The Lies of Oprah--Oprah Thinks She Can Sucker America While Supporting the Terrorists

ON FRIDAY, October 5, Oprah devoted her program to "Islam 101," which, I think, was supposed to be a crash course on the Islamic religion.

One of the guests, Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., explained that, "There is nothing in Islam that does not accord women equal rights and respect. Islam encourages women to participate and be a productive member of society."

Another guest, Professor Akbar Ahmed, who served as the Pakistani Ambassador to Great Britain and is now the Chair of Islamic Studies at American University in Washington D.C., stated that there was a "commonality" between Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the "emphasis" on "family life."

After the program, I was very traumatized. I tried to synthesize Oprah’s show with everything I have read in the Qur’an – and in other Islamic texts. I failed miserably.

In the Qur’an, Surah 2:28 tells us that men are superior to women. Surah 4:34 commands a man to beat his wife as soon as she shows any sign of disobedience to his orders. The verse reads, "As for these women, fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart and scourge them."

The Prophet Mohammed was kind enough to leave no misunderstanding on this matter in the hadiths, which are his Sunnah (sayings and doings) as recorded meticulously by his companions. They are considered to have the same authenticity as the Qur’an by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world.

In his hadith in volume 3:826 of the Sahih Al-Bukhari, Imam Al-Bukhari quotes Mohammed’s order to the husband regarding his wife: "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it."

The Prophet, however, was loving enough to command that, according to Imam Kitab al-Nikah’s hadith No. 1850 in The Book of Marriage, "you shall not slap her on the face, nor revile her, nor desert her except within the house."

It’s a good thing that some contemporary Islamic teachers are a little more liberal on this issue. Abdul-latif Mushtahiri is a prime example. In his book, You Ask and Islam Answers, he instructs on page 94 that, while he is all up for a good wife-beating, it is a good idea to stop short of any broken bones or shedding of blood. He patiently explains that, "Many a wife belongs to this querulous type and requires this sort of punishment to bring her to her senses!"

Is this the "family life" that Professor Ahmed was referring to on Oprah in regard to the "commonality" between Islam, Christianity and Judaism? Or was he referring, perhaps, to Prophet Mohammed’s instruction to husbands, quoted in Imam Kitab al-Nikah’s hadith No. 1850, that, "It is that you shall give her food when you have taken your food, that you shall clothe her when you have clothed yourself"?

I wonder what comment Oprah’s guests would make about Al-Bukhari’s hadith, in volume 3:826 of the Sahih Al-Bukhari, that quotes Mohammed saying that women are deficient in mind and religion? Is this why Surah 4:3 allows a man to marry up to four wives at the same time, so that the other three can make up for the deficiency of the individual retarded one?

When the Pakistani ambassador told Oprah that "Islam encourages women to participate and be a productive member of society," was she referring to Surah 2:223, which states that a wife is a sex object for her husband? It’s quite a poetic verse: "Your wives are as a tilth unto you, so approach your tilth when or how ye will."

Aside from having more than nine wives, the Prophet Mohammed married six-year old Aisha and consummated his marriage with her when she was nine. Al-Bukhari’s Sahih Al-Bukhari is filled with references (i.e. vols. 5:236, 7:64, 7:65, 7:88) to this inspiring ingredient of Islam that all Muslims must accept.

Is Oprah planning to have an "Islam 202"? Is that when she will ask her guests about six-year old Aisha? Or is it when she will recommend the book Rage Against the Veil – the heartbreaking account about how Islam mutilates the lives and souls of women and children? The book tells the story of Homa Darabi, an Iranian female doctor and human rights activist, who committed suicide, by self-immolation, in a crowded public square in Tehran in 1994 to bring awareness to the nightmarish realities that, for some reason, were forced into invisibility on Oprah’s "Islam 101."

Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Soviet Studies. He is the author of 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist.. His father, Yuri Glazov, was a Soviet dissident during the Brezhnev era, who signed the Letter of Twelve, denouncing Soviet human rights abuses. His mother, Marina Glazov, also participated in the dissident movement in the Soviet Union, actively typing and circulating Samizdat - the underground political literature. To avoid imprisonment, Yuri Glazov took his family out of the USSR in 1972 and settled in Canada in 1975, when Jamie was 9. Today Jamie battles socialism from his high-tech warroom in Toronto. He writes the Dr. Progressive advice column for angst-ridden leftists at EnterStageRight.com. E-mail him at jglazov@home.com.

