Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

My CAIR-Inspired Firing [Michael Graham]
Front Page Mag ^ | 8-23-05 | Michael Graham

Posted on 08/23/2005 6:39:18 AM PDT by OXENinFLA

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: All
RE: This is not a First Amendment issue.

Exactly. Conservative talk radio is above all a business. Next it's either ego or competition. Then it's a key part of a truly free press.

Bob Grant was fired from an ABC radio station for commenting on the (at the time) unknown identity of the lone survivor of the crash that killed everyone else on board including Ron Brown.

Lee Rodgers said this morning on an ABC radio station, KSFO, that the firing is entirely up to the local station. No self respecting person would ever work for WMAL, it didn't seem to affect WABC though. The latter is my comment. It probably won't affect WMAL. It's a business and we have the choice to do business with WMAL or NOT. Whoever takes that job should be aware of that.

41 posted on 08/23/2005 7:26:55 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Hillary is the she in shenanigans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NavySEAL F-16

I agree. My only problem with what he said was his assertion that his First Amendment rights had somehow been violated.


42 posted on 08/23/2005 7:29:34 AM PDT by LIConFem (A fronte praecipitium, a tergo lupi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: OXENinFLA

How has Michael Savage gotten away without CAIR's wrath?


44 posted on 08/23/2005 7:32:12 AM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LIConFem

Actually the first ammendment does apply. Radio stations are companies that have to operate within a certain governance because of their lisence to use public airwaves.

Did they violate free speech within that context? I think they probably did, but there will be no way to stop them from doing so, as the governance of the issue is weak. They may not say what they will and kill whatever speech that they don't like. They are controlled through their usage of public airwaves and must provide accountablility.

If someone wants to do them damage (and i think we should) for what happened they should bring complaints of misuse of public airwaves, and accusations of a relationship with a special interest group that has definite ties to terrorists organizations. CAIR has had definite ties to those type organizations and that is without a doubt indisputable.

As to the muslim religion producing terrorism? Out of 80 wars taking place world wide muslim radicals are involved in 79. That should be enough proof for any logical or reasonable person to conclude that there is definitely a tie to the religion and terrorism. There are 1 billion muslims alive today. 1/10th of the muslims alive today are radical. That means that 100,000,000 of them are radical and hate the west, isreal, and any other modern influence in their spheres of influence.

The government's response under Bush has been to try to define this narrow line of "all muslims are good, only a select few would do anything bad," allthe while making it sound like the threat posed in this war on terrorism is just a random act of any potential person; that is why grandma is being searched at the airport and the 18-35 year old middle eastern man goes through.

The government's response under clinton was to allow us to be set up for all this through trying to deal with these attacks as a police issue instead of an issue of an act of war. Clinton was supporting the muslim side of Bosnia etc. He was along side of the people who were supplying the radicals in europe, al quaeda. We said it then, and now it is being said in a wider format of some media outlets.

The real deal is as it stands. Muslim radicals are behind almost every aspect of terrorism in our world today, and are behind every act of international terrorism today. In the past it was radical socialists/communists that did these acts of terror to destablize countries and push them toward socialism/communism via government breakdown and the breakdown of law and order. Today it is the muslim who has been on a hundreds of years old war against the west. This is just the way it is. They conquered countries in the middle east and africa that were formally Christian and have been in a state of war since then. Every one of them was behind Hitler and the Nazi's over the rabid hatred of Jews.

We have all this time been in a war that we haven't fought until it stepped down into our world. We will only win this war when we stop the Bull-sh%t over trying to placate the muslims and demand that they get out ahead of the curve and stop this type thing. If it is really an issue of their religion being hijacked then let us see them prove it by how they go to war against the muslim leadership who supports it.

The only single event of "fragging" we have had against our troops in this war has been that of a muslim soldier killing his fellow soldiers over Islam. In the Vietnam era we had hundreds, maybe even thousands of "fraggings" none of which had to do with anything but people wanting to kill their leaders in the hope of getting out of the war. This time it was a muslim troop who saw this as a war against Islam and chose which side he was going to be on.

We need to be honest and admit this is a war against Islam, but not Islam in general, Islam in as far as it allows itself to be guided and directed by radicals. This problem today is that Islam is hijacked by the radicals and we need to understand that all through history this was the case. It is completely reasonable and feasable to understand that Islam may not be able to operate without being led by the radicals. There may be no such thing as a "peaceful Islam" in that Islam does not mean "peace" as it has been reported, but, means submission.

Our national approach should be to war with enemies both within and without. That includes any religion that cannot keep itself from killing the innocent. That is the only way to see things if we expect to win this war.


45 posted on 08/23/2005 7:37:22 AM PDT by TrailofTears (We laugh at honor and are shocked that traitors are in our midst!!! C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wildweezel
RE: "WMAL uses PUBLICLY (i.e. US) owned airwaves to operate. . .lean on WMAL bascially by threating to deny it renewal of its broadcasting license."

I'm guessing you don't remember the FCC "Fairness Doctrine." Reagan canned it 1987.

