Memorandum

We ought to give credit where credit is due. Not to me, given that I thought that whatever the White House released of the call between President Trump and Ukrainian president Zelensky would be heavy with redactions and/or altered, such that little untoward would be revealed. That was not the case because the release is fairly damning toward Trump, for any other president clearly cause for impeachment, conviction, and prosecution by the courts.

Nor is credit due Nate Silver, who tweeted "Everybody's guessing, but my guess is that the public is going to see what's in the transcript as being very inappropriate conduct..." Nor to David Axelrod with "the transcript released today is devastating...." 

Lawyers also erred. House Intelligence committee chairperson Adam Schiff tweeted "the transcript of the call reads like a classic mob shakedown" and former US Attorney Mimi Rocah, "any privilege is now waived. Selectively releasing a transcript that he thinks he can spin without the complaint which tells the full story." (At another point, she accurately referred to it as a "summary.")

And correspondent Pamela Brown on CNN:

Rocah and Schiff (possibly also Axelrod and Silver) probably are right on the contents and consequences. But these four- and others- are wrong on the nature of the document, and this is no technicality. The first clue was "Memorandum Of Telephone Conversation." The Standards and Practices Editor of National Public Radio has sent to employees a memorandum warning

Because the document released by the White House is not a word-for-word record of the conversation President Trump had with the president of Ukraine, please do not simply refer to it as a "transcript." If you use that word, it must be followed by a phrase such as "based on notes taken by staff assigned to listen." Better ways to first reference it include: "an account of the call" or a "memorandum." It is also important to note that it was released by the White House. And we should, when we can, point out that the document itself notes that it is not a "verbatim transcript." Ryan Lucas did just that in a Q&A he recorded for Newscast this morning. He talked about it not being a verbatim transcript and how it is based on the notes and recollections of those assigned to listen.

Integrity and accuracy are not dead in American media.  That will not persist in the crackdown on the First Amendment which would follow a Trump victory, but as of now, there are pockets of resistance to propaganda, disinformation, and spin.

Share |

The Republican Media- No. 25

"It’s a hard thing to be honest about and I think we’ve had a good discussion on this for everybody," Chris Matthews said today on "The Chris Matthews Show."

Maybe honest but a good discussion, no.

Nicole Belle of Crooks and Liars posted a transcript of the discussion Chris Matthews led Sunday morning pertaining to National Public Radio in light of the edited video created by criminal offender James O'Keefe. The participants included Kelly O'Donnell of NBC, Katty Kay of the BBC, David Ignatius of The Washington Post, and The New York Times' David Brooks. Yet, no one, Belle points out, saw fit to mention that the scam was hatched by O'Keefe. O'Keefe is the fellow who fabricated the ACORN video; tried to tamper with the phone lines in Senator Mary Landrieu's office; attempted to lure CNN correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat and seduce her to ruin CNN's reputation; and attended a 2006 conference on "Race and Conservatism" that featured leading white nationalists.

There has been severely limited analysis of the video produced by O'Keefe, especially as it is playing a prominent role in GOP efforts to defund NPR. Oddly, one of the few critics has been that of Glenn Becks's website, The Blaze. There, Editor-in-Chief Scott Baker reported that the site's video analyst, Pam Key, evaluated the audio and video and found considerable editing. Baker broke it down into five sections which he termed: Muslim Brotherhood connections; Does Ron Schiller react to Sharia misstatement with amusement?; How does Schiller describe Republicans?; Are liberals more educated than conservatives?; Does NPR need federal funding?

My favorite video clip comparison (below) appears to demonstrate that the "racist, gun toting" description of tea party members came not initially from Ron Schiller (though he apparently agrees with it) but from two Republicans, an ambassador and a big donor.

It might behoove someone in the "liberal" media to delve around a little to determine who these two Republicans are. It's highly likely an investigative reporter would find that the views of these two do not represent an outlier, that many mainstream conservative members of the Republican party find the tea party outrageous. And we might find quite a few Repub politicians intimidated by a movement that, far from its portrayal by the mainstream media as populist, is little more than a subsidiary of corporate America.