Jim Lehrer and Bill Moyers are devils who hate everything that America stands for? I recently watched a roundtable that Moyers and William F. Buckley were on that was sponsored by the Church of Christ. Do the folks from that church know he hates America? Do you have a link where he has said that? That would be interesting. --Raoul

The following article is just one of an unlimited number of instances which, taken together, might be seen as demonstrating that Moyers is (1) an extreme leftist who has consistently supported any communist regime against the US, (2) a supporter of anyone who hates America and western civilization, (3) an anti-Semite, and (4) as his series on Joseph Campbell demonstrated, a fraud who despises Christianity.

BILL MOYERS AND HIS PBS SERIES

Bill Moyers, now with PBS, is at it again. And his new three part series, "God and Politics" has earned him the January "Janet Cooke Award." In the series, Moyers took a look at the growing fundamentalist movement. In Part One, "The Kingdom Divided," which aired December 9, Moyers offered both a confusing and slanted picture of the union of political and religious action in Nicaragua. Seeming to offer a balanced look at the fundamentalist and liberation theology movements, Moyers blatantly mis-represented Sandinista commitment to religious freedom.

In a Good Morning America interview, Moyers claimed: "We really can't judge the Sandinista revolution by the Marxist revolution in Russia or any other communist movement. This is a movement that is fueled with Christian passion and Christian commitment." Not once in the PBS show did Moyers speak with a member of the Catholic Church hierarchy in Nicaragua, nor did he ever mention the grievous actions of the totalitarian government against religious freedom: imprisonment of priests opposed to the government, and the censorship of all Catholic radio stations and newspapers.

Pablo Antonio Vega, an exiled Roman Catholic bishop from Nicaragua, described any Sandinista religion campaign as "deceptive," explaining to MediaWatch: "The communists simply want to profit from the religiosity of the people, and submit the people to their regime." Contacted by MediaWatch, the Producer/ Director of the program, Elena Mannes, refused to comment on specifics, declaring: "I really don't want to comment on particular issues and I've said before the broadcast speaks for itself."

The second show, "Battle for the Bible," centered on Moyers' one-sided look at the recent conservative genesis of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), the largest U.S. Protestant denomination. Dismissing any idea that the Baptists may have wanted a conservative leadership, he concluded: "By 1987, the fundamentalists controlled the denomination's superstructure. Their biblical agenda and the social agenda of the New Right had become indistinguishable." Moyers went to great lengths to attack SBC resolutions on abortion and school prayer, as well as to condemn ties to conservative politics. Of Judge Paul Pressler, a SBC leader, Moyers asked: "But aren't you a member of the Council for National Policy?...Shouldn't people out there know about your political connections?" Moyers' conclusion clearly showed his disdain: "[the SBC can now] enroll God in partisan politics and make one party the sole party of truth....Of all people, Baptists must know that making biblical doctrine the test of political opinion is democratic heresy."

Interestingly, Moyers failed to mention that one of his chief sources on the show, liberal minister James Dunn, is a former director of People for the American Way, a liberal lobby. What about liberal religious groups and their involvement? He had plenty of criticism for the SBC's endorsement of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, but had nothing to say about liberal church groups like the National Council of Churches and the Progressive Baptist Association, both of which opposed Bork. When asked about this obvious double standard, Executive Producer Joan Konner avoided MediaWatch's questions, claiming: "We at some point would love the opportunity to examine all these issues further....That doesn't mean we are actively seeking to do the other side of the story."

Pressler called Moyers' presentation a "very inaccurate, narrow, and limited viewpoint of what is going on in the SBC." But indeed, all this comes as little surprise. As a CBS analyst during the 1984 GOP Convention Moyers spent most of his time disparaging conservatives, referring to them as "the fringe exotic radicals" with an "authoritarian" goal. Incredibly, the December 7 USA Today quotes CBS News President Howard Stringer as yearning for Moyers to return since he's such "a great resource to have in an election year." That reveals a lot about CBS News concern for accuracy and fairness.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1988/mw19880101jca.html Is this article convincing evidence? See what you think.

ANOTHER ARTICLE ON BILL MOYERS' FRAUD & INCOMPETENCE

http://users.aol.com/DaveMcCall/moyers.htm

A Moyers Distort

March 26, 2001 AD

The EPA has proposed a new regulation banning all molecules as they have been shown to contain chemicals. Alert columnist Dave Barry recently made this observation. Bill Moyers took him seriously.

Bill Moyers and Sherry Jones just aired their long awaited and highly touted TRADE SECRETS on PBS. My initial impression was surprise at just how little substance this 2 hour marathon contained. Truthfully, I really did expect some attempt to be made at an appearance of presenting both sides of the issue. But Bill, who apparently regards himself an "investigative journalist", played exclusively to the "tv science" audience, which was unlikely to question anything he said, at the expense of the truth.

The lowlights were numerous. Here is a review of just a few.

