Professional Soldiers ® - Intellectual Honesty Not Allowed at National Public Radio

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Early Bird (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=45)

- - Intellectual Honesty Not Allowed at National Public Radio (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30820)

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...n-Williams.htm

Free Juan Williams

Posted 07:01 PM ET
Public broadcasting strikes a blow for censorship by firing a nationally known commentator for suggesting a connection between Islamofascism and terrorism. Sorry, there is one, and it makes us nervous too.

Perhaps we should now call NPR, public broadcasting's answer to Air America, National Politically Correct Radio, as the Weekly Standard's William Kristol has suggested. The firing of resident pundit Juan Williams demonstrates that free and open debate is not NPR's thing, despite its publicly funded mission statement that all voices should be heard.

Appearing on Fox's "O'Reilly Factor" Monday night, Williams did not disagree with host Bill O'Reilly's observation that the "cold truth is that in the world today, jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet." That is, in fact, the cold, hard truth.

Williams cited the words of the Times Square bomber: "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."

Williams went on to tell O'Reilly that "when I get on the plane, I've 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."

That may be fair or unfair, but it is human.

To be fair, Williams warned O'Reilly that a blanket condemnation of Muslims wouldn't be any more justified than blaming all Christians for the actions of Timothy McVeigh in blowing up a federal building in Oklahoma City.

This is something liberals do all the time. Watch out for those right-wing militias and those racist Tea Partyers, you know. NPR, interestingly enough, recently engaged in politically correct stereotyping by running a segment on how to speak "tea bagger."

NPR is among those who consider any association between Muslims and terrorism profiling. We count ourselves among those who consider it a description of the suspects. We will repeat: Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.

It is less likely that a church deacon from the upper Midwest is about to fly the plane you're on into a building or blow it up than a young, Middle Eastern male fresh from summer camp in Yemen. For essentially saying the same thing, Juan Williams was fired.

It is political correctness that forces grandmothers and children through body scanners. It was political correctness that allowed Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to rise through the ranks undetected until the day he shot up Fort Hood shouting "Allahu akbar!" (God is great) despite numerous warning signs. It is what caused us to ignore a group of young Middle Eastern men attending flight school to learn how to fly, but not land, a 747.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/21...then-retracts/

Defund them now: NPR CEO attacks Williams’ sanity, then retracts; Update: Williams signed to new, $2 million FNC contract

By Michelle Malkin
October 21, 2010 03:36 PM
Oh, crikey. This didn’t just happen, did it?
Yes. It. Did. From the NPR website:

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller just released this statement:

“I spoke hastily and I apologize to Juan and others for my thoughtless remark.”

That follows, as you’ll see below, her comment earlier today that now-former NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself and “his psychiatrist or his publicist.”

Our original post:

Fired NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feeling about Muslims between himself and “his psychiatrist or his publicist,” the network’s CEO told an audience at the Atlanta Press Club earlier today....

....Silver lining, courtesy of Roger Ailes:

As National Public Radio weathered a storm of criticism Thursday for its decision to fire news analyst Juan Williams for his comments about Muslims, Fox News moved aggressively to turn the controversy to its advantage by signing Williams to an expanded role at the cable news network.

Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. The Fox News contributor will now appear exclusively and more frequently on the cable news network and have a regular column on FoxNews.com.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-Rock (Post 353499)

Megyn Kelly & CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper > http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48f_1287685554

That was heated.. Thank you T-Rock for posting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-Rock (Post 353499)

The NPR dhimmis are pawns, facilitating Sharia enforcement whether they realize it or not...

The Muslim Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and
destroying the Western civilization from within and
'sabotaging' its miserable house by their own hands
and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

-- "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,"
- by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991.

Here's a couple key references to add to your libraries:

Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law by Nuh Ha Mim Keller
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Trave...dp/0915957728/

Freedom of Expression in Islam by Dr Mohammad Hashim Kamali
http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Expres...dp/0946621608/

Quote:

That was heated.. Thank you T-Rock for posting.

You’re welcome Sir. A heated exchange it was.

In the exchange between the Ikhwan mouthpiece Hooper and Mrs. Kelly regarding Muslim garb, as someone (DM) pointed out on the Jawa forum - with NPR as well as Hooper’s implied bigotry towards Juan Williams, Mrs. Kelly should have asked:

Would you (Hooper) or the NPR imply Jew bigotry if a Jew got “upset over seeing someone in full Nazi garb” ?

