Tag Archive for: Texas

Jihadis don’t show up at Phoenix mosque protest, so no one gets hurt

/in , , /by

The Islamic State had threatened to show up and commit mass murder, and specifically threatened the event organizer, but didn’t appear at the event, and so no one was hurt — despite the mainstream media hysteria over “heavily armed protesters” supposedly menacing people at the mosque.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t have held a protest at a mosque, as there are people there just going about their business who have nothing to do with whatever jihad activity may have been taking place there. The coverage has, predictably enough, ignored the fact that the protesters were only heavily armed because the jihadis had threatened to show up and kill. No one was going to get killed if the jihadis didn’t show up, and no one did.

Yesterday evening I was amused by the hysteria of Islamic supremacists such as Linda Sarsour and Zahra Billoo on Twitter — many were saying, “Imagine if armed Muslim protesters had shown up at a church!,” as if this were something that never, ever happened. The irony was thick, as most of yesterday, these stories were on the front page of Jihad Watch:

Pakistan: Muslims open fire on Faisalabad church

Islamic State demolishes Christian church in Syria

Egypt: Explosive goes off next to church

And that’s just yesterday. Of course, even to make the comparison suggests that the protesters outside the mosque yesterday were out to do something similar to the mosque, and they weren’t.

Lost in all the coverage, not surprisingly, was the obvious import of this event: when you demonize and marginalize legitimate concerns about jihad terror, including jihad plotting in mosques, you’re not going to bottle people up and make the concerns go away. You’re just going to get more radical protests. Americans are going to defend freedom and stand for the freedom of speech. Whether the authorities and the media elites are going to allow for a free and honest discussion and debate on this is another question.

The mainstream media’s avidity to link Pamela Geller and me to this protest revealed its determination to ignore the reasons why the protest was held at the Phoenix mosque in the first place. Sharon Bernstein of Reuters emailed me and we had this exchange:

1. Bernstein to Spencer:

…We are wondering among other questions whether you or Pamela Geller are involved with this demonstration and what you think of it….

Thanks very much,

Sharon Bernstein
Correspondent
California Politics and Policy
Sacramento, California
Reuters News

2. Spencer to Bernstein:

No, we are not involved in this demonstration.

3. Bernstein to Spencer:

What is your opinion of the event planned? What do you know about the organizer?

4. Spencer to Bernstein:

I am much more interested in the fact that this Phoenix mosque was attended by one of the Garland jihadis for ten years than I am in this rally. Has this mosque been investigated, even after the Garland jihad attack? Did Reuters ask its imam searching questions? If not, why not?

I don’t know anything about the organizer.

Here is Bernstein’s story — she didn’t see fit to mention any of this, but more importantly, has nothing about the mosque, from which not only Ibrahim Simpson, to whom I was referring above, came, but his partner in jihad Nadir Soofi and two other jihadis as well. People are fed up with the authorities turning a blind eye to this problem, when survey after survey shows that 80% of mosques in the U.S. teach warfare against unbelievers and the supremacy of Sharia. The more such concerns are dismissed as “bigotry” and “Islamophobia,” the more there will be protests like this one.

“Tempers flare as protesters spar over Islam at Arizona mosque,” by Ryan Van Velzer, Associated Press, May 30, 2015:

PHOENIX (AP) – About 500 protesters gathered outside a Phoenix mosque on Friday as police kept two groups sparring about Islam on separate sides of the street.

The rally initially was organized by a Phoenix man who says he is a former Marine who fought in the Iraq War and believes Islam is a violent religion. About 250 people who carried pistols, assault rifles, American flags and drawings of the Prophet Muhammad rallied on one side of the street outside the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix.

On the opposite side of the street was another equally sized group of protesters, some holding signs promoting love and peace, who came to show their support for the mosque and Muslim community.

As the two sides argued and yelled, dozens of police officers formed a line between them and kept them separated. There were no reports of injuries or arrests at the protest, which lasted several hours and gained attention around the country on social media. Phoenix police estimated about 500 protesters showed up, roughly 250 on each side.

The protest came about month after a shootout outside a Prophet Muhammad cartoon-drawing contest in a Dallas suburb. Two Phoenix men showed up at the event with assault rifles and were killed by police. The men formerly worshipped at the Phoenix mosque where Friday’s protest took place.

Drawings of the Prophet Muhammad are deemed insulting to many followers of Islam and have sparked violence around the world.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Young Muslims trying to reach Syria got instructions from Montreal mosque

Islamic State claims 2nd suicide bombing at Shi’ite mosque in Saudi Arabia

Islamic State in Nigeria murders 10 with jihad suicide bomb in mosque

Islamic State rapidly expanding into Southeast Asia

Canada to strip citizenship of dual-national terror convicts

UK police tell women not to harm their attackers, get a rape alarm

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Eyewitness to Garland, Texas Islamic State Shooting

/in , , /by

Do not miss the only eyewitness account of the Garland Texas jihad attack that was launched on May 3, 2015. “Martin,” the driver of the car that was immediately behind the Muslim shooter’s car, is our special guest. Listen to “Martin” detail his minute-by-minute heart-stopping experience and you will get a sense of the danger he went through on that frightening day.

In addition to “Martin” we have Dom the Conservative back with us to reflect upon the Garland attack and share some thoughts about Memorial Day.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hannity VIDEO: Pamela Geller Schools Juan Williams AGAIN Over Free Speech and Wanting to Enforce Sharia Law

Islamic State gives jihadis cash bonuses for marriage and paid honeymoons

“Danes can not even sit on their balcony and eat a pork sandwich”

New York: Muslim pleads guilty to jihad plot to murder U.S. military personnel

Christians are ‘prisoners of conscience’ in Uzbekistan

All Muslims share the same Islam

/in , , , /by

The Establishment is always telling us that there are good, moderate Muslims and extremist, jihadist Muslims and that the two different kinds have nothing in common with each other.

Wrong. What all Muslims have in common is the same Koran, the same prayers, the same Sunna of Mohammed and being a member of one umma (Islamic community).

Indeed, the Koran tells us that the jihadist is a better Muslim than the moderate Muslim. The phrase, Allahu akbar, is not only used a war cry, but every Muslim uses it in his daily prayers.

We are told that all Muslims want prosperity and democracy, but all Muslims do not want a democracy, because a democracy means that a Kafir is equal to a believer.

All of the Muslims share the Sunna of assassination. So instead saying they do not want violence of Garland, TX, they need to say that they reject the evil of the assassination Sunna of Mohammed. That would have real meaning.

RELATED ARTICLES:

81% of respondents to Al Jazeera poll support the Islamic State

Pamela Geller, Breitbart: “The UK’s Rape Jihad: A Survivor’s Tale”

Biker Shootout: Libs Going Wacko over Race in Waco

/in , , , /by

Leftists are upset about what they view as a double standard with respect to the Baltimore/Ferguson affair and the recent Waco gang shootout. They’re right, too — there sure is a double standard.

And, as usual, it’s their own.

