How Much Free Speech Is Too Much?

These past few days pundits and politicians have been either vilifying Pamela Geller’s Texas competition to draw the prophet Mohammed, or supporting her first amendment rights.
Mohammad-Contest-Drawing-1-smallGreta Van Susteren’s post on Facebook this morning – The First Amendment free speech clause right is key to a democracy, but how one exercises that right is likewise important. Good judgment is important.

Mayor Douglas Athas told the Dallas Morning News that he wished anti-Islam activist and conspiracy theorist Pam Geller had taken her business elsewhere.
On Bill O’Reilly’s show, Donald Trump and Bill opine:

DONALD TRUMP: It looks like she’s just taunting everybody. What is she doing? Drawing Mohammed and it looks like she’s actually taunting people. You know, I’m one that believes in free speech, probably more than she does. But what’s the purpose of this?
BILL O’REILLY: Mr. Trump is correct. By setting up a contest and awarding $10,000 for a depiction of the Prophet Mohammed, the American Freedom Defense Initiative spurred a violent attack.
Donald Trump believes in free speech more than Pam Geller does?  Yeah, right.
The purpose, you idiots, is to tell radical Islamists that they can’t dictate what we do or what we say, because we have the right to free expression, and their prophet is entitled no more reverence from us than any other religious figure.  Does it make sense to conform to the dictates of radical Islam?  It seems to me that if we do that, we are buckling under to the threats of terrorism.
Here’s what Rush Limbaugh had to say:

So here are people at a convention. Pam Geller… You’ll hear her in a moment. We have sound bites coming up. She simply doesn’t hate anybody. She just doesn’t want any part of Sharia law. She doesn’t want any part of Islamic extremism becoming mainstream in the United States. You know, I have a question, folks. It’s very simple question.
If Americans are to respect and obey the laws of Islam that say the drawing pictures of Mohammed is not permitted and should not be done — and you deserve what you get if you do — then why wouldn’t we have to respect or obey other things in Islam? What is it about drawing cartoons of “the prophet”? Why don’t we respect Islam’s punishment for gays and women, hmm? I mean, if they’re right, they’re right, aren’t they?
When do we follow and when do we not?

Now that you know what I think, here is what the Trifecta team has to say about the matter:

Post Texas Shooting: Is Free Speech a ‘Mousetrap’ for Terrorism?


 
 

Share
This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, Bill Whittle, Death Threats, ISIS, Islam, Jihad, Terrorist Attacks, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

427 Responses to How Much Free Speech Is Too Much?

  1. 180daysofkindergarten says:

    The headline on Drudge is “ISIS Vows to Kill Pam”
    Why are we not talking about this? I truly admire Pam Geller. I do not think I would have a draw the prophet contest but it is America, or at least I thought it was.
    I think Ms. Geller is a hero and that opinion will not change. These wackos vowing to kill her scares me.

    • whuptdue says:

      Also note: AFDI/Jihad Watch Muhammad Cartoon Contest Winner Bosch Fawstin Goes Into Hiding – See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/afdi-muhammad-cartoon-winner-bosch-fawstin-goes-unto-hiding.html/#sthash.W3UvYv6z.dpuf
      How odd! Boasting through media with the savaged visual imagery of jihad’s uninterrupted DAILY bloody carnage is universally dismissed as an understood/but never spoken about “byproduct” of Islam while cartoons illustrating the same are uniformly challenged by believers and politicians and media reps as provocative if not outright blasphemy.
      ANY AND ALL “provocation”/”instigation” is-was- & will continue to be sourced – from the desert warrior creed of the seventh century which was birthed to conquer and subordinate mankind.
      It is recognition of and direct response to the utter refusal to submit to this threat which offends followers of that doctrine, a DOCTRINE OF WAR DEMANDING SUBMISSION.
      Islam is and has been the provocation/instigation…FULL STOP.
      Mere cartoons present a most effective approach to addressing society’s ignorance towards Islam. Well documented and appalling illiteracy rates of Islamic followers as well as the misguided and ignorant sympathies of Islamophiles is best challenged with the visual exposure of intentionally obscured and veiled (pun intended) if not outright dismissed savagery of Islamic history.
      A simple review of recent history of violent terrorism against any and all who dare visually expose the savage underbelly of this doctrine belies the “religion-of-peace” meme most effectively.

  2. dalethorn says:

    Kevin Barrett on VeteransToday had a good article on why the Charlie Hebdo affair was a farce and a setup. Pam Geller’s approach is still risky due to Muslim extremist behavior, but not in the same category as the extreme Charlie Hebdo nutjobs. Unfortunately, the media is certain to put them in the same category, to the detriment of free people everywhere. I can’t honestly say which is the worst enemy – Muslim Sharia dogma people, or Big Media – both very bad for freedom.

  3. f2000 says:

    When muslims start targeting gay pride parades in the US are leftists going to insist that gay pride parades are unacceptable taunting of latently violent muslims?

    • smiley says:

      they’ll blame it all on a “video”.
      and they’ll find a “video” to blame it on, if necessary.

    • dalethorn says:

      Yeah, we’ll have to ban everything, and 5 times a day at that!

    • TG says:

      The liberals will blame any attack,made on gays or any of their darling social groups by muslims on the intolerate atomsphere created by christians due to their oposition to gay marriage.Bank on it.

    • Lorra B. says:

      Excellent point! At what length does this madness have to go before America wakes up? Because when they do, not only will they be screaming bloody murder but it may well be to late to change it. Why can they not see that squashing others rights to get theirs is an abomination and makes them just as evil as I see it.

    • ImpeachEmAll says:

      Absolutely!
      /sarc

  4. mimbler says:

    I’m truly amazed by the blame the victim mentality in this case. It is so inconsistent with what people normally believe, that I have to assume it is just the best knee jerk islam defense they can come up with.
    Mike

    • radiopatriot says:

      Didn’t the Nazis do the same thing? Blame the victim? History teaches…

    • Noflow says:

      Like miniskirts cause rape….

    • Fed Up says:

      I’m not amazed in the least bit. When I get out of the Army in 2010 and finally lived in the US for the first time in 4 years I told multiple liberal cowards that they didn’t support me one bit. That line about we don’t support the war, but we support the troops was always massive BS. You can’t support the troops but be against their mission.
      Supporting America’s enemies have been what Progressives have been doing since Vietnam, so why be shocked?

  5. Chip Bennett says:

    The first amendment is not needed, and therefore not intended, to protect non-controversial speech. The first amendment specifically protects “politically incorrect”, hateful, inflammatory, and controversial speech.
    There can never be too much free speech. The problem is uncivilized savages who refuse to coexist peacefully. If I’m wrong, kindly point me to the Christians who responded to Piss Christ with AK-47s, or the Christians who condoned such action.

    Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law — the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
    Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of law-breaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger, it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated.
    Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it.
    Moreover, even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition of these functions essential to effective democracy unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious. Prohibition of free speech and assembly is a measure so stringent that it would be inappropriate as the means for averting a relatively trivial harm to society. A police measure may be unconstitutional merely because the remedy, although effective as means of protection, is unduly harsh or oppressive. Thus, a State might, in the exercise of its police power, make any trespass upon the [p378] land of another a crime, regardless of the results or of the intent or purpose of the trespasser. It might, also, punish an attempt, a conspiracy, or an incitement to commit the trespass. But it is hardly conceivable that this Court would hold constitutional a statute which punished as a felony the mere voluntary assembly with a society formed to teach that pedestrians had the moral right to cross unenclosed, unposted, wastelands and to advocate their doing so, even if there was imminent danger that advocacy would lead to a trespass. The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the State. Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly.

    — Louis D. Brandeis, Whitney v. California

    • smiley says:

      I’ve always thought of it as a guaranteed protection for dissent (in a free society).
      the freedom to express one’s opinion even when that opinion does not conform to government dictate…or to the majority opinion.
      the freedom to think like an individual, and not be coerced into mob mentality.
      the freedom to offend, if such be the case.

      • Dixie says:

        Yes, ^^^^^^ this!
        At what point did this United States of America stop belonging to us and start belonging to them?! They don’t have a right to invade this country and rewrite the rules!

        • michellc says:

          When our leaders started bringing them in and sadly there hasn’t been one President not guilty of this in many years.
          We can’t even really say they have invaded us, the door was wide open and they were invited in.

      • joanfoster says:

        It seems you just described Obama’s faith mentor Jeremiah Wright.

      • wondering999 says:

        And, the freedom to speak truth to power (or make jokes about power) without getting squashed. There’s a scene in a German movie, “The Lives of Others” where a young Stasi recruit cracks a joke about Walter Ulbricht (East German communist leader of yore) and is relegated to basement scut work thereafter, until the Wall falls and he stops opening and censoring other people’s mail…

    • Eskie Mom says:

      Louis Brandeis was a staunch abolitionist (encompasses waaay more than slavery) & a liberal. While their method is indeed cunning, the left has found the perfect way (We are utterly disarmedby the very ideals which we hold.) to destroy America from within. They’ve turned it around until we are no longer free at all. (or barely)
      (What do Christians have to do with this?)
      Ironically, Chip, you answered your own question (or contradicted your own assertion, rather) right there in your second paragraph: (paraphrasing) The problem with too much free speech is uncivilized savages who refuse to co-exist peacefully. Hello.
      Absolutes pretty much never end well. Our Founding Fathers may have fallen a bit short in considering the depravity of man, but who would have imagined that less than 100 years later, the very fabric of our (man’s) morality would become so subjective?
      Raw idealism pretty much seldom ends well, either.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        Ironically, Chip, you answered your own question (or contradicted your own assertion, rather) right there in your second paragraph: (paraphrasing) The problem with too much free speech is uncivilized savages who refuse to co-exist peacefully. Hello.

        Did you intentionally misquote me? I never said that. Your “paraphrase” completely turned the meaning of what I said on its head. Here’s exactly what I said:
        There can never be too much free speech. The problem is uncivilized savages who refuse to coexist peacefully.
        Speech isn’t a problem. Savages are a problem.

        • Eskie Mom says:

          No, that was not my intention. That’s why I said “paraphrasing”. Basically, weren’t you saying [The problem isn’t free speech. The problem is…]?
          Right. But when you give the right of free speech to savages, we shouldn’t be all that surprised to find ourselves in the mess we’re in now. We’ve got more (proverbial) savages in America now than normal, productive, moral, & civic minded people. In fact, we are just about overrun by them.

          • Chip Bennett says:

            But when you give the right of free speech to savages, we shouldn’t be all that surprised to find ourselves in the mess we’re in now.

            Where have savages been lawfully exercising free speech in a problematic manner?
            Picking up rifles and attempting to use them against law-abiding people is not an exercise of “free speech”.
            If those two would-be terrorists had limited themselves to the lawful exercise of free speech, they wouldn’t be dead terrorists, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

  6. wizzum says:

    Cowboys huh, I agree, let’s play cowboys and jihadists

  7. True Colors says:

    Let’s just say, for sake of discussion, that the cartoon convention was wrong. It was evil, horrible….. even illegal. Let’s say that they were plotting murder.
    Even in spite of all that, the muslims still would not have had a right to show up at a private event with guns. The muslims should have filed a complaint with a law enforcement to investigate. No vigilante justice.
    TC

    • dalethorn says:

      Yeah, how about that! Well, now we know what their agenda really is – jackboot enforcement of sharia “law”.

  8. Brett says:

    Anybody who criticizes Pam Geller for putting on this contest is a coward. Is that extreme? I think not. People were afraid to call the homosexual agenda for what it is, fascism, and are now seeing the results of that choice. If we give up in the face of threats like those that the muslims heap upon the world, we are already slaves. I do not like the depiction of a crucifix in a jar of piss, but I am not about to behead someone over it. Muslims, like the homosexuals, the marxist/socialists, the democrats, and the black grievance industry,as well as many others will never be appeased,never. They want domination and control, period.

  9. Irene Matthews says:

    If I decide I want to go swimming in 30 degree weather, it might not be the smartest thing I could do, but there’s no law against it. (At least I don’t think there is yet!) The point is, I have the right to do anything that’s not against the law. The person who infringes on that right is the one breaking the law, not me!
    I seem Pam Geller as a warrior for free speech. Sometimes you have to push a point to make the point especially since we’re so close to actually losing that right – e.g. “hate speech.”

    • dalethorn says:

      Well, just be sure to buckle up or we’ll prosecute you for failure to protect yourself, er, I mean failure to protect the insurance industry. Which leads to another thought …. usually you can follow the money trail in politics etc. to get to a truer meaning – so how are the banks benefitting from all this? Lower immigrant wages? That’s a cruel thing to foist on the world’s best free people, just to make a buck. Banksters…..

      • michellc says:

        That has perplexed me since the 80’s when Oklahoma started being flooded with Iranians buying up motels and then others from other countries in the 90’s buying up convenience stores, which still continues today. Where do they get all this money?

    • Dixie says:

      And how quickly they forget that this same location was used as a pro-islam function this year. How many of us showed up with AK47’s?

  10. booger71 says:

    I always enjoy my right to offend the perpetually offended.

  11. wondering999 says:

    There was a lot of hoop-la about a movie called “The Interview” not so long ago (James Franco and Seth Rogen). I didn’t see the movie, and reviews were not so great — -but a lot of people lined up for theater viewings just to demonstrate that they COULD see this movie and would not be intimidated by Kim Jong Un. Definitely the topic of the movie was offensive towards North Korean dictators, and much more threatening (proposed assassination) than a “cartoon contest”.
    What was different about Geller’s private conference? Maybe public estimation of potential danger?
    A former SEAL commented that he wasn’t in favor of insulting Muslims because we have essential Muslim allies such as Saudi Arabia. He also mentioned that the U.S. public tends to be unaware that it isn’t just images of the Muslim prophet Mohamed that are considered offensive and off-limits for icons — but also Jesus and other prophets.
    We get into interesting territory discussing boundaries of Sharia. What are the limits of religious rule by a particular sect, and who gets to decide what those limits will be? I am fine with Mormons abstaining from coffee and alcohol, but they don’t get to dictate what I can do. I’m fine with kosher and halal restrictions on pork, but do Orthodox Jews or Muslims or Seventh Day Adventists get to decide that I am not allowed access to bacon?

