That Fox News is an "echo-chamber" for Islamophobia is underscored by their legitimization of anti-Islamic extremists such as hate group leader Pam Geller, who recently appeared on Fox in order to bray about how President Obama, in condemning the infamous anti-Islamic video, is dissing free speech. Like Geller, David Horowitz is also virulently anti-Islamic. But his radical ideas are not a problem for Fox News which, last week, provided him with a platform to continue Geller's meme that Obama is abetting a worldwide Muslim attempt to prohibit free speech. Alleged news host Megyn Kelly allowed him an almost uninterrupted platform for his bizarre conspiracies which included the vicious Michele Bachman generated smear of State Department official Huma Abedin - a smear that Ms. Kelly didn't totally dismiss. Fox News, "fair & balanced" as always!
She began with a "Fox News Alert" video of anti-American protests in Pakistan after which she showed video of the anti-Mohammed film's producer being brought to the LA police station where he was questioned regarding violation of his probation terms. She asked, "Is it really standard police procedure to send half a dozen officers for a probation violation and why did they do this?" She introduced former Marxist (ssshhh, don't tell anybody at Fox!) and "civil rights activist" (his dubious claim not really supported by reality, btw) In very clipped and angry tones, Kelly noted how this man was "dragged out in the middle of the night" and asked Horowitz "what's that about."
Horowitz was off and running with the requisite Obama bashing: "This is one of the most disgraceful moments in the history of the American presidency." (What, even worse than the Elian Gonzalez thing?) As he pontificated about the sacredness of free speech, the chyron presented a Fox fact: "New Questions About Police Treatment of Anti-Islam Film Producer." (Only on Fox News!) He asserted that "for the United States government, to arrest this man, in this context, and make him somehow responsible for these shameful of the Muslims. If Muslims are rioting against a film, shame on them." Fact Check (not noted by Kelly) - the man was taken in by Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies - not the US Government. Horowitz asserted that the White House should be defending this man.
Horowitz opined that the Muslim reaction was really due to - ready for it - Islamonazism in the Middle East. (I learned a new term!) He then advanced an outright lie being promoted by those in the radical right; i.e. that Stevens was raped and tortured. However, according to the doctor who treated him, Stevens died of smoke inhalation and there was NO bruising on his body."
Horowitz then advanced the right wing defamation, begun by Michele Bachmann, of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's assistant, Huma Abedin, as "Muslim Brotherhood operative." He yelled that Obama "has turned over Egypt to the Islamic Brotherhood which is a Nazi organization." Kelly said this: "There are questions about whether that's true or not with respect to Hillary Clinton's assistant." Horowitz yelled "it is true" and as he attempted to "prove" this, Kelly said "Well OK, that's fine, I read your position. I know I understand, I believe you're referring to Anthony Weiner's wife, correct?" While he blithered she interjected with "there's a real question about that, they've taken real issue with that; but I don't want to get sidetracked."
Horowitz screamed about how we shouldn't apologize for anything because "free speech is free speech." More crazy talk - Hillary Clinton is trying to squelch free speech at the UN; the Muslim Brotherhood has a worldwide campaign to "outlaw free speech;" a protest sign with "behead those who insult Islam," He asserted that Islam is "an evil doctrine and it has to be fought." He yelled that we're not standing up to "Islamic Nazis" When he said that we should arrest filmakers, Kelly said "or drag them away in the middle of the night." Reality Check - he wasn't "dragged."
I wonder how Kelly would react if a guest said that Catholicism is an "evil doctrine." But more importantly, if Megyn Kelly had any integrity she should have quoted GOP Sen. John McCain who said, on the Senate floor, that Huma Abedin is an "honorable" and "dedicated" American. But according to Kelly, there are "questions." Wow, just wow.
I’d like to throw an idea past you: Considering (undisputed) that Ambassador Stevens was an experienced field operator and that he had a full complement (also undisputable) of Marines at his FULL disposal (sorry for the caps but I don’t know how to do underscoring or bold) at the Embassy in Tripoli.
