAC..he was rudely ignored.

I am so glad the First Cavalry came home from this senseless and needless war based on the imaginations of Neo-Cons and fought with ignorance and arrogance by the Commander in Chief and the Pentagon. I am thrilled for the mothers whose children didn't come home under the cover of darkness in flag-draped boxes like my son did. I am sure that some of Casey's buddies were able to walk off the plane because of his sacrifice. I am just so deeply sorry that my son's blood had to be their leaders' lesson in how to occupy a country and fight an insurgency. My son is dead forever and my joy has been robbed from me for the rest of my life.

Your show needs to show both sides of this debate and stop being a propanda tool for this administration. This is my challenge to you from a true patriot who wants the lies exposed.

Love and Peace!!!
Cindy Sheehan
Mother of Hero: Spc Casey Austin Sheehan KIA 04/04/04

Although Cindy is now attempting to disavow herself as having including the anti-Israel comments in this e-mail she admits having sent the day after her Nightline appearance, Christopher Hitchens, on Slate, pretty much grinds her denial into the dust.

But Keller, unfortunately, and unlike Bill Clinton, has surely been inhaling.  What is for Keller proof that the media is not biased is, in fact, proof that it is almost irretrievably broken.  Laments Keller:

The saddest thing is that Judge Posner's market determinism leaves no room for the other dynamics I've witnessed in my 35 years in newspapers: the idealism of reporters who think they can make the world better, the intellectual satisfaction of puzzling through a complicated issue, the competitive gratification of being first to discover a buried story, the pride in striving to uphold a professional code of fair play, the quest for peer recognition and, yes, the feedback from attentive and thoughtful readers. He makes no allowance for the possibility that conscientious reporters and editors are capable of setting aside their personal beliefs or standing up to their advertisers (and the prejudices of their readers) to do work they believe in.

These things, Keller feels, are the stuff of independent, and unbiased, journalists.  Boy, does he have this backwards.  First, he argues that journalists may be sooo unbiased that liberals actually believe that they are favoring conservatives in their coverage.  Huh?  How is this possibly reflected in the slightest in the past five years of coverage of the Bush administration, and in the war in Iraq?  Nonsense number one.  Next, is his fallacious assertion that there are journalists "standing up to their advertisers" and "setting aside their personal beliefs," so that they may "do work they believe in."  How does a journalist set aside "personal beliefs" while doing work they "believe in"?  Journalists should not be asserting any beliefs in providing objective coverage of news stories.  None send number two.

Finally, and most telling of all, is Keller's assertion, as part of his "demonstration" that the media is not biased, of the existence of an "idealism of reporters who think they can make the world better,. . ."  Finally, a point upon which we can agree.  Not that this is evidence of a lack of bias in the media.  Quite to the contrary.  What is in agreement is that your average mainstream journalist operates under the mistaken belief that it is their duty to go forth and "make the world better."  This, my friends, is the proof positive of the existence of bias in the so-called "mainstream" media. 

Journalists do believe that it is their lot in life to go out and make the world a better place.  This is a very common misapprehension that few if any j-schools attempt to clarify.  While this may be a noble proposition in most instances. . .it is a terribly unethical and damaging one when engaged in by a reporter whose role is allegedly that of objectively reporting the facts.  "Crusading"--the journalistic term of art for those "making better"--is, by definition, the undertaking of advocacy.  And advocacy spells an end to objectivity.  While this conclusion--that bias is almost an inbred characteristic of a profession that seeks to lead a crusade to better the world--proves the bias, it doesn't necessary prove the direction of that bias (right or left).

The direction of the bias, once its existence is accepted, is glaringly obvious.

Background: Keller, as the Times' Executive Editor, has been at the heart of an internal review of "problems" that have in recent years plagued the paper, and led to serious mainstream questioning of its credibility and integrity.  In a June 28, 2005, response to a Times internal "Credibility Committee Report" (yes, even the Times has had to at least admit that something is amiss), Keller's most scathing critical acknowledgement stands, unfortunately, as another myopic excuse.  Notes Keller (at page 8), "Even sophisticated readers of the New York Times sometimes find it hard to distinguish between news coverage and commentary in our pages."  This conclusion is nothing more than a sleight of hand: There is no distinction between the two--opinion and reporting are woven, perhaps not-so-seemlessly, throughout the Times' news coverage.  Keller's objective is to make appear less obvious.

You belong to the world now.  We are fascinated by your every move.  We crave the tiniest bit of knowledge about you, your life, your experiences, your thoughts, your hopes and your dreams.  But unlike you, we have no interest in punishing your poor family for your harrowing and psychotic misdeeds.  Your family has begged you to shut up. . .we will leave them out of it.  Your husband is suing you for divorce. . .we have no interest in worsening his pain. . .poor man, he has to have suffered enough.  Your mother is seriously ill. . .and we have no intention of invading her privacy at such a time.  But you will always be fair game.  Because you've got us hooked.  Privacy, Cindy?  Fageddaboudit!

But that is not what Durbin told a constituent in an August 14, 1989 letter, in which he said that "I believe that we should end abortion on demand," that "I am opposed to the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions," and that "I continue to believe the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade should be reversed."  But I suppose that these positions could be consistent, uh...er...so long as Durbin doesn't seek a seat on the Court for himself.  Clearly, Durbin would be automatically disqualified from serving.

To a man and woman, everybody, simply everybody, seems to find it necessary to predicate each discussion of Ms. Sheehan with the same general invocation, give or take a few words here and there: Cindy Sheehan has suffered a loss that none of us can possibly grasp, and she is a grieving mother, suffering the deepest pain from the loss of her son.  I just can't take it anymore!

If we agree--and among conservative observers, I thinks we do agree--that Ms. Sheehan is an opportunist seeking to further a political agenda that significantly pre-dates the death of her son, then why is everyone being so darned namby-pamby about properly characterizing just what Sheehan is doing?  Cindy Sheehan is not only dishonoring the memory of her son, and making a complete mockery out of not only his death, but of his life--after all, he was an adult who made the decision that he wanted to join the military to serve his country--she is shamelessly prostituting his death for her own selfish political causes.

There, it's said.  Cindy Sheehan is little more than a two-bit pimp, out all-too-cheaply selling the memory of Casey Sheehan, in exchange of a few moments of air time to hurl insults at the leader of the free world, and to disgrace herself, her family and her country at the same time.  And what exactly does this wretched, pathetic person get in exchange for prostituting Casey Sheehan's death?  A ten-minute ride on the political freak show that is the American ultra-Left.  And the maniac left, led by Howard Dean and Michael Moore and George Soros and Ted Kennedy--just to name a few of the grandest nuts--certainly does not need the bolstering of Ms. Sheehan.  So Cindy's voice is simply added to the already ear-splitting cacophony of leftist drivel. 

The truly sad part of this whole pathetic episode is the legacy that it will leave.  No one will remember Cindy.  No one will remember, in the long run, the "grieving mother" who tended to her (not-so-silent) vigil outside the President's ranch during the Summer of '05, "pleading" for nothing more than the (repeated) opportunity to meet with George W. Bush, and to tell him what she really meant to say a year or so ago, when she accepted Mr. Bush's solace and comfort, and held his hand, and received his gentle kiss, before she went off to tell her local paper that the President understood her pain, and that she supported him.  Yes, Sheehan's utterly nonsensical story will fade into the ether, leaving behind the legacy that will outlive her protests.

The shameful stain that her disgusting actions have left upon the memory of the real hero of the Sheehan family, a young American man who chose to fight...and die...for his country: Casey Sheehan.