    • Jett Black says:

      the U.S. public tends to be unaware that it isn’t just images of the Muslim prophet Mohamed that are considered offensive and off-limits for icons — but also Jesus and other prophets.
      That may be a bit of a twist–jihadists view images of non-mooseslime characters as heresy and destroy them with extreme prejudice, even if they exist and are being kept as archeological or cultural antiquities only. That’s a poor effort to mischaracterize and excuse savagery by someone who should’ve been trained to know better.

    • Grimble Gromble says:

      “it isn’t just images of the Muslim prophet Mohamed that are considered offensive and off-limits for icons — but also Jesus and other prophets.”
      Prohibitions against Icons are incompatible with the 1st Amendment as they are an integral part of Orthodox Christianity, along with Holy Scripture and the other components of Christian Holy Tradition.

    • rsmith1776 says:

      “it isn’t just images of the Muslim prophet Mohamed that are considered offensive and off-limits for icons — but also Jesus and other prophets”
      With all due respect to the SEAL, that is typical regurgitating of Muslim talking points. In Catholicism and Christian Orthodoxy there are literally hundreds of millions of icons portraying Jesus and/or Mary, in every church, in every household. That’s a fact.
      The barbarous Muslims have a problem with the depictions of Muhammad, the rest is obfuscation.

      • judyw says:

        And do we know if that SEAL is also a Muslim?

        • wondering999 says:

          Judy, I’m looking for the link and haven’t found it yet. If I do, I’ll post it.
          The point is, where do we draw a limit on the ability of Sharia prohibitions to dictate activities of non-believers?
          The people who went after Mosul’s Antiquities Museum, and the Bamian Buddha, will eventually be offended by lots of other items. Do Jihadists get to smash your garden statuary of St. Francis and the Virgin Mary?
          Why should Pamela Geller’s private conference NOT hold a cartoon contest? It wasn’t any of the jihadist’s business, unless they have chosen to be outlaws in this culture.
          And I do like Geller’s distinction between Muslims and Jihadists.

          • lorac says:

            The point is, where do we draw a limit on the ability of Sharia prohibitions to dictate activities of non-believers?
            I think Bill Whittle put it best – There is no line!
            Sharia, in non Sharia countries, does not belong, it has no validity.
            Our law comes from the constitution, not from some archaic religious political system. Sharia, IMO, should not even be tolerated in Muslim enclaves here. If they can’t tolerate that, they need to go to a Sharia country. We are not a Sharia country. We have a constitution, and that is our system, and we like it.

    • dalethorn says:

      Yeah – I’d like to be able to walk into a “Muslim neighborhood” now and then, go up to the kosher hotdog stand and get an all-beef, maybe listen to an Arab-flavored street musician etc. I could do that in Cleveland or Youngstown for most ethnicities, and to a limited extent in L.A., but with all this jihad and stuff they’re going to scare off any cross-cultural communication. What kind of Americans are these people?

      • lorac says:

        You’re thinking in the past, when we had a melting pot, and people were so happy and thankful they had become Americans.
        Now we have multicultural, encouraging people to remake their lives here as if they were still home. They don’t assimilate and barely, if at all, consider themselves American. Their only cross cultural communication is either to convert you or kill you. It’s a one-sided conversation. Similar to Holder being the coward because he only wants to hear his own views, not ours, about race. Both groups just want to force you to their way. Communication isn’t needed.

    • ThankYou,Treepers says:

      “A former SEAL commented that he wasn’t in favor of insulting Muslims because we have essential Muslim allies such as Saudi Arabia.”
      Taqiaa.
      Count on the fact that when W. Bush after 9/11 said what history will call the dumbest quote ever by US President, “islam is a religion of peace”, he did so as the result of being conned by the Saudis.
      Making The Sign Of The Cross is a capital crime in Saudi Arabia. That country has done nothing but treachery in its dealings with us. They’ve funded jihad everywhere and have an army of lobbyists, Arabs and Americans, on their payroll in DC undermining our policies right down to W’s imbecilic quote. As Bosch Fawstin tweeted today saying islam is a religion of peace is the ultimate anti-reality check.
      Totally respectful of that SEAL’s service, only ask how can he say that if he’s served over there.

  12. rightie says:

    And who will decide what is acceptable free speech and what isn’t? And how do you keep all those Westerners under control? God I love Bill Whittle. Ok, done ranting, I am off to the ammo store to spend my IRS refund.

  13. stella says:

    Threats from ISIS:
    “The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah (authority or governance) in the heart of our enemy,” the message reads.
    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. 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. This will heal the hearts of our brothers and disperse the ones behind her. To those who protect her: this will be your only warning of housing this woman and her circus show. Everyone who houses her events, gives her a platform to spill her filth are legitimate targets. We have been watching closely who was present at this event and the shooter of our brothers. We knew that the target was protected. Our intention was to show how easy we give our lives for the Sake of Allah.
    We have 71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack any target we desire. Out of the 71 trained soldiers 23 have signed up for missions like Sunday, We are increasing in number bithnillah. Of the 15 states, 5 we will name… Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Michigan. The disbelievers who shot our brothers think that you killed someone untrained, nay, they gave you their bodies in plain view because we were watching.

    https://justpaste.it/Anonymous90

    • yakmaster2 says:

      Well, ISIS has made their opinions and intentions crystal clear. Pam Gellar told Hannity she is willing to die for her belief in free speech. Trump, O’Reilly, and others are not. To them, poking violent groups who want to take away your rights is stupid. Good thing that folks who fought for America in the Revolution didn’t feel the same.

      • lovely says:

        Gellar did not do this to “poke” the Islamists (just as the good folks who started the Revolutionary War did not do so to poke the King).
        Gellar did this because she was expressing her 1st Amendment Right. Our first Amendment Right is under attack by Sharia Law, the complicit media and cowards.
        The MSM wants people to believe that this event was held to antagonize savages. It simply isn’t true.

        • stella says:

          And they have the right to be antagonized, but no right to shoot people.

          • lovely says:

            I agree I think that is why the whole conversation about Gellar “antagonizing” Muslims is a smoke and mirrors game. The FTP crowd set out to antagonize the police and decent citizens everyday, as of yet no one has popped them for doing so.

    • kinthenorthwest says:

      Obama oh so owns this.

    • dalethorn says:

      To Isis: We truly appreciate the warning – it helps get our people in the right mood.

    • JohnP says:

      Evidently IS training includes hop out of car with gun blazing and wait for a traffic cop to put a 45 cal slug in your brain. Then fall down and bleed.
      Did you know it was the second time in 20 years that the traffic cop fired his weapon on duty?

      • lovely says:

        I have been waiting for more details but also I’ve been busy so I’ve slacked with keeping up. Has it been confirmed that it was a single officer who took both of the terrorists out with out reloading his gun? Stand tall Texans!!!

    • Ziiggii says:

      huh, at least the line in the sand is being drawn. I bet Abu Ibrahim Al Ameriki is hiding in some village in Iraq/Syria making this crap up as he goes along. Hey Abu, it doesn’t take a “trained cop” to take down your brothers. I would put a sizable bet that a high percentage of “average” Americans can and would do the same thing if needed. And some might even do it with more finesse then a cop is able.
      Oh and 71 “trained soldiers”…. hardly enough especially if you want to keep trying your luck in Texas of all places.

    • texan59 says:

      So……..they started out with 73, and the score stand at Texas – 2, ISIS – 0. 😆

    • Brett says:

      “The disbelievers who shot our brothers think that you killed someone untrained, nay, they gave you their bodies in plain view because we were watching.”
      Really, these were y’alls ‘trained’ soldiers? Grandma sitting on the porch with a shotgun could deal with that…

    • Monroe says:

      See how ISIS uses intimidation to get their way. Who wants to host the event if they might be harmed? Also, the public will be outraged that off duty police might be placed in harms way, even though they choose the assignments.

  14. What a bunch of cowards these critcs are! Pamela Gellar has some real courage, as do all the attendees & participants at the contest.
    What are we so afraid of? Terrorism is a cowardly pursuit and can only triumph if we submit to it. In 2015, the strongest, most properous nations in history are supposed to surrender to barbarians who attack innocents?
    Enough of this nonsense. Islam is anathema – THE ENEMY – to everything we believe. Quit making allowances for Muslims and their perverted lives.
    Islam is an evil ideology and political philosphy that should be eradicated from the face of this earth. We all must stand up to them!

    • dalethorn says:

      If there is a legitimate and peaceful Islam, then they need to “out” their violent members, stat. Just like members of the “black community” need to “out” their violent criminal members, even though (gasp!) it would end the source of tax-free income they enjoy from illegal drug sales.

    • judyw says:

      I loved what Pam said on the CNN interview posted earlier on another thread. The CNN host accused her of being anti-Muslim and Pam responded brilliantly, I think, “I am not anti-Muslim. I am anti-JiHad.” Pam has a laser focus on JiHad and Sharia that is gaining ground in this country with little notice of them being firmly planted in our society before the results are obvious.

      • lovely says:

        I was especially impressed with Gellard’s command of the direction of the conversation and how she used the interviewers own words to call the dull lost soul an Islamophobe 🙂 Sheer poetry.
        God Speed Ms. Gellard.

    • ThankYou,Treepers says:

      “Islam is an evil ideology and political philosphy that should be eradicated from the face of this earth. We all must stand up to them!”
      True and necessary.

  15. michellc says:

    I’m with Bill, these idiots make me angry.
    Where were they when they were putting the cross in urine and calling it art? Where were they when they were saying Jesus Christ was gay? There are many, many more examples and each and every time they called it Freedom of Speech or art. I am not going to lie it makes me mad and it makes me sad when people do it, but as mad and sad as it makes me, it is their right and their freedom of choice allowed them by God to be idiots.
    Every AMERICAN, regardless of race, religion or political views should be standing up and saying, “You will go through me to get to this woman or any American who criticizes Islam.” Any who don’t feel that way are traitors to their country.
    Bill is right as well it us against them. I’ve been getting alerts for days now that ISIS sympathizers are targeting farmers. I have no way to validate it and it might be nothing more than made up stories, but would it honestly surprise anyone if it’s true and the media isn’t reporting it? Would it be surprising that these idiot farmers thinking they can make a buck from Islam by being Halal-kosher Farms, which is offering on farm slaughter for the ritual “Dhabihah” would be easy targets for them? I’ve said since I was first solicited for this nonsense that you’re inviting your executioner into your home. I could be totally wrong, but I would bet at least half of these people who are stupid enough to give them an open invitation to their farm don’t take measures to protect themselves.
    We’re at war and people are too stupid or too afraid to offend unless they’re offending true Americans to realize it.
    One thing Bill is wrong about it’s not only Texas that will fight back, this Okie girl and many of her Okie citizens and many of her Arkie family will fight back and will fight our local governments if they don’t stand with us.

    • smiley says:

      michellc, I’m right there with you.
      good comment.
      sometimes anger is justifiable.
      it must be channeled properly.
      guided by prayer.

    • ThankYou,Treepers says:

      “Every AMERICAN, regardless of race, religion or political views should be standing up and saying, “You will go through me to get to this woman or any American who criticizes Islam.” Any who don’t feel that way are traitors to their country.”
      YES.

  16. Jack Baur Commander in Chief says:

    Well I think the 1st Amendment rand smack dab into the 2nd Amendment in Garland, Texas. Yeppie Kai Yae!!!!!

  17. mazziflol says:

    I suppose by this line of thinking, that women who dress provocatively, endorse a sexual assault on their person. She should know better! A woman in an abusive relationship should know when to keep her mouth shut lest she get beat again? C’mon this list can go on and on.

    • smiley says:

      feels like a massive PsyOp campaign going on here…there…everywhere.
      totally warped.
      completely twisted.
      hope & pray we don’t succumb to Stockholm Syndrome.

  18. Johnstoirvin says:

    So then, my rights as an American are mine to enjoy until someone who wants to kill me doesn’t want me to enjoy those rights, right??

  19. rightie says:

    Killing muslims is what they want, so they go to their 71 virgins. What really pisses them off is throwing them out of the West, family and all. Massive deportation. As far as homegrown terrorists and THUGS, lets have a quick five minute trial and lock them up for life. If the Constitution doesn’t work for us, it also shouldn’t work for them.

  20. jakeandcrew says:

    This is my response to the “interview” of Pam Gellar on CNN by Alisyn Camerota.
    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/05/04/geller-vs-cnn-freedom-vs-the-media/
    I was late to post it, and it applies here, so I’m reposting ~
    This was a debate, not an interview. Alisyn, a supposed impartial journalist, only interested in reporting the truth, couched her questions with phrases such as “people are saying” and “your critics say,” but she was obviously speaking from her own personal opinion.
    Alisyn ~
    “There was a tweet sent out before the attack, warning of the attack. Did you get any intel from the police about just how dangerous an event like this could be?”
    Dumb question. Pam knew how dangerous this was. That was the point. What does it say about Islam that you have to hire a SWAT team in order to safely hold an art contest? If she didn’t know the danger, she wouldn’t have paid an exorbitant amount of money for security – which was obviously needed.
    The question alone implies that if you’re threatened with violence, the responsible thing to do is stand down. That’s not America! America was born from people standing up to tyranny, regardless of the threats, and regardless of the danger.
    Alisyn ~
    “Nobody’s saying that this (art contest) warrants the violence…people are saying that there’s always this fine line between freedom of speech and being intentionally incendiary and provocative.”
    Nope. Not true. Those “people” are wrong.
    If boundaries are placed on freedom of speech, then it is no longer a freedom. As far as the government is concerned, people must be judged on their actions – not their words, thoughts, or expressions thereof. What did Pam Gellar’s group DO? They had an art contest. Was that offensive to Muslims? Yes. Did they violate the rights of any Muslims? No. There is no right not to be offended.
    However, what did the two gunmen do? They shot a man. Did they violate his rights? Yes, they did. They attempted to take away his right to life.
    As Pam noted, Christians were very offended by art that placed a depiction of Jesus Christ in a jar of urine. Peacefully protesting the museum where that was displayed is an acceptable form of expressing their displeasure. Bombing the museum, or shooting up it’s occupants (or the artist), is not.
    The KKK, one of the most despicable organizations of all time, can hold their gatherings and wear their white hoods and spew their hatred as long as they want. But when they start attacking and killing people, their actions are illegal.
    Alisyn read an excerpt from keynote speaker, Mr. Wilders, with which she was seemingly outraged.
    Excerpt ~
    “Our Judeo-Christian culture is far superior to the Islamic one. I can give you a million reasons. But here is an important one. We have got humor and they don’t…Islam does not allow free speech, because free speech shows how evil and wrong Islam is. And Islam does not allow humor, because humor shows how foolish and ridiculous it is.”
    Alisyn ~
    “Of course, that’s not about extremism, he’s talking about a religion of which there are 3 milion here in the United States.”
    Pam’s response was exactly what I was thinking,,,”So what?! That’s his opinion!”
    Drawing these lines between what is acceptable and what is not – offending Jihadists is okay, but offending the religion of Islam is not okay – is the antithesis of freedom of speech.
    Words and ideas and opinions are protected freedoms in America. No religion is an exception to that. Yes, we can criticize Islam, just as Christianity and Judaism, and all other religions may be discussed and criticized. There is no right to live life unoffended.
    Actions must be policed – not ideas, opinions, thoughts, expressions, or speech.

  21. ImpeachEmAll says:

    Typical Lefty, Progressive Socialist agenda.
    Do as I say; not as I do.
    Cartoon contest organizer known for inflammatory rhetoric
    http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/general-news/20150504/cartoon-contest-organizer-known-for-inflammatory-rhetoric
    The other side of the coin – the religion of peace.
    Isis threatens to behead Barack Obama and ‘transform America into a Muslim province’
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-threatens-to-behead-barack-obama-and-transform-america-into-a-muslim-province-10008930.html
    A little something for your reading pleasure.
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

  22. Les says:

    This issue alone separates Americans from people who have no idea what America is. Too bad the clueless ones live among us.

  23. Dixie says:

    I’m bustin’ a gut to say this and I’ll go back and read the rest of the comments later.
    Bill Whittle’s rant: My sentiments exactly.
    COMPOUND VERB AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS.

  24. lilbirdee'12 says:

    There is never too much free speech. Thank the good Lord that the traffic officer who killed these two terrorists didn’t take the time to wonder whose feelings he might hurt before sending them to their Judgment Day.
    It is time for ALL of US to choose which side we will STAND on…bad times are comin’.
    Speak up, Stand up.
    ETERNITY IS TOO LONG TO BE WRONG

  25. Margaret-Ann says:

    I don’t recall Garland Mayor Douglas Athas expressing any concern in January when the Muslim community held their “Stand With the Prophet Against Terror and Hate” conference in his city. That conference was much more publicized and criticized by the local residents. The mayor’s remarks are laughable after the fact. The thousands protesting in January were peaceful and this speaks volumes. I too, am sick of the ‘blame the victim’ mentality. I have so much respect for Pam Geller and pray for her safety.
    http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Thousands-Protest-Muslim-Conference-in-Garland-288936351.html

  26. Pam Geller just proved that the time to yell FIRE in a crowded theater is when the theater IS REALLY ON FIRE. Sharia is FIRE and these dumb bastards said “for political correctness, lets let the FIRE burn. We’ll contain it later”

  27. Betty says:

    yesterday I heard a Minnesota Public Radio idiot interviewing a Hamilne University idiot and both were pretending they didn’t really want to say Pam Geller asked for it – but they just had to.
    Like someone was twisting some body part on each of them. I wondered what the tone in America on this very day would be if the media said with one voice: I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. And this morning I woke up to Drudge headlines: ISIS vows to kill Pam.
    It is completely an inescapable fact hat our own media and academia today enabled ISIS far beyond Pam Geller’s cartoon contest and possibly gave them some sense of self-righteousnesses.

    • wondering999 says:

      Betty, I’m looking for a link to the exchange that you described but haven’t found it yet.
      Minnesota Public Radio should probably hear from listeners about their lackluster support for the First Amendment.
      http://minnesota.publicradio.org/

  28. Eskie Mom says:

    I disagree with what Ms. Geller did because 1. (as far as I can tell,) she isn’t even a resident of Garland, Dallas-Fort Worth, or even Texas. (Wikipedia says she lives in New York City. lol Everybody, now: New York City?!)
    2. This smacks of goading; “Let’s you & him fight”. She knows what the situation is & what the reaction’s going to be, yet she went ahead & did it deliberately- imho, just to stir up controversy. How is that different from what leftists/ communists, the BGI do?
    3. It’s silly. Juvenile-silly. It’s the kind of silly crap “civilization” has been reduced to. How bout getting people aware; fighting the propaganda, & getting these anti-American hostiles out of the country? That would be more productive.
    Does she think this will “open people’s eyes”? (What will be the outcome of that?) “Bad is good” (a la elect 0bama vs Romney)? (We know what the outcome of that has been, but I believe it wouldn’t have been much different under Romney.) Is she trying to incite a terrorist attack- & what will be the outcome of that, considering the regime in power & the ever-eroding condition of our freedoms, as it is? Personally, I can’t put a good spin on this. Who benefits?
    Yes. We have freedom of speech (well, sort of. …Not really.), but if someone is going to start igniting controversy with a known intolerant & violent element, they need to do it where they live- not take it more than a thousand miles away & bring the recriminations down on someone else.
    Having said that, these people do not belong in America. They did not come here “seeking freedom” or to adopt the American way of life. Their “refugee” status ended the minute they took up & expressed the same ideology they supposedly fled from. They came to take over- like an invasion. Having a neighborhood is one thing. When a group of people start demanding that the existing & centuries established culture Change their laws & their way of doing things, that’s not assimilating. That’s taking over.
    No other ethnic or religious group (besides Mexican nationals) has ever done that. (And not even they do that, in every case or even “most” cases). But that’s changing- and not for the better.
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Welcome to hell.

    • stella says:

      Where Pam Geller lives is immaterial. The site in Garland is the same one that was used for a pro-Islam function earlier this year. I don’t intend to criticize the victim (in this case, Pam Geller), when the criticism properly goes to those who want to shut her up – by killing her, if necessary.

      • Eskie Mom says:

        That’s kind of a loose connection. I guess I don’t really see this as “criticizing” Ms.Geller or view her as a victim either. I disagree with her. I’m just saying she knew she was going to start/ inflame a fight & that’s her deal. Knowing how Islam operates, I do disapprove of her painting a target on an area that was already having problems with these people. She fanned the flames. (I sure hate it that so many idioms have become “loaded” so that we can barely speak anymore.)
        That’s exactly the point I was making in my last paragraph, Stella. I repeat: What in the bloody h-e-double L are we doing allowing these people into our country in the first place & 2, once they do something like this, why aren’t we sending them home? Home– to their home. Are they even citizens?

        • stella says:

          The event was sponsored by AFDI, an organization that has chapters in various places in the United States, and her co-founder of AFDI is Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch). The criticism belongs on the killers, not on Pam Geller and Robert Spencer.

          • realitycheck says:

            who were the killers? there were only two people killed , the terrorists, who were shot by the police officer.

            • Rob Crawford says:

              The two died while attempting to commit a felony — mass murder. Under the law, they are both guilty of murdering each other.

        • Sharon says:

          Your disapproval of her actions does not negate her free speech rights.

        • michellc says:

          She didn’t start the fight.
          However, if she had came to Texas and given a speech, nothing about a drawing contest, just a speech, would she still be starting a fight?
          She is welcome in my state and in my town or even in my home anytime she wants because she is a woman who hasn’t been silenced and has been fighting against Islam and Sharia law in this country for a long time. We need more women like her, not more women who criticize her for doing something.

        • tessa50 says:

          Fanned the flames. We sure don’t want to do that, now do we?

    • dalethorn says:

      I would agree on Charlie Hebdo, but not on Pam Geller. From what I’ve seen, Charlie Hebdo’s program was to be purely offensive as well as hypocritical (i.e. there is no free speech in Europe, i.e. holocaust laws etc.), whereas Geller’s intent, in a real free speech country, was to explore reasonable boundaries of free speech, not to make pornographic images of the prophet. Yes it was risky, and could have cost a security man’s life, but it was a very valuable lesson because we need to know these things now, not later.

    • Sharon says:

      If she was goading them, as you suggest, then what you are unhappy with are her motives – not her free speech rights.
      You can criticize both her motive and her ‘thoughtlessness’ for not doing it in her own home town but your disapproval does not negate Pam Geller’s right to free speech.
      Pam Geller’s character or judgment, and opinions about them, are not the issue here.

      • Eskie Mom says:

        Kind of. I think “free speech” has been/ is being used to bite us in the rear. And besides that, it’s a sham. We are kidding ourselves if we think we really have free speech anymore. (Just try & “reserve the right to refuse service” or send your kid to school wearing a t shirt with an American flag on it if you don’t believe me. If you could find an attorney to fight it, the SCOTUS won’t uphold it- if it makes it that far) Honestly. Based on the discussions here at CTH, what do you think would happen if a group of us went to Batesville, Mississippi, Ferguson, Missouri, or Baltimore, Maryland to express our POV? We’d be finding out about “free speech” real quick.
        Oh I don’t think she was thoughtless, not at all. I wouldn’t speculate on her motive (who can know that about another person?). I’m don’t know what she (could have) expected.
        A better way to express my “disapproval” is that I think this was ill considered.
        But no. Her character is not, in any way, an issue. I imagine she had something in mind as far as accomplishing something constructive. I just don’t know what that was. Why did she do this? Then what? Where was she trying to go with this? (Hope that makes sense.)

        • stella says:

          Free speech rights doesn’t protect you against those who want to shut you up. If you don’t exercise your freedom, it will disappear completely.
          No, you don’t make sense. You can and do disagree with Pam Geller. What her motives might be are beside the point, as long as what she is doing is legal. Pam Geller (and Robert Spencer, AFDI, Geerts Wilder etc) are not the criminals here. Pam Geller believes that Islamic extremists intend to push Shariah Law in the United States, as they have done in Europe, particularly in England. She has been pulling the fire alarm for some years now, and most of our citizens aren’t listening. Do you think the jihadists will hesitate to exercise their rights to free speech? No, our citizens don’t want to us to say mean things about Islam. Why not? Do the pundits do shows about people who speak out against Christians, and how bad that is?

          • realitycheck says:

            I don’t think most people would disagree with Ms Geller’s RIGHT to conduct the contest. What is being questioned is her motive and that protecting freedom of speech may not be the real motive.
            You would have the right to yell NI – – er in a ghetto or predominately black area and you probably have the right to have a pro Nazi march in a predominately Jewish area in the USA BUT would you be doing it to show your “Freedom of Speech” or to attempt to cause trouble? If it angered those people, do you have some culpability? (even though their anger may not be legally or morally defensible.)

            • Sharon says:

              “What is being questioned is her motive…..” Really? So now we are going to argue about the motives of someone who says what is so and “we” are going to decide who gets to say what – depending on our perception of their motives. That’s a seriously slippery slope.

              • realitycheck says:

                She CAN sat whatever she wants, I do not desire to have limit to that nor do I believe there should be limitations.
                There are also ramifications to HER statements and it is obvious that this was NOT about free speech and IS about her jihad against Islam.
                Ramifications of her actions can be sown by the Norway massacre many tend to try to forget:
                http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/07/christian_terrorism.html

                • jakeandcrew says:

                  It is about free speech. Islam does not allow pictures to be drawn of Mohammed. Fine. But America is not an Islamic nation, and all Americans can draw and publish pictures of Mohammed if they want to. If they’re a Muslim living in America, they can choose not to draw Mohammed. But they have no right to keep Americans from doing so.
                  Muslims may be offended by that. But there is no right to live life unoffended.
                  The ramifications of what she did are not her responsibility. The gunmen chose violence.
                  Do we back down and promise not to draw pictures of Mohammed, in order to keep the peace? What else will we promise in order to keep the peace?
                  No. Freedom of speech can have no boundaries, no lines drawn that cannot be crossed. Government is there to police actions, not thoughts or words.

                • Chip Bennett says:

                  There are also ramifications to HER statements and it is obvious that this was NOT about free speech and IS about her jihad against Islam.

                  Taking up firearms is a choice of a terrorist, not a consequence of a cartoon artist drawing a picture.
                  You see, a word like jihad has meaning, and by invoking it here, you attempt to conflate an ideological/rhetorical resistance to a violent physical assault. There is simply no comparison to acts intended to bring to light the uncivilized, savage actions of adherents to radical Islam, and the uncivilized, savage actions themselves.
                  I simply refuse to budge an inch on this matter. Muslims here can adapt to Western culture, including the protection of the free exercise of natural, God-given rights – or they can go somewhere else.

            • smiley says:

              many times, I have gone to an art exhibit b/c I am an artist.
              many times, I have been offended by the type of art, or the quality of the art, and even the types of nibblies they served.
              many times, the exhibits were for the sole purpose of shocking the viewers, or provoking reactions.
              such is the nature of art.
              but nobody, including my offended self, started killing the organizers of the exhibits.
              life is offensive sometimes.
              art imitates life.
              freedom of expression is protected in our country.
              even if the intent was to provoke a reaction, the expression of opinion is protected.
              Pam Geller succeeded in proving a point.
              (a) that they are here, (b) that they kill, and (c) that they do not respect or understand our laws, our concepts of freedom, or our culture.

            • jakeandcrew says:

              It doesn’t matter what her motive is. She has the freedom to say what she wants, and hold a legally protected cartoon contest anywhere in the USA. If someone is angered by that, they have plenty of legal ways to voice their displeasure. Freedom of speech is for everyone.
              However, if they let their anger turn into actions that are illegal – like shooting up the place, and trying to kill people – they are going to be arrested, or killed themselves.
              The only actions that we are responsible for are our own.
              Pam Geller is not responsible for the actions of the two gunmen. They are.

