Fox News Should Be Thanking Judge Jeanine Pirro for Her Courage to Tell the Truth
©2019 CLIFFORD C. NICHOLS, ESQ.
Anti-Semitic Representative Ilhan Omar is now receiving tacit support from places few could have foreseen a month ago, which is beyond those who are allowing her to remain on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Fox News is now rumored to have canceled the show of Judge Jeanine Pirro for even daring to question the qualifications of Ms. Omar to sit on that committee.
Last week, Fox News condemned Judge Pirro for her Opening Statement in which she questioned whether Omar’s wearing of a hijab was:
“… indicative of her adherence to Sharia Law, which in itself is ‘antithetical’ to the United States Constitution?”
In response to which, Fox News quickly 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.”
To which Omar thanked Fox by tweeting,
“Thank you, @FoxNews. No one’s commitment to our constitution should be questioned because of their faith or country of birth.”
That tweet alone should leave many enquiring minds wanting to ask Ms. Omar …
“Why shouldn’t we question it?”
Omar’s politically correct tweet entirely overlooks four inconvenient facts.
Hijabs are universally recognized to be symbolic of a woman’s adherence to Sharia Law;
Most anyone who adheres to Sharia Law is also universally recognized to be a disciple of the Koran;
The Koran mandates its disciples to create theocracies — wherein Muslims are required to institute and submit only to a form of government that is ruled by Islamic leaders who are committed to enforcing Sharia Law; but, therein lies the rub for Americans; and
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment expressly forbids the creation of any theocracy in America.
Thus, it would seem that the truth is that adherence to Sharia law may very well be "antithetical to” the U.S. Constitution. Just like Judge Jeanine suggested!
So, why did Fox and Omar condemn Judge Pirro for even daring to ask the question?
Not because what she suspected to be the truth was not, in fact, the truth, because that's precisely what it was.
Instead, it was because we live in a world today where the truth itself can be wrong simply because it is contrary to what is deemed to be politically correct. And, apparently, the truth that the Judge was putting before her viewers, in this instance, was contrary to the Left’s sacred cow named “diversity” that progressives, like Omar, would have us worship at all times, and never question.
So now, it appears from Fox’s condemnation — and possible firing — of the Judge, we live in an era where people who speak a truth that the Left finds “inconvenient,” are to be silenced in deference to the politically correct agenda of progressives.
And that is a scary place to be.
According to Omar’s tweet, how dare Judge Pirro question the loyalty of any immigrant like Omar?
How about, because America has a vested interest in knowing whether the people who have come to this country from elsewhere present a very present danger to the future viability of our Constitution and thus to the future stability of our country?
Had we done a better job of doing exactly that, 9/11 may never have occurred.
But now — according to Omar and apparently now even Fox — we are no longer permitted to even discuss whether a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee could present a danger of possibly greater consequence than 9/11 due to a possibility that they may have beliefs — i.e., hate speech such as anti-Semitism — that are hostile to our nation’s:
Legal framework based on the Constitution;
Normative core values and beliefs, such as our disfavor of things like anti-Semitism; and
Interest in protecting the strength and security of our most reliable ally in the Middle East that is Israel.
The Judge was NOT attacking, or even questioning the merits of our culture's diversity in terms of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin and now — the current favorite — even a multitude of genders, as Omar’s tweet tries to suggest.
The Judge’s question, however, did direct our attention to the undeniable fact that if any diverse society, like America’s, hopes to remain a vibrant and productive culture over the long run, the members of all the various “identity groups” living within our borders must be willing to transcend their differences to the extent necessary for them all to assimilate to a commonly-held basic set of core traditions, customs, values that, in turn, will enable all citizens to play the game of being an American in accord with the same rulebook.
Otherwise, a diverse society will necessarily descend into becoming little more than a tribalistic culture founded on identity politics. And that can be a horrible place for a country to put itself and that, if possible, should be avoided. It is a place where escalating strife among disparate factions operating with different sets of rules will only lead eventually to inter-tribal warfare, which history strongly suggests results in the injury, and even death, of many.
Consider, for example, the mayhem we have already witnessed at places like the gay nightclub in Orlando, the congressional baseball game in Virginia, the march in Charlottesville, the synagogue in Pittsburgh, and now, most recently, abroad with the murder of 50 Muslims at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand.
At one level, these tragedies can be explained as the acts of mentally deranged extremists.
But, that alone should not be enough to dismiss from our minds the critical fact that, from a different perspective, each of these incidents can also be seen to involve a radical member of one group — i.e., tribe — attacking the members of another that — for whatever reason — they perceived to be their enemy.
It is from this latter perspective that such horrors must be examined if we ever hope to find effective ways by which we can minimize, if not ultimately prevent, such acts of “inter-tribal hostility” from occurring in the future.
That is the national discussion that needs to commence, rather than be summarily silenced.
It is this conversation about assimilation that is absolutely critical — and has long been avoided — if America is to retain any hope of remaining a unified people moving forward under a common banner in pursuit of a single overriding primary goal: to maintain a civilized society that offers to all who are blessed to live within it a realistic hope of enjoying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That is the level of the discourse to which Judge Jeanine’s question was attempting to bring us.
And for that, Fox should have thanked Judge Jeanine. Not condemn her. Not silence her. Not fire her. And certainly not force her to apologize to an anti-Semite for merely attempting to expose the truth — even those truths some would find inconvenient!