Monday, November 1, 2010

Boo ! Did He Scare You? He Should.

Ahmed Rehab. No, that's not where they sent Lindsay Lohan after her most recent drug fiasco. It's the name of the most public face of the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR). And right after gaining a few points in my estimation over the Juan Williams firing, Bill O'Reilly lost those points, and then some, by having Rehab as his special guest on The O'Reilly Factor last Monday. So this is my belated Halloween post.

To start, let me say that I'm am not a big fan of O'Reilly, but his show is always interesting, and he often has controversial guests with whom he either banters or battles. I should also add that I applaud anyone who will bring Islamic "moderates" on his show for the purpose of hard debate. So I have to say that O'Reilly started out by doing the right thing, but finished by doing it the wrong way. O'Reilly's huge ego, self-aggrandizing nature, and perhaps shock at a Muslim spokesman who would actually appear on his show caused him to lose it during the interview.

At the beginning of the show, O'Reilly referred to Rehab as a "stand-up guy." Not once, but twice. For many of us, that expression refers to the Mafia hit-man who refuses to divulge the names of his fellow murderers in La Cosa Nostra. But O'Reilly, and I'm sure many others, use the expression to mean "brave, bold and honest." He has been known to refer to himself using the same compliment. Rehab is indeed a stand-up guy--for the Islamic Mafia and its mouthpiece, CAIR.

O'Reilly is incapable of treating most of his controversial guests with kid gloves, but he got awfully close while dealing with Rehab. His usual hardballs turned into slow softballs, and he was unusually deferential to this loathsome, antisemitic, media-savvy supporter of terrorism. O'Reilly has to know that Rehab represents a group that is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist fund-raising scheme. He has to know that CAIR's idea of American-Islamic relations is that Americans will learn to love Muslim terrorists by any means necessary. Surely O'Reilly knows that CAIR filed a complaint against Delta Airlines for racially profiling in-your-face Muslims acting up aboard a Delta flight. In fact, he has to know that was a major factor in the Juan Williams firing at NPR, which O'Reilly did a fine job of handling.

I am not in as high dudgeon over this as Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch or Karin McQuillan at my old fellow ex-radical David Horowitz's site NewRealBlog. O'Reilly goofed--big time. Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs was so angry I could feel the saliva coming out in every word of her review. I don't think O'Reilly has suddenly become a disciple of Osama bin Laden. I really suspect that he simply got out-foxed (no pun intended) by a clever and slippery Muslim spokesman who snookered O'Reilly into trading mutual grudging compliments.

I also think that O'Reilly is still somewhat dazed and defensive about his donnybrook on The View where he stated simply (and accurately) that "Muslims killed us on 9-11." My ire at O'Reilly relates not to his alleged apostasy (which it is most certainly not), but rather that we cannot give any radical Muslim an open forum with no genuine opposition. It's just too dangerous. If O'Reilly had been his usual combative, talking-over-the-guest self, I wouldn't even be writing this piece.

Here are just a few of the items that O'Reilly didn't address with Rehab. CAIR was founded and funded by Hamas and Hamas-friendly big Arab money. It was intimately involved with the Holy Land Foundation which encouraged Muslim terror attacks. Holy Land was finally found to have used lies and deception to get money from Americans grieving over 9-11 and wanting to help Israelis who were suffering the same thing on a nearly-daily basis. The money was actually being used to fund Muslim Brotherhood terrorist activity.

CAIR has used its considerable monetary resources and legal team to harass and silence scholarly opponents of militant Islam such as Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, and moderate Muslim (yes, there are a few) Khalid Duran. They have participated very actively in libel tourism, and have attempted to skirt the First Amendment within the United States in order to silence critics. They support United Nations and liberal American hate-speech statutes, and spend considerable funds attempting to get legislation which would make criticizing religion (in other words, Islam) a human rights violation.

The FBI and Homeland Security have classified CAIR as a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, yet the Obama administration consults them before discussing any major matter regarding Islam. I expect that from Obama, but not from O'Reilly. O'Reilly must know that CAIR co-sponsored and actively participated in a Brooklyn College Hate-the-Jews event during which several of the speakers pleaded with the crowd to support jihad, described Jews as pigs and monkeys, and chanted "no to the Jews, descendants of the apes." One militant Jordanian Muslim whom CAIR favors told a Chicago audience that killing Jews was a good deed. Does O'Reilly think that kind of behavior qualifies Rehab as a "stand-up guy?"