Considering (not yet fully disclosed) that the consulate in Benghazi had only a skeleton staff, no Americans and a light guard by one of those private contractors who make big bucks by taking over responsibilities that used to be carried out by American military.
The fact that Stevens decided to go to Benghazi with only three other Americans may mean that they were on a covert operation that may or may not have had prior authorisation from Washington. The foxies should wait for the investigation findings before accusing Washington of deliberately under-estimating the security risks (but foxies will be foxies, eh?).
My idea is that CNN (aka FoxLite) could be accused (in addition to theft of personal property) of treason because they leaked potentially damaging information without first consulting the spooks.
Just wondering …
I should point out in your earlier comment (apparently it was posted at roughly the same time as my prior one) that the law only prohibits falsely shouting “fire!” (and the size of the crowd is really less important). While it’s far better to contact the theater management if you happen to see a fire starting, you’re actually obligated to weigh the issue—if you think more people would be endangered from the fire before the proper authorities could be contacted, then you have every right (legal AND moral) to shout “fire” but if you believe the fire can be contained long enough for a safe evacuation after contacting the management, then you should contact them first.
You would likely face a hearing but it would be up to the prosecution to prove your shouting was the more dangerous scenario. Fortunately, most of us never have to face this situation. Just bear in mind, you would need to do as you think best in the situation. (It is kind of funny how theaters still advise you to look for the nearest fire exit but they DON’T tell you what you should do IF you see a fire starting.)
They in turn were linked to Bernard Antony, a representative of the far-right Front National to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, and the excommunicated followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Kind of a double header, eh?
As for the “terrorizing,” I seem to recall a LOT of anti-Jewish sentiment being expressed from the far right when Jewish leaders complained about the anti-Semitism of “The Passion of the Christ,” a film which—contrary to OFFICIAL Roman Catholic doctrine—blamed the Jewish people for Christ’s crucifixion. (See, Mel’s daddy belongs to an extremist Catholic group—one that defied the Church’s Vatican II reforms—and he used a story that was based on the original version of the famous Oberammergau Passion Play, an event which has, in the past few decades, revised its retelling to eliminate the anti-Semitism of the earlier version.) I’m also old enough to remember the Religious Right’s accusations that Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” was actually financed by Jewish groups intent on destroying the “good name” of Jesus (there were also protests in front of MCA’s headquarters as well as picketing in front of theaters which dared to show the film; in Alabama, only ONE theater in the entire state showed the film and it was not only picketed—after religious leaders had been invited for a free screening but refused to even show—but also had to actually delay showing the film since its insurance company discontinued the theater’s policy over “concerns” that the theater might be damaged because of the showing).
Terrorism is a very slippery slope. There’ve been women attempting to enter abortion clinics who’ve not been physically injured by protestors, but I’ll guarantee you that they’ve felt terrorized by the name-calling from protestors; THAT IS TERRORISM. We’ve grown accustomed to people being injured or even killed as the only result of terrorist attacks, but the reality is that even survivors—those who suffered no physical injuries—can feel just as insecure and unsafe in the future.
I would also like to remind you that, in the countries that these protests have taken place, there is no such thing as a “constitutional right of freedom of religion.” Several countries, in fact, have laws against blasphemy (and don’t delude yourself into thinking that our own religious right-wingers wouldn’t hesitate to institute anti-blasphemy laws if given half a chance; recall the efforts to get a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning—the backers of such an amendment have gone on record as using words like “sacred” and “sacrosanct” to describe the flag). Also, it should be noted that the above-mentioned “The Passion of the Christ” was banned from being shown in many Muslim countries simply because these countries hold Jesus in the same esteem as Muhammad and take offense at depicting ANY of the Great Prophets (from Adam to Abraham to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad). And I’m not so sure that, if “The Last Temptation of Christ” were being filmed and released in today’s climate, you wouldn’t see a lot of Christians rioting.
Somehow, I think the investigation into the whys and wherefores of that idiot video will be very instructive. The fact that it came out of well-deserved obscurity only a few weeks before November is most suspicious, IMO.
That’s like screeching “FIRE!” in a theater and that’s a crime in my book.