This would be very, very bad for the GOP, which would anger some people. Guys like Chris Matthews and David Ignatius, generally enamored of Barack Obama, are widely misunderstood. Their preferences are for Barack Obama, the man, rather than for liberal policies. (Matthews especially peddles the myth that Obama is personally beloved while his policies are unpopular.) And protecting, consciously or unconsciously, the Republican Party is one way they can avoid- they hope- being smeared by conservatives as part of that evil "liberal media."

Share|

Deception, Again


James O'Keefe is still at it.

The criminal offender and film editor, who carried out a phony sting against ACORN, now has targeted National Public Radio.

"Has targeted," rather than "targeted," because the stunt is part of the effort by congressional Republicans to end subsidies to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides a relatively small amount of the funding, this fiscal year $430 million, which goes to programs distributed to NPR and PBS.

NPR President Vivian Schiller (no relation to Ron), who had announced her resignation for later this year, already has resigned in response to distribution of the highly edited video produced by the guy serving a three year term of federal probation for trying to sabotage the phone system of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (a Democrat: aren't you shocked?), charges later reduced. O'Keefe might be serving a prison term for the offense were it not for one of those liberal, permissive Judges (or, in this case, a prosecutor) who usually appall conservatives.

According to the Associated Press,

The heavily edited video shows Schiller and another NPR executive, Betsy Liley, meeting at a pricey restaurant in Washington's Georgetown neighborhood with two men claiming to be part of a Muslim organization. The men offer NPR a $5 million donation. NPR said Tuesday it was "repeatedly pressured" to accept a $5 million check, which the organization "repeatedly refused."

"The current Republican Party is not really the Republican Party. It's been hijacked by this group that is ... not just Islamophobic but, really, xenophobic," Schiller said in the video, referring to the tea party movement. "They believe in sort of white, middle America, gun-toting -- it's scary. They're seriously racist, racist people."

The right is exorcised by the attack of Ron Schiller, the president of NPR's fundraising arm and senior vice president for development, on corporate America tea party supporters. Additionally, though, conservatives are arguing that financing should be eliminated for an organization which, contrary to its official policy, doesn't need it. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor charged "This disturbing video makes it clear that taxpayer dollars should no longer be appropriated to NPR.... as executives "finally admitted that they do not need taxpayer dollars to survive." Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) claimed "There's two issues at stake here in regards to taxpayer funding for public broadcasting: We can't afford it, and they don't need it." And Mark Meckler of Tea Party Patriots, subsidiary of the corporate interest group and Republican front group FreedomWorks, asked rhetorically "At a time when the country is upside down by more than a trillion dollars, can we really afford to provide huge subsidies to entities that openly state that they don't need the money?"

The beauty of the schemes hatched by O'Keefe is that there is no downside. When ACORN received defective registration applications, it informed election registrars. When O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, dressed normally (but as pimp and prostitute in the edited video), entered ACORN offices, police were notified. Planned Parenthood, object of a recent phony sting, promptly informed the Federal Bureau of Investigation. ACORN was defunded and then disbanded. House anti-abortion Republicans, (with a few Democrats) have voted to defund Planned Parenthood, which through its family planning care probably has prevented more unwanted pregnancies, thus more abortions, than any organization in America.

NPR refuses a donation from the phony militant Muslim organization represented by O'Keefe. But Ron Schiller (erroneously) contends NRP doesn't need federal funding; the right reacts "then why waste taxpayer money on it?" And that response is muted compared to that which would have ensued if the organization had promptly pleaded that it was in desperate need of continued federal funding. Given that former Pennsylvania Senator and concurrent Virginia resident Rick Santorum can compare elderly people and poor children in need of health care to drug addicts, a segment of the right likely would attack NPR as a welfare cheat and an arm of the Democratic socialist machine.

ACORN, Planned Parenthood, NPR. When there is highly edited video and a compliant mainstream media, facts get lost even when they are mentioned, as they infrequently are. The left needs to have an answer, not only to counteract the noxious tactics of ultra conservatives and their congressional allies but also as a deterrent to the far right's aggressive efforts to mislead the public.

Share|

The Way It's Done, In Arizona And Elsewhere

Most Tea Party supporters are not racists, do not believe in stomping on the head of a woman, and actually love their country, albeit in a rather strange manner. But before this destructive movement guided by corporate lobbyists began, author Thomas Frank described the phenomenon often and accurately. And on Hardball Thursday evening, Ron Reagan nailed it:

MATTHEWS: This is great conundrum, Ron, and here‘s the conundrum of all times. The business community hates his guts. The Republican Party calls him a socialist, even if they—sometimes, they call him, American, but usually, a socialist American at least, at least the moderate ones. They think he‘s been absolutely socialist, absolutely left wing. And yet, the left, the progressive people out there say he‘s been timid.

