Fox News Owes Jeanine Pirro An Apology



Nancy Pelosi appointed Ilhan Omar to the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 17th.

Five days later, on January 22nd, published my Op-Ed entitled America’s Silence in the Face of Anti-Semitism is Evil, in which, among other things, I posed the question:  

“[When she appointed Omar to that committee], did Ms. Pelosi willfully choose to overlook Ms. Omar’s anti-Semitism, or — worse yet — even tacitly embrace it?”

A few days later, a friend suggested to me that the answer was quite possibly the latter.

I had asked her if she thought Pelosi’s non-response to the growing calls for Omar’s removal from that committee was because Pelosi felt that the Muslim faction of her Party’s base was too large to alienate?

The simplicity of my friend’s response was eye opening: 

“That might be a partial answer, but the real reason is she — Pelosi — may well be anti-Semitic herself.”

It was against the backdrop of that conversation that, a few weeks later, I found Pelosi’s ultimate defense of Omar to be so chilling.

Completely ignoring several month’s of numerous attempts by many people to sound the alarm about Omar’s anti-Semitism, Pelosi intentionally chose to provide her cover by lamely attempting to persuade us all that Omar’s offensive statements were not “intentionally anti-Semitic.”

Really? Not even a little bit anti-Semitic? 

Of course, that left Pelosi hoping we would all ignore an elephant in the room.

That was the elephant named Silent Omar who to this day has never publicly confirmed that anti-Semitism is something she is willing to condemn.

And that brings us to a second elephant in the same room named Silent Pelosi.

Pelosi herself has never demanded, nor has she ever even suggested, that Omar go on the record to publicly acknowledge that anti-Semitism is evil. 

And it is that which is so chilling.

Reduced to its essence, Pelosi’s excuse for Omar’s anti-Semitism is nothing less than Orwellian double-speak that both logic and reason suggest could only emanate from the mouth of a co-conspirator attempting to protect an ally by shielding her from those who would attack her for having an evil agenda they both share.

Could this explain why such a calm smile has remained on Omar’s face throughout this controversy?

At minimum, it appears to be the smile of a person who has been made confident by her knowledge that, when it comes to her anti-Semitic beliefs, she is far from alone. 

Sadly, the truth is she may very well be correct.

How else can one interpret the divide she has caused among the members of the House of Representatives on how to respond to her anti-Semitism? At best, they are at a stalemate, with several of her colleagues even voicing their support for both Omar and her offensive beliefs. And, at the end of the day after all is said and done, the fact remains that Omar still remains seated on the House Foreign Affairs Committee with Pelosi’s blessing.  

And were that not bad enough, Omar is also now receiving support from places beyond Congress that few could have predicted — like Fox News — where those who step forward to condemn Omar’s anti-Semitism, are instead finding themselves to be the ones who are condemned.

That is something Jeanine Pirro learned the hard way over the weekend.

In her “Opening Statement,” Pirro asked if Omar’s wearing a hijab was indicative of her adherence to Sharia Law, which Pirro then asserted was “antithetical” to the United States Constitution.

In response to which, Pirro’s own network issued the following rebuke

“We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro’s comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar. They do not reflect those of the network and we have addressed the matter with her directly.”

Left entirely unclear by Fox News, however, was what exactly was Ms. Pirro being condemned for?

Was it because she had somehow inadvertently denigrated the hijab as a fashion statement?

Not likely. 

Was it because Pirro’s question suggested that the wearing of a hijab might cause some to conclude that such a person has an allegiance to Sharia Law?

Which, at the very least, seems likely, no?  So, was Fox condemning Pirro for even asking if it is true? Surely not! Fox itself is in the business — protected by the First Amendment — of searching out such facts whenever enquiring minds want to know, is it not? So, that’s probably not the reason Fox did what they did, either. 

That brings us next to consider a third possibility.  

Did Fox condemn her for displaying the bad judgment of publicly exposing to the light of day a politically incorrect truth: That Sharia Law does call for the Muslim world to create a theocracy that — while mandated by the Koran — is a form of government that is expressly forbidden by — i.e., "antithetical to” — the U.S. Constitution … just like Pirro said!

Which then directs our attention to another inconvenient truth.  That people like Omar could very well present a danger to the future stability of this country, if for no other reason than that she and those she represents are openly and intentionally refusing to assimilate to our country’s normative values and beliefs.

Certainly, such inconvenient and politically incorrect truths fly in the face of the Siamese twin gods of political correctness that are now worshipped by so many “progressives” in our culture — Tolerance and Diversity.

Thus, perhaps that might explain why Fox decided to condemn of Pirro.

But, if today that alone is enough for organizations like Fox to justify attempting to silence people like Pirro who have the courage to tell the truth, we are in a dangerous place indeed.

Foundational to Pirro’s question was another truth that is undeniable. Any culture's diversity based on race, color, religion, ethnicity, and national origin can only be successful if all the people so gathered are willing to transcend their differences and assimilate to a standardized set of core traditions, customs, and rules. Ideally, such commonly held values would include little things like: the Constitution is — and shall remain — the highest law of the land; and anti-Semitism is not something that is either good or ever to be tolerated in America.

Whereas, any society where such assimilation is not achieved will in time be reduced to nothing more than a gathering of a variety of hostile tribes founded on identity politics. A tribal culture where the escalating strife between the disparate factions will eventually lead to inter-tribal wars, which history suggests can often result in the injury, and even death, of many.

If only for her willingness to help us all come around to an appreciation of these truths, Fox should be thanking Pirro, instead of censuring her in order to placate the members of a single “tribe” living among us just because that tribe has raised a “politically correct” objection to her speech remaining free by accusing her of … “Islamophobia.”

Of course, time will tell what Fox will do.

Sadly, however, if Fox chooses to not reverse course any time soon, it leaves open the possibility of the last remaining explanation for why Fox management may have chosen to condemn Pirro.  

To paraphrase the words of my friend, is it even conceivable that, “… the real reason could also be that the management at Fox — like Pelosi — may well be anti-Semitic?”

For Pirro, the Jewish community and the rest of us in America, that would not only be sad.

It should be chilling.


Clifford C. Nichols is an attorney licensed to practice in California and New Mexico. Follow him on Twitter at @cnicholslaw and direct any comments or questions regarding this editorial to