Modern talk radio took off. A truly free press was restored. I recall hearing countless callers tell Rush, et al. that they had no idea that others believed as they did. So tight was the control over radio because liberals threatened every station owner's license.

Getting government involved in this is the last thing you want to do.

46 posted on 08/23/2005 7:38:19 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Hillary is the she in shenanigans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wildweezel

Firings for on-air comments by radio personalities are fairly common and - to my knowledge - do not normally have a First Amendment defense. Obscenity is a separate issue. Radio personalities are hired to talk, and if their talk is boring and loses listeners, or is offensive to listeners and/or management, they can be fired with impunity. The First Amendment free-speech provision refers to actions by government, not private employers.


47 posted on 08/23/2005 7:40:17 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: TrailofTears
"Actually the first ammendment [sic] does apply."

What part of "Congress shall make no law..." did they violate? Reading too much (or too little) into the Bill of Rights is what gets us into trouble.

As for the rest of your post (re: CAIR, et al), you're preaching to the choir.
49 posted on 08/23/2005 7:42:20 AM PDT by LIConFem (A fronte praecipitium, a tergo lupi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Hummm.. Good question.
50 posted on 08/23/2005 7:44:28 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Thanx for the O'Reilly heads up...


51 posted on 08/23/2005 7:46:47 AM PDT by Edgerunner (Proud to be an infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
RE: "If he doesn't sue ABC and CAIR for at least a billion dollars then he is just a whiner."

Suing CAIR is a great point. Michael Savage has discussed several times his plans to sue any organization that gets him kicked off the air. He and lawyer advisers have their battle plans all laid out. He's gone after some who have threatened to try or have succeeded at a local station.

52 posted on 08/23/2005 7:49:56 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Hillary is the she in shenanigans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: LIConFem

I am sure that there is some legal technicality that is an
all encompassing "moral clause" in his contract.

However, I am sure that if he had said the same thing about Christianity or Judaism, he would not have been fired.

My problem is the hypocrisy of CAIR using our Consitution against us -- we are slowly (well, maybe not so slowly)committing suicide.


53 posted on 08/23/2005 7:50:51 AM PDT by NavySEAL F-16 (Proud to be a Reagan Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TrailofTears

The only point I would take issue with is that most fraggings in Nam were by soldiers hoping to 'survive' their tour of duty. We lost our entire local chain of command one day. Fortunately they were relieved of duty by CID before the fraggings would have started.

Otherwise, I agree. I am still waiting to see how the 'peaceful' religion of Islam polices its 'terrorist' element.


54 posted on 08/23/2005 7:52:05 AM PDT by Stashiu (RVN, 1969-70)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NavySEAL F-16
"However, I am sure that if he had said the same thing about Christianity or Judaism, he would not have been fired.

My problem is the hypocrisy of CAIR using our Consitution against us -- we are slowly (well, maybe not so slowly)committing suicide."


Yup.
55 posted on 08/23/2005 7:52:56 AM PDT by LIConFem (A fronte praecipitium, a tergo lupi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: wildweezel
Re: truly free

I said truly free press -- perhaps I was remiss in not mentioning how it used to be when Walter "North Viet Nam Communists' most trusted man in America" Cronkite, et al. were the gate keepers of information.

56 posted on 08/23/2005 7:55:19 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Hillary is the she in shenanigans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael; Jim_Curtis
Paul Sperry, author of INFILTRATION:How radical Muslims masquerading as "moderates" are infiltrating our government, our military, our prisons, our schools -- and even the Department of Homeland Security, was on C-span a week or so ago and mentioned that LEO's are thinking about using RICO laws against terrorist organization, like CAIR, to put a stop to them and or toss them in jail.
57 posted on 08/23/2005 7:57:06 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
CAIR hasn't targeted him yet. Don't give them any ideas!

Seriously, I think Savage must have a contract that allows him to say anything about anything. I also think he's syndicated,, where Graham was an actual employee of ABC.

He can be so outrageous at times and then so coherent as well.
58 posted on 08/23/2005 7:57:59 AM PDT by NavySEAL F-16 (Proud to be a Reagan Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wildweezel

Sorry, it's not a First Amendment issue. WMAL is subject to government regulation to the extent that the public considers that its use must be in "the public interest" and that if the public considers its use is not in the public interest its license/corporate charter could be revoked. The 1st is not applicable unless/until the public decides it is and specifically states by law that the stations cannot determine their own content. It hasn't done so to date and the people's recourse would only be to revoke WMAL's license/charter. Free speech only exists on a public street corner, and freedom of the press only exists for those who own a press. WMAL/ABC may be weasels but so far by law, they're entirely within their authority to determine what content they air so long as they aren't inciting riots, etc.


59 posted on 08/23/2005 7:58:35 AM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
RE: RICO

Great idea!

It should go further. ACLU, SPLC, NLG. An elected official in Idaho is starting RICO action against a company that fired all it citizen worker bees and hired ILLEGAL aliens. I believe that a similar RICO case is ongoing against a carpet company in Georgia.

Great idea!

60 posted on 08/23/2005 8:03:48 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Hillary is the she in shenanigans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson