Imam Objects to Possibility of Female POTUS

In the wake of the Pulse Orlando Shooting atrocity, Fox News Channel sought interview  Imam Abu Taubah  who is associated with an Orlando Mosque and also operates the online Islamic Timbuktu Seminary.

Van Susteran asked if  the Orlando Shooting killer Omar Mateem had contact with the imam,  as the Orlando killer was said to be enrolled in the Tibuktu institute. Then the Fox News anchor switched to politics.  Imam Abu Taubah indicated that as a Muslim, he objected to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.





Indubitably, it was newsworthy to but Imam Abu Taubah on the record concerning alleged connections to the Pulse slaughters. But treating the Imam as a political pundit and airing his rantings seems suspect.

It would be helpful if Fox News stressed that the Imam was born as Marcus Robinson and had a long rap sheet as a career criminal, which could have had him sentenced for life. This imam claims to have been a  covert CIA operative .  This are pretty shady links to give a prolonged one on one interview for a national news outlet.


Let me go "On the Record" (sic).  Such sourcing and amplifying unrelated views accounts for less import placed on watching the Fox News Channel.

But in the spirit of "We'll report, you decide." -- What say you?

What do you think of the extended interview Fox News gave to "Imam Abu Taubah" (a.k.a. Marcus Robinson)?

A fascinating, newsworthy interview

Extraneous opinions meant to generate controversy

It is another guidepost in the credibility spiral of a once great news organization

Inclusion of the Presidential preference question Trumpets (sic) a populist political echo

Keeping the misogynist musing helps rally the womens' vote for Hillary

Keeping the Sanders support fostered the "feel the bern" with Hillary and Trump's trustworthiness

It is a pity to give a whack job a national platform to spew such antidiluvian opinions

Other

No Opinion/don't know

Other

Please Specify:

Survey Maker

Alas, there does not seem to be just one "right" answer.

On First Amendment Prudence?

The "Draw Mohammed" event in Garland, Texas has provoked some mixed reactions in the media. Pamela Geller, the proprietor of Atlas Shrugged and co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, believes that speaking out against radical Islam through an event in Garland, Texas is properly exercising her Freedom of Speech.

Greta Van Susteran went "Off the Record" condemned Pamela Geller and the Draw Mohammed event as not being a prudent application of her First Amendment rights.



Some self censorship critics, point to Constitutional limits of Freedom of Speech.  Chris Cuomo got on his high horse regarding hate speech and kept pointing to the 1942 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Supreme Court decision about "fighting words".

But if one relies on the Constitution as being a "living document", one must read further high court cases.  to understand that "fighting words" limitations essentially now must be provocative personal epithets. For CNN commentators preening about their juris doctor degree, check Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971) [the "Fuck the Draft" case] and Snyder v. Philips (2010) 562 USC ___ (2011) [Westboro Baptist Church protesting soldier's funeral],

It is ironic that there are elements in the media, which ought to revel in the First Amendment, that urge those who advocate unpopular opinions to be reticent about expressing their Freedom of Speech.  That's some freedom-- not!

It is ironic that there are elements in the media, which ought to revel in the First Amendment, that urge those who advocate unpopular opinions to be reticent about expressing their Freedom of Speech.  That's some freedom-- not!

Several years ago, after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, there was an effort for encourage civic civility. Alas, that was a progressive ploy to stifle conservative dissent and was not reciprocated by the left.

The admonitions of today to be prudent when exercising free speech seem to show the inroads of cultural jihad.  One can not express Free Speech which a Muslim might find offensive. This can be considered soft tyranny or de facto sharia.  Should we acquiesce to such sensibilities now, consider how imams like Anjem Choudrey would handle such offensive speech. 

customer survey

On Congressional Compensation

Twelve term Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA 8th) announced in January that he is not running for re-election.  Yet that announcement did not stop the Northern Virginia Democrat from running his mouth.  The pugnacious politician pronounced that Members of Congress are underpaid.

This quip from Representative  Moran did not come without controversy or cost. Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC 4th) sharply retorted: “

But the notion that you can make $174,000 in this country and be underpaid is laughable. We are better off than 99.9 percent of the people we claim to work for. And I would be embarrassed to say that — given our job performance and our salary — that we are anything other than grossly overcompensated.

While Representative Gowdy may push back on being called a "Tea Party Congressman", his political spirit is closely aligned with a movement which considers at its core that Americans are Taxed Enough Already.

Does Congress deserve a pay raise?
	Yes
	No
pollcode.com free polls