Posts

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

“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

Remembering Selma, But Ignoring Black Violence

The pat answer for black complaints about events these days is “white racism.” One rarely, if ever, reads or hears anything about black racism, but if you ask, many blacks will acknowledge it.

As the 50th anniversary of the Selma, Alabama confrontation was recalled, there was little mention of a multitude of black violence events that continue to either go unreported or reported to reflect “white racism” even when it is not a factor.

Cover - Don't Make Black Kids MadIn 2013, Colin Flaherty published “White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It.” His new book, “Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry: The Hoax of Black Victimization and How We Enable It,” was published in February. It picks up from where the first book left off, filled with hundreds of stories of black-on-white violence that, as often as not, did not receive much attention.

By contrast, when a black youth is killed as in the cases of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, the media ignored the violence that led to it. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and local investigations found that both killings were self-defense. Even questions of whether the youth’s civil rights were abused found that they were not.

In early March an 86-page DOJ report about the shooting of Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, confirmed that Darren Wilson, a white police officer, acted in self-defense. Also in February, a DOJ report exonerated George Zimmerman, a white man, for shooting Martin. When a case was brought against him in Florida in July 2013, the jury acquitted him.

The most recent case is the shooting on Saturday, March 7, of Tony Robinson in Madison, Wisconsin. The 19-year-old black youth was shot as the result of an altercation with a white police officer. News reports stressed Robinson was “unarmed”, but downplayed the fact that the veteran officer had been struck in the head and knocked down. Also largely unreported was that Robinson had pled guilty last year to armed robbery and was serving a three-year probation term.

At what point do we begin to ask why black youths are behaving in this fashion toward police officers? Theirs is a culture in serious trouble.

As someone who spent years in the South when “Jim Crow” laws were still in effect I had an understanding of how and why the civil rights movement began in earnest in the late 1950s and gained momentum throughout the 1960s. In 1964 Congress passed a Civil Rights Act and in 1965 it passed the Voting Rights Act. Naively, I and lots of others, white and black, thought it would resolve many of the problems that had afflicted blacks.

A half century since then, however, Flaherty’s new book documents the racially-based animosity that exists throughout elements of America’s black population and how it demonstrates itself in acts of violence. The accounts are often shocking.

AA - Black Rioters“Black crime and violence against whites, gays, women, seniors, young people and lots of others is astronomically out of proportion,” says Flaherty in his new book, following up that assertion with 500 pages of events and pages of detailed end-notes.

A professional journalist, Flaherty opined that “In 2013 more and more people began to figure out that the traditional excuses—jobs, poverty, schooling, whatever—for black crime and mayhem were not really working anymore.”

“Now they have a new excuse. The ultimate excuse: White racism is everywhere. White racism is permanent. White racism explains everything.”

The perception of racial issues in America says Flaherty, involves “A new generation of black leaders and white enablers (who) want to remove black violence from the table and focus on the Big Lie: The war on Black People and how racist white people are waging it. All the time. Everywhere. When just the opposite is true.”

Flaherty’s book documents “black resentment, black hostility, and black racial consciousness that permeates every part of black media, black churches, black families, and black schooling.” Sadly, this also manifests itself as black-on-black violence.

That hostility has also been witnessed in the acts and words of America’s first black President and his black Attorney General. How did Barack Obama get elected and reelected if “white racism” is so widespread?

AA - Obama and Sharpton

President Obama and Al Sharpton.

As Flaherty noted, “The President got in on the act in 2014 when he told the Congressional Black Caucus about a ‘justice gap.’ Where ‘too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement. Guilty of walking while black. Driving while black. Judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.’”

Race has played a role in American history from the day when the first indentured African was brought here in 1654, up to and after the Civil War that was fought to end the slave trade, and through to current times when, based on all the laws that have been passed to protect everyone’s civil rights, one might think that the problems associated with race would have been resolved.

The problems haven’t been resolved because too much animosity exists and, too frequently, as Flaherty documents, it is black animosity toward whites.

Most people, white and black, wish this would end.

