Showing posts with label hatemongers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hatemongers. Show all posts

Monday, January 10, 2011

Statement of the National Hispanic Media Coalition on the Heinous Shooting in Tucson, Arizona



PRESS RELEASE
January 10, 2011

For Immediate Release
Contact: Tatiana Arizaga
(626) 792-6462
tarizaga@nhmc.org

Pasadena, CA. - The National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) is horrified by the senseless shooting rampage that occurred over the weekend in Tucson, Arizona. Our condolences and prayers go out to the victims and their families.

We are saddened that it takes a tragedy of this nature for the media and the public to notice that we have a serious problem in this country with extremist rhetoric and activities.

Indeed, this month marks the second anniversary of NHMC's call to action on hate speech in media, whereby NHMC made two requests: (1) that the Federal Communications Commission open a public docket to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, and non-regulatory options for counteracting the violence that extreme rhetoric breeds; and (2) that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration update its 1993 report, The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes so that it may address the realities of how people communicate in the digital age. To date, the government has not acted upon our requests.

In the meantime, we have witnessed the horrific murders and maiming of countless victims, many of whom remain in the shadows. The government must act NOW so that it may understand the underlying reasons behind hate crimes and other acts of rhetoric-induced violence. Only with this understanding may it protect the people of this country, including our members of Congress, who must be able to interact safely with their constituents in their districts so that they may represent them on the Hill - a fundamental tenet of our democracy.

To learn more about NHMC's campaign against hate speech in media, please click here. If you would like to join our plea for government action, please visit http://www.nhmc.org/content/take-action.

# # #

The National Hispanic Media Coalition is a non-profit, media advocacy organization established in 1986 in Los Angeles, California. Our mission is to improve the image of American Latinos as portrayed by the media, increase the number of American Latinos employed in all facets of the media industry, and advocate for media and telecommunications policies that benefit the Latino community.
Forward email

National Hispanic Media Coalition | 55 S. Grand Ave. | Pasadena | CA | 91105

Powered by FeedBurner

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Right-Wing Violence Will Continue, And Fox News Will Have to Answer For It

FROM:


By Eric Boehlert, Media Matters for America. Posted June 10, 2009.


Agitators like O'Reilly and Beck traffic in incendiary rhetoric and it's pretty obvious where it's leading to.

If Fox News is going to continue to traffic in hateful, vigilante-style rhetoric, then folks at Fox News, as well as their apologists in the GOP Noise Machine, are going to have to come up with better talking points to spin away the consequences of the right-wing madness they're so eager to incite.

They need a better line of defense because the one they trotted out in the wake of the right-wing assassination of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller was wholly unconvincing.

It was just as feeble as the defense Fox News' Glenn Beck tried to employ in May to distance himself from the accused right-wing cop killer in Pittsburgh who seemed to mimic Beck's language about how President Obama was coming to take away everyone's guns.

The Fox News crew is going to need better talking points because I fear the violence -- the bouts of right-wing domestic terrorism -- are likely to continue. As long as Fox News and the Noise Machine refuse to back off the incendiary language that they're actively mainstreaming, the political violence, visible just months into Obama's historic first term, may have only begun.

Note that during a jailhouse interview, Tiller's suspected killer claimed that similar assassination plots against abortion providers are already being planned.

And please note what you did not hear from virtually anyone on the far right who addressed the Tiller story last week. Yes, they tried furiously to distance Bill O'Reilly from the controversy or suggest there was nothing problematic with the "baby killer" rhetoric he used. But what you did not hear was anyone condemn, or even take issue with, O'Reilly's on-air crusade.

Why the silence? Because militia-style vigilante rhetoric has become a cornerstone of the conservative media movement in America, and it's now proudly championed by Fox News on a nearly hourly basis.

The fact is, I couldn't find a single prominent voice within the GOP Noise Machine who even hinted that O'Reilly's relentless attacks on Tiller were in any way off the mark or, in light of the vigilante Kansas church killing, needed to be reconsidered, that they should have been dialed down. And that's why the ugliness has only begun.

The unconvincing right-wing defense in the wake of the Tiller assassination last week was twofold, with the second layer even thinner than the first. The first was that when conservatives were hounding and demonizing Tiller for years, they were merely debating the issue of abortion. And surely nobody in America opposes a healthy debate, right? Nobody opposes "sharp political disagreement," as Michelle Malkin sugarcoated the Tiller attack, right?

Second, Noise Machine leaders claimed that liberal commentators do exactly what O'Reilly and Beck have been accused of: using violent political hate language that puts people's lives in danger. That claim has been made over and over, yet conservatives can't actually produce any proof -- can't find any hateful liberal quotes -- to buttress the claim.

That's because both talking points are complete fabrications.

First, the idea that O'Reilly and company simply debated Tiller's work is laughable. O'Reilly's never been interested in any kind of back-and-forth about the abortion issue. He just rants and demonizes the other side. And in the case of Tiller, O'Reilly portrayed him as a lawless executioner. As Mary Alice Carr, vice president of communications for NARAL Pro-Choice New York, wrote in a recent op-ed for The Washington Post, "O'Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames."





Powered by FeedBurner

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

AlterNet Takes on Shock Jock Michael Savage and Gets Threatened With a Lawsuit

FROM:


By Don Hazen and Tana Ganeva, AlterNet. Posted June 10, 2009.
When we helped publicize the link between bilious talk show host Michael Savage and Rockstar energy drink, we got a letter from their lawyers.
Michael Savage, right-wing crusader against gays, immigrants, Muslims, Barack Obama, Britain, women, (and possibly puppies), may have found a new object for his wrath: groups that have the temerity to publicize the vicious talk-show host’s connection to Rockstar energy drink -- and to call for a boycott by consumers opposed to Savage's hatemongering.

As part of AlterNet's 10 Hottest Campaigns section, we published a piece alerting readers to a boycott against the Rockstar products. The campaign, launched by Charles C.C. Tsai on Facebook, brought attention to the connection between Savage and the energy drink company. Tsai's page pointed out that Savage's son, Russell Weiner, is the founder and CEO of Rockstar. Savage's wife serves as director of energy drink company, and Savage Productions shares an address with Rockstar(!).

On May 27, the same day the piece was published, Rockstar’s lawyers sent AlterNet a letter accusing us of defamation. The letter read, in part:

Mr. Savage is not affiliated with Rockstar in any manner. Alternet.org’s use of the article to tie Rockstar to Mr. Savage’s statements is wholly improper. Not only does it place Rockstar in a false light, but it constitutes defamation, both of which are objectional.

The offices of Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard & Shapiro, also demanded an "immediate public retraction of these statements and an apology in substantially as conspicuous a matter on AlterNet.org as the defamatory statements were published."

So, we "apologized," sort of. Here’s what we said:

Lawyers from Rockstar have written AlterNet threatening to sue us because they claim that Michael Savage (aka Weiner) is not a "co-founder" of the Rockstar drink company, as was described in our item, but rather his son, Russell Weiner, is the CEO and principle shareholder, and that Savage has never been an officer, director, employee or shareholder, of the company. AlterNet does not have any specific knowledge of family discussions, meetings, etc., that led to the formation of the company to be able to prove that he was a "co-founder."

Nevertheless, a dictionary definition of "co-founder" offers: "to establish or found in concert with another or others." Thus, it would require, perhaps, for Savage and his son to deny they ever spoke about the founding of the company in order for Savage to be unqualified as a founder. The definition of co-founder doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with ownership, shareholding, etc.

That being said, in the absence of proof of the inner workings of the Weiner family, we retract the comment that Michael Savage was a "co-founder" of the beverage company and offer apologies, if somehow that characterization casts aspersions on any members of the Weiner family, or Savage himself.

Others have also been compelled to write retractions and say “I'm sorry." Gaywired, which published a story about TheTruthAboutRockstar.com, issued this statement.