Consider, for example, an Associated Press piece by one Jesse J. Holland titled “Differing perceptions of Waco, Baltimore bothering some.” Holland starts out writing that the “prevailing images of protests in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, over police killings of black men were of police in riot gear, handcuffed protesters, tear gas and mass arrests. The main images of a fatal gun battle between armed bikers and police in Waco, Texas, also showed mass arrests — carried out by nonchalant-looking officers sitting around calm bikers on cellphones.” The idea is that while the black thugs in Baltimore and Ferguson received harsh treatment and coverage, the primarily white thugs in Waco were, relatively speaking, handled with kid gloves.

But pardon my tongue, this brings us to another complaint. Holland cites people who say that while Barack Obama and other politicians called the Baltimore miscreants “thugs,” no such descriptive is applied to the white Waco punks. He mentions in particular radio and TV commentator Roland Martin, who tweeted, “So the mainstream media refuses to talk (hashtag)WacoThugs, huh?” And Martin has a point: While the black Baltimore rioters and looters were called thugs, no white Waco rioters and looters were thus characterized. I wonder, why might that be?

Oh, yeah, that’s right: there are no white rioters and looters in Waco.

Minor details such as this seem to escape the notice of two-brain-cell journalists in search of a story, but a prerequisite for having “police in riot gear” is actually having, you know, a riot. The incident in Waco was an unforeseen event, meaning, the cops had no time to don any kind of special gear.

Perhaps they don’t teach proper analogizing in journalism school, but the Waco biker thugs aren’t analogous to the Baltimore rioter thugs; rather, they’re analogous to the person the latter were rioting over: drug dealer Freddie Gray. And no one went out of his way to call Gray a thug.

Martin also lamented that we won’t have a “panel discussion on their [the bikers’] childhood” or on “fatherless homes”; no doubt, as the media will soon drop the story. This is largely because they don’t have a black-on-white racial angle to play up, but also for another reason:

Whites won’t be rallying to the defense of the biker thugs.

Matters are proceeding as they should. The police went to the scene of the crime, fired on the thugs when necessary (perhaps killing some), brought matters to a conclusion and they made arrests — 170 of them. Moreover, all people, including whites, want to see justice done. In fact, no small number of whites would no doubt say that more of the thugs should have been shot.

Oh, as for the adjectives, it’s self-evident that the Waco criminals are thugs. The reason why the point had to be made in Baltimore is that politicians, media propagandists and race-baiting activists had euphemized the rioters as “protesters” who cared about Freddie Gray (whom they would have knifed in a second for 50 bucks) and had legitimate grievances. So even Obama, in a rare and fleeting moment of lucidity, pointed out the obvious: get off it — they’re just thugs.

The irony of the Lamestream Media’s reporting on what’s a flawed conception of a double standard is that it was created by their own exercise of a true double standard. As black pundit Larry Elder reported, police shootings of black suspects are down 75 percent over the last several decades, but you wouldn’t know it from cherry-picked reportage that seems designed to incite racial unrest. Consider the following list of perspective-lending realities the media refuses to cover:

  • As Elder also wrote, “In 2012, according to the CDC, 140 blacks were killed by police. That same year 386 whites were killed by police. Over the 13-year period from 1999 to 2011, the CDC reports that 2,151 whites were killed by cops — and 1,130 blacks were killed by cops.”
  • Of course, blacks are only 13 percent of the population. So far more significantly and as this recent Washington State University study shows, police are actually more willing to shoot white than black suspects. Why? Because police know that, as Ferguson officer Darren Wilson’s experience illustrates, shooting a black criminal can mean media crucifixion, career destruction, death threats and, basically, the end of your life as you know it.
  • Black suspects are as likely to shoot at police as to be shot at.
  • Relative to whites, blacks are shot by police at a lower rate than their involvement in crime would suggest. As sociologist and ex-cop Professor Peter Moskos writes, “Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks [to] die at the hands of police. Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”
  • According to FBI statistics, 46 percent of those who’ve murdered police officers during the last decade have been black.
  • Blacks commit more than half of all murders nationwide. And 93 percent of all black homicide victims are murdered by other blacks.
  • Stories of generally “unarmed” white suspects being shot by minority police abound but are never reported nationally. There was 20-year old white man Dillon Taylor, who was shot by a Hispanic cop last year; Iraq military veteran James Whitehead, shot by off-duty black police officer Robert Arnold in Texas in 2011 after a verbal altercation; white teen Gil Collar, shot by a black officer at the University of Alabama in 2012; and 46-year-old white man John Geer, shot with his hands up (according to four police officers on the scene) by a Hispanic cop with “anger issues.”

This isn’t to imply that all the above shootings were unjust, but such a standard is hardly necessary for the media to play the race card when reporting the rare white-on-black shootings. In fact, the media will trumpet the causes of obvious thugs, such as Ferguson’s Michael Brown, Baltimore’s Freddie Gray and Trayvon Martin, even in the face of evidence that thugs are precisely what they are.

Speaking of which, what do you think about the coverage of that unarmed 17-year-old shot by that grown man?

No, not cute little Trayvon.

Seventeen-year-old white kid Chris Cervini, shot by black martial artist Roderick Scott in Greece, NY, in 2009. Scott is built like a brick outhouse and admits Cervini never laid a hand on him, but says he thought his life could be in danger. He was acquitted by a mostly white jury, and I don’t question the verdict. But the verdict on the media is clear:

Guilty of using lies that have evoked hatred, fomented racial unrest, sparked riots, caused property destruction and led to innocent people’s deaths.

Guilty of gross malpractice and, by proxy, murder.

Guilty of being destroyers of civilization that have no moral right to exist.

Yes, #MediaLiesMatter.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Pamela Geller and the Hijacking of America

/in , , , , /by

On the morning of September 11, 2001, I couldn’t help thinking, I could have been a passenger on one of those planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. Today the feeling is back, as if we are all passengers on a hijacked plane the size of America, heading towards an imminent crash. The question is, knowing what we know now, what are we going to do about it?

Shortly before American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower, an Egyptian-born jihadi, Mohammed Atta, addressed the passengers over the intercom:

“Just stay quiet, and you’ll be okay.  We are returning to the airport… Nobody move.  Everything will be okay.  If you try to make any move, you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane.  Just stay quiet… Nobody move, please…  Don’t try to make any stupid moves.”

Twenty minutes later they died a horrible death, accompanied by hundreds of people inside the North Tower. Had the passengers known the real plan, they might have attempted to take matters into their own hands and possibly avert a bigger disaster. But they likely believed Mohammed Atta, especially since no hijacker had deliberately crashed a plane before.  Many were probably thinking, Let the government sort it out, that’s whom the terrorists always blackmail. We just need to stay quiet and make no stupid moves. Of course we’ll be okay.

Tactical deception, especially when lying to non-Muslims, is legally sanctioned under Sharia, which is a mainstream, universal Islamic law.  In Sunni Islam, such practice is referred to as mudarat, or taquiyya.

Fast-forward fourteen years to Garland, TX.  Jihadists drove a thousand miles to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws. The cop who shot them to death likely prevented a gruesome massacre. We are now being told that this would not have happened and everything would have been okay if Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer had stayed quiet and didn’t make any stupid moves, such as, organizing the exhibition of Mohammed cartoons.