What he done wrong when he has both sides—

REAGAN: The Republicans don‘t think—really think he‘s been a socialist. Not the people who are, you know, in office and know better. That‘s just rhetoric to get the crowd geeked up so they‘ll start stomping on people‘s heads, you know? They don‘t really believe that.

There is no better example than SB 1070, the law which practically all of the country misunderstood- still misunderstands- as an immigrant-control measure. To the right, most of the center, and virtually all of the mainstream media, SB 1070 is an anti-illegal immigration measure. Most of the left also misunderstands it, believing it to be an anti-immigrant act and possibly racist, though liberals were not responsible for this law, so they almost deserve a pass.

Writing on npr.org on October 28 about an ostensibly anti-immigration act crafted by State Swenator Russell Pearce, Laura Sullivan explained

The law is being challenged in the courts. But if it's upheld, it requires police to lock up anyone they stop who cannot show proof they entered the country legally.

When it was passed in April, it ignited a fire storm. Protesters chanted about racial profiling. Businesses threatened to boycott the state.

Supporters were equally passionate, calling it a bold positive step to curb illegal immigration.

But while the debate raged, few people were aware of how the law came about.

NPR spent the past several months analyzing hundreds of pages of campaign finance reports, lobbying documents and corporate records. What they show is a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by an industry that stands to benefit from it: the private prison industry.

The law could send hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to prison in a way never done before. And it could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to private prison companies responsible for housing them....

It was last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. Inside, there was a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Insiders call it ALEC.

It's a membership organization of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations, such as the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association. Another member is the billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America — the largest private prison company in the country.

It was there that Pearce's idea took shape.

"I did a presentation," Pearce said. "I went through the facts. I went through the impacts and they said, 'Yeah.'"

The 50 or so people in the room included officials of the Corrections Corporation of America, according to two sources who were there.

Pearce and the Corrections Corporation of America have been coming to these meetings for years. Both have seats on one of several of ALEC's boards.

And this bill was an important one for the company. According to Corrections Corporation of America reports reviewed by NPR, executives believe immigrant detention is their next big market. Last year, they wrote that they expect to bring in "a significant portion of our revenues" from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that detains illegal immigrants.

In the conference room, the group decided they would turn the immigration idea into a model bill. They discussed and debated language. Then, they voted on it.

In September, Think Progress pulled together the evidence that SB 1070 would be better described as the "Private Prison Welfare Act" and noted

In April of this year, Pearce then introduced ALEC’s template as the infamous SB1070 law. Notably, the ALEC task force which helped Pearce devise his racial profiling law included Laurie Shanblum, a lobbyist from the mega-private prison corporation Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) which previously played a role in privatizing many of Texas’ prisons. An investigation from Arizona’s KPHO-TV found more ties between SB1070 and the private prison industry: Paul Senseman, Gov. Janet Brewer’s (R-AZ) deputy chief of staff was a former lobbyist for CCA (his wife is still a lobbyist for CCA) and Chuck Coughlin, Brewer’s campaign chairman, runs the lobbying firm in Arizona that represents CCA. In These Times reporter Beau Hodai, who also reported much of SB1070′s connections to the private prison industry, has a chart to explain the relationship.

(For more on development of the legislation, see "Corporate Con Game" in In These Times, June 21, 2010.)

On the same day as the NPR report, Keith Olbermann summarized (video below) the story behind SB 1070 and interviewed a fervent opponent, Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ). The understated Grijalva is seen remarking "This is not just about immigration policy; this is not just about border security." Congressman, leave out the "just;" it is simply not about immigration or border security. It is about accumulating profits for the private prison industry. If, in the process, innocent people are incarcerated because the beds need to be filled for the funds to roll in, that can be passed off as collateral damage.