Meanwhile, Tsai and his Facebook group fared far worse after taking on Rockstar and Savage:

"I made a group to let others know and be able to make a similar choice if they wanted; the group was formed, and it quickly grew to over 12,000 members." Tsai, says in a statement. “In it, we put together a list of quotations from Michael Savage Weiner, as well as his son, that we strongly did not agree with."

Tsai continues:

We also put commonly known information, such as the fact that they co-founded the extremely conservative Paul Revere society, which openly calls for actions such as “eliminate bilingual education in all states" and "traditional marriage." More easily proven information was included as well.

Then, on May 27, I woke up unable to log into my personal Facebook account. It was disabled. I lost all my photos, friends and priceless memories. I sent multiple e-mails to Facebook without any response. And then upon inquiring, I found out that the "Don't Drink Hate. BOYCOTT ROCKSTAR" Facebook group was coincidentally also suddenly taken down without my or any of the administrators' knowledge.

Tsai was then treated to a letter from Rockstar's lawyers similar to the one sent to AlterNet, telling him to issue an apology. Here are parts of Tsai's statement:

I've been forced to make "an immediate public retraction..." and "apologize for the business libel you committed against Rockstar."

I've been "advised that Rockstar will pursue all necessary legal action to redress the violations of its rights, including, without limitation, an action for general, special and exemplary damages and equitable relief."

----------------------------------------------

[ ... ]

Now, I personally also apologize for the following:

I apologize for having an opinion.

I apologize that I created a group as a means to explore my FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

I apologize that the over 12,000 individuals in that group were SILENCED WITHOUT EXPLANATION.

I apologize for STANDING UP for my communities and the communities that I consider myself an ally to.

[...]

I apologize that you feel the need to THREATEN and SILENCE individuals & organizations that you know are POWERLESS in comparison to your various forms of capital.

I apologize that you seem to be confused by the semantics of the word "co-founder" in the sense that Michael Savage Weiner and his wife, Janet Weiner, IRREFUTABLY CO-CREATED / CO-INVENTED / CO-FOUNDED the Rockstar drink alongside current CEO RUSSELL WEINER.

From Rockstar's OWN archived WEB SITE:

[...]

I apologize that legal threats WILL NOT FORCE me into SUBMISSION.

I apologize that I will not be silenced.

I apologize that the incredibly smart, strong-willed and amazing individuals and communities that dislike your CEO Russell Weiner, his dad, Michael Savage Weiner, and his mom, CFO Janet Weiner, will NOT go quietly into the night and will too NOT BE SILENCED.

I apologize that I will, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, continue to BOYCOTT Rockstar, as it is MY OWN PERSONAL CHOICE TO DO SO.

[...]

Yours truly,

Charles C.C. Tsai

On top of all that, the group's Facebook page was hijacked by Savage supporters. Yesterday, we received a Facebook message letting us know that, "Jan Mikael Evertsson changed the name of the group 'ROCKSTAR ENERGY DRINK FANCLUB!' to 'Michael Savage -- the FUTURE of America!' "

Since then, a different Facebook user has relaunched the "Don't Drink Hate. BOYCOTT ROCKSTAR" page on Facebook. The page reads:

REPOST BY ANOTHER USER BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL WAS HIJACKED: I AM NOT THE ORIGINAL ADMIN/CREATOR OF THIS GROUP, BUT I FEEL IT DESERVES TO BE PUT BACK.

NOTE: INVITE ALL THE ORIGINAL MEMBERS YOU CAN! WE NEED TO GET THIS BACK TO THE NUMBERS THE ORIGINAL HAD. IF THIS ONE GETS HACKED/REMOVED, THEN SOMEONE PLEASE CREATE ANOTHER, AND SO ON. YOU CAN'T STOP THE SIGNAL. AND I WILL OFFER NO RETRACTIONS AND NO APOLOGIES. FREE SPEECH IS UNIVERSAL. LIVE WITH IT, WEINERS...

Suing Runs in the Family

An eagerness to sue seems to run in the family. When Savage joined Fred Phelps on Britain’s "least wanted," a list of hatemongers banned from the country, he filed a lawsuit in Britain accusing the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, of "serious and damaging defamatory allegations,"

(Savage’s stand for the right to free speech, however, rings somewhat hollow, considering that the talk-show host has advocated jailing war protesters.)

Then there was Savage’s ill-fated (or not, considering the level of publicity it garnered) campaign against the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). In 2007, Savage accused CAIR of violating copyright laws by posting a 4-minute audio clip from Savage’s show. Savage also absurdly alleged that CAIR violated racketeering laws, “claiming that CAIR was a part of a criminal conspiracy silence critics of Islam," according to city media law. Not suprisingly, a federal district court in California dismissed the ridiculous lawsuit.

Apparently, these days, it is not enough for crazy right-wingers to intimidate through the airwaves. They also do so by threatening absurd lawsuits.

As for Rockstar: At this point, the company has become affiliated with Savage just by virtue of having engaged in similar intimidation tactics. Consumers deserve to know about the political affiliations of the products they buy. Or in this case, the horrifying hate speech associated with something as seemingly benign as an energy drink.

But in its campaign to muzzle critics, Rockstar has overplayed its hand; now, tens of thousands of new people will learn about its link to vicious hate-mongerer Michael Savage.

Invest in independent, progressive media PLEASE DONATE TO ALTERNET

As more mainstream news sources are compromised by their corporate and political agendas, AlterNet pledges to remain true to our mission: to provide you with trustworthy journalism and public interest information to help you make change. We rely on donations from our readers to fund our work.

MORE POSTS ON ALTERNET

More stories by Don Hazen Tana Ganeva

Powered by FeedBurner

Monday, May 11, 2009

Limbaugh has repeatedly smeared progressives, media by linking them to terrorists

FROM: MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA

In the fallout over comedian Wanda Sykes' comments about Rush Limbaugh during her May 9 appearance at the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner, Media Matters for America has revisited the numerous instances over the years in which Limbaugh has attarcked Democrats, progressives, and the media by linking them to terrorists.

Examples from Limbaugh's nationally syndicated radio show and elsewhere include:

  • June 24, 2008: Limbaugh stated: "I will guaran-damn-tee you there will not be a terrorist attack before the election. And you know why there won't be one? Because they want Obama elected." He later falsely claimed, "Hamas has endorsed Obama. Hamas has endorsed Obama." Limbaugh also asserted that "every time I hear [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad speak, every time I hear a tape from [Al Qaeda leader] Ayman al-Zawahiri or a so-called dispatch from bin Laden, whenever I hear from any of these Middle East Al Qaeda terrorists, I think I'm hearing Democrat [sic] Party talking points."
  • April 15, 2008: Limbaugh asserted: "[T]he Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats. Islamofascists from Ahmadinejad to al-Zawahiri ... Osama bin Laden, whoever, are constantly issuing Democrat talking points."
  • February 29, 2008: On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest host Laura Ingraham interviewed Limbaugh, who said, referring to a photograph of then-Sen. Obama dressed in traditional Somali clothing that was posted on the Drudge Report, that Obama "look[ed] like Ayman [al-]Zawahiri."
  • September 20, 2007: Limbaugh claimed that Obama and bin Laden were "on the same page" with regard to the deteriorating situation in Pakistan. While discussing a newly released audiotape reported to be from bin Laden in which he calls for Pakistanis to overthrow then-President Pervez Musharraf, Limbaugh asserted: "Well, we've got another tape from -- I get these guys confused -- Osama bin Laden. Another tape says he's going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts him on the same page with a Democrat presidential candidate -- that would be Barack 'Uss-Obama.' "
  • July 2007: For several days in July 2007, a graphic on the front page of Limbaugh's website depicted a screen shot of C-SPAN's Washington Journal doctored to show bin Laden appearing as a guest identified as "Mr. Osama bin Laden, D-Afghanistan."
  • October 19, 2006: Limbaugh declared that the recent surge in insurgent violence in Iraq indicated that "terrorists around the world, particularly those in Iraq, are voting Democrat today." Limbaugh maintained that "the terrorists, the Islamofascists, the jihadists" are the "key voters in this year's election," and that "[t]hey are trying to create as much havoc as possible; raise the level of violence in order to affect the midterm elections." He added: "What could be the best outcome for [the terrorists]? Cut and run, right? Whose strategy -- whose policy amounts to cut and run? Democrats."
  • August 21, 2006: Limbaugh stated that even though then-President Bush pledged he would purportedly "never" criticize the patriotism of his political opponents, Limbaugh would continue to "challenge the patriotism of people who disagree" with Bush and his plan for Iraq "because the people that disagree with him want to lose." Limbaugh added: "It's about time we do challenge their patriotism. The far-left fringe in this country is actively seeking our defeat. A wacko judge in Michigan [presumably a reference to U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who had recently ruled that the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program was unconstitutional]: actively seeking our defeat. Jimmy Carter: actively seeking our defeat. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore may as well be seeking our defeat. So should [then-Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate] Ned Lamont [whose name Limbaugh pronounced like 'lament']."
  • June 27, 2006: Responding to a June 23, 2006, New York Times article describing a secret Bush administration program designed to monitor international financial transactions, Limbaugh asserted: "I think 80 percent of their subscribers have to be jihadists. If you look at The New York Times and the kind of stories they're leaking and running and the information they're getting, it's clear that they're trying to help the terrorists. They're trying to help the jihadists."
  • April 26, 2006: Limbaugh remarked that a new videotape released by al-Zarqawi "is an excellent opportunity to remind all of you that it sounds just like the DNC [Democratic National Committee] is writing his scripts now." Limbaugh also claimed that Zarqawi "sounds like Democrats," including "Howard Dean, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry ... Carl Levin, Nancy Pelosi."
  • April 11, 2006: Limbaugh accused the Democratic Party of using the immigration debate as a "vehicle" to gain voters, proclaiming: "[I]f you're Al Qaeda, come on in over the southern border! The Democrats will take your votes as well!"
  • April 8, 2004: Limbaugh stated: "Senator Kennedy, a simple question. Does it please you to learn who your friends are? Does it excite you, Senator Kennedy, to learn that the militant, firebrand, murderer of American civilians and military personnel is on your side, Senator Kennedy? Does it encourage you? Does it invigorate you? Does it inspire you, Senator Kennedy, to know that a murdering Al Qaeda-related terrorist has taken up your argument for use against his enemy? How does that make you feel, Senator Kennedy? Does it embarrass you? Because it should. Or does it probably excite you and think you're making headway now. You've got the enemy aligned with you."

Additionally, on the April 27 edition of his radio show, as an example of how "much fun" he and his guests "have when we get together," Limbaugh stated that one of his friends said that terrorists "don't need a second act, Obama is the second terrorist act." Limbaugh continued: "I mean, I had opinions at my house going all over the ballpark, and these are all, in their own right, involved, intelligent people, but somebody actually thought Obama is terrorist attack number 2, Obama is the follow-up to 9-11."

RELATED:
Drudge posts dubious picture of Obama "laugh" at joke about Limbaugh's kidneys
3 hours and 36 minutes ago

SUMMARY: Matt Drudge posted a picture of President Obama in a context that suggested that Obama had laughed and pointed at comedian Wanda Sykes after her joke about Rush Limbaugh. However, a video that Drudge linked to of Sykes' remark about Limbaugh does not show Obama pointing at Sykes.


Powered by FeedBurner

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Brave New Films sues Michael Savage over YouTube takedown

Los Angeles Times

04:42 PM PT, Oct 10 2008

Brave New Films, the Web video production company run by liberal filmmaker Robert Greenwald ("Outfoxed," Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price"), is suing conservative talk-show host Michael Savage in a copyright dispute that hinges on the takedown of a one-minute-long YouTube video.

The video called "Michael Savage Hates Muslims" (and still available here) features a photo of Savage, along with a short audio excerpt from the "Savage Nation" program, in which Savage makes clear his disdain for Muslims and Islam. "You can take your religion and shove it up your behind," he yells at one point. "I'm sick of you."

Brave New Films has an adversarial history with Savage. The company maintains a site called NoSavage.org, which features the "Michael Savage Hates Muslims" video along with links to other inflammatory remarks by the host.

The complaint holds that Talk Radio Network Inc., the Oregon company that syndicates Savage's show, sent a takedown request to YouTube for the video on Oct. 2 -- the night of the vice presidential debate, and a moment of intense interest in online political news. As a result of the network's request, YouTube not only removed the offending video but disabled Brave New Films' YouTube channel completely. Because Brave New Films uses the YouTube player to embed its videos on its own public website, that site suffered as well.

According to YouTube, copyright law requires the company to terminate accounts that repeatedly infringe, and Brave New Films had problems with Viacom last year when they used material from the "Colbert Report." Suspensions can be lifted if one or more of the claims are retracted.

Reached for a comment before the suit was officially filed, Phil Newmark, a producer at Talk Radio Network, said on behalf of Savage, "Michael never sent a complaint to YouTube about anything. This did not come from him in any way, shape or form." Newmark said he had no information about where the complaint originated, but said he would contact TRN's chief executive, Mark Masters, to inquire. TRN is also named in the suit.

Brave New Films' channel is No. 71 of all time among YouTube directors -- a highly competitive category. The company's 300 separate videos have collectively earned 36 million views. Greenwald was able to get his channel reactived by midmorning on Friday, but by then it had missed the big wave of debate-related traffic. Adding to the trouble was that Brave New Films had taken out a full-page ad in the New York Times that morning, while its site was still incapacitated.

Greenwald called the situation, which left most of his company's content "dead" during a time of peak political interest, "incredibly scary and troubling."

"On some level, no matter what the damages are, we can't get back the views of Thursday and the views and impact of Friday, when the New York Times ad came out," he said in a phone interview.

The lawsuit, brought by Brave New Films with attorneys from Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society, asks that the court declare that the Savage video was a so-called fair use of the material, rather than a copyright infringement. The suit also seeks damages to compensate for "harm to [Brave New Films'] free speech rights and the visibility Brave New Films had worked so hard to achieve."

In 2007, Savage sued the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations over its use of the very same audio excerpt in a similar video, claiming copyright infringement. The court dismissed the case entirely, concluding that the CAIR's repurposing of the audio was fair use.



Powered by FeedBurner

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Challenging a Culture of Mindless Hate

From: Prairie Pondering

Thoughts on Current Events in the Life and Times of an Urbanite Residing on the Minnesota Prairie

About a month ago, my mentor Charlie Leck wrote a piece on the Agents of Hate who fill the airwaves with venomous rumor and innuendo as a means of influencing the electorate. Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and O’Reilly have built careers on playing to the most basic instincts of the conservative public, whipping their listeners into a frenzy through fear mongering directed at Barack Obama and his supporters. This being America, the fear mongers are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and the incredible ratings they generate for their respective media hosts.
(Charlie Leck's: McCain/Palin Backed Forcefully By Agents of Hate)



Wednesday, September 17, 2008

These jerks actually make me tremble for the America I love!


It is sad that guys like Shaun Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Savage, all of whom have huge listening audiences, are such advocates of absolute hate. One could actually name another half-dozen of these guys. They are not about discussion and dialogue. If a caller disagrees with them they are rude and cruel to that caller. They don’t promote reasonable debate and careful, conscientious thoughtfulness about selecting a President or other electoral choices. Instead they whip their audiences into frenzy by claiming that the opposition is awful, dangerous and mentally unbalanced.

You probably think I'm exaggerating. I am not. I recently listened, thanks to Bill Moyers, to some of their programming. Moyers introduced me to a video that left him in despair. He warned that the language is so hateful some people would have a difficult time dealing with it.

Imagine Glen Beck telling his audience that someone should kill Michael Moore, the liberal film documentary producer. You say it would never happen? Listen to the video I’ll reference in another two paragraphs. Listen to Beck say he’ll provide the gun. Now, these are guys who claim to be the ultimate loyalists. The talker, Neil Boortz, may be the most horrible. Listen to what he says about Muslims and the residents of New Orleans. These are sick guys and they are responsible for making our society sicker and sicker with hate.