This is exactly the behavior of passengers on a hijacked plane. We hope that everything will be okay as long as we remain quiet and make no stupid moves. We willingly trust the voices on TV and hope the government will sort it out. We want to believe that every act of Islamic terrorism is an isolated incident, that they only target the government, and that the 58% of Muslim-Americans in a 2012 survey who think that that critics of Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges, with 12% of them favoring the death penalty for blasphemy, are not part of a bigger phenomenon. Just stay quiet and nothing bad will happen. After all, no terrorist has ever hijacked and crashed an entire nation before.

Alas, nations have been consistently hijacked and crashed throughout history. This has always been executed according to the same blueprint, which originated in the 7th century Islamic conquests and is known to Islamic jurists as the Pact of Umar.

While the Pact of Umar’s precise origins are a matter of legend, its conditions, based on Muhammad’s treatment of conquered people, have gained a canonical status in Islamic jurisprudence with regard to relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, otherwise known as dhimmis, and as such became a subset of Sharia law.

Given that Sharia by definition cannot be altered any more than one can alter the Koran or the Sunna, and even talking about reforming Sharia is considered blasphemous, its medieval rulings about what dhimmis are allowed or not allowed to do, are still in effect today. According to a recent Pew survey, the majority of Muslims worldwide want Sharia to be the law of the land everywhere; that includes the Conditions of Umar, even if those who practice them may not necessarily refer to them by that name.

Settling in non-Muslim countries, Muslim minorities traditionally bring with them Sharia law, which prescribes them to punish dhimmis who overstep certain boundaries regardless of what the local law says, because the “God-given” Sharia law will always be superior to the “man-made law” of the dhimmis.

Under the many Conditions of Omar, dhimmis aren’t allowed to criticize anything that has to do with Islam, including the very conditions of subjugation under which they live. Dhimmis are supposed to remain ignorant about Islamic teachings and can only refer to Islam in positive terms. Mocking, insulting, cursing, or even upsetting Muslims in any way, testifying against a Muslim in court, or raising a hand against a Muslim, even in self-defense, is forbidden.

Criticism of a Muslim person by a dhimmi — even if it’s based on undeniable facts, constitutes “slander” and is punishable by death. In contrast with the Western definition of slander — false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation — Sharia defines slander as any statement a Muslim would dislike, regardless if its degree of accuracy. This works in conjunction with another Sharia ruling, which gives all Muslims an open license to murder the offender wherever they find him. That doesn’t mean all Muslims will do it, but if someone volunteers to do the killing, he will not be punished under Sharia. In modern times, this means an open season of vigilante street justice on any critic of Islam anywhere on the planet.

Suddenly, the medieval choices jihadis place before their victims are all over today’s news coverage, just as they were originally set out in the Koran:  convert to Islam, submit to the Muslim rule and pay a non-Muslim religious tax called jizya, or die by the sword. Those who submit, as we’ve seen in the territories conquered by ISIS in Iraq and Syria, are doomed to a life of humiliation, subjugation, discrimination, and confiscatory taxation.

Dhimmi translates as “protected person,” which is similar in meaning to protection racket: what a nice dhimmi community you have here, shame if anything were to happen to it. You are protected from violence as long as you obey the conditions and pay the protection money. But if any of the dhimmis act up or “made a stupid move,” his or her action puts the entire dhimmi community in jeopardy of jihadi retaliation, where anyone is fair game for collective punishment.

Western nations with a significant share of Muslim immigrants are now learning to live in a state of permanent vulnerability and fear that one of them might upset a Muslim and thus provoke rioting or jihad slaughter. As a result, Western dhimmis are learning to police each other and make sure no one in their community makes any “stupid moves.”

Pamela Geller just did that. Her exhibition of Mohammed cartoons has crossed the line of permissible dhimmi behavior, and for that she has become a target of criticism by the American media, including some conservative commentators. Among the many stated reasons why Pamela should have “just stayed quiet,” the main argument remains unstated: she made a stupid move and now we’re all in danger of retaliation.

The real questions the media should be asking is, if we aren’t already living under the Conditions of Umar, what would we do differently if we did?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the American Thinker. You may follow the American Thinker at: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Garland, Texas imam calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech

/in , , , , /by

That is always the endgame for Islamic supremacists: to destroy the freedom of speech so that Islam cannot be criticized and the jihad cannot be opposed, so that it can advance unimpeded. People have no idea what is at stake in this controversy.

“Group that hosted Prophet Muhammad Cartoon Contest has Houston supporters,” by Joel Eisenbaum, Click2Houston.com, May 13, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

But other Houstonians, including a Houston area Muslim imam, who condemned the Garland attack, but supports restrictions on free speech, believes incendiary language should be restricted by law.

“I think there needs to be a change to the law where people do not disrespect especially high people,” Imam Mobasher Ahmed said.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada: 10 Muslims arrested at airport on suspicion of leaving to join Islamic State

Islamic State seizes Syrian city of Palmyra, threatening ancient ruins

 

Bosch Fawstin on his ‘Drawing of Muhammad’

/in , , , , /by

Join us in this fascinating conversation with artist Bosch Fawstin, winner of the Inaugural Muhammad Art Exhibit in Garland Texas, May 3, 2015.

If you never heard of Bosch and his gripping aggressive writing and drawing until the Islamic State attack in Texas, after watching this show you will want to know more about Bosch and his groundbreaking work. Fawstin, a former Muslim, has the bona fides to critique Islam from the inside and the artistic talent to illustrate the inconsistencies and absurdity of Islamic prohibitions against even non-Muslims drawing a picture of Muhammad, Moses or Jesus!

An added benefit to this discussion is that both Bosch and I share some of our personal experiences in this show about being under attack at the Culwell Convention Center by Muslim terrorists…who are now dead.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State celebrates capture of Ramadi with orgy of bloodshed, 25,000 flee their homes

Kerry: Don’t worry about fall of Ramadi, “Daesh has been driven back”

Since converting to Islam, UK woman has murdered 400 people

Meet the bravest woman in America

/in , , , , /by

The Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest that Pamela Geller and I organized and hosted in Garland, Texas on May 3, along with the jihad attack upon it, has become a defining issue. It has led to a national conversation about the nature of the freedom of speech, its importance, and what should or should not be its limits. It has exposed many people who appeared to be strong defenders of freedom to be cowards and appeasers. It has revealed that many key media players and people in powerful positions of authority have no idea of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and no awareness of the war on free speech — much less any understanding of why the freedom of speech matters at all. It has demonstrated that many important opinion-makers neither appreciate nor value the freedom of speech, and don’t even really grasp what it is. It has likewise revealed others to be unexpectedly strong defenders of freedom. Some people I had thought were strong-minded and open-eyed have proved to be cowardly and blinkered. Other people I had suspected were trimmers and appeasers have shone brightly in their honesty and courage on this issue.