Or…

Would you (Hooper) or the NPR “call a black man a bigot for feeling anxiety upon seeing someone wearing a white robe and a pointed hood” ?

After all, Muslims were the ones who hijacked planes and killed over 3,000 Americans.

Islamic ideology alone is responsible for the slaughter of over 270 Million people since the advent of big “Mo”
http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/...ears-of-jihad/

The religious-political ideology of Islam codified by Sharia fits the very definition of bigotry:

big·ot·ry
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Quote:

w4.0 THE FINALITY OF THE PROPHET’S MESSAGE

(1) Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) is the last prophet and messenger. Anyone claiming to be a prophet or messenger of Allah after him or to found a new religion is a fraud, misled and misleading.

(2) Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses in the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam, as equally attested to by many verses of the Koran. Both points are worthy of attention from English-speaking Muslims, who are occasionally exposed to erroneous theories advanced by some teachers and Koran translators affirming these religions’ validity but denying or not mentioning their abrogation, or that it is unbelief (KUFR) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the entire world (dis: o8.7(20).

The penalty for Kufr = DEATH

c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the Law-giver strictly forbids. Someone who commits an unlawful act deserves punishment, while one who refrains from it out of obedience to the command of Allah is rewarded.

(3) and unbelief (Kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and necessitate stating the Testification of Faith (Shahada)…

f1.3 Someone (who knows Islamic Jurisprudence) or denies something…which there is scholarly consensus…is executed for his unbelief…

O4.17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim…

O8.3 If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is either disciplined (def17) (O: for arrogating the caliph’s prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).

(A: though if there is no Caliph (def: o25), no permission is required.

O8.7 (7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it;

(2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future…

(3) to speak words that imply unbelief…

(14) to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma’, def: b7) is part of Islam…

(19) To be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

(20) or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24)

(Reliance of the Traveller - A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law)
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Trave.../dp/0915957728

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...953428174.html

The Real Case for Defunding NPR

My quarrel with government subsidies is that they cast a chill over the markets in which entrepreneurs seek to raise capital for highbrow journalism.
OPINION
OCTOBER 23, 2010
By SETH LIPSKY
At least one good thing has come out of National Public Radio's firing of Juan Williams. NPR's vice president had barely hung up the phone after informing Mr. Williams that he was being terminated—and refusing to meet with him, a long-time colleague, to discuss the matter—when the calls began for Congress to cut off funding for NPR entirely.

Bill O'Reilly, on whose broadcast Mr. Williams uttered the words that cost him his NPR job—he spoke of his fleeting fears when he gets on a plane and sees a person dressed in Muslim garb—called for "the immediate suspension of every taxpayer dollar going into NPR." Sarah Palin issued a Facebook posting called "Juan Williams: Going Rogue," in which she wrote: "If NPR is unable to tolerate an honest debate about an issue as important as Islamic terrorism, then it's time for 'National Public Radio' to become 'National Private Radio.'"

Then South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint issued a statement saying that he would introduce a bill to end federal funding of public broadcasting. Most significantly, the man who may be the next House Speaker, John Boehner, told National Review Online: "We need to face facts—our government is broke. Washington is borrowing 37 cents of every dollar it spends from our kids and grandkids. Given that, I think it's reasonable to ask why Congress is spending taxpayers' money to support a left-wing radio network—and in the wake of Juan Williams' firing, it's clearer than ever that's what NPR is."

All these sentiments strike me as eminently reasonable, but my own view of the contretemps is slightly different. I have no quarrel with NPR being a left-of-center news source or with the authority of NPR's president, Vivian Schiller, to fire Mr. Williams. The First Amendment right to decide what is aired on NPR—that is, the right that Congress is prohibited by the First Amendment from abridging—belongs not to the talent that wants to go on the air but to the owner of the radio network that airs them. The government and its subsidy receivers, as far as I'm concerned, can be as left-wing as the voters will put up with.

My quarrel with government subsidies to NPR—via grants from the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting—is that they cast a chill over the markets in which private entrepreneurs seek to raise capital for what might be called highbrow journalism. It is hard to quantify this. But it is a conclusion that I have reached after more than two decades spent seeking to raise capital for privately-owned publications competing in this arena.