Bill's contention is that the entire chemical industry producing vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) engaged in a conspiracy to hide the truth about the dangers of this substance. It's a 40 year old story with little or no relevance to anything happening today.

Television was used in all its glory as an image-creating device. Numerous shots of "smoking" chemical factories were silently sprinkled throughout. Bill avoided informing the viewer that the "smoke" was just steam--water. His silence conspired to create the myth that leaks of deadly chemicals pervade every corner of the typical chemical complex.

We heard the story of the guy with chemical burns on his feet--from standing in "something." Why didn't Bill mention that vinyl chloride is a gas? Whatever that "something" was, it wasn't vinyl chloride.

Enormous mileage was eked out of the million pages of company documents collected in Dan Ross's ten year law suit against his employer. Bill clearly subscribes to the sausage school of journalism. If you stuff the report full of enough information, no one will notice that the quantity exceeds the quality. Bill talked about the million pages as if they alone constituted "evidence".

He cited several references to industry's reaction to Ralph Nader and Rachel Carson, making industry sound like it was trying to dodge these avenging angels. But, Nader's witchhunt against the auto industry is well known. And, Carson's Silent Spring, tame by today's standards, is nonetheless the first example of junk science. She established the precedent of making baseless assertions to instill fear in an unsuspecting public. Of course industry feared these same unfair media tactics that environmental groups and consumer advocates now routinely use.

Bill's selective editing of the documents was criminal. At one point he quoted a Chemical Manufacturer's Association report that "very little data exists to respond to the public's perception" of the risk of vinyl chloride. He felt that deserved repeating. But he only repeated the phrase, "VERY LITTLE DATA EXISTS..." effectively creating the impression that the paucity of data relates to a lack of study of the "untested" chemicals and not to a lack of a way to respond to public perception.

At one point we are shown a company document minimizing the risk of exposure to vinyl chloride. Bill was careful to point out that several doctors even signed it. Did he talk to any of them? No. He even electronically obliterated their names to prevent us from doing so. Is this investigative journalism? Or is this a conspiracy to hide any evidence that doesn't agree with Bill's preconceived conclusion?

Bill had an excellent opportunity to explain to us why toxicology is such a complex issue and why answers don't come quickly and glibly (as they do for him 40 years after the fact). Instead, he supported his story only with anecdotal tales from three chemical plant workers, two historians, a pediatrician and a smattering of people from environmental activist groups. Not one organic chemist was interviewed. Not one toxicologist. Not one manager from any of the various chemical companies indicted. Not one community leader from any of the communities where these plants are located. Not even one official from the EPA. The existence of none of the numerous studies, publicly published in major scientific journals, of the toxicology of vinyl chloride was acknowledged.

The major portion of the show was spun around the tale of vinyl chloride. But toward the end, the story was fleshed out with all the other usual suspects. Times Beach, MO and Love Canal were dutifully trotted out--just to show the pictures of a town being demolished and angry screaming residents. Since the story broke in the 70s, the mainstream media has yet to admit that Hooker Chemical ran a state-of-the-art landfill at Love Canal that turned into a disaster only when the local school board basically took the land, scraped off the clay cap, and built on the land. Rain eventually filled the clay-lined pit and overflowed the chemicals that had been buried there. Bill maintained the conspiracy of silence about what actually happened.

We were told that cancer rates are up in numerous key categories. Breast cancer is rising steadily. (It's due to abortion and the use of birth control pills. That's known, but no one is going to talk about it.) Brain cancer is up 29%; testicular cancer has increased twofold; infertility is up, etc. And yet, we are living longer than ever. The US Census Bureau reports that in 1940 AD about 70% of people survived to age 60. In 1990 AD, about 90% of people survived to age 60. Is it just possible that Bill reported large percentage increases of very small numbers?

Bill bravely had his blood tested for synthetic chemicals. 84 were found. The analyst announced that 83 of these would not have been detected in Bill's grandfather's blood. Thirteen of them were dioxins. Dioxins are always produced when organic material is combusted. Not only have we always had forest fires and volcanoes, but there was a time in our past when wood or coal fires provided the bulk of our heat. In all likelihood, Bill's grandfather would have had a higher dioxin concentration in his blood than Bill. But we can never know that; his grandfather did not have his blood tested. To assert, unequivocally, that none of these 83 materials would have been detected in blood from two generations ago is not just bad science. It's a lie.

Does this mean there has never been a bad decision made within a chemical company? Does it mean no chemical plant official has ever bent the rules, hidden vital information, compromised the safety of workers or the community? In the absence of any evidence from Bill, I have to conclude probably not. But the world is full of morons. The human managers of chemical plants come in for their share. (So do investigative journalists.) Has Bill Moyers proved even one such evil act in TRADE SECRETS--let alone an industry-wide conspiracy? No.