Those who have defended free speech in the wake of the jihad attack while heaping scorn upon Pamela Geller, and those who have fastidiously tried to protect themselves from the Left’s inevitable guilt-by-association smears by throwing in a line like, “Now mind you, I don’t agree with everything Pamela Geller says,” or “Now of course Pamela Geller’s approach is not something I agree with” or some such, quite simply disgust me. Pamela Geller has more clear-sighted awareness of the threat this nation faces, and more courage and resoluteness in facing it, thananyone in America today — especially those who are sitting in their armchairs today and sniffing at her for being “outrageous” and “provocative” while she has to live the rest of her life knowing that at any moment some jihadi maniac will try to get to his virgins by killing her. Yet people are acting these days as if she was the one with the AK-47 outside our event, or as if there would be no jihad threat against America were it not for her and for our Muhammad cartoon contest.

They won’t be able to keep up this denial much longer. It simply won’t be possible. The Islamic State has issued a detailed manual for jihad terror attacks and regular bloodshed in the streets of the United States and the nations of Western Europe. That is coming. To cower and say, “We won’t draw cartoons, we won’t do anything to offend you” not only will not stop this from coming, but it will embolden the jihadis, who always step up their game when they see weakness in their prey.

They see weakness in the U.S. That’s because the U.S. is weak. Not militarily, but societally. Culturally. Fewer and fewer people understand and value the principles upon which a free society is based. Fewer and fewer people are willing to stand to defend those principles. Cowards, trimmers, appeasers and open allies of the enemies of freedom abound.

Pamela Geller is standing for freedoms upon which the free world depends. That so few of power and influence are standing with her shows how severe the crisis really is.

These days are revealing many who were thought to be true to be false, and many who were thought to be false to be true. As a defender of freedom, Pamela Geller is the truest of the true. It is my immense honor to work with her, and to call her my friend.

“Meet the bravest woman in America,” by Joseph Farah, WND, May 15, 2015:

She’s been caricatured.

She’s been verbally tarred and feathered.

She’s been vilified, reviled, smeared, defamed and disparaged.

But something keeps Pam Geller going. Do you know what it is? It’s her love for her country and her passion for liberty.

For weeks now, I’ve been watching my friend Pam Geller taking media punches from the left and right for her private event in Garland, Texas, featuring Geert Wilders, another freedom fighter – an event attacked by armed jihadists who have determined to “slaughter” Pam Geller for her campaign to expose radical Islam’s vicious worldwide crusade against freedom, against women, against Jews, against Christians, against life and against everything but its own peculiar seventh-century view of the world.

Bill O’Reilly had the audacity to accuse Geller of “spurring” the attack with her event promoting freedom of speech.

Really?

So by criticizing a worldwide movement responsible for the ongoing genocide against Christians in the Middle East, the subjugation of women, a pattern of female genital mutilation, the ruthless beheading and crucifying and burning alive of its victims, she was spurring the attack? She was inviting it? She was goading them? Her motivation was to serve as a catalyst to an attack on her and her event?

Donald Trump said essentially the same thing, as did the New York Times and most of the handwringing media elite.

Others were satisfied to call Geller an Islamophobe.

That’s a good one. That’s rich.

This made-up word denotes someone who fears Islam. That’s hardly the case with Geller. It’s probably much more true of Geller’s most vocal critics, who, I suggest, think they buy cover from the violent Islamic radicals by bashing their enemies.

Join Pamela Geller in her fight to retain free-speech rights and the uniquely American culture — read “Stop The Islamization Of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance”

Have you ever wondered by so many leftists are soft on Shariah? Leftists say they support everything that Islam detests – “gay rights,” women’s rights, free expression, peace on earth. But they watch tacitly as Islam runs roughshod over their entire agenda. What gives?

Ultimately, it comes down to the left’s ideological commitment to “multiculturalism,” which began as a back-door assault against Western values and morphed into a war with Judeo-Christian ethics, America and Israel. Suddenly, they found common ground with the barbarians who behead anyone doesn’t lie prostrate before Allah five times a day.

Geller is no Islamophobe, a term which suggests cowardice. That’s a laugh. She’s probably the bravest women in America today.

It’s her critics who are the cowards.

Some of them, I am convinced, are even motivated to criticize her because they fear being associated with her strong stand against hatred, against murder, against torture, against rape and against their unholy war. Perhaps they believe they might be spared the kind of abuse and attacks she has experienced by creating a little space between Geller and themselves. Good luck with that! Radical Islam makes no distinctions between courageous enemies and cowardly ones. It doesn’t discriminate in its scorched-earth policies. They even murder Muslims who disagree with them about the chain of command after Muhammad died.

So throw out the Islamophobe term. It has lost its usefulness, if, indeed, it ever had any.

I’m with Pam Geller. I’m no Islamophobe. It’s just that when I see murder and torture and rape and genocide, I feel compelled to speak out about it, to resist it and to call evil what it is. I don’t know any other way. And neither does Pam Geller.

And that’s why I’m proud to call her my friend.

That’s why she’s the bravest woman in America.

And that’s why she needs and deserves the support of all freedom-loving Americans.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Spencer, PJM: Some Christians Object to Our Muhammad Cartoon Contest. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.

Australia: “Ordinary everyday teenager” converts to Islam, joins the Islamic State

EXCLUSIVE: Actual Video of the Garland, Texas Jihad Attack!

/in , , , /by

WARNING – THIS VIDEO CONTAINS EXTREMELY OBSCENE LANGUAGE.

When I first saw this amazing piece of video that was taped during the actual jihad attack in Garland Texas, I knew I was looking at an important piece of forensic evidence in an Islamic attack and a significant piece of law enforcement history. Therefore I wanted to be sure that a public release of this material in no way, shape or form would endanger any brave law enforcement officer or violate any laws of withholding evidence.

I gathered my team and we discussed the pros and cons of releasing this vital information and determined to make sure law enforcement had a copy and released it back to its owner with no restrictions on its use but then we took it a step further. We decided to blur out the police car and the police officers so that there would not be any chance of exposing any information, slight as it may be, which could be used in any way against the Garland Police Department or any of its officers.

From there, a phone conference was set up so that a few of us could actually speak with the men who taped the shooting. After about an hour phone conference with the two gentlemen I was even further impressed with the value of this video and more importantly, the story of the apparently only civilian eyewitnesses and their frightening experiences.

The moral of this story is that some very brave police officers killed two evil, hell-bent Muslim terrorists, thus potentially saving the innocent lives of those who were inside the convention center, including my team and me! But, the epilogue to this story is that two very brave men who stumbled on the scene of this Islamic State attack have stepped forward to show their video and tell their story so that all freedom loving people can get a better understanding of this epic battle between good and evil.

Video: Media rushes to abandon the principle of freedom of speech

/in , , , /by

Here is a terrific video showing the mainstream media rushing to abandon the principle of the freedom of speech and to establish and reinforce the principle that in the face of violent threats, we should surrender and give those doing the threatening what they want.