There are two scandals, or should-be scandals here. One involves the private prison industry, popping up throughout the country, and the other politically expedient misdirection. In Arizona, it's selling the base and the media anti-immigrant animus as an integral part of the GOP shell game but, as Digby describes, the strategy is widely applicable (emphasis mine):

I really want another villager to lecture me about how this avalanche of secret money pouring into elections doesn't really mean anything:

In the bitter U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, a local millionaire has helped launch a barrage of ads attacking the Democratic candidate a candidate who, as the state's attorney general, is prosecuting the businessman's nursing home for allegedly covering up sexual abuse, records show.

The businessman's name is Terry Forcht. And like many super-wealthy conservative donors who are quietly stoking the GOP's mid-term election surge around the nation, the extent of his investment in the 2010 campaign is both vast and, for now at least, largely unknown.

In addition to donating personally to Republican Rand Paul's upstart campaign, Forcht is the banker handling funds for American Crossroads. The conservative group was founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove and has, through its non-profit arm, American Crossroads GPS, channeled millions into this year's campaigns without identifying its donors.

American Crossroads GPS and other outside groups that shield the identity of their donors have emerged as a fixture of the 2010 campaign season, thanks to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that loosened restrictions on political giving. The case of Forcht's opaque role in the Kentucky contest offers a glimpse at why some election reform groups believe anonymous donations are so problematic.

This is just a crude example of what's going on, of course. Every last one of these wealthy donors are basically buying themselves a get out of jail free card from all politicians of either party. They are outright buying the Republicans (who are selling themselves like street corner hookers)and threatening the Dems with more where this came from if they fail to cooperate. Sure, there are some down and dirty sleazebags like this guy who's punishing the Attorney General, but all of them --- every last one of them --- are doing this to ensure that their interests, whether legal or economic, are taken care of above all else. If there's time and energy left over they will let the rubes play with women's uteruses and punish some immigrants and minorities. But job one is making damned sure that nobody touches their ill gotten gains and nobody even thinks of holding them responsible for their crimes.

Share|

Juan Williams And The Right

Sometimes a bad situation brings out the worst in almost everyone.

And so it was with Fox News enployee Juan Williams, newly fired from NPR. We'll begin with the entire transcrip (relevant exchange emboldened)- according to Think Progress- then move down the food chain.


***********************************************************************************

O’REILLY: Hi. I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.

The Muslim dilemma — that is the subject of this evening’s talking points memo. So, in case you just got back from Easter Island, I, your humble correspondent, am causing trouble once again.

Today on “The View,” the ladies addressed the shootout I had with them last Thursday when I said that building a mosque near Ground Zero is inappropriate because Muslims killed us there. That caused Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar to walk off the set.

Of course, what I said is absolutely true, but is insensitive to some. In a perfect world, you always say Muslim terrorists killed us, but at this point, I thought that was common knowledge. I guess I was wrong.

Anyway, the heated controversy continues and goes far beyond me and “The View” ladies. It has entered the fabric of America.

Barbara Walters said something interesting today. She said that the nation is very angry. Therefore, commentators must watch the rhetoric. OK.

But my question to Ms. Walters is this: Why is America so angry?

There are a number of answers to that question. One of them is that folks are fed up with politically correct nonsense. There is no question there is a Muslim problem in the world and if “The View” ladies will not acknowledge that, that’s their problem, because most Americans well understand the danger coming out of the Muslim world.

Ms. Walters went on to say that my statement about the Japanese attacking the USA in World War II is not a valid comparison.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTERS: I think that what Bill O’Reilly said was totally wrong. I also feel that on his program when he compared it to Germany and Japan, which he did, and said, well, you wouldn’t have been built monuments — countries, they were not religion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O’REILLY: With all due respect to Barbara Walters, who has handled herself with dignity in this controversy, she is misguided.

American forces had to remove the Taliban government in Afghanistan because it supported the al Qaeda killers. The U.S. and many other countries are now desperately trying to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb because most everyone understands some crazy jihadists may use that bomb to ignite a holocaust. Right now the countries of Russia, China, the Philippines, many nations in Africa and Thailand are all fighting Muslim insurrections.

The Muslim threat to the world is not isolated. It’s huge! It involves nations and millions of people.

Yet, the left in America will not face that fact.

“Talking Points” has given President Obama has given a pass on his soft rhetoric towards the Muslim world, because he needs to get nations like Pakistan to cooperate with us. The president can’t afford tough rhetoric like the kind I’m giving you tonight. That is perfectly understandable.

