Priceless: Muslims fear "backlash" over firing of Juan Williams from taxpayer funded radio

No Free Speech in the Land of the Free

The latest furor was kicked off last week when Fox News host Bill O’Reilly made an appearance on ABC’s “The View” and declared “Muslims killed us on 9/11.” That prompted co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar to walk off the stage.

Juan Williams fired for not pretending this jihad thing is a beat-up:    NPR fires Juan Williams, a Left-wing commentator an author of tomes on civil rights, for being, er, racist.

That was the incident O’Reilly and Williams were discussing Monday night when the latter said, “I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried.” He also noted that it was not fair to cast all Muslims as extremists.  (More: Muslims fear analyst’s ouster will fan hostility)

Gateway Pundit:

Sarah Palin: It’s Time For National Public Radio to Become National Private Radio

Once again, Sarah Palin nails it.
The Mama Grizzly says, “We’ve found a good candidate for defunding.”
From her
Facebook Page>>>>

NPR CEO Mocks Huckabee’s Call to Defund Channel – Says Government Contributions Are Insignificant

160 million p.a. “insignificant?”  I’ll sign up for that, let me have some too!

Rodney Ho at the Atlanta-Journal Constitution was the first reporter to interview NPR CEO Vivian Schiller on Juan Williams’ firing.

NPR: Where “Teabag” Videos Are Defended But Blaming 9-11 on Muslims Will Get You Fired

One more time:

Megyn Kelly vs Muslim Brotherhood propagandist Ibrahim “Fibbi” Hooper

NPR leaps to do the bidding of Hamas-linked CAIR, fires Juan Williams for “anti-Muslim” remarks

It turns out that NPR fired Williams after CAIR sent out a national press release in which CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said this about Williams’ statements: “Such irresponsible and inflammatory comments would not be tolerated if they targeted any other racial, ethnic or religious minority, and they should not pass without action by NPR.”

And NPR hurried to appease this thuggish Hamas-linked group.

Everyone’s favorite stomach-stapled beekeeper, Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper of CAIR, was just on Fox, defending his takedown of Williams (while denying that CAIR demanded that he be fired), playing the victim card and hectoring Meghan Kelly, demanding to know if she agreed with Williams. (Kelly stood her ground magnificently.) In the course of things he said, “Everyone is accountable for what they say.”

Is that so, Ibe? So I guess you’re accountable for saying this, eh? “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

Anyway, it’s bad enough that NPR would with such alacrity do the bidding of a group like CAIR, but it’s even worse that Williams’ rather commonplace remarks are being represented as some terrible “demonizing” of all Muslims. He said that he gets nervous on a plane when he sees people in Muslim garb. Even though the 9/11 hijackers and others did not wear Muslim garb, there are many other Islamic jihadists who have worn it, and all of the jihadists have explained and justified their actions by reference to Islamic texts and teachings. No Islamic sect or school of jurisprudence worldwide, meanwhile, has renounced the jihad against unbelievers or the imperative to impose Sharia upon them.

Are there Muslims who are not waging jihad against unbelievers? Of course. But the unwillingness of the Islamic community in the U.S. and Europe to back up its protestations of condemnation of terror with real action to root out the jihad ideology from its ranks makes it impossible to determine whether or not any given Muslim is an Islamic supremacist, or a jihadist.

Is this to “demonize” all Muslims? Of course not. But if Honest Ibe Hooper and his ilk are really not wanting Muslims to be demonized, instead of inviting that “demonization” so they can use it to claim victim status and wring more concessions out of a compliant politically correct media establishment, they could have reacted to Juan Williams’ by recognizing that if anyone gets nervous when seeing people in Muslim garb, it is the fault of the Muslims who have committed acts of violence in the name of Islam. And they could begin honest, genuine efforts to root out the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism from their communities.

But they don’t. Now, why is that?

“NPR Fires Analyst Over Comments on Muslims,” by Brian Stelter for the New York Times, October 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

NPR has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior news analysts, after he made comments about Muslims on the Fox News Channel….The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”

Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.

He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,” Mr. Williams said.

NPR said in its statement that the remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”…

5 thoughts on “Priceless: Muslims fear "backlash" over firing of Juan Williams from taxpayer funded radio”

  1. so muslims fear a backlash? if there is one it will be the fault of Ibrahim and his fanatics who demanded the demise of Mr Williams,and free speech..Ibrahim should be deported for being a troublemaking dissident

  2. A Brief History of NPR’s Intolerance and Imbalance

    Fox News

    From calling Tea Party members “Tea Baggers,” to saying that “the evaporation of 4 million” Christians would leave the world a better place, to suggesting that God could give former Sen. Jesse Helms or his family AIDS from a blood transfusion, NPR’s personalities have said some pretty un-PC things in the past. A look at the record reveals no shortage of intolerant statements and unbalanced segments on the publicly sponsored network’s airwaves.

    Here’s an incomplete list of questionable and controversial content that has aired on NPR or has been uttered by its employees:

    — In June, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) said it was easy to see why some refer to NPR as “National Palestine Radio” following a June 2 segment hosted by Tom Ashbrook on the Gaza flotilla incident. The segment featured five guests — none of whom defended Israel’s actions.

    Among the five guests, Janine Zacharia, a Middle East correspondent for The Washington Post, was the only one who did not overtly criticize Israel. She also did not defend its actions, CAMERA officials said.

    “So there you have it — five perspectives and not one voice to present the mainstream Israeli perspective,” they said in a June 17 press release. “That’s Ashbrook’s and NPR’s version of a balanced discussion on Israel.”