This only means that we will get more violent threats. After all, they work.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State releases audio message purportedly from the caliph

You Will Become Muslims When We Rape You, ISIS Told Yazidi Girls

Video: Islamic State issues new “Message to America,” threatening massive hacking and cyber attacks

Video: Media rushes to abandon the principle of freedom of speech

The ISIS death fatwa

Raymond Ibrahim: U.S. State Dept. Invites Muslim Leaders, Denies Christians

Raymond Ibrahim: Islamic Supremacism — the True Source of Muslim ‘Grievances’

BBC likens jihad preacher Anjem Choudary to Gandhi and Mandela

Israeli Ambassador on Iran Deal: ‘We Cannot Roll the Dice’ on Survival of Jewish State

Pamela Geller “following in the steps of those Sons of Liberty in the Boston Tea Party of 1773″

/in , , , , /by

Brilliant piece, and no doubt provocative to the cowards who control the public discourse today — not that they will do anything but heap more opprobrium upon Pamela Geller and others who are fighting to defend freedom. Those who say “Yours was a gratuitous event that was needlessly provocative” don’t realize that Islamic supremacists are endlessly offended, endlessly provoked, and endlessly demanding, and those who think that if we just don’t draw cartoons of Muhammad, all will be well, are ignorant (willfully or not) of what Muslims are forcing non-Muslims to stop doing in other countries around the world today, because these actions offend them. Those new demands are coming, lemmings. Get ready to bow down again.

“In Defense of Pamela Geller,” by Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator, May 7, 2015:

The backlash has been considerable.

Pam Geller, whose American Freedom Defense Initiative organized the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest that sparked an armed assault by two self-appointed jihadis in Garland, Texas, has come under a withering assault for her actions. From Donald Trump to a crew at Fox that includes Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Greta Van Susteren, Martha McCallum, Alan Colmes, ex-Bush aide and Fox contributor Brad Blakeman as well as liberal radio host Richard Fowler and doubtless more, Geller has been subjected to a firestorm of criticism.

I respectfully dissent.

According to Newsmax, Ms. Geller has now received an ISIS death threat. Or, as they say in the world of Islam, a “fatwa”:

“The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah in the heart of our enemy,” the message reads. “Our aim was the khanzeer Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter.”

Note well the word “khanzeer.” The translation is “swine” — as used in the Islamic world when Jews are called “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

Geller has been making the necessary media rounds to defend herself, including this post in Time magazine. Sean Hannity has come to her defense, saying: “You can’t draw a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad without expecting this violence? Is this how far we have sunk? That we’ve got to capitulate in this way?” Rush Limbaugh has leapt to her defense.

Megyn Kelly was blunt in her defense. “Even if you hate her message, she was promoting free speech,” Kelly said and told a guest critical of Geller that he was “fundamentally confused and wrong” and that “I’m concerned about the America you would have us live in.”

Me too.

The notion that any American anywhere should restrict their own freedom of speech because to do otherwise would provoke violence is a certain path to ending freedom of speech. Let’s go with one of the favorite criticisms of Geller — that what Ms. Geller did holding that conference in Garland, Texas, was the work of a “provocateur.” OK. And?

American history is littered with “provocateurs” whose words or actions “provoked” violence. From the Boston Tea Partiers in 1773 to the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, time after time after time words and actions provoked violence. The Declaration of Independence, in fact, didn’t just provoke a little violence — it provoked a seven-year-long war with Great Britain that was said to have produced 25,000 American casualties. That’s before one gets to the estimated 4,000 British soldiers who were killed. Not to mention that the mere election of Abraham Lincoln provoked a string of events which in turn launched the Civil War. Killing some 600,000-plus Americans. Now there’s a provocation.

Just two months ago President Obama and former President Bush joined together in Selma, Alabama, to celebrate the work of “provocateurs” who knew — and were warned — not to march across Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge in support of black voting rights in 1965. As history records, Selma’s Sheriff Jim Clark faced the protesters at the head of a collection of billy-club wielding, horseback-riding troopers and used a bull horn to warn that the protesters “are ordered” to return to their homes or churches. Thus warned — quite specifically warned — that they were in danger of provoking violence, the marchers refused to turn back and kept coming. At Clark’s signal the troopers launched — and so ruthlessly inflicted violent beatings on the protesters that the event became known as “Bloody Sunday.”

In the aftermath of Bloody Sunday, a Geller-esque white Detroit housewife named Viola Liuzzo heard the call of Dr. Martin Luther King for Americans to come to Alabama and join the fight for voting rights. Liuzzo did so. And on the night of March 25, 1965, Liuzzo was driving a fellow marcher — a 19-year old black youth named Leroy Morton. Liuzzo’s car was spotted by the Ku Klux Klan. They were white racists who saw the fact of a white woman driving a black man as a provocation that violated the social mores of segregation and white supremacy. In response to this “provocation,” Liuzzo’s car was overtaken by a car filled with Klan members. They fired at Viola Liuzzo, shooting her twice in the head and killing her instantly. The car crashed, Morton played dead and once the Klan had departed went for help. This same white woman-black man combination was exactly the same social provocation cited in the killing of Emmett Till, the young black teenager who was murdered in Mississippi for allegedly whistling at a white woman.

Today Viola Liuzzo and the marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge are seen as heroes. In fact, during his visit to Selma for that fiftieth anniversary tribute the President specifically said: “If Selma taught us anything, it’s that our work is never done.” Really? Is the President saying he wants more racial provocations around America? Was he himself acting as a Geller-style “provocateur”?

Should Viola Liuzzo have not gone to Alabama? Should she not have protested for voting rights or had a black man in her car — because what she was doing was “provocative” to the white supremacist view of society and would provoke violence? To listen to today’s chorus of critics of Pamela Geller, apparently the answer is no, Viola Liuzzo should never have gone, and yes, in the end she provoked her own death.

The entirety of the civil rights movement and quite specifically the words and actions of its leaders — most prominently including Dr. King himself — were seen in the day as provocative of violence. In fact, King himself would pay for all those words and actions with his life, shot to death while in Memphis for a 1968 march. Should Dr. King never have marched, spoken, and protested? Should the Civil Rights Act of 1964 never been enacted because it was the result of provocative, violence-inciting Freedom Riders and marches across the South?

There’s another fact here that is ignored. Forget the threat of Islamic radicalism. Take the issue off the table entirely. The uncomfortable fact of life today in a 21st century America drenched in television, films, and social media is that people of prominence, whether they are candidates for office or simply media figures or celebrities, are all too frequently targeted by those who are provoked by their words and actions.

Bill O’Reilly — and I’m not picking on him here but since he has raised the subject himself — is a case in point. Mr. O’Reilly, famously, is the host of Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor, a show with a huge popular following. Five nights a week for 19 years O’Reilly has been delivering a show that is filled with controversial views and frequently controversial people. To his credit, he never holds back in saying what he thinks.

Is what Bill O’Reilly does every night “provocative”? Does Bill O’Reilly invite violence? Well, catch this 2008 CBS interview with O’Reilly himself, as reported by CBS:

“My life is dangerous now,” he said. “You know, I have bodyguards and security. I can’t go many places. I can’t be in certain crowd situations. When I do a book signing, I gotta have a phalanx of state troopers there because there are crazy people. And then there’re the Web sites and all of that, which are just totally out of control.