One of Bill's historians admitted he is squeamish about conspiracy theories. There are good reasons to be so about this one. It works only if you assume that all the researchers and chemical company officials live on another planet. We don't. We breathe the same air and drink the same water as everyone else. We are just as interested in maintaining the purity of these vital resources. Of course, the companies are interested in making money; that's the whole point of being in business. You don't make much money, though, if you kill off your workers and your customers.

Bill points out that the chemical industry has fought against the passage of much legislation. He offers this as proof of a conspiracy to pollute. That's silly. Not every proposed law is good law or good common sense. Passing laws just to appease the viewers who have learned all their science from "A Moyers Report" doesn't solve any problems and frequently creates many more.

Bill did exactly what he accused the chemical industry of doing. He manipulated and hid data from the public. He has an enormous responsibility to that public. He has the power, the forum, and the intelligence to bridge the gap between a fearful public and a possibly understandably, paranoid industry. He chose to burn the bridge instead. Shame on him.

The panel discussion after the "report" was disgusting.

It was the ONLY portion of the broadcast in which the companies involved were allowed ANY response. Basically, they were given about 10 minutes, in a hostile forum, to answer 90 minutes of attack.

They were outnumbered 2 to 3 on the panel.

When industry reps answered a question, the camera panned the faces of their inquisitors to record their carefully simulated expressions of shock and outrage. The industry reps were not accorded the same creative courtesy with the camera when they were being attacked.

We were told that science is easily manipulated by money; researchers always find the answers their employers pay them to find. As old as this argument is, it never fails to anger me. It impugns the integrity of an entire profession. It's offensive and insulting, and it's unfounded. It's such an extraordinary charge, it demands extraordinary proof. And yet, proof came there none. It stood unassailed--a simple, bigoted lie unchallenged by our investigative reporter. I personally demand an apology for this heinous statement on behalf of all researchers.

Bill's most outrageous comment was his attempt to defuse the revelation that his life had been spared by the very chemistry he was vilifying. As Terry Yosie, American Chemical Council VP, outlined the role chemistry played in repairing his heart, Bill asked, "Are you sorry about that now?" It was a crass remark, unworthy of a true investigative report, but typical of the attitude Bill carried in the chip on his shoulder throughout the presentation.

PBS must shoulder its share of the blame for a biased, unfair presentation. At least in Detroit, PBS elected to run a test of the emergency broadcast system in the middle of a Yosie answer to a charge. True, they also obliterated a comment from the other side. That won't float, though. Industry was allowed too little time too late. They could have run the test 10 minutes later, after the broadcast ended. It made the network look small and exposed it for the fear-mongering, ratings-grabbing machine it has become.

The "experts" asserted that we need a national Proposition 65--the Right-to-Know legislation in California. We already have such a system. A Pre-Manufacturing Notification (PMN) must be filed with each new chemical brought to market. This registers the substance on the TSCA inventory. No chemical gets registered before its toxicological profile is evaluated. To suggest otherwise is untrue and misleading. Anyone purchasing any chemical product can demand and easily receive a Material Safety Data Sheet outlining the toxicology, handling and disposal issues of the substance. In fact, the consumer is presented today with explicit instructions on the label of any chemical product detailing use instructions and misuse consequences.

The "experts" know this and that is why they kept playing the "C" card. We don't know the "effects on our Children." Are they really suggesting that we do chemical exposure tests on kids? Be serious. They demand this because they know the tests cannot be done. That way industry opponents guarantee they can always argue that insufficient testing has been done.

We heard a lot from them about perfectly safe alternatives. Did you notice they proposed not one such alternative? You can bet that any such alternative would meet the same fate. They would suddenly discover that "insufficient testing" had been done.

The chemical industry alone is held to this unattainable standard of testing till risk-free. Judges make bad decisions and they become precedents. Teachers conduct educational experiments ("Grammar is optional. It stifles creativity."), produce illiterates, and get pay raises ("Merit pay? No way. We aren't responsible for the results of our students.") Politicians enact ill-advised social policy and get reelected (well, I guess that's our fault.) Cops strike illegally, endangering the public, and get rehired. Every industry and profession is capable, through maliciousness or incompetence, of doing as much damage to society as the chemical industry. Most, probably all, have. Had Bill Moyers been held to the standard he sanctimoniously demands of the chemical industry, this special would never have seen the light of day.

Sorry, Ron. Bill may be a great guy and a good neighbor. But he is a lousy journalist. And he is clearly NOT an investigative journalist in any sense. He is just another member of the "don't confuse me with the facts--I've made up my mind" school of thought.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.