I gulped and clicked the button that started the video. It was as Moyer’s described it – shear, unadulterated insanity. More frightening is the fact that millions of people listen to these guys and accept what they say as gospel (what an unfortunate word to use).

Gird your loins! Now make the big click and listen to the hate that these guys promote. It is such a bad thing for our nation because it divides completely and pits citizen against citizen. The video is called Rage on the Radio.

These promoters of hate would have their audiences believe that liberals are enemies of the country – that we are insane perverts. Again, I am not being hyperbolic! If you haven’t clicked and gone and watched the Moyers video, go on back up a paragraph and do it now.

This is what the far right is selling to gullible people who are anxious to have an enemy on whom they can blame all the troubles of the nation.

It frightens the living day-lights out of me. It makes me fear for the life of someone like Barack Obama and it makes me fear for the future of our country.

There are so many reasons for those of us, who truly love our land, to throw all our energies and recourses into winning this upcoming election.
Posted by Charles Leck at 3:23 P


Among the charges that are accepted as dogma among fans of the genre include (i) Senator Obama is a terrorist sympathizer, (ii) Senator Obama will sell out Israel to the Palestinians and Hamas, (iii) Senator Obama is a Muslim, (iv) Senator Obama gave $800,000 to ACORN to engage in voter registration fraud, (v) the Democrats are trying to stuff the ballot box in Ohio and steal the election using ACORN and its fraudulent voter registration tactics, (vi) Senator Obama will increase taxes on anyone making more than $42,000 a year, (vii) Senator Obama will push through a Canadian health care system where the government will dictate our medical care, (viii) Senator Obama will fine small businesses that do not provide health care for their employees, (ix) Michelle Obama is an unpatriotic angry Black bitch and (x) Senator Obama supports the anti-American “God Damn America” attitude of his long time pastor, Jeremiah Wright. There are many more core beliefs held by the Right; ten is a nice number to deal with and these rolled off my fingertips.

The problem, of course, is that fear mongering has a way of morphing into hate mongering and persons of little intellect, i.e., the audience in question, has a bad habit of wanting to act on their hate. I share Charlie’s sentiment express in his September 17th blog, “It frightens the living day-lights out of me. It makes me fear for the life of someone like Barack Obama and it makes me fear for the future of our country.”

I had already started working on this piece when I watched the third presidential debate tonight. As upset as I was beforehand, the cold reality of how far out of hand this has gotten hit home when the debate participants actually discussed before a national television audience the fact that attendees at McCain/Palin gatherings were chanting for the death of Senator Obama. Again, worked into a frenzy of hate by the blind acceptance of right wing propaganda, the Republican rallies have taken on a mob mentality that, if uttered publicly or privately on an individual basis would result in a visit from the Secret Service and possible criminal prosecution. Since Senator McCain would not disavow his running mate’s characterization of Senator Obama, allow me: Accusing Senator Obama of caring so little for his country that he pals around with terrorists as part of your campaign rhetoric is akin to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. It goes beyond the pale of the First Amendment and one may not feign ignorance that the characterization may instigate a violent response and encourage extremely misguided vigilante behavior.

The contemporary impact of right wing hate mongering is bad enough. As Senator Obama suggested tonight, it eliminates the ability to have a meaningful discussion of the issues that must be addressed as this country slides toward third world status. Yes, we have a ways to go down that slide. But if you think in terms of not being able to provide adequate health care to our citizenry, of not being able to provide gainful employment opportunities to able-bodied workers, of not having a monetary system that serves as the world’s standard and, rather, is propped up by the lending whims of foreign investors, or of not being able to have any meaningful influence on world affairs because we have bankrupted ourselves in the eyes of other nations morally, militarily and monetarily, then you begin to realize what the stakes are. More than anytime in our history since, perhaps, the election of 1860, we stand on the brink as a nation. A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand.

The ten, “top of my head” characterizations of Senator Obama and his supporters itemized above are all nonsense, easily, and appropriately, dismissible with only a modicum of research accessible to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. It is incumbent upon all of us who have something better to do than sit around listening to The Savage Nation or watching the “Fair and Balanced” Fox network to speak out against baseless character assassination and the politics of destruction.

Today, when a friend enamored with right wing conspiracy theories fretted over Senator Obama’s plan to steal the election using ACORN operatives, I sent him a link to an article quoting Ohio Republicans admitting that safeguards prevented any meaningful fraudulent influence on the Ohio polling. When he made the statement that Senator McCain had never had anything to do with ACORN, I sent him a link to an article describing Senator McCain’s past support for the work of ACORN, even delivering the keynote address at an ACORN sponsored event, complete with photographs of the grateful Senator sitting beaming next to his ACORN host in appreciation for being given a platform to discuss immigration policy.

We can do this. We can demand better of our public servants. In Minnesota, Senator Coleman has disavowed negative campaigning. Whatever his motives, his change of tactics was clearly influenced by the public's negative reaction to the heretofore destructive tone of his campaign. Senator McCain's defense of Senator Obama's character in Lakeville, Minnesota last Friday, delivered to an unidentified, disheveled supporter who is probably thanking God that her back was to the camera, was a start, a seedling planted for a crop of civility. Perhaps Senator McCain, too, realizes we reap what we sow.

It is getting harder and harder to be a Nellie Forbush cock-eyed optimist. But I can't get it out of my heart. This heart is sentimental and patriotic. This heart thinks The American President, scripted by Aaron Sorkin of subsequent West Wing fame, is one of the best movies ever made (partly because this heart is also in incurable romantic). During this campaign, I often think of the climactic speech in The American President, delivered by President Andrew Shepard to a speechless press corps. Sorkin has his American President go on the offensive and, as if with 2008 in mind, speak the truth about his conservative opponent's dishonest campaign tactics. When I watch that speech, time and again, my eyes swell and I find the strength to believe that those of us who see conservative negativism as a desperate attempt to make up for the absence of substantive solutions to our problems are on the right track.

Click the play button on the image below to watch it. It provides a quick, inspirational lesson in democracy. Pay particular attention to President Shepard's description of his opponent's tactics at about 2 minutes into the clip. See if it sounds familiar and, more importantly, see if you don't come away invigorated by President Shepard's closing, ready to help get out the vote on November 4th and thereby save our nation from continuing down the slide.

at 11:19 PM



Powered by FeedBurner

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

The Latino Threat | Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation

Nonfiction review: 'The Latino Threat'
(Heads up by "The Unapologetic Mexican", thanks Nezua!)

Monday, October 13, 2008

By Leo R. Chavez

(Bio & more books by this Author)

Stanford; 288 pages; $55/$21.95 paperback

Leo R. Chavez, a cultural anthropology professor at UC Irvine, is patient and careful. No matter how racist and stupid and infuriating the fearmongers like the Minutemen vigilantes and assorted right-wing radio hosts and columnists are about the so-called Latino threat, Chavez meticulously reiterates or quotes their charges and then tidily corrects them, unfortunately not quite so energetically and amusingly as the doctor in Kurosawa's "Red Beard," who breaks the villains' arms and then immediately mends them.

As Chavez proceeds through his study in "The Latino Threat," he doesn't free us to rage; he keeps us focused on the Styrofoam horse the anti-immigrants have glued together from spit and fearful imagination and wheeled into our fair Troy:

"In the final analysis, the discourse surrounding Latina fertility and reproduction is actually about more than reproduction. It is also about reinforcing a characterization of whites as the legitimate Americans who are being supplanted demographically by less-legitimate Latinos. For this reason, the empirical evidence examined here may be easily dismissed by those who prefer perpetuating a discourse that undermines Latino claims of citizenship."