“They encourage these nuts. You know, I was thinking about John Lennon, you know, and John Lennon was tryin’ to be a nice guy, signing the guy’s thing and [Chapman] pops him. So, that is the worst part of the whole ‘Factor’ experience.”

Got that? What Bill O’Reilly does on his television show is so provocative to some people that his life “is dangerous now” and he has to have “bodyguards and security.” What O’Reilly is saying here is that yes, he too is a “provocateur” — just like Pam Geller. Should O’Reilly quit his show? Should he be seen not as a television host with an interesting show but rather condemned as a deliberately provocative public danger whose very presence anywhere in public could result in violence to innocent bystanders? Should he curtail his First Amendment right to say what he wants on his own television show? Should he be condemned for nightly doing something that is, to use O’Reilly’s description of Geller’s actions, “dumb”?

Absolutely not. That would be dumb.

The disturbing reality here is that, as mentioned, this “provocateur’ phenomenon isn’t limited to Bill O’Reilly or Pam Geller. All kinds of people in the public eye who are not the President of the United States with a retinue of Secret Service agents are targeted by someone Out There as a “provocateur.” As O’Reilly himself mentioned, former Beatle John Lennon’s celebrity alone was enough to provoke a killer. Just the other week, the news brought a recording of a 911 call from a frantic actress, Sandra Bullock. Bullock was locked in a closet in her own home — while a crazed stalker prowled though her home looking for her. Why? For no other reason than Bullock’s movie celebrity had provoked this nut into violently breaking into her home. Should Bullock halt her acting career because it has provoked violence?

What Pamela Geller is about — courageously and boldly — is standing up for freedom. That’s it. That’s all. “My country is in danger,” she said to Sean Hannity on his radio show yesterday — and she is right. When O’Reilly says “Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid… It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad,” he is, as Megyn Kelly said, confused. It isn’t Geller’s job to defeat ISIS. That’s the President’s job. It isn’t her job to provoke — or not provoke. It isn’t her job to be smart — or stupid. It is her God-given, constitutional right to stand up for freedom of speech — and she exercises that right. It is her job, as it is that of every American, to work to see that our country is not endangered by gradually giving up our freedoms one by one in a constant backsliding down the slippery slope of tyranny.

What concerns with all this criticism? In effect what the critics are saying is that we should start curtailing American freedoms — the Constitution — to avoid “provoking” or offending someone. Muslims today, gays yesterday, rioting Baltimoreans last week. And so on through some catechism of political correctness.

Where does this stop? Just as Islam forbids images of The Prophet, so too does it forbid homosexuality. If Americans are not supposed to “provoke” Muslims by doing something that offends their religion, does this mean the push that is on now for gay marriage should come to a screeching halt? Should the Supreme Court make gay marriage illegal because to recognize gay marriage would deliberately provoke Muslims across America and around the world? Indeed, isn’t an American approval of any gay “right” a deliberate provocation of Muslim sensibilities?

This is, I would suggest, an untenable place for conservatives to be. It’s an untenable place for liberals to be. It’s an untenable place for Americans to be. It isn’t enough to say some version of “oh sure Pam Geller has the right to do it but she’s provocative and what she did is dumb.” As Sean Hannity has said, Americans cannot slip into the habit of saying “I’m for free speech…but…”

What Pam Geller is doing is bravely standing where so many Americans celebrated today once stood. She is following in the steps of those Sons of Liberty in the Boston Tea Party of 1773 or the signers of the Declaration in 1776 Philadelphia or the civil rights marchers on that Edmund Pettus Bridge or Viola Liuzzo in 1965….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Geller, Wilders, Spencer “fighting the West’s battle for freedom”

VDH: Jihadists have “already cut a huge swath out of American free speech”

Dom: The Conservative Lady Warrior

/in , , , /by

dom the conservativeMeet, Dom -The Conservative, blogger, wife, Mom, counter-jihad warrior! Sometimes it’s funny how life provides positive developments from extremely bizarre situations.

On May 3, 2015, Dom was one of the attendees at the Pamela Geller – Muhammad Art Exhibit and was there to support the American doctrine of freedom to speak and freedom to assemble. Little did she realize how her life would be changed by being one of the people under attack from Muslim terrorists who were intent on killing the participants simple because they were at the event?

In the midst of the “controlled” confusion of the evening our United West team met Dom, interviewed her and became friends with a very serious, very intelligent woman who has a critically important message for all freedom-loving Americans.

Listen to what Dom has to say and then, JOIN THE FIGHT!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Catholic University Investigated for Offending Muslims by Having Too Many Crosses

Saudi Arabia Shows Its Displeasure With Washington

Anti-Israel Intruders arrested for invading IDF Presentation at Temple Israel in Westport, Connecticut

You’re on the Front Line of the Islamic War

/in , , , , /by

Does anyone remember what happened on September 11, 2001? Or is it just “ancient history” at this point? Some three thousand totally innocent Americans were murdered by a sneak attack on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Who did it? The same murderous Islamists who attacked an event in Garland, Texas to focus attention on the insanity that passes for one of the world’s great “religions.”

Islam is not a religion. It is a cult around the so-called prophet Mohammad and his assertion that the Koran was the word of Allah. The name Islam means “submission” and the purpose of Islam is the tyrannical control over the entire world’s population. Within this alleged holy faith, two sects, Shiites and Sunnis, have been at war almost from its inception, never failing to kill one another.

The turmoil in the Middle East is the direct result of this murderous cult and those Muslims who oppose the killing that flows from Islam must keep their silence or become its victims. Jews and Christians can speak out and debate about aspects of their faiths, but Muslim risk death when they do so. For those Jews and Christians living in Middle Eastern nations, death is always a prospect for no other reason than not being Muslim.

Americans have not yet fully embraced the fact that they are on the front lines along with other Western nations in a global war with Islam.

Will it take another 9/11? Surely the recent attack by two Islamists on May 3rd in Garland, Texas, was another wake up call. They arrived intent on killing as many of those attending the American Freedom Defense Initiative event. A Garland police officer killed both before anyone had to die in the name of the Bill of Rights.

AA - Garland TX and IslamBut why Garland, Texas? Because, as my friend Amil Imani noted in a recent commentary, “The venue was chosen as a defiant response to a Muslim group that had held a conference entitled ‘Stand With the Prophet Against Terror and Hate.”’ Ironic, eh? Their response to the event that invited cartoons of Muhammed as to want to kill the participants. If that is not war, I do not know what is.

If Muslims feel hatred, they have earned it here in the United States and elsewhere they have attacked any criticism or defiance, from Charlie Hebdo in France to the countless attacks around the world from Mumbai, India to Bali. A website, the Religion of Peace, com, posts news of the daily assaults by Muslim on both other Muslims and those they call “infidels”, unbelievers.

Pamela Geller who leads the American Freedom Defense Initiative has been widely assailed for her event that was intended to respond to the earlier one in Garland that Amil Amani noted “was convened to eliminate free speech or any expression, verbal and/or artwork depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammad in a negative light.”

“As a life-long expert on the subject of Islam, I felt that this event—more than anything else Pamela could have done—would be the target of a violence terrorist attack in the name of the religion of peace, either real and explosive or on social media at the very least.” It was real.