Rehab is a noted Holocaust-denier, and himself participates in activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has stated on multiple occasions that his favorite modern personality is Sayyed Qutb, who is known as the "father of Islamic fundamentalism." Perhaps O'Reilly isn't well-read enough to know that Qutb wrote the definitive Holocaust-denial textbook Our Struggle With The Jews. And perhaps he doesn't know that Rehab's favorite "intellectual" is Qutb's younger brother Muhammed Qutb, best-known as the mentor of Osama bin Laden.

I don't think O'Reilly would call Adolf Hitler a stand-up guy, but the Muslim Brotherhood of which Rehab is so fond is the parent organization and model for all later Jew-hating Muslim organizations, and during World War II had Hitler's ear. They even created a catchy little ditty for good Muslim kids to sing in the streets of the Middle East which went "Allah in heaven, Hitler on earth." And in keeping with their idea that Jews are very clever monkeys, CAIR blamed the first World Trade Center attack on Mossad agents trying to get America to attack the caliphate. They have consistently defended Osama bin Laden, and until the evidence became overwhelming denied that bin Laden had anything to do with the 9-11 mass murder.

O'Reilly may have fallen prey to Rehab's plan, along with other CAIR shills, to mislead and fool Americans by using American media to tell a different story than they tell their fellow Muslims overseas, or here in Arabic. CAIR co-founder Nihad Awad let his plan slip when it got public that he had said that they must use phrases like "return the homeland to the Palestinians" when he actually was saying to his followers "I want to destroy Israel." He went on to say to his co-founder Omar Ahmad: "Address people according to their minds. When I speak with an American, I speak with someone who doesn't know anything."

Following Awad's advice, Ahmed Rehab spoke with Bill O'Reilly. Oh--and did I mention that Rehab and CAIR played a major role in getting NPR to fire Juan Williams? O'Reilly should at least have known that and used it to go on the attack.

26 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Another good reason I don't listen to BOR. My absolute first reason is BOR believes in man-made global warming. It has gone down hill from there.

For the longest time, I didn't know if he is left or right. Now I know, he doesn't care if he is left or right. Just as long as he looks good doing it.

BOR is only interesting to me when he is on vacation. The Guest Host is usually a conservative and I will sit through it to listen. Juan Williams is the exception to the rule. Juan even did a credible stint and surprised a conservative journalist (Chris Wallace) with his even-handed questions.

BOR is boring and unpredictable only when his leftist stupidity comes out.

Other than that Bill O'Reilly is a real stand up guy. I want you to know that.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
Since I don't watch O'Reilly the show you describe was unknown to me.I now know why I lost interest in watching that SHOW thanks to Joel. He quantified and identified why for me, I had just lost interest . O'Reilly wasn't worth the effort to analyze for a reason to not watch or listen to him.
The real question is why would any one want to give a platform to terrorists or their supporters?
Maybe the best thing for Rhab would be strap on a bomb and destroy a corn field. At least then he could be productive, in next years crop.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: O'Reilly is more a populist than anything else. But his real problem is that immense ego. A few years back, he inserted himself into a divorce case where the father had taken the kids to Iran and refused to return them, despite state court orders. Back room diplomatic negotiations had been successful, and the father was supposed to return the kids in London. Right up until O'Reilly inserted himself as a "facilitator." The mother never did get the kids back.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: Sorry to disagree in part with Joel and you. O'Reilly's show, despite many of its major flaws, including O'Reilly's arrogance and self-promotion, is never dull. He occasionally savages some of the crazier leftists, and doesn't allow conservatives to spout slogans without making their points in real-time debate. There's something charming about a show that isn't predictable and from time-to-time produces some real bombshells.

That said, Rehab's appearance was disastrous and gave him a "worthy adversary" standing that he does not deserve.

AndrewPrice said...

What a turd! (FYI, I thought you were kidding about the name "Rehab" at first -- LOL!)

It amazes me that anyone continues to give a platform to guys like Rehab and his foundation. Seriously, these guys are supporting people who want to kill us. Just imagine that it's 1943 and some guy represents the Council on American-Nazi Relations, and they keep letting him go on television to give his side of events. That would never have happened. But it's happening here.

And if they're going to have people like this guy on, then why are they not grilling them about their organizations and their activities?

This is the sort of thing that really pisses me off.

Nice article.

Joel Farnham said...

Sorry LawHawk,

I get bored with liars, no matter how many plates they keep in the air or spectacular explosians they have or how much they agree with me. If that means I miss something, so be it.