That is, he knows those who foment terror of the "threat" of brown babies are not likely to listen to facts when they have deep-rooted prejudices to express. Among the biggest threats undocumented immigrants pose is that their vulnerability and our scapegoating of them for taking jobs we won't do allow American citizens to expose themselves as hypocrites.

Not only do we fear illegal immigrants and, of course, continue to hire them for wages and under conditions few citizens would accept, but we also demonize them and, no more decently, discount the real contributions of legal immigrants as well as of the multigenerational citizens who happen to have Spanish-sounding last names.

Chavez examines the clamor raised by national magazines and in the 1990s by books and concludes: "It was as if Mexican Americans and other Latinos existed in an ahistorical space apart from the life that took place all around them. They were cast as 'alien-citizens,' perpetual foreigners with divided allegiances despite being U.S. citizens by birth, even after many generations." They're not Americans, they're Latinos.

So almost everything you've heard about Latinos as a culture - or that there is such a thing as a distinct identifiable Latino culture in the United Sates - is, if you look at it with patience and research, either wrong or no more true of Latinos than of other Americans. It just doesn't take very long for most immigrants to become "American," for good (economic standing, social and political participation, national pride) and bad (by the second generation, immigrants usually succumb to our poorer diets, our indifference to education, our earlier and more promiscuous sexual activities).

But those pale ones fearing the "browning" of America never seem to think once, much less twice, before spouting off, intolerant in spite of professing a tolerant religion and unhindered by facts or history. Chavez occasionally despairs of trying to summarize nonsense and lets the speakers explain their own views.

Chavez is so cool and gentle in his corrections of the knuckleheads who pretend that their "patriotism" is anything but racism that it's hard not to wish that he'd really let loose once in a while. He's earned it! Shouldn't an informed and knowledgeable person get to deliver a shot or three? But that's not Chavez's style.

Niceness is a grand quality, but it's not much fun, so while "The Latino Threat" is educationally plain and clear, it's also slow. "The trouble with kindness is that it takes a long time," as the professor and critic Marvin Mudrick once told his classroom of creative-writing students. "If it were possible to be kind as quickly as it is possible to be cruel and funny, I would be kind all the time."

Chavez's very civil "discourse" is a deliberate and considered choice. He shows that the Latino threat of "reconquista" by U.S. citizens (with those telltale Latino last names) and even by undocumented workers (their one-day peaceful walk-out protest in 2006 created a right-wing tizzy) is no threat at all, and is evidence rather of our own bad conscience regarding race and hard work, and that those who pose Latinos as a threat are at best irresponsible. We all would have benefited from taking college courses with such a good, even-keeled man who suffers the fools and educates the rest of us.

Bob Blaisdell teaches English in Brooklyn. E-mail him at books@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page E - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle



Powered by FeedBurner

The Dirty Dozen Hate Mongers of America

From: HateSermons


Monday, October 13, 2008

The Dirty Dozen Hate Mongers of America

http://hatesermons.blogspot.com/2008/10/dirty-dozen-hate-mongers-of-america.html

"Smearcasting documents the public writings and appearances of Islamophobic activists and pundits who intentionally and regularly spread fear, bigotry and misinformation in the media. Offering a fresh look at Islamophobia and its perpetrators in today’s media, it also provides four snapshots, or case studies, describing how Islamophobes manipulate media in order to paint Muslims with a broad, hateful brush."

It is incredible that we condemn the hate speeches particularly in the Middle East, yet we allow them here on the national media. Spreading hate, causing one to hate the other must be checked in the interest of public peace.

Thank God, anti-Semitism is declining in some pockets while shamelessly it surging in other places. Now these men and a few women are bent on selling hate in America, destroying the very fiber of this nation.

We have to regulate "hate speeches" in the line of "Anti-Semitism" and encourage civility in America.

NEW YORK, Oct. 8 /PRNewswire/
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR),

the national media watchdog group, released a first-of-its-kind report today that profiles 12 of the leading Islamophobic pundits and media figures and examines the ways they've negatively influenced media coverage in the U.S. The report, "Smearcasting: How Islamophobes Spread Fear, Bigotry and Misinformation," describes a loose network of right-wing, anti-Muslim partisans who regularly use innuendo, questionable sources of information and even lies to smear, and effectively marginalize, Muslim Americans in the media. The report is available for download at:

http://www.smearcasting.com/

If these guys can spend their time on working for peace, rather than working to create chaos, the world would be a better place. Of course, it is all about money, there is no money in peace, where as hate mongering sucks up all the dumbos who fund it generously.

Mike Ghouse

The Dirty Dozen: Who's who among America's leading Islamophobes

Bigots aren't born, and hate doesn't spring up on its own; as the song says, "You've got to be carefully taught." The following list includes some of the media's leading teachers of anti-Muslim bigotry, serving various roles in the Islamophobic movement. Some write the books that serve as intellectual fodder, others serve as promoters, others play the roles of provocateurs and rabble-rousers. Some ply their bigotry in the media's mainstream, others in the Internet's tributaries, while still others work talk radio's backwaters. Together with uncounted smaller players, they form a network that teaches Americans to see Islam in fearful terms and their Muslim neighbors as suspects.


David Horowitz is the Islamophobia movement's premier promoter. Through his "Islamofascism Awareness Week" (see Islamofascism Case Study), which brought leading Muslim-bashers to more than a hundred college campuses in October 2007, and via his website, FrontPage Magazine, which features the movement's leading writers and links to other anti-Muslim sites, Horowitz has made himself the chief publicist of the Islamophobic movement. (Anti-Muslim and anti-Arab writings at Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine have been exposed for inaccuracy by, among other outlets, the New Yorker magazine--4/14/08.) But more than a promoter, Horowitz is also a key participant. He appears in his own venues as well as in other right-wing arenas, such as the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard and Fox News Channel. In one Fox appearance (5/9/08), he linked Muslim student associations on college campuses across the U.S. to the "terrorist Jihad against the West":

The point here is that there are 150 Muslim students' associations, which are coddled by university administrations and treated as though they were ethnic or religious groups, when they are political groups that are arms of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the fountainhead of the terrorist jihad against the West.No doubt the students are part of the "between 150 million and 750 million Muslims" Horowitz claims "support a holy war against Christians, Jews and other Muslims" (Columbia Spectator, 10/15/07). During a speech at the University of California at Santa Barbara, Horowitz accused students wearing green in support of the schools' Muslim Student Association of supporting Hamas, and students wearing Arab Keffiyehs of honoring Yassir Arafat and terrorism (Santa Barbara Independent, 5/15/08).

Daniel Pipes - Daniel Pipes(see Case Study: Daniel Pipes' Witch Hunt at a Public School)The founder of the Middle East Forum think tank, Pipes has been introduced by the national media as a "scholar" of Islam (e.g., CBS Sunday Morning, 9/10/06; Fox News Special Report, 11/26/02) and a "noted Middle East expert" (CNN Moneyline, 5/8/03) who was "years ahead of the curve in identifying the threat of radical Islam" (CBS Sunday Morning, 9/10/06). However, Pipes' "expertise" has included erroneously linking the Oklahoma City bombing to Islamic groups (USA Today, 4/20/95), as well as warning (National Review, 11/19/90): "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene.... All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most." A defender of racial profiling of Arab-Americans (CNN American Morning, 11/18/02), Pipes has also warned (American Jewish Congress, 10/21/01) that "the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims" entail "true dangers" for American Jews. As one of the leaders of the "Stop the Madrassa" campaign against a secular Brooklyn-based Arabic language school (see Case Study), he himself has admitted (New York Times.com, 4/28/2008) to misleading the public by using the word "madrassa" to get attention. His columns are featured in the New York Sun, New York Post and National Review, and have also been published in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today and Time. Pipes has been interviewed on CNN, MSNBC and PBS, as well as on NPR. A Bush-appointed director of the U.S. Institute of Peace (2003-05), he has a growing reach on college campuses through his Campus Watch initiative, which encourages students in McCarthyite fashion to monitor their professors' political views and report deviations from the conservative ideology Pipes espouses.