        • Sharon says:

          Your explanation here centers on her motive and your opinion, neither of which are determiners of free speech – so my effort was to distinguish between the two.
          You say, “Based on the discussions here at CTH, what do you think would happen if a group of us went to Batesville, Mississippi, Ferguson, Missouri, or Baltimore, Maryland to express our POV?”
          Oh, that’s a no-brainer. All hell would break loose.
          And that doesn’t change the fact that I have the right of free speech.
          No one ever said that exercising our rights would not have consequences, some of them negative-like, damaging, or fatal.
          I’d rather fight on that front than give up free speech to avoid the consequences of exercising it.

          • Eskie Mom says:

            I agree with all you said here, Sharon..
            “No one ever said that exercising our rights would not have consequences, some of them negative-like, damaging, or fatal.”
            True. But that was kinda the point in protecting free speech. Or it was, until we decided to be “multicultural”.

            • Sharon says:

              I don’t think you do agree, because what you said upthread suggests that you think avoiding consequences should be a primary consideration:

              ….. but if someone is going to start igniting controversy with a known intolerant & violent element, they need to do it where they live- not take it more than a thousand miles away & bring the recriminations down on someone else.

              • Eskie Mom says:

                Okay, whatever. Believe what you like. I don’t have any “icons” or idols. All of the people I “admire”, I know personally & can be counted on one hand. It was not my intention to insult anyone’s icon or idol. lol Talk about “jihad”.

                • stella says:

                  I don’t think anybody here has an icon or idol – certainly Sharon nor I do. Free speech is the issue, and you constantly return to personality. Too bad you can’t see that.

                • Sharon says:

                  Projection methinks. I couldn’t care less about her as an individual and don’t follow her work/site at all.
                  Your projection occurs at the point where I quote your own words to you – interesting.
                  You consider being asked to consider your own words some form of idol worship or jihad?

                  • Eskie Mom says:

                    Projecting what exactly, Sharon? I was referring to being attacked for merely disagreeing (not criticizing, vilifying, condemning or anything close to that. Just disagreeing. jmho If I don’t finally get out of here, I’ll be accused of calling for Ms Geller’s crucifixion next.)
                    Sorry. I confess I am weary of the attacks & just tired of dealing with it. (I fully understand- & did so, before, that there is no “free speech” on this- or any, blog. We are your guests & I am truly sorry for offending those who are avid backers of Ms Geller. I only know who she is- not why she is so “untouchable”.
                    I did expect that some degree of independent thought might be acceptable. I learned too late, unfortunately, that this was a cheering section, so I srooooed up. My bad.)
                    To answer you, directly- avoid conflict? Sometimes. Not always. It depends. I wouldn’t hesitate to tell a Muslim that they do not fit in here & that they should go home. I will wear what I want, eat what I want, listen to the music I want & if if it offends them- too bad. Halal offends me. My own neighborhood is being overrun by these people in the last few years. My neighbors & we are NOT happy.
                    We have much larger problems that drawing cartoons & even free speech. We have a government that not only enables their immigration en masse, accommodates their demands, and subsidizes them. And we’re piddling around with a cartoonists’ contest? Really? I think Ms Geller- who apparently has a following, should have gathered her followers & hit the Congress, state houses, local city councils- whoever, & told them to Knock it off.

                    • stella says:

                      You should write to Geller and tell her what she should do, as you obviously think you have it all figured out. I am not an “avid backer” of Ms. Geller, and I presume the same can be said of Sharon. I AM an avid backer of Free Speech, and defying the third rail of politically correct obeisance to Islamic radicals. The act of backing off from something that Islam has decided is objectionable, is an act of relinquishing free speech rights.

                • Sharon says:

                  I was wondering about possible projection when you imply/describe those who disagree with you as having idols or icons.
                  You have no idea how much I don’t have idols or icons. Couldn’t care less what any mouthpiece thinks or spews.
                  Suggestion: Set up a blog and talk to that handful of people you personally admire and can count on.

          • doodahdaze says:

            Our task, is to uphold the judicial process, and protect the constitutional rights of all citizens, regardless of the BGK. Illegitimate theories of social justice can not be allowed as guidelines of admissibility in criminal cases. The judges are the gatekeepers of the last vestige of the constitution. Political opinion is not law. Thank God. The court is to be an unbiased gatekeeper. To determine fact. In an unbiased manner. The methodology here is suspect. The ME and the blind methodology applied to his findings are more than suspect. Subjective belief in the ME findings are unsupported speculation. The independent investigators, relied upon by Mosby fail because they proffer “opinions.” under the guise they are lay opinions, or expert opinions. Their experts opinions without scientific testing or even testing as to a LEO’s experience are not reliable. No experienced LEO has been corroborated by legitimate legal test. Nothing here by the SA can be relied upon. How can the state be in a better position to determine the facts of the matter than a trained LEO, on scene? There is great danger in allowing prejudiced testimony of social justice advocates to be taken as to opinion of guilt, before the facts are even sorted out according to the rules. The probative value of BGK testimony is outweighed by its prejudicial value. It can not meet the standard of scrutiny as to a sufficient factual basis required by law. Such testimony is bound to mislead a trier of “fact” because BGK principles do not rely on tried and tru scientific knowledge or reality.
            The supposition propounded by the BGK prosecutor should not be permitted by the Court or any other reasonable governmental entity.
            That is about the best I can do about now. I am stretching my limited legal ability just to come up with this.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      I disagree with what Ms. Geller did because 1. (as far as I can tell,) she isn’t even a resident of Garland, Dallas-Fort Worth, or even Texas. (Wikipedia says she lives in New York City. lol Everybody, now: New York City?!)

      That’s odd. I didn’t realize that the freedom to exercise my natural rights ended at the boundary of my hometown. All this time, I’ve been doing it wrong…

      2. This smacks of goading; “Let’s you & him fight”. She knows what the situation is & what the reaction’s going to be, yet she went ahead & did it deliberately- imho, just to stir up controversy. How is that different from what leftists/ communists, the BGI do?

      Your argument is nothing more than a justification for the Heckler’s Veto. You are condoning the restriction of lawful free speech, on the basis of a threat of unlawful action in response to that lawful free speech. Taken to its logical conclusion, you are condoning the infringement of ALL speech. No thanks.

      3. It’s silly. Juvenile-silly. It’s the kind of silly crap “civilization” has been reduced to. How bout getting people aware; fighting the propaganda, & getting these anti-American hostiles out of the country? That would be more productive.

      Generating awareness, fighting propaganda, and dealing with anti-American hostiles is exactly what Pam Gellar and Geert Wilders did. Do you not see it? How could you miss it?
      As a bonus, they are exposing the most virulent of anti-Americanism in “journalism”.

      • Sharon says:

        I didn’t realize that the freedom to exercise my natural rights ended at the boundary of my hometown. All this time, I’ve been doing it wrong…
        Well there ya go, Chip. Let that be a lesson to ya. 😉

      • The Tundra PA says:

        Thank you Chip! Excellent rebuttal.

      • Eskie Mom says:

        My reply to you is, apparently, in moderation.

      • michellc says:

        Exactly she has been doing it and obviously many haven’t been listening. Now when it has been forced into their lives, they blame the messenger.
        When Mexicans protest and burn our flag and march in the streets carrying their Mexican flag, anyone who were offended that shot them would be the only people blamed. Not a sole would say the Mexicans, who many are illegal who do it by the way, brought it on themselves and the city they chose to do it in.
        When some CAIR official is giving a speech on Sharia law if someone came and shot at them, the people shooting would get the blame, nobody would say they brought it on themselves.
        Let though terrorists attempt to kill a woman and it’s her fault, something she brought on herself and a community that wasn’t hers.
        These people and communities across this country better wake up and catch up, they don’t need an excuse to kill you.

    • Fed Up says:

      The DFW Metroplex is one of the largest urban areas in the United States. Why do people think NYC is some mystical place, when it’s just another large city with many equals in the USA? Also I think the location says a lot more about which state has more freedom(Texas), and which has a lot less.(New York)
      Leftists and the BGI want us to be cowered by fear. This is the exact same stance that religious Muslims take. Hosting this event was telling them we won’t cower in fear to them. Anyone who thinks standing up to bullies is a bad thing needs to consider getting a backbone.
      Fighting Muslim propaganda is exactly what she was doing. The cartoons were part of that, and another part was hosting a large event to display those cartoons. It sends the signal that no part of Sharia law will be enforced in the USA.
      You acknowledge that the Muslims are here to change our culture, but when someone stands up to them you complain? The only way to win this battle is to make Muslims understand that WE are the ones to be feared, and we are not going to fear them.

      • nimrodman says:

        “… make Muslims understand that WE are the ones to be feared …”
        “I am not in danger, Skyler. I AM THE DANGER!”
        (Walter White, Breaking Bad)

  29. The antidote to attacks on free speech is more free speech not less!

  30. barbi says:

    I don’t know why these libs, including Greta, don’t realize that Geller was TESTING the American people’s commitment to free speech and it appears many people are revealing they don’t actually support it since every sentence they utter starts with “I believe in free speech BUT…”.
    The “BUT” says it all.
    Seems many Americans, (yes, both lib and otherwise) get squeamish when the rubber hits the road.

    • Les says:

      I concur. The but says it all. There are no if, ands, or buts here. Either you will bow down to Muslims or you won’t. I won’t. Full stop.

    • That is because many Americans are deluded into believing they can have their sins of the flesh and salvation too. It doesn’t work like that. If you do not fight for the unpopular speech/thought, you have no freedom of speech. If you do not fight for non-violent freedom of religion, all you will have is a watered-down ‘freedom of worship’ within the constraints set by the violent expressions of religion. Or the federal government …

  31. hollyasbury says:

    The cowering to avoid offending Islamists from committing terrorist acts went all the way to the top in our government. I remember my complete disgust with General David Petraus trying to quell free speech too, during that Koran burning pastor in FL incident, by stating:
    “It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan,” Gen. David Petraeus said in a statement issued Monday. – http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/06/florida.quran.burning/
    If we send our troops to “defend freedom” and the best we can do is cower and apologize for constitutionally protected free speech, then what exactly are we defending? Images of Jesus are desecrated in “art” work, where is the “fine line” there? Mormons are lampooned and ridiculed on Broadway, any worries there about Mormons attacking the theater? Jews serve as the punchline in endless jokes, yet never a murmur of a “fine line”. Yet, we’re supposed to censor a a cartoon drawing event, because it might inflame some nutjobs, who already align themselves with a TERRORIST entity’s beliefs that when non-believers offend their prophet, the correct response is to murder the non-believers. Oh, but these same TERRORISTS believe ALL infidels (non-believers) should be murdered anyway,……. hummm. A “fine line” to incitement you say???

  32. True Colors says:

    There is an old saying:
    He who controls the focus of the debate will also control the outcome of the debate
    This concept is on perfect display here.
    We can focus on attempted murder by muslim extremists because of cartoon drawings.
    OR, we can try ignore that by obsessing over the cartoon organizer and her political opinions.
    Whoever controls the focus of the debate will control the outcome of the debate. Do not waste your time trying to “win” the debate about Pamela Gellar being a good person or a bad person.
    Instead, spend your time and energy keeping the focus locked in on the muslims who were attempting murder.
    TC

  33. georgiafl says:

    They can pass all the Islamophobia laws forbidding criticism of Islam, but it still won’t make that ideology any less repugnant, barbaric, misogynist, racist, murderous, oppressive, human rights abusive or evil.
    Islam is as Islam does. Islam does evil so it is evil.
    Here is just the last 30 days of Islam’s damnable murderous atrocities:
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
    There have been 25,774 deadly Islamic jihad attacks since 9/11/01 – and that doesn’t include the rapes, honor killings and other despicable acts of violence. It doesn’t include the slavery, pedophilia, porn and drug trade, child terrorist training, and other evil acts.

  34. georgiafl says:

    I will never respect Islam, no matter what kind of blasphemy laws are passed to provide a cover for that evil pretentious, hypocritical, religion of the fallen flesh ideology.
    Islam is its own blasphemy.
    Islam blasphemes itself every day by its actions.
    Islam is a blasphemy against HOLY GOD.

  35. TheLastDemocrat says:

    Why did all of us progressives support Charlie Hebdo in France when they were attacked, but now we don’t support Pam Geller’s event when that was attacked here?

    • georgiafl says:

      Progressivism is irrational and dissonant. Progressives are all about abortion of baby humans, but go batty over baby seals and baby tree frogs. Progressives are all for LBGT se xual acts and lifestyles, but also admire Islam even though they kill homose xuals. There are many hypocrisies and cognitive conflicts afflicting the liberal mind.

    • mazziflol says:

      Even Charlie Hebdo doesn’t agree with Pam. Its different because they only draw whats ‘in the news’ or something…I’m sorry, radical islam and their prophet is in the news…Charlie Hebdo was in in the news, for drawing. Well now Pam is in the news for drawing…seems pretty the same to me.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQtdrdmXyAQ

      • georgiafl says:

        The Hebdo crowd are weird, decadent, avant garde, etc. They can’t admire Pam Gellar because she isn’t as cool, haute progressive thinker as they think themselves to be.

        • stella says:

          Yeah, Pam and Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch), her co-founder of AFDI, are too religious for Hebdo, meaning they identify with a religion of some kind.

      • lovely says:

        Perfect example of allowing idiotic, antagonistic people, to express their opinions, I’m not sure who the editorial staff at Charlie Hebdo doesn’t mock or attack in print, but they have every right to do so without being hunted down. Unfortunately it seems that these two mopes are simply ignorant buffoons when it comes to the essence of why their form of journalism should be allowed in a free society.

    • Some of us are not ‘sunshine patriots’. We believe in the idea that drove our Framers to write the 1st amendment, not the sheeple’s interpretation of the simple words.

  36. CrankyinAZ says:

    So many wonderful comments here – I can’t agree with them enough!! When our fellow Americans try to take away our First Amendment rights themselves, our country is in trouble. Deep trouble. T

  37. Josh says:

    I, for one, will not say “the prophet Mohammed”. I might say “Mohammed” but I sick of hearing about “the prophet Mohammed”.

