On February 4, Breitbart News Daily (on the "Patriot" Channel on Sirius XM) conducted an interview with Islamophobic alarmist, Pamela Gellar. She harped on the fact that Muslim-American Olympian, Ibtihaj Muhammad, fences with her Hijab, a head scarf worn in deference to Allah by female Muslims, to cover the hair and neck. This is simply outrageous to this myopic woman and she is proud to display her fear and hate for all her sycophants who share her Islamophobia.
In case you're not familiar with the labeling in much of the media, the right wing has commandeered the label 'Patriot' for any of their programming that is essentially hate speech. In other words, Republicans are Patriots, Democrats aren't? Breitbart News Daily host, Stephen K. Gannon, presented Gellar as one of the world's top experts on Islamic Law, Sharia Law and Islamic Supremacism, if that is even a subject where one can even be an 'expert.'
Gellar believes that Ibtihaj Muhammad's specialized Hijab is an example of imposing Islam on the secular marketplace, actually labeling it Islamic Supremacy. Click at the 03:27 mark below, where she expresses her disdain for the Hijab itself. Gellar somehow pivots the issue to blame, who else, but President Obama, who failed to condemn ALL HIJABS on International Hijab appreciation day. I didn't know that was one of his job responsibilities. Ironically, it was Gellar herself who brought up the matter regarding the famous Olympic fencer.
Appearing on Alan Colmes' weekly Versus segment, Pam Gellar maintained that she thinks that the problem is not the Hijab, it's all that unnecessary attention those scary Mooslims are garnering, especially since the president's visit to a mosque, just one week ago. Alan tried to pinpoint what she thought was the difference between wearing a Yarmulke as many Jews do, versus a woman wearing a Hijab. Gellar denied that she made an issue of the matter at all. Right wingers have no shame, even when lying when there's recorded evidence, and Pam is a typical right wing hatemonger.
The conversation was confrontational, with Gellar ducking the real issue: she's the one that made a big deal about the story, and now she's upset that it's drawing somewhat positive attention to Muslims. That's antithetical to Gellar's raison d'être.
GELLAR: The problem is not this woman's Hijab...The problem is with the attention that she's getting? For what? For being Muslim? The fact that it's a news story is emblematic of the problem.
COLMES: You're the one that said it was imposing Islam on non-Muslims.
GELLAR: I said that she's being in your face about it. And she's the only fencer whose religion we know.
COLMES: Why say it's a news story, why say it's islam imposing itself simply because this woman is wearing a head scarf?
GELLAR: The difference is there's a news story for the girl with the Hijab.
COLMES: So it's the media's fault for making it a news story?
GELLAR: Why are we doing a story on her?
The rest of the segment she expresses her objection to prayer interrupting the 'line' in a workplace. Accommodating Muslim Prayer is simply unfathomable and she contests that Jewish Prayer never interrupts work. She also doesn't approve of special situational accommodations like not handling pork or alcohol by Muslim workers.
Religious liberty, in other words, should never be afforded to anyone of the Islamic persuasion. That's really the law that Gellar and her cohorts would like to enforce. They pretend their bigotry is sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution and that's the real outrage here.