In Germany, however, Chancellor Angela Merkel is getting tough. She told the world that attempts to build multi-cultural society in her country have, quote, “utterly failed.” Ms. Merkel has enormous problem with 5 million Muslims who are not assimilating into German society.

In France, the parliament there has outlawed burqas after that country endured rioting in Muslim areas that the police could not control.

Here in the USA, we are lucky. The vast majority of American Muslims are good citizens and deplore the extreme actions in the Muslim world. But they know there is a clash of civilizations in play.

Despite all that, Ms. Goldberg was deeply offended by my statement about 9/11. Here’s what she said this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOLDBERG: When you say Muslims are responsible for 9/11, does that mean Muhammad Ali? Because Muhammad Ali is a Muslim. Does that mean Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

To me, you need to be distinct when you say things like this because this is a volatile time. You cannot just throw stuff around like that in my opinion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O’REILLY: Now, that statement is worth addressing. No sane individual thinks Muhammad Ali or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is responsible for 9/11.

But the reality is that most Americans are uneasy with the Muslim world in general because moderate Muslims have not stepped up in a visible way to help combat the jihadists. Look at all the problems we’re having with Pakistan. We’ve sent that country billions of dollars hoping to motivate them to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda.

If Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t think there’s a Muslim problem, she ought to ask President Obama about it.

The cold truth is that in the world today, jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Israel and other countries are in grave danger.

So, I have had enough of the political correct nonsense and I condemn the far-left fanatics who label people with whom they disagree “bigots.” That’s what Joy Behar did again today, which is simply stunning because as Laura Ingraham pointed out last Friday, Ms. Behar’s anti- Christian analysis has been off the charts.

And then there is Rosie O’Donnell who used to host “The View.” Here’s what she said.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

ROSIE O’DONNELL, ACTRESS: Bill O’Reilly, you know, what does he do besides incite kind of hatred? What does he do besides that?

JANETTE BARBER, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: To stand there and say Muslims killed us, I hope you didn’t take that wrong. I didn’t mean anything bad about them. It’s like I hate it when they lie within the same sentence, at least take a break before you lie.

O’DONNELL: But it’s like that’s what Bill O’Reilly does. Why would you book him?

(END AUDIO CLIP)

O’REILLY: Now, Ms. O’Donnell’s analysis reminded me of this –

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O’DONNELL: Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have a separation of church and state. We’re a democracy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O’REILLY: Interesting. Nobody walked off the set of “The View” when Rosie O’Donnell said that. Did they?

As “Talking Points” stated on Friday, there is a reason behind the madness. Many in the Muslim world despise the United States because we are Israel’s biggest supporter. Any of the liberal precincts believe our support for Israel is wrong and that we have ignited Muslim anger. It is our fault that some Muslims hate us.

I don’t think the ladies on “The View” see it that way. But certainly, the far-left has held that opinion for quite some time.

Finally, wherever I went this weekend, people were high-fiving me. It was amazing. People yelling out windows, “O’Reilly, keep going,” that kind of stuff.

Are all these people bigots? Do they all hate Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

That’s just nuts. This has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with politics. Americans are simply fed up with politicians and media people denying the obvious. There is a dangerous problem in the Muslim world and once again, I call for all peace-loving Muslims to join the United States and other conscientious nations to fight the jihadists to defeat radical Islam. And that’s the memo.

In a moment, Juan and Mary Katharine will tell me where I’m going wrong on all of this.

And later, how is the O’Reilly view Muslim controversy playing on talk radio? Right back with those reports.

O’REILLY: Continuing now with our lead story, danger from the Muslim world.

Joining us from Washington FOX analysts Mary Katharine Ham and Juan Williams.

So, Juan, I got to tell everybody, own up to this, that talking points memo was really written by Alan Colmes.

So, where am I going wrong there, Juan.

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going. But I think you’re right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I 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.

Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said 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.

But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it’s not a war against Islam. President Bush went to a mosque –

O’REILLY: Well, there isn’t any theology involved in this at all from my perspective, Juan. But you live in the liberal precincts. You actually work for NPR, OK?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

O’REILLY: And it’s not about — it’s about politics as I said. But — my analysis is that this Israel thing and that liberals feel that United states is somehow guilty in the world, of exploitation and backing the wrong side, and it makes it easier for them to come up with this kind of crazy stuff that, well, you can’t really say the Muslims attacked us on 9/11.