  38. lovely says:

    Here is the problem, the discussion in the MSM has become about whether Pam Geller pushed a point.
    It should not and does not matter. Ms. Geller is not the problem.
    Geller could have been holding a conference about how Chocolate chip cookies are the best cookies in the world. It is within her constitutional rights to hold her viewpoint and to promote her viewpoint.
    Geller’s viewpoint and the actions of the contestants is against Sharia law. Muslims tried to enforce Sharia law in the United Sates of America and the MSM is discussing why a US citizen was practicing her 1st Amendment right instead of the problem Sharia law presents to America.
    MSM complicity in misidentifying the problem is as big a danger to America as are the savages who brought guns to a cartoon event.

    • hollyasbury says:

      “MSM complicity in misidentifying the problem is as big a danger to America as are the savages who brought guns to a cartoon event.”
      Excellent point lovely!

    • Eskie Mom says:

      Now, I agree with you, lovely. It’s unfortunate that “a person” (in this case, Pam Geller) had to make the point to illustrate what we are up against (Did average Joe Blow even get that? Or was it too subtle for them?). Where were we all & where are our “leaders” that they have (not just allowed, but) promoted the situation that we’re now in?
      Instead of focusing on the problem (a wholly incompatible culture that is invading & attempting to usurp & suppress our culture), we’re talking about Pam Geller, cartoons, & terrorist attacks.
      I note that Israel isn’t doing silly s(tuff) like this. Because they’re serious about keeping this kind of garbage out of their country, perhaps?

      • stella says:

        You are listening to the MSM, and attacking Pam Geller, when she is not the only person involved in the cartoon contest event. YOU have allowed the MSM to make Pam Geller the issue and the problem in your mind! Can’t you see that?
        The issue is Free Speech, and our rights to exercise it. What, exactly, was wrong with having a Draw Mohammed contest anyway? Because followers of Islam don’t like it? Please explain why the contest was a bad idea.
        Pam Geller and AFDI are drawing attention to the problem of Jihad and Sharia in this country, while people like O’Reilly, and Greta, and Donald Trump have their panties in a wad about offending Moslems. Really?

        • Heh. Conservativism in any guise is verboteb in modern Amerika under Obama. You should see the attacks against the Orthodox Churches for our stance against same gender unions or acceptance of LGBT anything within our congregations as a matter of faith, theology and tradition. Homosexuality is condemned multiple places in both the Old and New Testaments. Just because some western churches are fallen heretics, embracing ‘socisl chsnge’ instead of embracing the unchanging Word of God just highlights the false teachers and church leaders more interested in income and ease of life than immutable TRUTH.

          • smiley says:

            the Truth (G-d’s Word) sets people free, if they decide to accept it.
            otherwise, It condemns them thru their disbelief, and that’s offensive to them…so…they attack it.
            sneer at it. spit on it. belittle it. reject it.
            and they always seem to do this in crowds.
            they are not very good at standing alone.

        • Eskie Mom says:

          🙂 Not me. Listening to the MSM is exactly not what I’m doing, Stella. No tv at my house & I only listen to the radio (Rush, Sean Hannity or whoever is on WOAI at the time. I miss driving to Houston because of Mark Levin.) when I take the dogs to the vet. I did read what Trump said from a Drudge link (lol like he’s going to influence my opinion on anything) I don’t even do the “news” sites on the web unless it’s a link from somewhere. And I usually just read the comments instead of the “story” if it’s like cbs or whatever. No cnn, mslsd, or rt. CSpan every great once in a while.
          I have to own the credit (or detriment) of my opinion on my own shoulders. If I walked into a biker bar & started making fun of someone they revered (or whatever- first thing that popped into my head), I would expect to get my behind whupped (girl or not). Just common sense. But if I wanted them gone, I wouldn’t bother with antagonizing them. I would quietly figure out how that needed to happen & who could make that happen & get it done- by all legal means, of course. Poof. Problem solved.
          (What’s “wrong” with having a cartoon contest? Context- as in environment? These people are crazy and bloodthirsty-vicious. Why are they here? That’s the question we should be asking, imho, not did Pam Geller do anything wrong.)
          We can draw attention to the problem until we’re blue, but until we don’t have these people in our midst & they have the power to change our way of life & our very laws, all the racket in the world isn’t going to fix it.
          (I screwed up by addressing the cartoon contest & it’s organizers. The question was “How Much Free Speech Is Too Much?” It probably wouldn’t have spared any-or much of this controversy- Sorry!, but my answer would be “when that freedom undermines the very society & government it was intended to bless.” We are this > < close to a communist takeover of America that will make Reconstruction look like a Sunday School picnic. Now we’ve got jihadis & illegals piled on top of that.)

          • lovely says:

            And who is to be the arbitrator of what is when that freedom undermines the very society & government it was intended to bless .
            Words have power, power to move, to bless, to deceive, we as human beings are the masters of our own reaction to words, our own actions because of words, to legislate that offensive words are not to be used is not only an impossible task (again who is the arbitrator of “offensive”) it is an immoral endeavor.
            I was offended by every sign I saw in Ferguson and Baltimore. Tough for me.

              • doodahdaze says:

                From the veil of ignorance argument John Rawls concluded that just societies are those in which everyone has equal opportunities, except where unequal opportunities benefit everyone. This principle still holds under the cut-first-choose-last rule. For example consider a society of 4 people where the wealth is distributed in this fashion: $10, $10, $10, $10, and one in which the wealth is distributed in this fashion: $20, $11, $11, $11. The rational person would still choose the second society, which Rawls would consider just, because even though they know that they won’t receive the $20 role they would rather have $11 than $10.

            • Eskie Mom says:

              Who, indeed. I don’t know the answer.
              The issue is not offense (I realize that back in the “old days”, men who were “offended” challenged the offender to a duel & somebody died. Who kills for an “offense”? That’s a real low bar.). Being “offended” is nothing (unless you’re Muslim, apparently. Or a democrat.) The issue is destruction.of our society & our country.
              Our affinity for “freedom of speech”, which isn’t even real because we don’t actually have that, has brought us not one, but two, invasions by people who do not share our culture, our standards, & our ideals. We are trillions of dollars in debt, our history is being replaced with outright lies & fabrications…Good Lord, we’re living in a world where little girls are “actually” little boys (& vice versa. They’ll be fish, fowl, or animal next.) Criminals are innocent & cops are guilty. We’re losing our freedoms bit by bit, seemingly because certain people had “free speech”.
              I’m really starting to have my doubts that it’s all it’s cracked up to be.

              • lovely says:

                I’ll ask again my larger point which you haven’t addressed, who is the arbitrator of when speech undermines the very society & government it was intended to bless ? The FTP crowd think that the words “You are under arrest” are words that undermine society. Who chooses?

                • Eskie Mom says:

                  I’ll tell you, again, I don’t know. But now, look at your example & think about that. Not that I am “arguing” against free speech, but these people have the idea that they somehow have the “right” to break the law & that the law should be turned on it’s head to accommodate their demands. Their “free speech” extends (according to themselves and the left) to riots, burning other people’s property, looting, mugging, murdering law enforcement officers. Common sense should tell us that’s not the way a halfway ordered, civilized society behaves. Look at Occupy. Public defecation is freedom of speech? Blocking people from getting tro work & going where they want to go, disrupting other people’s freedom of speech with their stupid “Mike check” chants. 😮
                  People think that any demand they make is their right, that they are entitled to it, & that “we” (America) have to give it to them. Or else. No matter how unreasonable & contrary (to everything) it may be.
                  I feel like we are debating (?) a concept, not some real world practical application of the term. It’s coming apart at the seams.
                  In the kind of society we had; pre-globalism & pre special interests, “protected classes” & so politically polarized, freedom of speech worked fine. The greater majority of us were decent, reasonable, (at least outwardly) moral human beings. Too much of our society has just gone off the rails. Even wild animals wouldn’t act like this & so contrary to their own interests & instincts.
                  Once upon a time, we controlled ourselves. We exercised decorum & had self respect & standards of behavior. Now, many many people are completely out of control. It’s like a Crazy Contest. I have no idea what to do about that but give them their own country & wall ’em off. (I know that’s not necessarily helpful, lovely. Sorry.)

                  • lovely says:

                    Sorry Eskie, I couldn’t get through your whole post. We will have to agree to disagree. What matters is what is, not “Once upon a time.”
                    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
                    Ben Franklin

  39. Arkindole says:

    A LOT of new additions to my sh_t list in the last couple of days…a. lot. If anything, this was a good tell for constitutional conservatives Listen carefully to those so-called presidential candidates..

  40. Lucille says:

    Remember when a large group of Christians protested the film THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST? There were thousands of protesters and not a sign of violence, or even leaving trash behind, for that matter.
    When the film was in pre-production, it was given to me by my boss for comment. I reported to him that after reading it I felt as though I had been defiled. It was disgustingly offensive. That did not encourage me to join the protesters, however. I had dealings with the studio executives involved and knew them to be honorable men who were interested in funding a film by a renowned director which would bring them the major goal of the film industry–money–as was their perfect right.
    Having little understanding of Christianity, these men were actually shocked that the film would be so controversial. As I recall, one strange Christian group did protest at one of the executives’ homes, which was reprehensible, IMO.
    For a refresher, the following is a 2012 article on the film:
    No One Was Killed When Christians Protested ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ Film
    Posted on September 17, 2012 by Gary Demar
    Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/7077/no-one-was-killed-when-christians-protested-the-last-temptation-of-christ-film/#VGtG49GWDHR5fQr1.99

    • Lucille says:

      Clarification of second paragraph: the script was given to me, not the film. LOL!

  41. True Colors says:

    Everyone feels sorry for Charlie Hebdo but not everyone feels sorry for the people in Garland, Texas.
    Why not? Did the people in Texas have to die in order to deserve sympathy? Is it because Texas fought back? Or is it because they won in such dominating fashion and thereby shattered the image of the powerful, deadly terrorists??
    TC

    • ImpeachEmAll says:

      I’ll take door number three.
      Or is it because they won in such dominating fashion
      and thereby shattered the image
      of the powerful, deadly terrorists?

    • Les says:

      People either “get” free speech or they don’t. You can’t explain it to them, they are either free in spirit or they aren’t.
      I have always had a hypothesis about this. I think if you trace back family histories, you can tell which families came to America for freedom and which families came for opportunity.

    • lovely says:

      Several reasons, 1) Garland was an American event, 2) no one other than the savages were killed, 3) Geller is fighting for our first Amendment rights, Hebdo was fighting for journalistic and artistic freedom, 4) Hebdo also mocks Christianity 5) MSM values Islam over our first Amendment 6) the overall liberal MSM 7) The overall ignorance of the American public 8) Gellar’s articulate well spoken argument befuddles and terrifies the appeasers 9) Obama may send White House representatives to the funerals of the terrorists so it is best for the minions not to show too much antithesis toward the savages until BarryO lets you know what is good for the goose.

  42. Angel Martin says:

    our rights (all of them) are protected by force.
    there are dictators and terrorists and “religious authorities” and left extremists who would like to confiscate books i own, censor my emails, close my church, take my property, execute me as a blasphemer of islam etc. etc…
    what prevents them from doing that, ultimately, is force. The Canadian military, the police in my city, whatever i can muster in self defence.
    the entities that want to take away our rights always try to isolate their targets so they can pick them off one by one. in the case of violent conflict, the victims get blamed. they are extremist and they were the only ones attacked. therefore they caused it.
    the only appropriate response to such threats from citizens who wish to live as a free people is:
    We are all apostates, come and get us !

  43. ThankYou,Treepers says:

    Pamela Geller, “The Lioness of Judah”, is heroic to the extreme of American patriotism.
    Bosch Fawstin, ex-muslim and professional cartoonist who won the weekend’s drawing contest, is a face and voice of freedom unsurpassed. He denounced the Wall Street Journal’s report that he has subsequently gone into hiding without acknowledging the rag staffed by cowards.
    https://twitter.com/boschfawstin
    Bosch Fawstin is providing great leadership in the face of this attacking enemy called jihad.
    Bill O’Rielly and Donald Trump are mouthy whimps with pretty hairdos. They are as tough as guys with body guards can be. Rush had it right when he said of O’Rielly “Somebody’s got to say it, the guy is Ted Baxter.”
    O’Reilly is one of those high visibility sheltered whites who compound the burden of those of us who deal with blacks in daily life. Socializing with blacks is obviously such a novelty to him he melted to malleable putty in the hands of Sharpton and Obama when those guys manipulated with a flash of friendliness. .
    People like O’Rielly and Van Sustren got into media work to gain money and attention, not to be freedom fighters. That’s why the media is working against the counter-jihad, because it’s dangerous to be seen as an ally to counter-jihad due to the extreme violence of basic islam.
    Blacks have been all over the social media for days labeling the violent destruction in Baltimore as appropriate expression, like a form of physical free speech. Consistent with that mindset, the Baltimore Mayor ordered that space be left available for those who wanted to express themselves by destruction.
    The Mayor of Garland is intimidated by the jihadist tweets threatening those connected to last weekend’s event.
    Some people’s speech is freer than other people’s speech.

  44. watcher says:

    Could the opposition to free speech and neutering of police be a precursor to no go zones as in Europe?

  45. Phae says:

    O’reilly and Greta were both saying ‘Look she has the right, but she shouldn’t have done it.’
    It drove me crazy!! How many other situations could we apply that theory to?
    Megyn Kelly called O’reilly out on her show as well.

    • smiley says:

      all 3 of them are obnoxious know-it-alls, imo.
      what’s w/ Kelly’s face lately ?
      she’s looking and sounding more & more like Candice Bergen..?
      weird.

  46. moogey says:

    Stella, I offer my undying gratitude to you and CTH for promoting the winning artist’s cartoon. Thank you.

    • stella says:

      It’s a very cool graphic. Why not use it?

      • Ziiggii says:

        First thing I thought of when I saw it… “Why is Mu-ham-MAD look mad and like he needs a shave?”
        He does look like Wolverine with a head dress.

  47. I’ve been saying this about White Guilters for years
    @6:10 “…what they’re really saying is ‘I’m putting a marker down for when the day comes when somebodies holding a knife to my throat and I’ll be able to say, no, I was on your side…I completely sympathized with your position’ and that’ll be the last words out of your mouth before you start gurgling blood out of your throat”
    Good job Whittle.

    • doodahdaze says:

      Simply. Redistribution is the game. Even when it comes to crime. in case no one has noticed disparate impact is nothing more than the redistribution of crime, according to race. Wake up Treepers!! We have to fight the right battle. White guilt is applied social justice.

    • peachteachr says:

      Thomas Paine wrote on December 23, 1776, “…they solace themselves with the hope that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice.” I thought that we solved this on the playground with our simple understanding of the 1st Amendment, “and words will never hurt me.”

  48. stella says:

    Terrorism: The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
    Activities with the following three characteristics:
    Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
    Appear to be intended –
    (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
    (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
    (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

    To say that having a cartoon contest shouldn’t be held because it annoys Moslems is simply an acknowledgement that the terrorists have won. You have been terrorized, and are buckling under. The terrorists that have influenced our society to such an extreme that we change our language and our actions (or suggest that we should) have WON THE BATTLE.

    • AMEN!!!!! Standing ovation, Stella!!!!!!

      • doodahdaze says:

        Social Justice is the enemy! It must be rooted out and obliterated.

      • dekare says:

        Have these same idiots come out and condemned Jesus in a jar of piss as provocative or inflammatory? See, that was okay because Christians don’t chop off heads. Maybe if a few did, than it would be wrong to defame Jesus.
        You either have free speech or you do not. I read the 1st A, and I see no where any asteriks or any clauses saying “but if….” at the end.

    • doodahdaze says:

      Read this. Everyone should. We are fighting this battle against this. It is John Rawls. The new improved Karl Marx. You will be confused until you know who the enemy is and define what they are doing. Then, everything that makes no sense, makes sense.
      http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_02_01_bankston.pdf

      • doodahdaze says:

        The term social justice comes up frequently in circles concerned with political and economic policy. Although it is often ill defined, it generally rests on two overriding principles. First, social justice is viewed primarily as a matter of redistributing goods and resources to improve the situations of the disadvantaged. Second, this redistribution is not presented as a matter of compassion or national interest, but as a matter of the rights of the relatively disadvantaged to make claims on the rest of the society. In common usage, the term is rarely taken as expressing a debatable position, but as a statement of a fundamental axiom of value in political and economic life.

        • doodahdaze says:

          And this.
          The idea of a civil right differed from the idea of a civil liberty because the latter implied freedom from regulation, usually by government, whereas the former implied protection by a regulatory body, usually government. Civil liberties were held by each individual citizen. Civil rights were held by individuals, but they were threatened on the basis of group identity and therefore required protection on the basis of group identity. Civil rights more concretely had a close historical connection with the expe- rience of African Americans, who had the collective background of race-based slavery followed by decades of race-based discrimination.

          • doodahdaze says:

            In rethinking the assumptions of the term social justice, we need to look cau- tiously at the origins of the emotional commitments behind a general perspective on political and economic questions. Then we need to consider how theoretical state- ments regarding the just society arise from those same commitments, not from abstract reasoning alone. Finally, we should contemplate how commitments shaped by cultural history can turn a debatable argument into orthodoxy.

    • Mr. Olorin says:

      Precisely this. Thank you, stella.
      Everywhere I turn DWLs and SJWs and even some conservatives are vilifying Pam Geller, blaming her for being malicious and inflammatory for “inventing Draw Mohammad Day.”
      In fact it was a (liberal) Seattle cartoonist who invented it after the death threads Muslims leveled at Matt Stone and Trey Parker in 2010 after the “South Park Mohammad” flap. The cartoonist’s blog called out Comedy Central for capitulating to terrorists and abrogating the First Amendment. The blogger sent a copy of this cartoon to Dan Savage, who published it, and “went viral.”
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d2/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg
      She later capitulated and apologized to Muslims. You won’t catch Pam Geller doing that. She is uncolonized. So are people who have maintained online presence for their DM Day blogs and galleries on Facebook, Tumblr, Know Your Meme, and elsewhere.

    • LHLaredo says:

      While I have no problems, with what those two mutts, got. I do have a problem labeling the event a “free speech” cartoon contest.
      Freedom of Speech.
      “The right to expression of ideas and beliefs without censorship or restraint by the government.”
      While the act of drawing or depicting any subject or idea, whether offensive or not are guaranteed under our constitution. It is also well established that the government may impose content regulations on such Ideas and beliefs that on their own would Inciting, provoke, or Offend and are not considered a “free speech” right. Or in short actions that one would call “fighting words”.
      Instigate
      * incite someone to do something, especially something bad.
      * about or initiate (an action or event).
      Taunt
      * to reproach in a sarcastic, insulting, or jeering manner; mock.
      * an insulting gibe or sarcasm; scornful reproach or challenge.
      The mere fact the “cartoon contest” provided a cash prize of $10,000.00, places limits on her “free speech” claim, because it’s not a spontaneous individual or group expression, but a “commercial” organized event. While the purpose of promoting the “idea and beliefs” of the dangers in censoring one’s right to depict “Muhammad” is admiral. The fact that a financial motive/transaction was involved thus commercializing the expression, and therefore placing a higher standard of scrutiny on the event. It can be argued that, the “prize” itself generates an undertone agreement of expectation between the participants and organizer, to Inciting, provoke, or Offend with their “cartoon.”
      Just my two cents.

      • lorac says:

        Or in short, actions that one would call “fighting words”.
        I have a problem with this. How many years did men spar off because one accused the other’s mother of wearing the proverbial army boots? People need to learn to blow that stuff off. Violence is for self-defense or the immediate defense of someone else whose life is in danger. Violence is not because your little fee-fees got hurt. Women have always known this (until recently in certain groups anyway). But I think a lot of men need to work on that (in certain groups, anyway).
        I mean, we’re talking about Islamists, but the same problem is in black communities. They apparently don’t have the intelligence or patience to await findings. All they have is their immediate rage, and by golly, they’re going to start hurting people and destroying things. Doesn’t faze them, doesn’t even seem to register a blip on their rage meter, that 95% of blacks are killed by other blacks. But let one white police person kill a black person, and it’s a major crisis, and the crisis won’t end until they feel that offending police person has been LYNCHED. …..They have major work to do, obviously.

  49. pohakea says:

    Heh: Curtis Culwell Center implements new bag policy for graduations after Garland shooting. I guess that was not the policy for the Muslim Convention held there in January: none of the Muslim women (in Burkas) could have made it in? Oh Mr Mayor of Garland, this is a public venue, which hosted a Muslim convention just days after the CharlieHebdo, ” … for the event, which came a little more than a week after Islamic militants killed 12 people at the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Former Garland City Attorney Charles Hinton was among those criticizing the school district for booking the conference. But school board President Rick Lambert said that because the convention center is a public facility, the district cannot discriminate based on viewpoints. “The Culwell Center is available for rental as long as you comply with the law,” …”
    In the right sidebar at this link is the “bag policy” update: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/garland-mesquite/headlines/20150118-protesters-picket-islamic-conference-in-garland.ece

    • Monroe says:

      The only thing a bag policy does is disarm the public inside while the fully armed criminals outside can slaughter them probably with illegal guns.

  50. doodahdaze says:

    Any speech that does not further communism is not permitted. if it offends a communist it is Kaput!

  51. realitycheck says:

    This is what the “hero” Geller can cause (and did) :
    “Anders Behring Breivik, had praised her blog and thoroughly cited her writing in his political manifesto. After a number of blogs made the connection, as well as the New York Times, the Atlantic, and other major outlets, Geller became incensed and began lashing out at her critics.”
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/07/christian_terrorism.html

    • stella says:

      Pamela Geller isn’t the issue. The issue is free speech, and Pam Geller and AFDI have every right to say and do whatever they like as long as laws are not being broken.
      How do you feel about the two guy with guns who planned to kill people at the gathering in Garland? Do you decry what they did? If not, why not?

      • realitycheck says:

        The are terrorists and deserved to be shot. Pam Geller is as radical and as much of a flake as the “jihadists” she is against.
        If I walk in Harlem with a KKK gown on and yell “N”s at the top of my lungs, I may have that right BUT I have responsibility for the potential outcome because my intent was not ‘free speech” and was just to cause confrontation.
        The issue is NOT free speech, she has the right to say whatever she wants but she also has a responsibility that goes along with that right.

        • stella says:

          So, in your estimation, she was asking for it?
          It most definitely is about free speech. Every individual may suffer consequences of speech and actions. That doesn’t mean that the consequences are justified, and it doesn’t mean that she is responsible for the terrorist attacks. Islamic Jihadists are responsible.
          Confrontation is what is needed now, in my estimation. If we don’t confront, then the Jihadists have won the battle.
          Ask yourself why you are afraid to say the word nigger at the top of your lungs. It’s because somebody decided that the word nigger isn’t politically correct. I don’t normally use the word myself, but I’m not afraid to use it, and I certainly don’t deserve to be shot because of it.

          • Blonde in Red says:

            stella, your post was so accurate in truth that it almost brought me to tears.

            • doodahdaze says:

              I think she might be, is, the issue. I might be wrong but she is up and at em. More than me, or you, or us. She is standing, and delivering, as the saying goes. But I don’t even see why this is even an issue. Guess I am just a Dinosaur. Kick their ass to hell!

          • realitycheck says:

            I am not afraid of the word, I am afraid of being banned or blocked on this site for using it. (I am not a moderator)
            In my estimation, given her past track record, she was just trying to get a negative reaction and not demonstrating her ability to have “free speech”
            If you go into the middle of a ghetto and yell “N” its not about free speech, its about causing conflict and creating a reaction. Go into a synagogue and yell “Heil Hitler” is that wrong, just because its not PC?
            Its because in a civilized society people don’t go around trying to offend and trying to create a confrontation. (Just as the jihadists are wrong for what they do).
            No Comment to her being a hero to the Norway nut case?

            • stella says:

              No comment about the last point, because it is immaterial to the discussion. You are using a progressive debating technique – try to dirty the individual as a means of discounting their opinions or actions.
              The rest of your comment is b.s.

              • realitycheck says:

                Not dirtying the individual any more than you dirty Mosely or Clinton or any other left wing zealots.
                You are not allowing the individual any responsibility because of their actions. THAT is very progressive.
                And you dear moderator, are avoiding the consequences of Ms Geller’s action that have happened.

                • stella says:

                  B.S. This is a discussion about free speech, NOT about Pam Geller. That is why it is immaterial.
                  I’m avoiding nothing. The “consequences”, as you so quaintly describe them, are not the responsibility of Geller, but the persons wielding the guns. This is ridiculous. A meeting and a cartoon contest was held. Both perfectly lawful activities. The ONLY reason why there would be any “consequences” is because Islamic Jihadists were offended that their “Prophet” wasn’t treated with proper respect.

                • Chip Bennett says:

                  And you dear moderator, are avoiding the consequences of Ms Geller’s action that have happened.

                  Willful choices are not consequences of some other, arbitrary, unrelated action.
                  Using your logic, some mob muscleman shaking down a business owner on the local Don’s turf is merely acting as a consequence of the business owner’s action to refuse to pay the Don’s extortion fee.

                • Justice_099 says:

                  I would argue that she was well aware of and prepared for those consequences with the security.

                  • Justice_099 says:

                    So, if she was aware of prepared for, and maybe even expected that result. Then what is left to blame her for?
                    That’s why any argument that she brought it on herself it is absolutely silly. The terrorists are responsible for their own actions, not her.

                  • lilbirdee'12 says:

                    Off Topic..meant to tell ya yesterday..Be Safe and have fun on your trip. Wolverines will be praying for you.

                • joshua says:

                  ho hum and la de dah and EXCUSE me for not getting a blame game argument with you, even if you are totally off topic and clearly confused as to substance and logic. In TEXAS, especially Dallas, where I LIVE, I choose to stand WITH Ms. Geller and support her actions and rhetoric completely and without reservation.

                • barbi says:

                  We don’t live in a free society unti people understsnd that PROVOCATIVE SPEECH is NOT to be met with violence. PERIOD.
                  YES, Geller and the contest was indeed PROVOCATIVE to illustrate that if Americans EXPECT violence as a consequence then we are already LOSING our democracy.
                  Unfortunately the O’Reillys of the world show just how far gone we are.

            • BitterC says:

              “In a civilized society” people do not shoot someone for offending them.
              After following the events in Ferguson and demonstrations around the country, I do not see any difference bt the #blacklivesmatter and #blackbrunch terrorists and the KKK. The blacktivists have not met with any violence so far and their actions are just as inflaming as your hypothetical KKK march.

            • smiley says:

              so you can read minds ?
              you know what she was thinking, her intentions?
              of course not.
              but YOUR OPINION is “free speech”.
              I find your opinion bizarre but..so what…
              it was an ART EXHIBIT.
              a provocative Art Exhibit.
              that’s free speech/freedom of expression whether you like being provoked or are offended by it.
              and REGARDLESS OF whether or not you like/dislike Pam Geller..OR her intentions.

            • lovely says:

              Look how absurd and illustrative you have to be to try to make your point. Even if someone was to enter a ghetto and yell “n*$#r” they would not be committing a crime, though I agree they would likely be beaten or murdered. And the yeller would most likely not understand the fundamentals of the First Amendment but would likely just be a thick fool.
              Gellar’s event most definitely was to showcase the precarious state that our first Amendment is in because of the Savages Of Islam. SOI proved Gellard’s point.
              Should gay right’s activists cease to parade because it is offensive to Orthodox Christians? Should Martin Luther King Jr have shut up because he offended white supremacists? I took part in a spay/neuter fund raiser, some nut drove by, honking and screaming, he got out of his car and told us we should be ashamed of ourselves for mutilating animals he was very offered and very angry, should we have shuttered the fund raiser?

            • Sharon says:

              I am afraid of being banned or blocked on this site for using it

              You need to find something more important to be afraid of. Good grief – start your own blog. Living under fear of being banned is a self-imposed waste of energy.

            • doodahdaze says:

              Here, Reality is applied to reality.

            • Another Proud Texan says:

              Here is Mr. Spencer’s reply to Haroom Mughol’s same assertion:
              “This is a staple of Leftist/Islamic supremacist smearmongering at this point, and I have answered it 1000 times, but here again: Breivik actually condemned me and others for not advocating violence. He got the idea to be a terrorist, he said, from Muslims in al-Qaeda and other jihad groups. If every lunatic who commits violence in the name of an idea discredits that idea by doing so, then Moghul’s Islam is far more discredited than anything Pamela Geller or I say. Also, Breivik later claimed that he was actually not a counter-jihadist, but someone trying to destroy the counter-jihad movement — which is far more credible than his manifesto, since he gave hate merchants like Moghul one of their foremost weapons.”
              Since he knows far more about it than I do, I thought he could reply!

            • lorac says:

              Why do you keep comparing what she did, with extreme things? She didn’t go into the ghetto screaming out the N word. She didn’t go into a synogogue and yell, Heil Hitler.
              She rented an enclosed auditorium and invited people of like mind for a Muhamed cartoon contest. Anyone who didn’t want to see it, didn’t need to go. She was NOT out trying to stir people up. She was not forcing herself on anyone, literally in their faces, as the people in your examples are.
              And if you think that those two men, who just happened to have illegal guns, were going to live their lives in total peace except for that darn Geller’s actions, I have a bridge to sell you. Those were two people who live their lives to inflict sharia observance on others. Maybe we should thank Pam, because now 2 terrorists are dead and can’t hurt anyone.

          • mpmp2015 says:

            Absolutely. Kind of like blaming a rape victim because she wore a sexy outfit. What about holding the rapist accountable for his actions? One can discuss whether it was good judgment to wear a sexy outfit in a crime ridden neighborhood at night, but it is still totally lawful. However, rape is a crime and should not be excused because the victim somehow “provoked” him to commit the crime because of the attire she wore.

          • kinthenorthwest says:

            Well Said Stella—Why is it that everyone else in America has all these American freedoms lately, unless you are a Legal American, White, Vet, Military, Christian, Conservative, and ???(the list keeps getting longer).
            Every time I see/hear Obama and the Left putting down someone who speaks out about Muslims especially the radical Muslims these images come to mind. Why is that OK
            https://youtu.be/XN_rYzF2Lyc

          • bleep21k says:

            stella – AMEN!! Nigger could be defined as a contemptuous term for a black person.
            Use the word around me and I’ll give you a good look (AND keep my eye on you), but that’s about it.
            I’ve been called nigger on occasion, and would rather have that happen to me, than have my doctor tell me I have cancer.
            Of course…a ‘weaker”, less intelligent brotha or sista hears you…well…

            • stella says:

              I’m happy that you took the comment in the way it was intended. As I said, it isn’t a word that I use, really, and certainly not to describe any black people of my acquaintance. I don’t consider it to be taboo, either.
              ADD: I recognize that there are people who use the word casually in conversation, or who apply it with a broad brush. I don’t appreciate that either.

          • lorac says:

            IMO, we should be shouting from every corner (ie, media should be saying this), that if someone wants to hurt someone because of their free speech, then they should move back to their 5th century country of origin. They do not belong in America.

        • stella says:

          Pam Geller is as radical and as much of a flake as the “jihadists” she is against.
          Really? When did Pam Geller shoot her ideological opponents, or even threaten to do so?

          • Blonde in Red says:

            Zing-zing, stella! Keep it up. You are so spot-on.
            I have loved Pammy since 2007 and we have been pen-pals over the years.
            Think on this: If radical Islam in SMALL numbers in the USA is this crazy, think about what these nutters would do to us if they had BIG NUMBERS. I shudder to even think of it and we have prime examples all over the western world where these freaks have infected the free world and created ‘no-go’ zones because they are so blindly indoctrinated.

          • realitycheck says:

            How about the Norwegian situation? >>> Anders Breivik

            • stella says:

              Immaterial.

              • realitycheck says:

                Immaterial since he was a follower of Geller and initially she thought the situation was caused by Jihadists only to find out it was caused by the fact she is a provocateur and he was a follower of hers. Or immaterial since he was a self proclaimed Christian attacking Moslems because of Geller’s rantings.
                Or maybe immaterial because it doesn’t fit your “script”

                • stella says:

                  Immaterial. As for scripts, you have shown yourself to have a script for months now, and I think you know what that is. Pam Geller is just a convenient person to demonize for your purposes. You would be saying the same things about this no matter who it was. The fact is that you won’t allow anyone to criticize Islam. Sorry, we have the right to do that in this country.

                  • realitycheck says:

                    You can criticize Islam BUT blaming the entire religion for the actions of some is like Hitler blaming the Jews for all of Germany’s problems. Blame the radicals and the individuals who have bastardized the religion.
                    To insult another’s beliefs, based on writing and statements from provocateurs is idiotic. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion is granted by the constitution (and by God himself).
                    I believe the RADICAL JIHADISTS should be confronted and destroyed. I also believe that those who intentionally divide us are the problem. The Black/White issue etc.
                    I have no “agenda: and was raised Catholic in a IRrsh famiy and have a Jewish daughter (no Islamic people in my family). I just believe the radical anti-Islam sentiment does nothing but cause further problems and division,

                    • stella says:

                      Have I not consistently blamed radical jihadis? Geller speaks of Jihad and Sharia. Where’s the problem?
                      ADD: I agree with Chip. No religion gets to make the rules in this country. If someone doesn’t like free speech, they are free to leave.

                • jakeandcrew says:

                  The follower of Pam Geller is completely responsible for his own actions. You’re not making sense. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and also follow this website, but if I go off the deep end and shoot someone, it’s not Jesus’ fault – and it’s surely not Sundance’s fault either. It’s my own fault.
                  If we start policing what is said or written, because someone might be offended by it, and they might cause trouble…don’t you see how crazy that is?

                  • realitycheck says:

                    Ms Geller’s actions have ramifications beyond what she individually says. Ms Geller is NOT a religion. She is a radical and people who follower her are swayed by her writings.
                    If a person writes about encouraging others to commit an atrocity, do we not “police” that? If a person encourages attacking synagogues, do we not address that?

                    • stella says:

                      What incitement of violence has Ms Geller perpetrated? How about some examples. YOU think she is a radical. Many others do not.
                      Ms Geller’s actions have ramifications beyond what she individually says.
                      I suppose that’s true of many public figures, like the President, for instance, or Louis Farakhan, or the Ayatollah Khomeini, or the Pope. Doesn’t mean that their speech is constrained (or should be).

                • Patricia Cate says:

                  They were not connected in any real way – only in his mind. She had nothing to do with him. Probably never heard of him before his meltdown.

                • joshua says:

                  Jesus was a provacateur too…so what?

          • Blonde in Red says:

            stella, I’m so tired of people calling ‘Islam’ a ‘religion’. It’s more a tribal, totalitarian polity that is so backwards and devoid of humanity that it rivals the European witch trials.
            I hope and pray that humanity can rise above war and obsessive focus on dominance over others. Haven’t we grown up enough yet? sigh

          • kinthenorthwest says:

            You hear that Stella thats us treepers
            Well Said–Can’t say it enough Stella.
            https://youtu.be/heAw4z71lvo

          • Monroe says:

            I also don’t believe Geller is trying to make others submit to her personal beliefs. She is speaking out about the 1st amendment. Geller is able to respect that there are varying opinions on any issue. She just wants to right to express her thoughts regardless of whether I agree with their validity.
            Radicals= submit or die. Only one opinion, mine.

        • Mscynlynn says:

          BS! If you walk into Harlem with a KKK gown and make racist comments at the top of your lungs the people hearing you have the responsibility for their actions! Ignore or assault, it’s their call. If they choose to assault they are the only ones in the wrong. Free speech is a right.
          It seems like you agree with me slapping you because I’m offended by what you just typed and it appears that you are just wanting to cause a confrontation by typing it.

          • realitycheck says:

            If I INTENTIONALLY offend you, you are correct

            • Phae says:

              Then how can you claim any difference between yourself and Pam Geller. Both of you try to intentionally aggravate people.
              Guess it’s your fault if someone harms you? I disagree, but you don’t.

              • Blonde in Red says:

                Intentional aggravation? What an odd concept. Is that all it takes now to go full-on nuts?
                Oddly, the NRA and gun-rights folks don’t go out of their way to shoot up anti-gun rights meetings.
                Ho hum.

              • realitycheck says:

                The difference is obvious, this is discussion forum exchanging ideas that may differ. Geller intentionally offends a major tenet of Islam knowing it will offend trying to cause a confrontation.

                • stella says:

                  She is expressing her opinions. No different than on this forum, just a wider audience.

                • Blonde in Red says:

                  Okay, realitycheck, do you think Christians should be allowed to b0mb abortion clinics because it offends them?

                  • realitycheck says:

                    no, and I believe that if someone encourages another to bomb abortion clinics they are part of the problem.
                    (Ms Geller with her pro abortion stance, ight have another view though)

                    • stella says:

                      Did she advocate bombing anybody? P.S.: Her opinion about abortion is immaterial. She has a right to her opinion and a right to express them. Free speech, remember?

                  • realitycheck says:

                    and I have the free speech to disagree, remember Stella.

                    • stella says:

                      I wouldn’t think of abridging your free speech, but apparently you would like to abridge Ms Geller’s.

                  • realitycheck says:

                    Stella you have a great way of putting words into someones mouth (and of closing threads so I cant reply). I do not want to abridge Ms Geller’s right to free speech, her rhetoric is hateful just as Farrakhan’s rhetoric is hateful and she should be called out on that. She also needs to be able to admit some responsibility when that rhetoric inflames someone to do something idiotic.
                    (The rape analogy she passes around has been used here. I prefer to say If a woman goes naked to a meeting of convicted rapists and does a provocative dance, she should not be surprised by what might happen. Any person committing the crime would be totally wrong and convicted BUT her actions would have exasperated the situation.)

                    • stella says:

                      Stella you have a great way of putting words into someones mouth (and of closing threads so I cant reply) What thread would that be? Seems you have ‘replied’ plenty here, and on every other thread where you have participated. Please spare me your tears about not being able to ‘reply’. I didn’t put any words in your mouth. You have plenty of your own, and everybody has read them. Two words for you: Free Speech. The 1st amendment is needed because of people who think like you do.

                  • lovely says:

                    So Realitycheck then you agree that the ideology of Sharia which encourages Muslims to kill people who offend Muhammad is partially to blame for the wholesale slaughter of innocents committed in the name of Islam.

                • Ziiggii says:

                  And so what if that was the intent? She has the right to offend. And if it does cause a confrontation so what? It’s how the offended party confronts the offense which is at issue.
                  They have the right to protest peacefully against the offense (like many Christian do) but they do not have the right to storm in and start executing the offenders. The Law of the Land is not built upon Sharia Law.
                  That is what makes this country so very different than any other country in the history of the planet.

                • dekare says:

                  So geller is in the wrong because she egged these muzzies on and she is a radical nutjob. I guess Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and the whole lot are to blame as well, since they egged on a respectful British society into attacking them. Of course, they had the right to disrespect King George, but they had a moral obligation to guard the King’s sensitivities. I hold all of the Founding Fathers responsible for the deaths of all who died in the revolutionary war. They had a moral obligation to not start any crap, and they ignored it. Bastards all of em.

                • triper57 says:

                  Reality Check: You have stated in other replies on this discussion that Ms Geller paints the entire Religion with the broad brush of Violence and Jihad. Yet ignore that the Koran, Hadith and the Contemporary Imams and Ayatollahs speaking for Islam, that advocate the followers of Islam to destroy the Infidel. I contend that Islam convicts itself of being a terrorist organization. Ms Geller is just stating an obvious fact. The moderate Muslim has yet to appear.

                • lorac says:

                  Her point is not to offend and get people killed.
                  Her point is that this is America and we have free speech. If they want to get upset when Mohamed is drawn, that that is THEIR problem, not ours. We are not Muslim and we are not under Sharia law. And neither should they be, if they’re living in a non-Sharia country.
                  There should probably be lots and lots of these events. We need to make a stand. No more cowering before the aggressors. They are the violent ones. They want to be violent they will learn that they will be shot at first opportunity or thrown in jail. That would go a ways towards teaching them that we don’t have Sharia law here, that this is America and one of our main tenets is FREE SPEECH.
                  Again, it’s like with the ghetto blacks. Give them an inch out of fear of us being injured, and they’ll take a mile. Give them space to destroy, and by golly they will. Make ourselves live under part of Sharia by agreeing to not draw their pedophile prophet, and they’ll be demanding more and more concessions from us.
                  What has happened to America that we cower in front of the illegal aggressors?

            • Blonde in Red says:

              You don’t offend me. I normally am never offended by mentally retarded people because I realize the deck is already stacked against them and their blathering is just word-salad.
              If you don’t have the mental capacity to play, the only answer is to not play the game rather than make a huge fool out of yourself.
              Sticks & Stoners are not a good mix. Just…eh…sayin’.

              • realitycheck says:

                lol …. resort to personal attacks versus concepts, that is always the tactic of Great minds.
                (BTW: I’ve never done an illegal drug in my life, not that it matters)

                • Blonde in Red says:

                  But, I got you to ‘lol’. See? Making headway. ;p

                  • realitycheck says:

                    funny thing is BIR, Im not offended by any of this and actually am a bit of a smart A$$ myself. The exchange of information and concepts brings out the best in this country. Even if we disagree, we have the right to express opinions and our country becomes stronger by the exchange of opinions. (Even yours and Stella’s)/sarc

                • manickernel says:

                  It is the prescription drugs you gotta watch out for.

            • thevelvetkitten says:

              Oh please..they are offended regardless of your intent..Christians and gays offend them for their mere existence . Or have you not noticed?