After the September 11 attacks, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly (9/17/01; FAIR Action Alert, 9/21/01) had a whole list of predominantly Muslim countries that he proposed to attack if they did not submit to the U.S.--starting with Afghanistan:

The U.S. should bomb the Afghan infrastructure to rubble-- the airport, the power plants, their water facilities and the roads.... This is a very primitive country. And taking out their ability to exist day to day will not be hard.... If they don't rise up against this criminal government, they starve, period.Also on his list were Iraq ("Their infrastructure must be destroyed and the population made to endure yet another round of intense pain") and Libya ("Nothing goes in, nothing goes out.... Let them eat sand").

This enthusiasm he has expressed for attacking countries with Muslim populations is an O'Reilly trademark (e.g,. Radio Factor, 6/18/04, 3/8/06, 7/26/06). In fairness, he's also expressed similar interest in decimating non-Muslim countries. (See Extra!, 7-8/99.) But his disregard for Muslim civilians is matched by the anti-Muslim sentiments he frequently expresses on both his nationally syndicated radio show, the Radio Factor, which has a reach of 3.5 million listeners (Talkers Magazine, Spring/08) and cable TV show. O'Reilly has bemoaned (O'Reilly Factor, 7/8/05) the fact that areas of London are "just packed with just dense Muslim neighborhoods, which breed this kind of contempt for Western society. Why do they let them in?" He defended airport security profiling of Muslims (O'Reilly Factor, 8/16/06), saying: "We're not at war with Granny Frickin. We're at war with Muslim fanatics. So all young Muslims should be subjected to more scrutiny than Granny"--a move that he said would not be "racial profiling" but rather "criminal profiling." O'Reilly compared a University of South Carolina assignment asking incoming freshmen to read a book called Approaching the Quran:

The Early Revelations to teaching Hitler's Mein Kampf in 1941 (O'Reilly Factor, 7/10/02). O'Reilly also told Stuff magazine (11/02; Extra! Update, 6/03) that "the most unattractive women in the world are probably in the Muslim countries." On his syndicated radio program (Radio Factor, 11/29/06), O'Reilly blamed killings in Iraq on the religion of its people: "They're all Muslims, and they're doing what they do. They're killing each other. And they're killing Americans." Like fellow cable hosts Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, O'Reilly offers a national platform to some of the most egregious Islamophobes. His O'Reilly Factor, which consistently leads ratings in the world of cable news with an audience of over 2 million prime time viewers (New York Times, 8/22/08) has hosted such noted Dirty Dozen members as Robert Spencer (11/20/06) and Pat Robertson, who declared on the O'Reilly Factor (2/27/02) that "out of a billion-plus people there are probably 150 million really fire-breathing Muslims."

Debbie Schlussel may tout herself to her fan club as the "greatest sexy, blonde and beautiful commentator," but her Islamophobic rhetoric is as ugly as the rest. Schlussel jumped to the erroneous conclusion (Debbie Does Politics, 4/16/07) that a "Paki" was responsible for the Virginia Tech shooting. (She remarked that "even if it does not turn out that the shooter is Muslim, this is a demonstration to Muslim jihadists all over that it is extremely easy to shoot and kill multiple American college students.") When Sen. Barack Obama's campaign team prevented two Muslim women from sitting behind him during a speech (see Islamophobia Election piece, p. n), Schlussel asserted (Debbie Does Politics, 6/19/08) that they were "Muslim Terror Front-Group Activists" (One of them faced this accusation because she held a position at the University of Michigan-Dearborn Muslim Students Association.) Claiming a "unique expertise on radical Islam/Islamic terrorism" (DebbieSchlussel), Schlussel presents America as being in "the war of our lives with Islam," and depicts the American Muslim community as a dangerous fifth column. She has asserted (FrontPage Magazine, 2/10/05) that "Fox's 24...actually tells the truth about Islamic terrorists":

They are here on our shores, pretending to be loyal Americans, and they are plotting to take over our country. With the help of plenty of complicit Muslim-Americans, working for the government and government contractors.A resident of the Detroit area, which has large Muslim and Arab populations, she wrote immediately after the September 11 attacks (9/17/01): "Don't blame federal agents for Tuesday's lapse in national security. Blame my neighbors--the Arab-American and Muslim leaders who've actively blocked the fight against terrorism for years." Schlussel (DebbieSchlussel, 11/13/07) has raised national security concerns about Muslims being employed in certain fields, and having access to public resources that would allow them to teach their own children Arabic:

As long as we continue to hire Muslims to be translators and analysts, as long as we continue to give money to Arabic and Muslim schools to teach their kids Arabic instead of non-Muslim, non-Arab Americans, as long as the FBI (and ICE) continues to turn down Sephardic Jews and Maronite Lebanese Christians who speak Arabic and who've applied for jobs in favor of extremist Muslims...the result we will get is...spies, spies and more spies.She has also questioned (12/18/06) "Barack Hussein Obama's" patriotism based on his father being born Muslim. Schlussel's columns have been published by the Wall Street Journal (6/24/05), the New York Post, and the Jerusalem Post. She has appeared on Fox News, CNN, ABC, Howard Stern and ESPN, and, in 2002=03, her own radio show on a CBS-owned Detroit station. Her blog Debbie Does Politics appears on the websites Townhall.com and PoliticalUSA.com, has she has also been quoted by Rush Limbaugh and in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Newsweek, Rolling Stone and USA Today.

If you're looking for Christian charity toward Muslims, don't look to Rev. Pat Robertson or his Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN). Robertson subscribes to Robert Spencer's view that Islam is, in its essence, violent and irrational. He describes (700 Club, 8/29/06) Osama bin Laden as a true disciple of the Quran "because he's following through literally word-for-word what it says." Robertson tells viewers of his signature CBN show, the 700 Club, that Islam is "not a religion" but a "worldwide political movement...meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law" (6/12/07). At the same time, he claims Islam is a "bloody, brutal type of religion" (4/28/06) whose followers only "deal with history and the truth with violence" and "don't understand what reasoned dialogue is" (9/25/06).

When cartoons that portrayed Muhammad negatively sparked protest among Muslims, Robertson announced (3/13/06): "These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it's motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it's time we recognize what we're dealing with." Robertson is not ranting that his enemies are possessed by demons on a street corner; his soapbox is a world-wide television syndicate reaching 200 countries and 97 percent of U.S. television markets (CBN.com). His show also serves as a platform for other Islamophobes (e.g., Robert Spencer, 9/21/06; Daniel Pipes, 4/9/03).

If Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer serve the movement by providing intellectual arguments for its rank and file, Michael Savage serves as its angry rabble-rouser. And Savage's reach is remarkable: His radio show Savage Nation reaches a reported 8.25 million listeners per week (Talkers Magazine, Spring/08), the third most popular political talk radio show in the country (trailing only Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity). Savage is notorious for his relentlessly hateful language--he was fired from his MSNBC gig when he labeled a caller a "sodomite" and told him to "get AIDS and die" (FAIR Action Alert, 7/7/03)--and Muslims are often his target.

"When I see a woman walking around with a burqa," Savage told his listeners on July 2, 2007, "I see a Nazi…a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children." Savage sees a monolithic Islamic scheme to take over the U.S.--"We know you want to take over America. We know you wanna push your religion down everyone's throat," (Savage Nation, 7/2/07)--and imagines himself one of the few brave souls standing up against the onslaught (10/29/07): "I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting on my all-fours and braying to Mecca.... I don't wanna hear anymore about Islam.

Take your religion and shove it up your behind." Savage has even called (4/17/06) for killing a hundred million Muslims, saying that people are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, "Oh, there's a billion of them." I said, "So, kill 100 million of them, then there'll be 900 million of them." I mean, would you rather die--would you rather us die than them? I mean, what is it going to take for you people to wake up? Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later.