Editor’s Note: “Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry” can be purchased from Amazon.com and other Internet book outlets. It is priced at $19.72 on Amazon and $6.99 for the Kindle version.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

RELATED ARTICLES:

BREAKING: Two Police Officers Shot outside Ferguson Police Department
‘Ambush’…
Seriously injured…
Protests continue after police chief quits…
VIDEO: Cops taunted helping wounded officer…

RELATED VIDEO: Two cops shot in Ferguson demonstration early morning of March 12, 2015. BizPac Review reports, “Two police officers from nearby departments were shot in front of the Ferguson, Mo. Police Department as a demonstration celebrating the resignation of Ferguson’s police chief was winding down early Thursday morning.”

WARNING: Raw video may be disturbing to some, contains strong language:

Barack Obama and “Bloody Sunday”

Rarely do I wait with anticipation to hear what Barack Obama has to say on any subject.  After more than six years of his political presence we’ve come to expect that we can place little faith in anything he might say on any subject because he has a totally different view of what otherwise reasonable people might believe.

bloddy sunday pettus bridgeHowever, as I watched the Obama’s climb the steps of Air Force One on Saturday morning, March 7, on their way to Selma, Alabama to participate in the 50th anniversary of the historic march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, now widely referred to as “Bloody Sunday,” I couldn’t help but think back to March 4, 2007, when Obama spoke from the pulpit of the Brown Chapel A.M.E. church in Selma, the starting point for the “Bloody Sunday” march.  In that speech, Obama attempted to fashion an imaginary link between himself and the events of March 7, 1965.

He said:

“…something happened back here in Selma, Alabama…  Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else’s laundry, looking after somebody else’s children.  When (black) men who had PhDs decided ‘that’s enough’ and ‘we’re going to stand up for our dignity,’ that sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son.  His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa, could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance…

“This young man named Barack Obama… came over to this country.  He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that, (in) the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child.  There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge.  So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.  So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama.  Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.”

It sounded good; it was great oratory.  But what was the truth of the matter?  The problem with Obama’s version of history was that he was born on August 4, 1961, while the first of three marches across the Pettus Bridge in Selma didn’t occur until March 7, 1965, three years and seven months after he was born. 

bloddy sunday voting rightsOn March 7, 1965, an estimated 550-600 civil rights marchers, led by John Lewis of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (who now represents Georgia’s 5th congressional district in Congress) and the Reverend Hosea Williams, of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, departed the Brown Chapel in Selma and marched east toward Birmingham.  The purpose of the march was to call attention to continued efforts by white Democrats across the South to deny blacks their right to vote under the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The march was well publicized in advance and in the hours preceding the march Dallas County Sheriff Jim Clark, a Democrat, ordered all male residents of the county, over the age of twenty-one, to report to the county courthouse to be deputized.

The march was peaceful and well-ordered until the marchers reached the Pettus Bridge, where they were confronted by a phalanx of Alabama state troopers and deputized civilians.  The marchers were ordered to disband and return to their homes, but when the Reverend Williams attempted to speak to the commander of the state troopers he was told that there was nothing to discuss.  It was then that troopers and the members of the sheriff’s posse began shoving the demonstrators backward.  Many were knocked to the ground, beaten with nightsticks, and tear gassed, while a detachment of mounted troopers charged the marchers on horseback.  Seventeen were injured seriously enough to require hospitalization.

In his passionate remarks on the 50th anniversary of the march, Obama recounted the progress that’s been made since the civil rights era of the 1950s and ‘60s.  He said, “Because of what (the marchers) did, the doors of opportunity swung open not just for African Americans, but for every American.  Women marched through those doors.  Latinos marched through those doors.  Asian-Americans, gay Americans, and Americans with disabilities came through those doors.  Their endeavors gave the entire South the chance to rise again, not by reasserting the past, but by transcending the past.”

Yes, the South did rise again, and as it did, century-old Democratic traditions such as Jim Crow, Black Codes, and the night riders of the Ku Klux Klan came to an abrupt end during the 1950s, in part because of those who marched on “Bloody Sunday.”  But as it joined the 20th century, the South became the most solidly Republican region of the country.  Of twenty-six U.S. senators from the thirteen southern states, twenty-two are Republicans and only four are Democrats.