I would have forgiven him if he had went on later and said mea culpa about the man-made global warming garbage, but he didn't. That might be my ego talking, but I have the remote, not BOR.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: That's the problem with O'Reilly. He'll consistently go after liberals and support conservatives, then for no apparent reason go completely off the tracks. Rehab would have been a good guest if O'Reilly had used it as an opportunity to go after Rehab's real Islamofascist views. And it could have been a great forum for exposing the true nature of CAIR, which is being treated as a "moderate Muslim" organization by the Obama administration. It might even have been the perfect showcase for exposing Obama's willing cooperation with radical Muslim politico-theology.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: We're all allowed our quirks. But there are conservatives and moderate-conservatives who occasionally espouse views with which I totally disagree. Anthropomorphic global warming "science" is dangerous nonsense that almost led to the economy-destroying cap 'n tax legislation. Thankfully, that failed.

Frankly, I have seen too many people deny global warming so emphatically that they failed to notice there was indeed a warming period. The issue is whether it is man-made, and that is where the lefties and econuts went into junk science mode. When they figure out how to control the sun, then I'll listen to their hysteria. Frankly, I didn't realize that O'Reilly was in the man-made global warming camp, and I know he was an avid opponent of cap 'n tax.

CrisD said...

Lawhawk, this was great. You so coherently explain what is wrong with interviewing Rehab and CAIR without having ducks in a row. They lie, lie, lie.

Oreilly and that phrase "stand up guy" (which he uses CONSTANTLY) is the kind of thing that makes me HATE him--even tho I inexplicably watch him! Which is why I must add, Joel, that your first post was "lol" hilarious.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Maybe that is his version of mea culpa. Not good enough, nor honest enough for me. I can disagree with people, and yet still listen, but lying to me about something you don't know about..... stupid.

Global warming scare was the same thing as the ice age scare in the 70's until Cap and Trade.

Scaring people with pseudo-science seems to be the latest greatest thing. The Freon scare caused people to have to use something that doesn't work half as good and is destructive of the A/C units as well. Freon supposedly destroys upper-atmosphere ozone. The problem is there is NO WAY to get the freon, a molecule heavier than air and huge to boot, fly up two miles to get at that ozone.

LawHawkRFD said...

CrisD: I guess I'm like you. I watch O'Reilly the way I would watch a train wreck. I know I shouldn't but I can't help myself. LOL

It would have been best simply not to invite Rehab to come on in the first place. But having done so, O'Reilly should have been on the attack the entire time. He failed to do that, and made Rehab look semi-reasonable and gave CAIR a boost which should have been a beat-down.

Joel Farnham said...

BTW FYI, the replacement for freon is being stigmatized and demonized as we speak. From what I can tell, it will not only impregnate your cat, but destroy your house and cause you eat trans-fats. Beware.

:-)

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I think we know that the left will lie, distort or simply make up stories that serve their purpose of gaining complete control of the government and of our entire lives.

As for O'Reilly, since I can't see him as a genuine fan of man-made global warming, at worst he would be a dupe. I'm a longtime proponent of intelligent pollution-control, but I don't buy any of the global-warming pseudo-science. But that doesn't mean I haven't had a few people accuse me of being in the camp of the econuts.

As I've said, I'm not a big fan of O'Reilly, and I watch his show when I think of it, but rarely plan it. So I must have missed the shows where he advocated the global warming hoax.

In any event, the purpose of my article was to concentrate on the foolishness of having an Islamofascist on as a guest or, alternatively, of having him on and failing to eviscerate him and CAIR.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Going along with that thought, how about those wonderful compact fluorescent light bulbs that are going to save us from global warming, but kill us with mercury poisoning in the process.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I didn't mean to hijack the thread.

Yes, CFB's are dangerous. Unfortunately, most people don't realize just how dangerous they are.

The light failure rate is astounding and sometimes they fail in spectacular fashion. They explode. Did you know that? Some explode. The clean-up requires a haz-mat crew.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I had heard a few of the horror stories. I've been stocking up on good old-fashioned tungsten-filament bulbs for some time now.

BevfromNYC said...

I think people like Rehab should have an open forum to speak. The more he is allowed to speak freely, the more he will get comfortable spouting his real thoughts, not the sanitized, "Why can't we all just get along" version.

And anyway as long as our President goes on shows like The Daily Show, The View, and now is going to interviewed tomorrow by Ryan Secrest, why not have Islamic terrorist supporters/holocaust deniers on O'Reilly? It just illustrates how far down the MSM and our Government have slid.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: I agree. So far, if the Islamofascists have talked at all, it has been in limited, controlled environments with insufficient public exposure. As I mentioned, my only worry about getting them on TV to spout is that they'll do so unopposed, or not get called on the fact that they're only telling us what they think we want to hear. Get Daniel Pipes and Ahmed Rehab on at the same time and watch the fireworks.