The Garland police were taking it seriously. Amani said “I was astonished at the large police presence already there. Some of the cops were dressed in tactical gear and carrying AR-15s. The security was ubiquitous, almost as if something untoward had already happened.”

Speaking in an interview with Sean Hannity on May 6, Geller noted that neither the FBI nor the Department of Homeland Security has yet to have contacted her about the thwarted attack. “This is a serious threat” said Hannity. “Basically a Fatwah, a death threat, has now been issued.” Geller noted the lack of interest or concern expressed by those in our government one might expect to at the least make an inquiry, adding that “I have a team now, private security, and NYPD counterterror has been in touch with me.”

Now I call that a level of courage for which Pamela Geller should be praised, but I heard too many criticisms that she was being “provocative.”

“Provocative”?????

When are Americans going to realize that the Islamists do not need any provocation? When are we going to start acting like we are at war? A good first step would be to stop inviting Muslims to immigrate to America. The Obama administration has been importing as many as possible. The next step is to understand that it is Obama and his administration that are part of the Islamic war.

It is the Pamela Geller’s that are crying out to us. We need to listen. We need to support them. We need to arm ourselves if we have not done so already. Then we need to secure “concealed carry” laws in every State of the Union. We are at war.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Pamela Geller — America’s Churchill

/in , , , /by

When Adolf Hitler published “Mein Kampf” in 1926, he spelled out his vision for Germany’s domination of the world and annihilation of the Jews. Germany would not have lost WWI, he wrote, “if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas.”

In 1933, Hitler’s Nazis took power. The few people who had read Hitler’s manifesto and took him seriously fled in time to save their lives. But most – including most Jews – didn’t. Comfortable, often prominent, and fully accepted, they believed in German society and could not fathom that a madman actually meant what he said and intended to fully carry out his malevolent vision.

Even as things grew increasingly menacing – through Kristallnacht, book burnings, the stultifying restriction of civil liberties, the expulsion of Jewish children from schools, the construction of Dachau, Auschwitz, Treblinka, and other death camps – there were Jews and others who downplayed Hitler’s ominous threat. Worse, they derided and vilified those who took him seriously, calling them fear-mongers and haters and liars. Sound familiar?

Today, the entire world faces the threat of galloping Islamic terrorism. We see this every day in every newscast – grisly individual and mass beheadings, people chained in cages and set on fire, hundreds of schoolgirls kidnapped, raped, and worse; Christian churches burned to the ground with their desperate congregants locked inside; innocent cartoonists shot dead and their colleagues gravely injured in France, Jewish babies murdered in their cribs and strollers. Increasingly, we see “honor killings” in the United States, as well as other freedom-smothering manifestations of Sharia law.

What happened in Germany in the 1930s and ’40s is happening in America today, except the assault on our system is not coming from Nazism, but rather from radical Islam. The mullahs in Iran and their surrogates around the world stand at podiums and declare boldly: Death to America, Death to Israel! They tell us outright that their goal is to create a caliphate in which Sharia law is the law of the land, in which all infidels – anyone who does not practice or has not converted to Islam – are relegated to second-class citizenship, draconian taxes, and groveling servitude, if not outright enslavement. Some of our own elected officials echo their words. All of them, like Hitler, rely on apologists who flagrantly lie about this escalating threat. Shame on them!

During WWII, Winston Churchill was the proverbial canary in the coal mine, repeatedly issuing the earliest warnings to the Western world of Hitler’s psychotic megalomania and evil intentions. Again, few listened, while prominent, educated, and sanctimonious types derided and vilified Churchill and called him a fear-monger and a hater and a liar. Sound familiar?

Since 2004, when she founded the Atlas Shrugs website (now PamelaGeller.com), Pamela Geller has been our Winston Churchill, warning of the increasingly aggressive actions of radical Islamists, the terrifying acts they commit, and their fervent goal to eviscerate our Constitution and Bill of Rights – you know, those little documents that afford us spoiled Americans the right to say what we want, be it in speech, drawings, art, movies, and music, without fear of being murdered!

That is why, as journalist Jonah Goldberg points out, the First Amendment applies to things that people find offensive, for instance Andreas Serrano’s “Piss Christ,” in which the “artist” urinated in a glass and then placed a plastic icon of Jesus on the cross into it, or the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s exhibition of a portrait of the Virgin Mary, which was partly comprised of pornographic pictures and elephant dung.

As I recall, all the holier-than-thou hypocrites who are calling for Geller’s head were bleating their support of “free speech” back then.

That is also why people who cherish the First Amendment agreed that it was okay to have a loathsome Nazi contingent walk the streets of Skokie, Illinois (with its formidable Jewish population) in the mid 1970s, and why other protest movements have been so powerful and important: for instance Patrick Henry’s bold declaration, “Give me liberty or give me death”; the Yo No rebellion in Cuba against its repressive government; the Boston Tea Party’s “no taxation without representation” protest; Susan B. Anthony’s “illegal” vote for women’s suffrage; Henry Thoreau’s demonstrations against slavery; the history-changing actions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks against racial discrimination…the list of heroic people sounding the alarms is endless.

Throughout history, all of these crusaders for freedom have been insulted by the cowardly accommodators among us, the appeasers, the apologists, and the deluded masses who thought, as Churchill said, that “the crocodile [of tyranny, fascism, murder, even genocide] would eat them last.”

Pamela Geller succeeded in literally flushing out the enemy within, two of the many jihadists in our midst. Only days after their failed assassination attempt, ISIS claimed credit for the attack and embarrassed our Department of Homeland Security into increasing security conditions at U.S. military bases and elevating the threat level in the U.S. to BRAVO – not the highest level, but pretty damn high!

But instead of praising Geller for her foresight and courage, cowards and apologists on both the left and right used the tactics of radical Saul Alinsky (described in his own manifesto, “Rules for Radicals”), which are to: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Hurling gratuitous epithets and insults and lying are also in their repertoire.

But in spite of it all, Geller is not intimidated, because like Churchill she has truth on her side! She awarded First Place to a graphic artist who left Islam for the freedom that the First Amendment offers.

Still, it is clear that few people have learned the lessons of September 11th and the 14 years that have followed about the increasingly urgent need for vigilance against a deadly serious enemy, and for the equally compelling need to thank and to celebrate people like Pamela Geller for risking everything to protect our priceless freedoms.

As journalist and author Mark Steyn reminds us, “you’ve heard them a zillion times this last week: ‘Of course, I’m personally, passionately, absolutely committed to free speech. But…and the minute you hear the ‘but,’ none of the build-up to it matters.”

“…all the nice respectable people are now telling us,” Steyn adds, what Mohammed Atta told the passengers on 9/11: “Stay quiet and you’ll be okay.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Renew America.

6 Reasons Pamela Geller’s Muhammad Cartoon Contest Is No Different From Selma

/in , , , , /by

“In 1965, defying racist Democrats posed a legitimate threat to your life. In 2015, defying jihadists poses a legitimate threat to your life. Martin Luther King knowingly risked his life. Pamela Geller knowingly risks her life.”