Nor could Obama resist the temptation to play the “race card” once again.  He said, “Just this week, I was asked whether I thought the Department of Justice’s Ferguson report shows that, with respect to race, little has changed in this country.  I understand the question, for the report’s narrative was woefully familiar.  It evoked the kind of abuse and disregard for citizens that spawned the civil rights movement.”

He went on to say, “Of course, a more common mistake is to suggest that racism is banished, that the work that drew men and women to Selma is complete, and that whatever racial tensions remain are a consequence of those seeking to play the ‘race card’ for their own purposes.”

It is difficult to understand how a man who can read a teleprompter as skillfully as Obama could possibly have failed to notice that it is he, his wife, his attorney general, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and nearly every member of the “progressive intelligentsia” who regularly play the “race card” for purposes of propaganda and political advantage.

In spite of the fact that no one in America has access to a wider variety of information than the man who sits in the Oval Office, he seems not to have grasped the fact that Michael Brown was not the victim of racial animus in Ferguson, Missouri.  Instead, he was a common street thug

who was shot to death while attempting to do serious, if not fatal, harm to a police officer.

Then, with a straight face, he said, “With effort, we can roll back poverty and the roadblocks to opportunity.  Americans don’t accept a free ride for anyone, nor do we believe in equality of outcomes.  But we do expect equal opportunity, and if we really mean it, if we’re willing to sacrifice for it, then we can make sure that every child gets an education suitable to this new century… We can make sure every person willing to work has the dignity of a job, and a fair wage, and a real voice, and sturdier rungs on the ladder into the middle class.”

This in spite of the fact that everything he and congressional Democrats have done since he entered the Oval Office has had the exact opposite effect.  It is clear that he is totally ignorant of what it is that causes poverty and who it is that provides economic opportunities.  In terms of the educational opportunities necessary for social and economic progress, it is Obama and his Democratic friends who have done everything in their power to destroy the quality of a public education and to eliminate as many opportunities for parental school choice as possible… leaving private schools and parochial schools to the very wealthy and the politically powerful.

He concluded his remarks with a totally insincere plea for voting rights and the protection of the right to vote… what he referred to as “the foundation stone of our democracy.”  He said, “Right now, in 2015, fifty years after Selma, there are laws across this country designed to make it harder for people to vote.  As we speak, more of such laws are being proposed…

“Fifty years ago, registering to vote here in Selma and much of the South meant guessing the number of jellybeans in a jar or bubbles on a bar of soap.  It meant risking your dignity, and sometimes, your life.  What is our excuse today for not voting?  How do we so casually discard the right for which so many fought…?”

Yes, as recently as fifty years ago, millions of blacks risked their lives attempting to exercise their franchise; thousands were shot to death, hung, or burned to death by Democrats hiding behind masks and white sheets.  The only efforts at voter oppression we see today are efforts by liberals and Democrats to make voter registration and voting evermore fraud friendly, insuring that every Republican vote is canceled out by at least two Democratic votes… one legal, the other fraudulent.  Nor does it seem wise to increase the percentage of voting age people to enter the voting booths on Election Day.  Generally speaking, the American people know less about their government and basic economics than voters in any other nation of the free world.  Would any of us want to live in a country in which the number of Obama-style voters was increased by a factor of two or three?  Could such a nation actually exist?  And if so, for how long?

As one of my black conservative friends, radio talk show host Eddie Huff, quipped in 2007, as Barack Obama became a serious contender for the White House, “We need to ask some very serious questions of the senator from Illinois.  It’s not enough to be black, it’s not enough to be articulate, and it’s not enough to be eloquent and a media darling… The only question will be how deaf an ear, or how blind an eye, will people turn in order to turn a frog into a prince.”

On March 7, 2015, Barack Obama delivered what may well be remembered as the signature speech of his political career.  It’s just too bad it couldn’t have been delivered by a prince… instead of a toad (er, frog).