Absent a good opponent, I agree that just letting them talk long enough and loud enough and they'll let their guard down, slip, and tell the truth. The truth about Islam is the best thing that could happen to the uninformed.

Tennessee Jed said...

Hawk - I understand where you are coming from with O'Reilly, but I rarely watch unless I am really bored. My normal problem is that he is so taken with himself he talks over his guests almost all the time. For this reason, there almost always is no real hard debate because there is just enough time. Bill will let you get out five words and then go into what he himself has to say ad nauseum. If he kowtowed to this guy, then shame on him.

"Stand Up Guy" to O'Reilly normally means "this person has agreed to come on my show." I usually like the Fox contibutors who appear on his show more than O'Reilly himself.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: That's a pretty good summation of how I feel about O'Reilly and his show. I'll frequently check in to see who his guests are, and much of the time that's as far as I go.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
Could you with all your insight and erudition expand for me a couple of points I cannot get my mind around?
Why are opponents of that mosque in New Yawk racists? There is nothing about the opposition racist that I can see. Secondly why is it that any one who does not embrace that damnable place for worship of evil considered a religious bigot?
What do you think would be the response if some one wanted to construct a Catholic Church any where in Mecca. Would that be religious bigotry?
How about the Taliban destroying the ancient religious artifacts for a unpracticed religion in Afghanistan contrary to the rest of the worlds wishes.
Is it a requirement that the rest of the world accept these folks intent and actions but the reciprocal is bigoted or racially motivated?
I'm just bewildered at the view point of stupid.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: I assume you're referring to the fact that one of the hottest issues of the day wasn't addressed by O'Reilly in his friendly-enemy go 'round with Ahmed Rehab. Simply put, it was another missed opportunity. If pressed, Rehab would have had to explain how he thinks the Ground Zero mosque is even vaguely appropriate, and why CAIR has on numerous occasions referred to opponents of the mosque as Islamaphobes and bigots.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
I ask for your insight and erudition and you hit it right on point. These supporters of the chief power of all hallows eve are truly outside the realm of humanity.
The support for that mosque is beyond my understanding. Wouldn't any reasonable group who professes interest in a community be willing do what ever is needed to gain support from the community they are hoping to interface with. Not this collection of haters.
I still wonder why we tolerate such garbage. Even the Skin Heads are pushed aside as fringe cuckoos. Why are these cuckoos an exception.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: I'm afraid that our current political powers-that-be and resident nanny-staters are more concerned with being called Islamophobes and bigots than they are with being good stewards of their offices and their constituents.

If these girly-men and politically-correct cowards behaved like normal human beings, thugs like Rehab wouldn't be able to intimidate them into supporting that abomination at ground zero.

Reasoned arguments and full disclosure might or might not change minds in a society of patriots. But in our current environment, invective and phony charges of racism cause our so-called "leaders" to pee down their legs. Reason and open debate become unnecessary when you can simply scare the government officials half to death.

chas7007 said...

LawHawk:

Knowing you personally, I would have liked to see you give the interview instead of BOR. I'm not a big fan of BOR but I have watched him do some really good work when he's in attack mode on an issue that needs to come to the surface. Other times, he totally surprises me as you and Commentarama responders have stated. I wonder sometimes if he is smarter than we give him credit for. The fact that he can be unpredictable may be why we continue to "see what happens". I thought his interview with Juan Williams right after he was fired was commendable. He dug into Soros and NPR with vigor. Other days, well....never know!

I'm disappointed in BOR with his interview of Rehab. He had an opportunity to keep expanding on truthful exposure of connected organizations to terrorists "and" his earlier point, we are tired of being politically correct. He failed. Good points on mentioning what was not asked. I will add that BOR had many opportunities to dig in on the CAIR executive director "Nihad Awad" and ask why he attended a 3 day summit with U.S. based Hamas members and supporters back in 1993. In this meeting the FBI had them under surveillance and stated they were trying to hide the true agenda and were using the word Samah instead of Hamas. Boy they fooled us huh! FBI also stated they discussed how they could raise more money for Hamas in America. The following summer, Awad stated at Miami Barry University, "I am in support of the Hamas movement". Long history of connections as you have stated as well. Of course, you already mentioned the money trail.

I agree Hawk, blew it on this one, perhaps BOR will surprise us in the future and use as much vigor with terrorist connected "non-profit" organizations as he did with attacking NPR.

LawHawkRFD said...

Chas7007: I think you see O'Reilly pretty much the same way I do. He is more often on the right track than the wrong one, but when his ego and his "stand-up guy" thing gets in the, he goes completely off his trolley.

The extra information on Awad and gang was very informative. Thanks.

Post a Comment