Steve Emerson

The founder and executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism think tank, Emerson regularly crops up as an "expert on Islamic terrorism" (New York Times, 1/16/01) in national media outlets ranging from the New York Times and Washington Post to CNN and NBC News (where he is employed as an analyst); he specializes in advancing allegations linking Muslim groups in the U.S. to fundamentalist Islamic international terrorism.

A proponent of a theory that "the U.S. has become occupied fundamentalist territory" (Jerusalem Post, 8/8/97), he has written (Jewish Monthly, 3/95; Extra! 7=8/95) that "the level of vitriol against Jews and Christianity within contemporary Islam...sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine." Veteran reporter Robert Friedman accused Emerson of "creating mass hysteria against American Arabs" (Nation, 5/15/95) with his film Jihad in America.

As a consultant for an Associated Press series about American Muslim groups, Emerson presented AP reporters with what he claimed were FBI documents describing mainstream American Muslim groups with alleged terrorist sympathies, according to the AP series' lead writer, Richard Cole (Extra!, 7=8/95). However, Cole said that AP staff discovered that the dossier was almost identical to one earlier authored by Emerson himself. Emerson's FBI dossier "was really his," according to Cole. "He had edited out all phrases, taken out anything that made it look like his."

Emerson erroneously blamed the Oklahoma City bombing on Middle Eastern groups, proclaiming on CBS Evening News (4/19/95; Extra! 1=2/99): "This was done with the attempt to inflict as many casualties as possible. That is a Middle Eastern trait." He said on CNBC (8/23/96) that "it was a bomb that brought down TWA Flight 800"; investigations by the National Transportation Safety Agency (8/23/00) and the FBI (11/18/97) concluded otherwise. He also misidentified (CNN, 3/2/93) the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing--blaming it, ironically enough, on Yugoslavians, when the people convicted of the attack were Arabs.

Despite his track record, he continues to be identified as a "terrorism expert" (Fox News Hannity & Colmes, 1/11/08; NBC Today, 6/4/07, Wall Street Journal, 6/6/07). Emerson can still be heard testifying in congressional committees on terrorism (CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/9/08, 7/31/08), as well as on the media, in the middle of discussions about Islamic terrorism, warning (CNBC's Kudlow & Company, 6/8/07) of the FBI's failure to "battle...groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other jihadists that don't break the law."

Michelle Malkin calls Islam "the religion of perpetual outrage" on her two blogs, MichelleMalkin.com (8/1/06, 2/11/08) and Hot Air (2/9/08), though Malkin herself seems remarkably easy to outrage. When celebrity chef Rachael Ray was featured in a 2008 Dunkin' Donuts ad wearing a black-and-white paisley scarf that vaguely resembled an Arab keffiyeh, Malkin created such an uproar over what she imagined to be a "hate couture" symbol of "murderous Palestinian jihad" (MichelleMalkin.com, 5/28/08) that Dunkin' Donuts pulled the ad and issued an apology (Huffington Post, 5/28/08).

In her book In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in WWII and the War on Terror, Malkin argued that the mass incarceration of Japanese-Americans was explained and justified by what she presented as evidence of subversion; she drew a present-day parallel to alleged subversion amongst Muslim and Arab populations in the U.S. today.The main thesis of the book was condemned as historically incorrect by the Historians' Committee for Fairness (8/31/04), which stated that Malkin's book was "contradicted by several decades of scholarly research, including works by the official historian of the United States Army and an official U.S. government commission."

On her website (8/10/06) Malkin explained why by she no longer uses the term "Islamofascism": I stopped using the terms "Islamic fascist" and "Islamofascism" a while ago...because they obscure rather than clarify. The views held by the Muslim jihadis who want to destroy us are not marginal views held only by a minority of "Islamic fascists."

Malkin is a New York Times bestselling author and was named by the London Observer (3/16/08) one of the 50 most powerful bloggers. Her columns are also published on Vdare, the white nationalist website (Extra!, 3-4/05).

Glenn Beck claims he doesn't hate Islam, just its "evil" extremists, but during his eponymous CNN Headline News show and the Glenn Beck Program--the third highest-rated national radio talk show among adults ages 25 to 54 (CNN.com)--he has repeatedly associated Islam with Nazism. He drew a parallel between Mein Kampf and "jihad" because, he said, both mean "my struggle" (Glenn Beck, 11/17/06), and he has warned (Glenn Beck, 7/12/06) of "World War III and the impending apocalypse," declaring that "whether you like it or not, this is a religious war. Radical Muslims want to wipe everybody else off the face of the earth."

Beck reserves some hate-talk even for "good" Muslims (Glenn Beck Program, 8/10/06):
All you Muslims who have sat on your frickin' hands the whole time and have not been marching in the streets and have not been saying, "Hey, you know what? There are good Muslims and bad Muslims. We need to be the first ones in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head." I'm telling you, with God as my witness... human beings are not strong enough, unfortunately, to restrain themselves from putting up razor wire and putting you on one side of it.... When people become hungry, when people see that their way of life is on the edge of being over, they will put razor wire up and just based on the way you look or just based on your religion, they will round you up. Is that wrong? Oh my gosh, it is Nazi, World War II wrong, but society has proved it time and time again: It will happen.

Beck had made earlier allusions to putting Muslims in concentration camps, predicting in 2006 (Glenn Beck, 9/5/06): "In 10 years, Muslims and Arabs will be looking through a razor wire fence at the West."

Beck has asked Muslim guests to distinguish themselves from Islamic terrorists. "I mean, you're reasonable," he said to Sharida McKenzie, organizer of a Muslim Peace March (Glenn Beck, 10/4/07). "How do we know the difference between you and those that are trying to kill us?"

When Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, appeared on his show (Glenn Beck, 11/14/06), Beck said: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'" Beck added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."

Commenting on ABC News (Good Morning America, 5/23/07) on a Pew Research Center public opinion poll of American Muslims, which, according to Pew's report ("American Muslims: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream," 5/22/07) showed" absolute levels of support for Islamic extremism among Muslim Americans are quite low, especially when compared with Muslims around the world," Beck stated that the findings showed that "the seeds of destruction are being planted."

Although Beck apologized for the remark (Reliable Sources, 3/18/07), he continues to display anti-Muslim sentiment on his radio and television programs, through his magazine Fusion and as an occasional source on ABC News.

According to American Muslim and former Nixon advisor Robert Crane (The Politics of Islam(ism): Decolonising the Postcolonial, 11/10=11/07), Robert Spencer is "the principal leader…in the new academic field of Islam-bashing."

Spencer is the author of several books attacking Islam, including the New York Times bestsellers The Truth About Muhammad, Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion (Regnery, 2006) and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Regnery, 2005). He is the publisher of the "notoriously Islamophobic website" Jihad Watch (Guardian, 2/7/06), a subsidiary of the David Horowitz Freedom Center; a columnist for right-wing outlets like Human Events and WorldNetDaily; and a recurring guest on Glenn Beck's CNN Headline News show, as well as several Fox News shows.

Though his scholarship has been questioned by Islamic scholars (e.g. Crane, AmericanMuslim.com, 10/20/07; Louay M. Safi, Media Monitors Network, 12/29/05; Khalil Mohammed, FrontPage Magazine, 4/18/05), Spencer serves as an intellectual force in the movement, specializing in one-sided interpretations of the Quran. He has written (cited in Crane, MuslimAmerican.com, 10/20/07) of Osama bin Laden's use of quotes from the Quran:

Of course, the devil can quote scripture for his own purpose, but Osama's use of these and other passages in his messages is consistent (as we shall see) with traditional understanding of the Quran. When modern-day Jews and Christians read their Bibles, they simply don't interpret the passages cited as exhorting them to violent actions against unbelievers. This is due to the influence of centuries of interpretative traditions that have moved them away from literalism regarding these passages. But in Islam, there is no comparable interpretative tradition.