More than once I have been interrupted, while singing the song of quality journalism to a potential investor, to be asked, "Isn't this already being done by public broadcasting?"

In the instances when that or similar questions were put to me, I was not even seeking to raise capital for broadcasting but rather for small newspapers—the Jewish Forward, in the 1990s, and then the New York Sun. And I wasn't entirely hapless. Many millions of dollars were eventually invested in the two newspapers, and any failures they met were not the fault of the government, but were entirely my own.

I have often wondered, though, what effect the government subsidies have on the broader world, in broadcast and print, of quality journalism. I recognize that the percentage of NPR's funds coming from the taxpayers is but 1% or 2%, or between $1.5 million and $3 million. But whatever the scale, seed capital from a credible investor is an enormous help to any effort, and my own experience is that it would have been easier to raise capital had there been no government-funded competition.

These are questions for Congress to explore when it looks into whether to continue funding for NPR. It's been nearly two generations now since President Lyndon Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. It's not clear to me, incidentally, what constitutionally enumerated power Congress was relying on to pass such an act. But leave that question aside. What has been the impact on the quality of privately funded journalism of the octopus that government funding of broadcasting helped create?

This question is all the more newsworthy because of the crisis that has overtaken journalism. Print newspaper circulation is, with some exceptions, down. The big television networks are, for the most part, in retreat. Enormous numbers of promising efforts are underway on the Internet. But the jury is out on whether they will find a widely applicable business model.

A small chorus is tuning up to demand not that the government get out of the way but that it actually step up its funding of the press. Last year a report—written by a former editor of the Washington Post, Leonard Downey, and issued under the auspices of the Columbia Journalism School—called for siphoning funds from the Federal Communications Commission's surcharge on phone bills into a Fund for Local News that would underwrite "worthy initiatives in local news reporting."

The president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, has emerged as a leading voice for pouring more government money into news gathering. How badly would that chill the capital markets for those who dream of privately funded news gathering, completely independent of oversight by Congress? My guess is that the effect would be a great deal more significant than those who have not been out trying to raise such capital might imagine.

That would be entirely consonant with the school of economics known as public choice theory, which views the government as having its own economic interests and the state as not a protector but a competitor of private enterprise.

Mr. Williams, a distinguished figure, has already landed on his feet, with a multi-year contract and an expanded role at Fox News. When the next Congress takes up the NPR question, I hope it considers the lesser lights who have to go out to raise capital to set up their own platforms. Who is going to give them a leg up if they are having to compete with the government of the United States?

Mr. Lipsky is founding editor of the New York Sun.

:munchin

Quote:

PBS Sends Senior Editor as Presenter to CAIR Conference on ‘Defaming Islam’

by Christine Brim Oct 23rd 2010

The news about NPR firing Juan Williams is opening the eyes of many in the media and public to the extraordinary rules of censorship that CAIR, other Muslim Brotherhood groups, and the “Establishment Left” impose to restrict free speech. But it’s not just NPR that responds to CAIR’s political pressure which may in itself be a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. On October 9, 2010 – less than two weeks before NPR fired Williams on October 21 – the federally-funded sister agency Public Broadcasting System (PBS) sent Joel Schwartzberg, Senior Editor of PBS Interactive to be a presenter at the CAIR Leadership Conference preceding their 16th annual national banquet.

Here’s a copy of the 36 page CAIR program for the conference and banquet (or click on the image below – 4 MB file size). Page 4 lists Schwartzberg in the 9:15 -10:45 a.m. session (Room B): “Becoming a Dynamic Public Speaker (Room B).” Page 6 provides Schwartzberg’s biography under the title “CAIR Leadership Conference Trainers 2010.” If Schwartzberg presented on his own initiative, he and PBS owe the public an explanation for his identification with PBS Interactive in the CAIR program, which gave the impression he was there as an official representative of the agency.

There’s more. PBS apparently sent Schwartzberg to train “CAIR Leadership” knowing that CAIR had advertised the conference for several weeks listing the #1 reason to attend as, “You’re tired of seeing Islam defamed and want to do something about it.” Click on the image below to view the entire saved pdf of the conference promotional web page:

To make this clear: PBS apparently sent Schwartzberg to train “CAIR leadership” at a conference held specifically to “do something about” the alleged problem of “Islam defamed.” The use of the concept of “defamation” of Islam should be a red flag alert to Congressional funders of PBS: CAIR’s conference publicity followed the instructions of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to enforce Shariah blasphemy and defamation laws in the U.S. – in this case, with the support of publicly funded PBS staff.