    — Last week, Newsbusters, a conservative media watchdog group, claimed that NPR’s “Fresh Air” spent most of its hour insinuating that the Republican Party was dangerously infested with extremists.

    NPR’s Terry Gross hosted Princeton professor Sean Wilentz, who has written that President George W. Bush practiced “a radicalized version of Reaganism,” Newsbusters’ Tom Graham wrote.

    “Can you think of another time in American history when there have been as many people running for Congress who seem to be on the extreme?” Gross asked, according to Graham.

    “Not running for Congress, no,” Wilentz replied. “I mean even back in the ’50s.”

    — NPR issued an apology in 2005 for a commentator’s remark on the return of Christ following a complaint by the Christian Coalition that the comment was anti-Christian.

    On “All Things Considered,” the network’s afternoon drive-time program, humorist Andrei Codrescu said that the “evaporation of 4 million [people] who believe” in the doctrine of Rapture “would leave the world a better place.”

    Codrescu, who was on contract with NPR but not a full-time employee, later told The Associated Press he was sorry for the language, but “not for what [he] said.”

    NPR apologized for the comment, saying, it “crossed a line of taste and tolerance” and was an inappropriate attempt at humor.

    — Also in 2005, NPR apologized to Mark Levin, author of “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America,” after a broadcast of its program “Day to Day” falsely accused him of advocating violence against judges. Levin accepted the apology, but said the broadcast was “illustrative of a smear campaign launched by the Left to try and silence” his criticisms of judicial activism.

    — In 2002, the head of NPR issued an apology six months after a report linking anthrax-laced letters to a Christian conservative organization.

    — Also in 2002, during an interview with the Philadelphia City Paper, NPR host Tavis Smiley said he strived to do a show that is “authentically black,” but not “too black.”

    — In 1995, Nina Totenberg, NPR’s award-winning legal affairs correspondent, was allowed to keep her job after telling the host of PBS’ “Inside Washington” that if there was “retributive justice” in the world, former North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms would “get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

  3. “Islamophobia”: the latest charge to try to stifle legitimate debate

    One of the cleverest tricks of the cultural Left is demonizing perfectly reasonable actions and opinions by giving them sinister names. It is the logical go-to technique for those whose ideas have failed in every practical application but who nonetheless still dominate the media by which ideas are spread.
    A favorite example of mine is the old feminist declaration that men “objectify” women when they respond to female beauty as nature decrees. This particular reframing was not successful over the long term for the same reason that health scares involving coffee have never caught on: no one was willing to give up the stimulant. A more tenacious variation of the same approach is the accusation that law enforcement officers practice “racial profiling,” which sounds as though police center their suspicions on one race over another out of simple bigotry or meanness. In fact, if criminals of a certain type or in a certain neighborhood tend to be of a specific race, then the proper term for “racial profiling” would be “good police work.” And though, fortunately for liberals and conservatives alike, police continue to do that good work, the evil-sounding sobriquet has forced them to waste a lot of time, effort, and money pretending they don’t.
    Recently, in defending an imam’s proposal to build a triumphalist “Muslim Cultural Center” near Manhattan’s Ground Zero—where, we may remember, so many innocents were slaughtered in the name of Allah—the Left has outdone itself. Rather than engage in serious debate with the vast majority of New Yorkers and Americans who oppose the project, the mosque’s defenders have simply dubbed the opposing viewpoint “Islamophobia.” As ever when this naming device is used, the left-wing media seem to rally as one. Within the space of a single week, Time put the word on its cover, Maureen Dowd accused the entire nation of it in her column, and CBS News trotted out the charge in reporting on mosque opposition.
    For anyone born with the gift of laughter, the term is absurd to the point of hilarity. A phobia, after all, is an irrational fear. Given that Islam is cancerous with violence in virtually every corner of the globe, given the oppressive and exclusionary nature of many Islamic governments, given the insidious Islamist inroads against long-held freedoms in western Europe, and given those aspects of sharia that seem, to an outsider at least, to prohibit democracy, free speech, and the fair treatment of the female half of our species, those who love peace and liberty would, in fact, be irrational not to harbor at least a measure of concern.
    A religion is only a system of beliefs, and to say that all beliefs deserve equal respect or acceptance is to say that ideas have no moral weight, a patent absurdity. Because the human soul thirsts so for God, the sacred principle of individual liberty demands that religion be given wide latitude when it comes to internal mind-states, modes of worship, and the description of the metaphysical. But when it comes to the practical affairs of humankind, humankind may judge—and Islam, as the world stands now, has a lot to answer for. Whether radical Islamic violence, sexism, religious bigotry, and triumphalism are the natural outgrowths of its dogma or a series of aberrations is a perfectly valid question. Likewise the question of Islamic intentions toward Western culture in general and, by extension, the intentions of those behind the Ground Zero Mosque proposal. By what outlandish moral logic does Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf call America an “accomplice to the crime” of 9/11? From whom will he acquire the $100 million required to build his center, and what will they receive in return? None of these questions will be answered by simply condemning as phobic those who bring them to the fore.
    With a hostility toward Christianity second only to Dracula’s, the Left has no credibility on the subject of freedom of religion. In a representative moment in February 2006, liberalism’s flagship paper, the New York Times, refused to publish the controversial Danish cartoons of Mohammed in order to “refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols.” The next day, it famously illustrated a story on the cartoons with an offensive image of the Virgin Mary smeared with dung. One wonders, therefore: Does the Left really cherish the rights of Islam, or is theirs but a short-sighted alliance with the enemy of their enemies?
    Which is to say that perhaps opponents of the mosque should question the motives of those who question their motives. In any case, they should greet the designation of Islamophobia with the derision that it deserves.

Comments are closed.