I am perplexed not only by CAIR's presence on legit media, but by the absence of their true identity. O'Reilly has them on quasi-regularly and never identifies them as co-conspirators in the largest Hamas (also Muslim Brotherhood) terror funding trial in US history. The Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words, according to a captured internal document released during that same trial, to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house...so that Allah's religious is made victorious over other religions."
CAIR founders Omar Ahmad and Niwad Awad (who still serves as CAIR's executive director) were present at a Hamas planning meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 where they and other Hamas operatives conspired to raise funds for Hamas and to promote jihad in the Middle East.
CAIR is not only an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case -- so named by the Justice Department. Also, CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror, and CAIR's cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements.
Ghassan Elashi, founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, in 2009 received a 65-year prison sentence for funneling over $12 million from the Islamic charity known as the Holy Land Foundation to the jihad terrorist group Hamas, which is responsible for murdering hundreds of Israeli civilians.
Mousa Abu Marzook, a former CAIR official, was in 1995 designated by the U.S. government in 1995 as a "terrorist and Hamas leader." He now is a Hamas leader in Syria.
But I digress.
After Awad made his scurrilous accusations, O'Reilly shot back that he "would take care of that woman," meaning me.
This should be interesting, unless O'Reilly allows the smear to stand without giving me an opportunity to defend my stand for freedom of speech. Because that's why I ran the cartoons on Everybody Draw Muhammad Day: to defend the freedom of speech, which is our only line of defense against tyranny. If any group is placed beyond criticism or beyond being offended, that group has become a privileged class that can exert its will over other groups, and they'll have no recourse -- because to speak out against the privileged group would be "hate speech."
Were some of the cartoons I ran offensive to Muslims? Maybe. I don't care. Why not? Because I'm "Islamophobic." Puh-leeze. I ran them because we live in a pluralistic society. I ran them because Muslims have to learn to put up with being offended in the West just like everyone else; the only alternative is that it becomes against the law to offend them, and they become a special class with special rights, which is just what Sharia demands. On the contrary, in a free society, we don't all think the same way, we don't all believe the same things. So we have two choices: we can all fight each other until one group establishes dominance, or we can learn to put up with people who don't think like we do exercising their freedom speech in ways we might find offensive.
People say and do things offensive to Jews all the time. And to Christians, too. Andres Serrano put a crucifix in a jar of urine and called it art, and the mainstream media couldn't remind Christians about free speech and the dangers of censorship fast enough. But offend Muslims and you get threatened with death, or smeared on the O'Reilly Factor -- and this is all part of a larger effort: the Organization of the Islamic Conference has been working for years now at the UN to make offending Muslims and Islam illegal worldwide. If they succeed -- and they will if people like O'Reilly don't get a clue -- you can the idea of equal rights for all out the window: Muslims will be set up as a protected class, beyond criticism. And that's just what the Islamic supremacists want.
O'Reilly doesn't get this. When Comedy Central censored the "South Park" episode featuring Muhammad, O'Reilly advised "South Park's" creators to shut up and be good dhimmis: "I would've advised them not to do it. If somebody came to me and said, 'Look, O'Reilly, I want to do a little satire of Muhammad on "The Factor,"' I would say I don't think so, because the risk is higher than the reward."
So for O'Reilly, the price of defending freedom is more than he is willing to pay.
One last thing to remember: this O'Reilly segment was supposed to be about the Islamic supremacist mega mosque at Ground Zero. But O'Reilly didn't confront Awad about how the mega mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is an open advocate for Sharia. O'Reilly didn't point out that Rauf has (like CAIR) refused to denounce Hamas. O'Reilly said nothing about how Rauf has lied about his commitment to religious dialogue. O'Reilly didn't ask Awad why Rauf has lied about whether the Islamic center planned for the Ground Zero site will contain a mosque or not. Or about why he has lied about whether or not the project is getting foreign funding. Or how about how he is involved with a group that helped fund the jihad flotilla against Israel.
O'Reilly never challenged Awad on the insulting and ridiculous assertion that Islam had nothing to do with 911, because, if it had, according to the notoriously dishonest Awad, a mosque would be inappropriate. Those brave Americans went to their horrible deaths to the cries of Allahu Akbar. There have been 15,774 Islamic attacks across the world since 9/11/01, all inspired by the violent texts in the Koran -- and O'Reilly let that slap in the face, that blatant lie, stand?
O'Reilly was too busy assuring Awad that he would "take care of that woman."