For years, the OIC has been trying to pass a law through the U.N. that would criminalize any “defamation” of Islam, defined as blasphemy within Shariah law itself. In the 2008 Organization of Islamic Conference “Ten Year Plan,” the OIC’s 56 Islamic state members resolved to, “Emphasize the responsibility of the international community, including all governments, to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation…endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.” For Juan Williams, those “deterrent punishments” became what CAIR had demanded of NPR in the CAIR press release – “professional consequences” – when NPR fired Williams.

One more item: At that same October 9 CAIR meeting where PBS’ Schwartzberg presented, CAIR announced a new department devoted to opposing “Islamophobia.” They had previously received $325,000 from the Organization of Islamic Conference to oppose “Islamophobia” in America – presumably with those “Ten Year Plan” deterrent punishments. Their attack against Williams was presumably one of the first influence operations of that new “Islamophobia” department.

Let’s review the policy issues here:

Your tax dollars partly fund the big-budget PBS, that sent Schwartzberg to train “CAIR Leadership” at a conference that had a primary goal of imposing shariah blasphemy (defamation) laws in America. PBS has a background of proselytizing for Islam with their “documentary” Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet” and of course, for blocking distribution of Frank Gaffney’s 2006 documentary about the Muslim establishment’s opposition to Muslim reformers, Islam versus Islamists....

Read the rest here: http://bigjournalism.com/cbrim/2010/...efaming-islam/

Quote:

NPR let Williams go after he said on Fox News that he becomes nervous when at an airport he sees “people who are dressed in Muslim garb and I think they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims.”

Vivian Schiller, NPR’s CEO, said that Williams’ comments should have been “between him and his psychiatrist or his publicist” but she later apologized. Williams – who was clearly still upset when he watched Schiller’s comments this morning -- said that was too personal.

So which one lacks journalistic ethics:

- Williams - Who recited his concern and acknowledged it was "probably irrational."

- Schiller - Who fires Mr. Williams and adds the personal insult that Williams' opinion belongs "between him and his psychiatrist ... ".

For the record, Mr. Williams states that he does not have a psychiatrist.

Just another example of "the man" keeping a brother down.

Sorry, I couldn't resist:D

Schiller lacks journalistic ethics...

Quote:

- Williams - Who recited his concern and acknowledged it was "probably irrational."

- Schiller - Who fires Mr. Williams and adds the personal insult that Williams' opinion belongs "between him and his psychiatrist ... ".

In my humble opinion, Mr. Williams should have followed up on Schiller's baseless accusation made towards him concerning "Islamophobia" since the term is divisive, inflammatory, and it is frequently used by leftist dhimmis to inhibit debate, and very valid criticism of Islam and what some Muslims do.

Mr. Williams cognizance of Islamic ideology, and the rejection of it, cannot be classified as phobia.

I'm curious if Schiller would call the critics of Klansman ideology, Klansmanphobes, or the critics of Christianity, Christianphobes?

IMO, Mrs. Schiller lacks journalistic ethics and her ad Hominem attack on Mr. Williams is a microcosm of how leftist dhimmis seek to silence opposition by censorship and leveling personal attacks while avoiding the issues at hand.

The following video accurately portrays leftist dhimmis like Schiller :D:D
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGwtG8nVpUU

Vivian Schiller and NPR have done a good job of political censorship in journalism. Her true colors fly nicely in this breeze.

Their punishment will be to enjoy job security and plenty of government (tax payer) funding.

It seems almost, if not all, of our media has just become a voice for some political party. Seems they have become the Pravada of the West.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOLLiS (Post 354056)

It seems almost, if not all, of our media has just become a voice for some political party.

Has this dynamic ever not been the case for news outlets in the United States?

Ellen Weiss, EVP Resigns

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOLLiS (Post 354056)

It seems almost, if not all, of our media has just become a voice for some political party. Seems they have become the Pravada of the West.

Ever visited San Simeon or watched Citizen Kane?

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin