Fox News Suspended Judge Jeanine Pirro Over Comments Of Rep. Ilhan Omar

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro was reportedly suspended by the network following comments she made earlier this month about Representative Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) loyalty to the Constitution.

Fox News weekend host Jeanine Pirro’s show didn’t air a week after her comments questioning U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar over her wearing a Muslim head covering and questioning her loyalty to the U.S. Constitution.

The host of “Justice With Judge Jeanine,” suggested during her March 9 show that Omar’s religious beliefs were at odds with the U.S. Constitution.

“Omar wears a hijab, which, according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested,” Pirro said. “Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

Fox News condemned Pirro’s comments, saying they addressed the matter directly with the host.

Why?  She was absolutely right.  Sharia Law is, in fact, contradictory to our Constitution.  Anyone who even does a cursory amount of research on Sharia Law will find that out.

“We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro’s comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar,” the network said in a statement last week. “They do not reflect those of the network, and we have addressed the matter with her directly.”

Yeah, well I strongly condemn their condemnation of the judge.   Pirro wouldn’t have had to say anything about Omar if the Minnesota congresswoman hadn’t made so many anti-Semitic remarks against Jews and Israel.  Omar also referred to our president as not human.

President Donald Trump tweeted Sunday morning about Pirro’s absence, saying she should be brought back.

“Bring back @JudgeJeanine Pirro. The Radical Left Democrats, working closely with their beloved partner, the Fake News Media, is using every trick in the book to SILENCE a majority of our Country.  They have all out campaigns against @FoxNews hosts who are doing too well.”

Pirro’s comments are not the first time the subject of Sharia Law being antithetical to our Constitution has come up.  If you Google “Is sharia law antithetical to the U.S. Constitution,” as of this morning you will get 505,000 search results.  People have been talking about it.

It is especially interesting that Muslim leadership that supports Sharia are telling world democracies they are against their country’s democratic way of life.

The London Daily Express on Oct. 15, 2009, reported Sharia-practicing Muslim organizer Anjem Choudary of Islam4UK stated, “We have had enough of democracy and man-made law. … We will call for a complete upheaval of the British ruling system … and demand full implementation of Shariah in Britain.”

The United Nations adopted “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Dec. 10, 1948, recognizing such basic human rights as:

    • Freedom of opinion and expression
    • Freedom to change religions
    • Right to education
    • No slavery
    • No forced marriages
    • No torture
    • No inhumane punishment

    Muslim leaders from 57 Islamic countries rejected the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  In response, they forced their own group called the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

    In 1990, the OIC passed the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” declaring that Shariah law is supreme, proposing:

    • the death penalty for those leaving Islam
    • punishing women who are victims of rape
    • allowing men to be polygamous
    • permitting wife beating
    • censoring speech insulting Islam

    Jeanine Pirro did not make these things up, they come directly from the horse’s mouth.  Should sovereign nations around the world grant the freedoms they enjoy to groups of people whose ultimate goal is to destroy the very same freedoms?  Sharia Law dictates that Islam is superior.  How would that not be antithetical to our First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion?  Censoring speech would go against our Free Speech rights in the same First Amendment.

    WND asks are the Quran and the U.S. Constitution compatible?

    • The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion, yet Mohammad said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). The Quran also states in Sura 4:89 “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”
    • The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells or say anything considered “insulting to Islam.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs among Muslims and cannot display a cross, Christmas decorations, or the Star of David.
    • The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot repair places of worship or build new ones, they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings, they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.
    • The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.
    • The Second Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.
    • The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.
    • The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.
    • The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Mohammad said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).
    • The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.
    • The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38) A woman who has been raped is also punished “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2) Women can be beaten: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.
    • The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Mohammad owned slaves.
    • The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Mohammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).
    • The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making the laws.
    • The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammad said “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)
    • The 18th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”
    • The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.
    • The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to sell or drink wine and liquor openly.

    President Eisenhower answered this question in a piece in Time magazine on Oct. 13, 1952, “The Bill of Rights contains no grant of privilege for a group of people to destroy the Bill of Rights.  A group … dedicated to the ultimate destruction of all civil liberties, cannot be allowed to claim civil liberties as its privileged sanctuary from which to carry on subversion of the government.”

    So, the question should be, does Fox News support Sharia Law over our Constitution, or are they frightened of what radical Muslims would do over Pirro’s comments about Rep. Omar’s loyalty to the Constitution? Fox News should bring Judge Pirro back and save their network’s reputation for being a hard-hitting real news network floating in a sea of Fake News.

    My book is here!  And I personally handed a copy to our President at the White House!!! I hope you enjoy it !

    BOOK – Why I Couldn't Stay Silent

    Follow David on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Patreon and YouTube @DavidJHarrisJr