WILLIAMS: No, but what Barbara Walters said to you –

O’REILLY: Were they Norwegians? I mean, come on.

WILLIAMS: Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don’t say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That’s crazy.

O’REILLY: But it’s not at that level. It doesn’t rise near to that level.

WILLIAMS: Correct. That’s — and when you said in the talking points memo a moment ago that there are good Muslims, I think that’s a point, you know?

O’REILLY: But everybody knows that, Juan. I mean, what are, in 3rd grade here or what?

WILLIAMS: No, you don’t — but you got to be — this is what Barbara Walters was saying –

O’REILLY: I got to be careful, you just said it. I got to be careful. I have got to qualify everything 50 times. You know what, Juan? I’m not doing it anymore. I’m not doing that anymore.

WILLIAMS: OK. So, be yourself. Take responsibility.

O’REILLY: But I’m not going to say, oh, it’s only a few. It’s only a tiny bit. It’s not, Juan. It’s whole nations, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, whole nations.

Go ahead, Mary Katharine. You want to get in here. Go.

MARY KATHARINE HAM, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: First of all — first of all, the left only thinks that you should be careful with rhetoric in dangerous times when it’s a right winger using the rhetoric. When they’re doing it themselves, when it deals with other issues, they don’t care. So there’s a double standard there.

Second of all, there’s a distinction worth making between moderate and extremism Islam as you have made that point in the talking points, because frankly, as a conservative, if anybody who believes in the mission in Iraq where you are building up a society of moderate Muslims to push back on extremists, you have to believe in that distinction. So, I think that’s important to make.

But, this whole getting up and running off set because you don’t use the distinction in every single sentence you say, I think, was ridiculous and immature and they stopped the conversation, not you. It was them freaking out about a conservative position and leaving the stage to stop the conversation.

O’REILLY: All right. But, look, here’s the deal. Angela Merkel, all right, in the politically correct nation of Germany — Germany has gone from being a militaristic society to a politically correct society in a generation. OK?

Angela Merkel comes out today and says, “You know what? This is out of control in our country. We can’t control it anymore.”

So, if it’s only a few, and a couple and just in the mountains of Pakistan, that’s all, why is Angela Merkel having such a hard time? Why are the French banning burqas? You know why –

(CROSSTALK)

O’REILLY: Come on.

WILLIAMS: Because — they have a problem because people have stopped emphasizing and she went on to say, this integration assimilation.

O’REILLY: Why, Juan? Why?

WILLIAMS: — to live side by side. That was wrong-headed and because she sees it as a threat. I think that she pointed out that two of every three or so children under the age of 5 in Germany is Muslim.

O’REILLY: Juan, who is posing a problem in Germany? Is it the Muslims who have come there or the Germans?

WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

O’REILLY: Who’s causing the problem?

WILLIAMS: I think — I think — no, no, wait. See, you did it again. It’s extremists. It’s people who refuse to –

O’REILLY: It’s not extremists.

WILLIAMS: It’s a German society. They are the ones causing that problem.

(CROSSTALK)

O’REILLY: But, Juan, Merkel — according to Merkel, it’s not extremists. It’s most of the 5 million Muslims who have come there aren’t assimilating. That’s the problem.

HAM: And also what happens, Bill — Bill, also what happens is that when moderate Muslims want to assimilate or want to stand up, they run the risk of being blown up by their co-religionist who are extreme. So, that is — that’s a threat that moderate Christians and Jews don’t think.

O’REILLY: But that doesn’t happen in America where most Muslim- Americans have assimilated.

HAM: Because our society demands that people assimilate. That’s what we demand and that’s why it works here.

WILLIAMS: But, Bill, here’s a caution point. The other day in New York, some guy cuts a Muslim cabby’s neck and says he’s attacking him or you think about the protest at the mosque near Ground Zero –

HAM: That guy works at a liberal –

O’REILLY: Yes, he was a crackpot.

(CROSSTALK)

O’REILLY: Look, Americans are smart enough to know, Juan.

HAM: But I don’t think — the point is the rhetoric was not pushing him to do that.

WILLIAMS: I don’t know what is in that guy’s head. But I’m saying, we don’t want in America, people to have their rights violated to be attacked on the street because they heard a rhetoric from Bill O’Reilly and they act crazy. We’ve got to say to people as Bill was saying tonight, that guy is a nut.