Yet Islam does in fact have an interpretive tradition, which Spencer seems bent on ignoring. His New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam has been faulted (Crane, AmericanMuslim.com, 10/20/07) for promoting a Puffin English-language version of the Quran that contains no explanatory commentary as superior to versions which include "many thousands of footnotes evaluating 14 centuries of interpretative tradition" and "the wealth of classical Islamic scholarship on both the inner and outer meaning of the Quran and on the hadith that reflect this wisdom."

According to Crane, "Spencer's readers are carefully steered away from all contact with the Islamic interpretative tradition, which equals or exceeds that of any other religion, because any scholarly knowledge about Islam would expose all his extremist interpretations to ridicule."

By selectively ignoring inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries, Spencer concludes that Islam is innately extremist and violent, and
Unfortunately, however, jihad as warfare against non-believers in order to institute "Sharia" worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists. Instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology. (Jihad Watch, 3/3/07).

Of course, a similarly selective reading of the Torah might lead one to conclude that Jews favor killing homosexuals, as well as those who wear garments that mix cotton and wool. Spencer's methods have prompted even conservatives such as Dinesh D'Souza (who challenged his views on Islam in a C-SPAN debate--3/1/07-- and on his blog--AOL News Bloggers, 3/2/07) and Stephen Schwartz (FrontPageMag.com, 10/28/04) to denounce him as one-sided and intolerant.

But those methods have made Spencer a mainstay in the Islamophobia circuit, featured, for example, at Horowitz's 2007 Islamofascism Awareness events. And they haven't decreased his popularity in official circles: His website boasts that he has led seminars on Islam and jihad for, among others, the U.S. Central Command, the Department of Homeland Security, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and "the U.S. intelligence community."

Mark Steyn has a penchant for using ethnic slurs, including "chinks" and "japs" (Spectator, 3/24/01), but he is at his most prolific and poisonous on the subject of Muslims. In his 2006 New York Times best seller, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, Steyn warns of the "demographic decline" posed by Europe's emerging Muslim population, and suggests there are lessons for Europeans in the Balkan example of ethnic cleansing. As he explains, "You can't buck demography--except through civil war":

The Serbs figured that out--as other Continentals will in the years ahead: If you can't outbreed the enemy, cull 'em. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia's demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.

It's enough to make one wonder what Steyn has in mind when he insists that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is "a Muslim" (Chicago Sun-Times, 1/21/07).

Islamophobic rants on Europe's demographic decline and "grim Eurostatistics" (National Review, 6/2/08) are a regular feature of Steyn's columns, which run in the National Review and New York Sun. In addition to writing frequently in other major U.S. outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Sun-Times and Atlantic Monthly, Steyn often substitutes for talkshow hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Remarking on reports that U.S. congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim, was planning to be sworn in with a Quran, Fox News personality Sean Hannity (Hannity & Colmes, 11/30/06) drew a parallel between Islam and Nazism, asking a guest on his show, "Would you have allowed him to choose, you know, Hitler's Mein Kampf, which is the Nazi bible?" (Hannity insisted he was not equating Mein Kampf and the Quran, rendering his point entirely unclear.) But more important than his occasional personal forays into Muslim-bashing, Hannity regularly provides a welcoming national platform to some of the country's leading Islamophobes, through his nationally syndicated Sean Hannity Show on radio and his Hannity & Colmes show on Fox News (with only occasional challenges on Hannity & Colmes by co-host Alan Colmes).

On the Sean Hannity Show (2/9/04), U.S. Representative Peter King (R.-N.Y.) told Hannity's listeners that 85 percent of mosques in America are "ruled by the extremists," constituting "an enemy living amongst us." King added that while most American Muslims were more moderate, "they don't come forward, they don't tell the police."

Hannity's remarks on the Quran came in a show (Hannity & Colmes, 11/30/06) that featured talkshow host Dennis Prager, who denounced Ellison's plans to be sworn in on the Islamic book. Hannity uncritically summarized his argument for him: "You said that his doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, and they'll see it as the first sign and realization of a greatest goal, which is the, you know, making Islam the religion of America."

Also on Hannity & Colmes (9/18/02), Pat Robertson called Islam fraudulent and a scam, Mohammad "an absolute wild-eyed fanatic," and said that Al Qaeda was merely "carrying out Islam." Other Islamophobes that have appeared on Hannity's two shows include Ann Coulter, David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes.

The founder and executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism think tank, Emerson regularly crops up as an "expert on Islamic terrorism" (New York Times, 1/16/01) in national media outlets ranging from the New York Times and Washington Post to CNN and NBC News (where he is employed as an analyst); he specializes in advancing allegations linking Muslim groups in the U.S. to fundamentalist Islamic international terrorism.

A proponent of a theory that "the U.S. has become occupied fundamentalist territory" (Jerusalem Post, 8/8/97), he has written (Jewish Monthly, 3/95; Extra! 7=8/95) that "the level of vitriol against Jews and Christianity within contemporary Islam...sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine." Veteran reporter Robert Friedman accused Emerson of "creating mass hysteria against American Arabs" (Nation, 5/15/95) with his film Jihad in America.

As a consultant for an Associated Press series about American Muslim groups, Emerson presented AP reporters with what he claimed were FBI documents describing mainstream American Muslim groups with alleged terrorist sympathies, according to the AP series' lead writer, Richard Cole (Extra!, 7=8/95). However, Cole said that AP staff discovered that the dossier was almost identical to one earlier authored by Emerson himself. Emerson's FBI dossier "was really his," according to Cole. "He had edited out all phrases, taken out anything that made it look like his."

Emerson erroneously blamed the Oklahoma City bombing on Middle Eastern groups, proclaiming on CBS Evening News (4/19/95; Extra! 1=2/99): "This was done with the attempt to inflict as many casualties as possible. That is a Middle Eastern trait." He said on CNBC (8/23/96) that "it was a bomb that brought down TWA Flight 800"; investigations by the National Transportation Safety Agency (8/23/00) and the FBI (11/18/97) concluded otherwise. He also misidentified (CNN, 3/2/93) the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing--blaming it, ironically enough, on Yugoslavians, when the people convicted of the attack were Arabs.

Despite his track record, he continues to be identified as a "terrorism expert" (Fox News Hannity & Colmes, 1/11/08; NBC Today, 6/4/07, Wall Street Journal, 6/6/07). Emerson can still be heard testifying in congressional committees on terrorism (CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/9/08, 7/31/08), as well as on the media, in the middle of discussions about Islamic terrorism, warning (CNBC's Kudlow & Company, 6/8/07) of the FBI's failure to "battle...groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other jihadists that don't break the law."

(see Case Study: Daniel Pipes' Witch Hunt at a Public School)


The founder of the Middle East Forum think tank, Pipes has been introduced by the national media as a "scholar" of Islam (e.g., CBS Sunday Morning, 9/10/06; Fox News Special Report, 11/26/02) and a "noted Middle East expert" (CNN Moneyline, 5/8/03) who was "years ahead of the curve in identifying the threat of radical Islam" (CBS Sunday Morning, 9/10/06).

However, Pipes' "expertise" has included erroneously linking the Oklahoma City bombing to Islamic groups (USA Today, 4/20/95), as well as warning (National Review, 11/19/90): "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene.... All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

A defender of racial profiling of Arab-Americans (CNN American Morning, 11/18/02), Pipes has also warned (American Jewish Congress, 10/21/01) that "the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims" entail "true dangers" for American Jews. As one of the leaders of the "Stop the Madrassa" campaign against a secular Brooklyn-based Arabic language school (see Case Study), he himself has admitted (New York Times.com, 4/28/2008) to misleading the public by using the word "madrassa" to get attention.

His columns are featured in the New York Sun, New York Post and National Review, and have also been published in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today and Time. Pipes has been interviewed on CNN, MSNBC and PBS, as well as on NPR. A Bush-appointed director of the U.S. Institute of Peace (2003-05), he has a growing reach on college campuses through his Campus Watch initiative, which encourages students in McCarthyite fashion to monitor their professors' political views and report deviations from the conservative ideology Pipes espouses.



Powered by FeedBurner