Media piling on Pamela Geller
In the wake of the terror attack on Pamela Geller’s Mohammed cartoon contest and free speech conference, the media are ramping up their mantra that caveats come with free speech. They don’t seem to realize that free speech with caveats is no longer free speech.
One journalist after another after another has pounded away about the need to be sensitive to others (“others” = Muslims) and not to do anything that might offend (“offend” = violence). Watching this cascade of sheer media madness has been like witnessing a hazardous waste site from a toxic explosion, belching globs of dhimmitude and accusations of fauxslamophobia. The relentlessness of the attack has been shocking along with the hubris these journalists appear to possess, as if the long arm of Islam will not touch their lives in unthinkable ways.
Here, Ms. Geller had to suffer Fox News’s Martha McCallum, who was as clueless as all the rest. She opened the program with a clip of Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, jumping on the dhimmitude bandwagon, making the case for blasphemy laws and the need to avoid inciting other people. It does not seem to occur to Mr. Donohue that indulging those who would resort to violence to express their displeasure is a sure road to ruin.
McCallum then hammered away about the need to rise above (whatever that means) and to not offend. Geller made the astute observation that if one were to take McCallum’s point to its ultimate conclusion, Christians in the Middle East should all convert because they’re insulting political Islam. McCallum, who has a gigantic blind spot when it comes to understanding what is at stake, rejected that idea. But Geller was correct.
During an interview on Fox & Friends, Geller maintained her composure with the patience of a saint when asked if she could have gone about this differently. The implication whenever this point is made is that she should have been mindful of offending Muslims and done something that would not have offended them. In other words, bow down to blasphemy laws and the sharia.
The Dallas Morning News accused Geller of “looking for trouble.” The article features a photograph of Muslims gathered en masse with large banners condemning Geller’s conference. One of the banners praises the jihadists for their attempt to “curb blasphemy.”
Meanwhile, Donald Trump doubled down during an interview with Neil Cuvato, saying that he loved free speech more than Pamela Geller (how incredibly infantile of him), asserted that “she makes money doing this” (an insult and a bald-faced lie), called Ms. Geller an “obnoxious blowhard” (another infantile insult), and said that she just went out to “start trouble” (sure, Donald).
MSN published a piece titled “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas.” As Ms. Geller writes on her blog, Atlas Shrugs:
I offer no apology? What apology exactly do I owe for almost being murdered?
“Abraham Lincoln offers no apology after John Wilkes Booth lodges a bullet in his brain”
“Julius Caesar offers no apology after Cassius and Brutus stab him to death”
“Jews offer no apology after Nazis kill six million.”
In addition to Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer is also taking a lot of heat, as evidenced during an interview on CNN, where Spencer was accused of setting bait and wanting violence.
Spencer also appeared on MidPoint, Newsmax TV, where the journalist started out with this statement: “There’s a fine line to be drawn between making a political statement and inciting someone to start breaking out the rifles and taking shots.” He then interviewed Spencer and CAIR representative Nezar Hamze. The interviewer wasted no time attacking Spencer in outrageous ways and continued to harp on the need to avoid doing something that one knows might offend others. “Others” = Muslims. Of course, these journalists never stand up and express such concern for any other demographic group.
Then there was Rukmini Callimachi, a journalist with the NY Times, who sent out the following tweet:
Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Mohammed Drawing Contest”?
“Free speech aside”? Well, if you set free speech aside, then you’re no longer talking about free speech, are you? Maybe the Times should replace “All the news that’s fit to print” with “Free speech aside”?
There are many more interviews, articles, blogs, and tweets. A small handful are good. Megyn Kelly stands out as a member of a major media outlet who truly understands what’s at stake. Overall, the breakdown of the clueless vs. the informed is clear: the left are Islamic apologists, and some conservatives get it. (Emphasis on some.) See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a sampling of additional coverage.
So where does this leave us?
Well, Bosch Fawstin, the cartoonist who won the contest, has gone into hiding due to fear for his life. The Islamic State wants to kill Pamela Geller. And McClatchly wants to limit free speech while suggesting that the organizers of the conference be prosecuted for crossing a line.
Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Bosch Fawstin are the Paul Reveres of our time. They are brave messengers working tirelessly and at great personal risk to awaken others to the grave threats before us.
And for this, they are ridiculed, maligned, smeared, blamed, and threatened.
Perhaps we need a cosmologist to help us figure out how to get the Earth back into normal alignment, because we cannot continue on like this without paying a very heavy price.
Hat tips: Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, Counterjihad Report, The Right Scoop