This piece is brilliant in its clarity. Leftists and Islamic supremacists have, of course, reduced it to “Nolte likens Pamela Geller to Martin Luther King!” but that is not the point at all, although there really isn’t any problem with the comparison anyway. The point is that both “provoked” an oppressor to expose him as such, at risk to their lives. One is revered, one is excoriated. Both are heroes.

“6 Reasons Pamela Geller’s Muhammad Cartoon Contest Is No Different From Selma,” by John Nolte, Breitbart, May 9, 2015:

When you are dealing with the mainstream media, it is always difficult to tell if you are dealing with willful ignorance or just plain old ignorance-ignorance. There are plenty of moronic savants in the national media who have cracked the “hot take” code to please their left-wing masters but have no fundamental grasp of history, or much of anything much of else.

The act of willful ignorance in the media manifests itself through bias, and lies of omission conjured up to serve that bias. These dishonest liars know they are dishonest liars, and willfully choose to not tell the world pertinent facts like, say, Baltimore has been run by Democrats for a half-century, Hillary Clinton is in favor of legally aborting infants born alive, Ted Kennedy abandoned a drowning woman, and George Zimmerman is Hispanic.

Anyone who knows anything about history understands that tactically and morally, Geller’s provocative Muhammad Cartoon Contest was no different than Dr. Martin Luther King’s landmark march from Selma to Montgomery.

The first thing the spittle-flecked will scream upon reading the above is that I am comparing Geller to King. I did not know King. I do not know Geller. I am not comparing anyone to anyone. What I’m comparing is one righteous cause to another.

The second thing the spittle-flecked will scream is that King never would have held a Draw Muhammad Cartoon Contest … which brings me to the first reason there is no moral or tactical difference between Garland and Selma:

The Oppressor Chooses the Form of Protest, Not the Protester

Whether it is a bully stealing lunch money, an abusive husband “keeping the little woman in line,” a government passing unjust laws, or religious zealots demanding fealty from all, oppressors come in all shapes and sizes.

Oppressors do, however, share three important things in common: 1) The use of the threats of everything from shaming to instituting unjust laws to violence. 2) The goal of stripping others of their rights. 3) The choosing of the design and structure of whatever defiant protest might take place against them.

The protester has absolutely no say in this matter.

The only way to defy and protest against the bully who takes your lunch money, is to not give him your lunch money. Through his own actions the bully has designed the form of protest. The same is true for the abusive husband. If he is using the threat of violence to keep you “in line,” a defiant protest can only come in one form: doing the exact opposite of what he tells you to do or not to do.

If an unjust government passes a law making it illegal to sit in the front of the bus, the only way to protest the unjust government is to sit in the front of the bus.

Martin Luther King did not choose his form of protest in Selma. Racist Southern Democrats did.

Pamela Geller did not choose her form of protest in Garland. The jihadists did.

The day that changed America is called “Bloody Sunday.” On March 7, 1965, five-hundred-plus civil rights activists provoked violence from their oppressors by defiantly gathering on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama.

It was the oppressor who chose this form of protest, not the protestors. Racist Democrats who ran Selma and the state of Alabama refused to authorize the march and pledged to stop it. Therefore the only righteous way to defy these racist Democrats who refused to allow Americans to exercise their God-given right to protest for their God-given rights, was to go ahead with the march.

What was true in Selma 50 years ago also was true in Garland 5 days ago.

It was the jihadists who told us they would oppress us with violence if we exercised our God-given rights to draw and satirize Muhammad. Therefore, to righteously defy this oppression, Pam Geller and the 200 others had no other choice but to draw and satirize Muhammad (more details on this below).

The Deliberatively Provocative Symbolism of the Site of the Protest

The launch point of the historic 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery was no accident. To poke a finger deep in the eye of their racist Democrat oppressors, civil rights organizers deliberately chose the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The bridge is named after a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, a confederate Civil War general, and a Democrat U.S. Senator.

Starting their civil rights crusade in such a place was an intentional taunt, an open insult to a diseased culture, and an obvious act of cultural blasphemy.

For the same righteous reasons, Geller chose the site of The Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, to hold her defiant cartoon protest. Just two weeks after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France, a Stand with the Prophet in Honor and Respect event was held at the Curtis Calwell Center. The Islamic event was a horror show of extremism.

An unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings was invited to the conference — a barbarian who has declared the F.B.I. a terrorist group and preaches, “This so-called democracy of America, will crumble and there will be nothing. The only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

The organizer of the event, Malik Muhammad, has advocated for Sharia Law here in America.

The entire event was premised on “defeating” those who disrespect Muhammad. This was all couched under the politically correct term of “Islamophobia,” but here is the rub:

“Frustrated with Islamophobes defaming the Prophet?” the event materials ask. … “Remember the Danish cartoons defaming the Prophet? Or the anti-Islam film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’?”

Like I said: it is the oppressor who chooses the form of protest.

A Righteous Cause for Civil Rights

In the face of a very real danger, Martin Luther King, his fellow organizers and hundreds of free Americans, stood up and defied their savage oppressors in defense of their God-given rights.

They provoked violence, taunted, and broke the law, all in furtherance of a righteous cause.

In the face of a very real danger, Pam Geller, her fellow organizers and hundreds of free Americans, stood up and defied their violent oppressors in defense of their God-given rights.

They provoked violence, taunted, and obeyed the law, all in furtherance of a righteous cause.

I Come In Peace

The Selma protesters defying their violent oppressors, did so peacefully. Their only provocation was exercising their rights.

The Garland protestors defying their violent oppressors, did so peacefully. Their only provocation was exercising their rights.

Democrat Bigots Victim-Blame

While much of the national media sided with the Selma protestors, local Democrats in the media and the political establishment blamed and demonized King, and his followers, for rocking the boat, provoking violence, insulting the local culture, and causing the violence to happen.

Last week, Democrats in the media (New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, and even some sorry corners of Fox News) and the political establishment blamed and demonized Geller, and her followers, for rocking the boat, provoking violence, insulting a culture, and causing the violence to happen.

The 1965 Democrats and today’s Democrats are also bigots. The same CNN that protects Islam from offense by blurring the Muhammad cartoons, does not blur the Piss Christ.

The same New York Times that blasts those who offend Islam, profits from Mormon bashing.

Every one of these present-day media Democrats are silent in the defense of satire and mockery directed Christianity, or they enjoy and defend it. The opposite is true of satire and mockery directed at Islam. And that is the very definition of bigotry.

For the Righteous Cause of Freedom, People Risk Their Lives

In 1965, defying racist Democrats posed a legitimate threat to your life.

In 2015, defying jihadists poses a legitimate threat to your life.

Martin Luther King knowingly risked his life. Pamela Geller knowingly risks her life.

In both good and evil ways, Sunday in Garland, Texas, history repeated itself.

The national media is hiding that fact because they are either too bigoted, cowardly, and biased to tell the truth, or too ignorant to see the truth.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Malaysia: Muslim leader forbids Mother’s Day, says it honors Virgin Mary

SNL skit depicts fear of drawing Muhammad

Iran Holds Holocaust Cartoon Contest, Draws Nearly a Thousand Entries