O’REILLY: He is a nut. And I said that about the guy in Florida — who wanted to burn the Koran. I came town on him like crazy.

WILLIAMS: Correct. There you go.

O’REILLY: But I’ll tell you what — if there was going to be a backlash against Muslims, it would happened after 9/11. It didn’t happen in this country.

WILLIAMS: It didn’t happen in this country.

O’REILLY: It did not happen here. So, we are smart enough to understand who the good Muslims are and who the bad Muslims are. But to diminish the whole thing as the left wants to do, very dangerous. I have got to go, guys, as always.

WILLIAMS: That would be hypocrisy.

O’REILLY: All right. Thank you very much.


*************************************************************************************

-Juan Williams:

The comment which got Williams fired apparently was "But when I get on the plane, I 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." Multiple choice: that is a) bigoted; b) insensitive; c) realistic; or d), stupid.

It is not bigoted or insensitive to indicate that oneself is nervous when boarding a plane with people "identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims." It is also not realistic- terrorists are not in the habit of announcing "hey, guys, detain and strip search me- I'm a Muslim!" Wearing "Muslim garb" would bring undesired attention to someone about to commit a terrorist attack. The correct answer is (d) stupid.

But Williams commented also "it's not a war against Islam," a point clearly lost on many conservatives. And he explained "Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don’t say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That’s crazy." Also not a point conservatives want to hear.

-Bill O'Reilly:

When Williams notes "there are good Muslims," O'Reilly responds "everybody knows that, Juan. I mean, what are, in 3rd grade here or what?"

Conservative Republicans may, down deep, believe there are "good Muslims." They just don't seem to.

Now for the extremists:

-Mike Huckabee:

Huckabee issued a statement in which he maintained "While I have often enjoyed appearing on NPR programs and have been treated fairly and objectively, I will no longer accept interview requests from NPR as long as they are going to practice a form of censorship, and since NPR is funded with public funds, it IS a form of censorship.”

Greta Van Susteren:

GOP TV's Van Susteren blogged: "Does a media outlet - protected by the First Amendment / Freedom of the Press and Speech - want to get in the censoring business? Let me remind everyone: the First Amendment is not there to protect agreement or to be part of a popularity contest. It was included in the Constitution for the opposite reason: to protect the UNPOPULAR opinion from the tyranny of the majority."

Why is it necessary, whenever a conservative is fairly or unfairly criticized, to remind conservatives that penalizing someone for something he or she said is not censorship? Censorship refers to prior restraint; allowing someone his say and then abruptly penalizing, punishing, or terminating that individual for what he said is not censorship, however noxious the remark might have been.

Sarah Palin:

There is little that occurs in society, except the domination of elections by wealthy and powerful interests, outsourcing or offshoring American jobs by corporations, environmental degradation by the oil industry, defrauding the homeowner by increasingly huge banks, or the continued decline of the American middle class, that is able to escape comment by the woman who couldn't handle the job of governor. Not surprisingly, then, she tweeted

NPR defends 1st Amendment Right, but will fire u if u exercise it. Juan Williams: u got taste of Left’s hypocrisy, they screwed up firing you.

As with censorship, much of the right, which constantly claims fealty to the United States Constitution, does not understand the First Amendment. The guarantee of freedom of speech protects the actor from government action, not private action. There is no First Amendment right to anger or offend an employer, and there is no First Amendment right involved with Juan Williams. Or do good conservatives like Palin prefer that any private or other non-governmental entity permit its employees to say whatever they want, whenever they want, about the employer?

And now for the best, Glenn Beck:

Characteristically, Beck ruminated

I just this is why I say know what you believe in because you are going to have to make decisions. Do you lose your job? Do you lose everything? Why do you think I've been begging you, please, 40 day and 40 night challenge, with firm reliance, not faith, with firm reliance on the protection of divine providence. What does that mean? It's beyond faith firm reliance. You know it to the core of your being, that you will get protection through divine providence.

Honest- this came close to the end of a segment about Juan Williams. But if he needs to channel Noah to satisfy his delusions of grandeur, Beck never promised his followers that "I was going to be rational. Not once. Not to you. Not to him."

Ever the rodeo clown.

Next Up: Was NPR reasonable (if it hasn't already rehired Williams)?

Share|