              • Blonde in Red says:

                Exactly, kitten. A ‘stray’ hair is an offense (on a woman). eyeroll

              • smiley says:

                Pam Geller and some charicature cartoons offends them ?
                they sure can dish it out, decapitating innocent Christians and others, while filming it, yet they can’t take a few cartoons at an art exhibit without trying to murder more people ?
                and keep threatening to keep murdering more people ?
                why are even trying to defend free speech, in these terms?
                its beyond that.
                its the essence of ALL freedoms that they want to annihilate.

          • joshua says:

            I am totally OFFENDED by Miley Cyrus….TOTALLY….and CONTINUALLY…..so instead of delivering a bomb to her house or trying to take her out…..I merely ignore her, turn off the TV, or surf to another web site. SHE HAS NO IMPORTANCE TO ME. and MUSLIM TERRORISTS have no importance to me….unless they threaten me, my family, my state, or my nation…..then, I might get a little more physical.

            • Blonde in Red says:

              josh, I am offended by rap music which is piped through my FM radio. As soon as I feel my ears bleeding, I turn the channel. Amazing how personal choice works, eh?

              • realitycheck says:

                Did you know that the Islamic people of the Dallas area stayed away from the event … as was their choice. They did not protest the event and did not cause any issues.
                These were two nut cases, just as the clown from Norway was a nut case.

                • stella says:

                  Unfortunately, there are many more nutty Islamic Jihadists than people like the guy in Norway. And people don’t call them nuts; they have plenty of support.

                • smiley says:

                  then why is isis claiming it ?

              • Monroe says:

                I’m offended by Obama and the BGI. Stuck with Bambi and swinging in the Treehouse to speak out against the BGI.

        • Lucille says:

          As we all have responsibilities in our freedoms…and protesting Sharia Law and/or kowtowing to jihadis is FREEDOM at its finest and one terrific way to show solidarity with freedom-loving peoples the world over. Go, Pamela!

        • yadent says:

          Why do individuals keep using the KKK, ‘N’ word as a comparison to this incident?? It’s apples and oranges. I can say I hate all (insert your favorite PHYSICAL trait), which most targeted people can do very little to change due to it being a genetic property. However if I attack an IDEA/BELIEF system that is something completely different. There is NO genetic propensity for that characteristic. One may be offended for the challenge of their ideology, culture but that is something that most rational people can attempt to defend via effective non-violent communication. Attacking someone for a inherited physical trait is just stupid. As for Ms Geller, more power to her for questioning a belief system that relies on fear of violence for it’s existence. If we have to cower when questioning any ideology then we have lost the reason to exist as a ‘free’ country.

          • Blonde in Red says:

            Brilliant. Thank you so much for stating that so well.

          • doodahdaze says:

            We certainly have. What you are about to witness is without a doubt….trickle down social justice. Baltimore will become the model city for the experiment as we enter the new age. There is no one trying to stop it. They only try to adapt and preserve what few assets they have left. As the pie gets smaller and smaller. The age of redistribution is upon us. We old folks are dying off as Oafrah and the law of nature dictates. With us will go the memory.

            • joshua says:

              …..defeatest R US?? I am 73 and my values will live on through my four adult kids who were brought up with honest stories of the history of our nation.

              • Blonde in Red says:

                josh, dood had a valid point which is the ‘redistribution of labor’ (not just wealth, LABOR). Someone working their tuckuss off has to pay for some slum-skank having babies with six different men.
                White people aren’t reproducing, we are becoming educated and advanced, meanwhile, the third-world blacks and browns revert to the mean and have babies they can’t afford and expect white people having hardly any babies to pay for.
                This, as Margaret Thatcher once said [paraphrased], is a disaster once we run out of ‘other people’s money’.

                • smarty says:

                  I gotta say that the percentage of white trash single mothers are going up. It is everywhere now (welfare state).

        • dekare says:

          So, can a black man walk around in a predominately white neighborhood, and yell cracker? Can he call a cop a redneck MFing cracker? Should there be a law against this. Is it okay to beat him up if I am white and take offense to being called a cracker.
          I mean, you seem to think that KKK dressing white folk deserve an ass whipping in he dresses up and yells Nigger in a black neighborhood. So, is the reverse just as bad?
          See, the black man doing this WOULD NOT be beat more than likely. so he is comfortable and does it. I know this happens, as I have seen it first hand MANY times, and no one thinks much.
          But the white guy in the KKK dress, well, because we are afraid of the negativity of defending him, we say he deserves it. No he does NOT anymore than a black man deserves an ass whipping in a white man’s neighborhood. We stand up for the him, then we should do so for whitey.
          Why the double standards? Is having standards so good, that having double standards twice as good?

        • joshua says:

          uh….KKK never wore a “gown”…..they are called “robes”….you comment would have been OFFENSIVE to Southern Males in 1866 and gotten you probably hurt badly for it.

        • Monroe says:

          realitycheck,
          “I may have that right BUT I have responsibility for the potential outcome because my intent was not ‘free speech” and was just to cause confrontation.
          The issue is NOT free speech, she has the right to say whatever she wants but she also has a responsibility that goes along with that right.”
          Replace I/she in the above statements with “BGI”.
          Hence your argument is that the BGI has the right to use inflammatory speech but that they should not do so if the purpose is for confrontation. Also, since the BGI have a responsibility that goes along with the freedom of speech right then the BGI shouldn’t make false statements or provocative statements when they know if will result in mass riots, property destruction and civilian harm.
          Your argument for why Geller should have kept her trap shut should then also apply to the BGI.
          Why is the media not screaming for the BGI to stop inciting violence? They built the riots. The BGI’s speech is far more dangerous than a private cartoon party in BFE Texas.

          • realitycheck says:

            I agree tat the BGI should be held accountable for the consequences of their statements and incitement of riots

    • Mr. Olorin says:

      Anders Breivik also praised snow. Did he cause the Mt. Everest avalanche?

    • doodahdaze says:

      Slate, is only one cell of a cancer. Geller is an anti-body of the American immune system that is being destroyed.

    • Monroe says:

      Realitycheck,
      So you don’t believe in free will? Did Geller force Breivik to act a certain way?
      Usually mass murderers have an underlying psychological disorder. Breivik could just as easily fixated on the munchins from the Wizard of Oz and used that as a foundation for his manifesto.
      Your example is weak because it is based on an individual who is an aberration of society and not representative of the general non-mentally ill population.

  52. czarowniczy says:

    Politics is the art of the possible – so it’s quite possible the quisling little mayor was just trying to placate everyone and save his job. How many mayors, councilpersons and pols at various government levels gleefully marched Jews, Gypsies, the disabled and others right into the camps. SSDD. Hoo-ray for Almost Free Speech!
    Presently having my septic tank pumped, so I’ll have plenty of room for more of this kind of news.

  53. Eskie Mom says:

    Stella, you said “Free speech rights doesn’t protect you against those who want to shut you up. If you don’t exercise your freedom, it will disappear completely.”
    Agreed.
    I said that I disagree in my first post & I do. I didn’t mention “motives” in my original post, either. Sharon mentioned that, which is why I addressed it (in my reply to her). Of course, what she is doing is perfectly legal (I never suggested it wasn’t). Nor did I suggest, imply or say that they were “criminals” for having this cartoon contest (WTH? Do I need to state the obvious about the jihadis? Surely not.)
    You said, “Pam Geller believes that Islamic extremists intend to push Shariah Law in the United States, as they have done in Europe, particularly in England.”
    Well, no joke! Did you read the part of my post beyond that I disagreed with Ms. Geller’s method? (Europe & England can take care of their own problems. I’m worried about our country.)
    That’s my point, Stella. You say that she’s “pulling the fire alarm” and that “some of our citizens aren’t listening”. Exactly I don’t think anybody- the average Joe, learned anything from this. It was a spectacle & somebody even got shot, but did anybody get the message that these people are taking over our country & we are going to be in a world of hurt, PDQ if we don’t do something to stop it? I don’t think they did. I think the point got lost in the spectacle. They just shake their heads & keep on going.
    Yes. Freedom of speech is going to be the first thing to go under Sharia.
    How. is. this (& events like this). going. to. resolve. the. problem?
    The jihadists (& their wives & their kids & their mothers) should not be here. Period. They know where their culture is & they should go back to it. It’s not here. But it’s going to be here if the people who control whether they can come here & be allowed to subvert American law & American culture don’t do anything to stop this invasion*. That would be the Congress. Will this message reach Congress in a meaningful way?
    How is what Ms. Geller has done going to accomplish that? That’s what I’m getting at. I just think that all we’re going to get out of this is more crazy Muzzies (sorry) & maybe some dead/ maimed Americans, but it’s not going to do anything to solve the problem.
    Or worse, things like this may inadvertently lead the average Joe to just tune it out.

    • stella says:

      Of course it is going to do something to solve the problem. It already has. There is discussion all over television and on the web about free speech and Islamic Jihadis because of the Draw Mohammed contest, and the Jihadi attacks. As a result, ISIS has come out of the woodwork to make a public threat, so there is that too. More people know that ISIS is a threat to us here in our own country which, I might add, has been denied by some in our government and in the media.
      But ….. even if it wasn’t a help towards solving the problem, I would still defend the right to hold a legal gathering of people that didn’t threaten the lives and liberty of anybody. Just insulted some Moslems, who are perpetually insulted anyway.

      • jakeandcrew says:

        Exactly. It has called attention to a big problem, and that’s what is needed in America – a big kick in the butt to wake us up, to startle us out of our complacency.

      • Eskie Mom says:

        MAYbe. Considering the kind of garbage that comes out of the “news” & the lefty spin they put on everything, I’m afraid that all people are getting is confused & then they throw up their hands & don’t think about it. Nobody believes the MSM & nobody really believes that “they saw it on the internet, so it must be true”.
        My biggest worry- besides the whole “celebrity culture/ antics” (& politics has it’s “celebrities”, just like Hollywood) thing, is that people will only be desensitized & consequently more cynical/ apathetic- laugh & shake their heads at the silliness/ triviality of it all. “Why are these people getting all worked up over a cartoon? lol What’s that about?”
        Some of us eat, sleep, & breathe politics & current events. Most people, sadly, don’t have a clue. Shoot. Some of these people aren’t even fazed when it hits them in the wallet & the belly.
        (I’ll defend it, too. It’s like the soldiers who came home from Viet Nam & were confronted by the leftists. I don’t have to agree with them.)

        • joshua says:

          bengazi video maybe????

          • Eskie Mom says:

            Are you asking me? That should have gotten people’s attention. I don’t know if it did at the time, but it’s down the memory hole now. What is too bad is that the Congress (& I say this as someone who thinks highly of Trey Gowdy- but he can’t do it alone) squandered the imperative to hold Hillary Clinton & the 0bama regime to account. (I feel the same way about these hearings that I do about this conversation: if you’re not going to DO anything about something, why even bother to put on a show? Because that’s all it is.)

            • Eskie Mom says:

              Oh Joshua. I didn’t follow you until I saw the reference by someone else. You must have meant the video (I don’t recall the details of that) that allegedly “caused” the Benghazi attack. What precipitated Benghazi was our own government running guns to the terrorists who were “anti Assad”. (& didn’t they turn out to be/ morph into ISIS?)
              “We” are doing all of these piddly, superficial things (lol I’m going. I’m going.) to “wake people up” & “show them we’re not afraid of them”. (One last time: Why aren’t we kicking their behinds out of the country & keeping them out? And why are *our Congress, states, & city governments changing our laws & statutes to accommodate them?. This is the problem- not whether people make cartoons or videos or whatever. If they weren’t here, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.)

      • doodahdaze says:

        No apology is needed. Confrontation is the only solution. Kill us or cure us.

      • Blonde in Red says:

        Uh-oh. I might be in love with stella (someone warn my hubby, ha-ha).
        Totally silly me, I know, stella, but, thank you so much for your brave stance. I personally applaud you. Thank you and kudos.
        The perpetually ‘insulted’ will always be here, but, as long as freedom rings, they shouldn’t be dictating our speech. ever

    • mpmp2015 says:

      From a moving the needle standpoint of shining light on a serious problem, probably the event in Texas did little to raise the consciousness of average Americans to the growing threat of radical Islam in our country. However, if it was not for Pam Geller’s event and the terrorist attack associated with it, networks like CNN would NEVER interview her at all. They hate giving “right wing” opinion leaders any air time. The interview Pam did with Alisyn Camerota was amazing; though cringe-worthy for liberals. Pam just knocked her off point by point and getting that air time and the countless times it was replayed and shared online is priceless. To this point, Pam really only had a limited conservative following even among the Fox News crowd. She is really a one issue conservative; anti-radical Islam. I never hear her talk about the balance budget amendment, term limits or school choice. However, the interview with CNN really propelled her to a different type of statue and mainstream conservatives are now taking note of her and what she is trying to convey. So amongst the mainstream conservative crowd, Pam had a media bonanza.

      • joshua says:

        reminds me of Ted Cruz…..tell the facts whether or not folks WANT to believe the truth is up to THEM.

    • Monroe says:

      “You say that she’s “pulling the fire alarm” and that “some of our citizens aren’t listening”. Exactly I don’t think anybody- the average Joe, learned anything from this.”
      One reason that little may have been learned is that the media is presenting the event as a spectacle and not as an attack on free speech or even the role of ISIS. Where was the video of the event participants singing God Bless America?
      The media presented the shooting to serve THEIR agenda, which is an interesting reflection on freedom of speech or lack of it.

      • Eskie Mom says:

        Agree. I suppose I’m cynical, but not as cynical as many people. I can’t really even talk to most of the people in know in real life because they’re tuned out. Nobody cares because nobody thinks they can do anything about it. And God Help us, I’m afraid they’re right.

    • doodahdaze says:

      The USA is undergoing a Laryngectomy. It will get rid of rational speech.

  54. Rachelle says:

    Pamela Geller is using an astute and deliberate tactic recognized even in international law. I recall that many years ago a U.S. Destroyer periodically transited a stretch of international water between the Soviet mainland and a Soviet island. The media whined that the trip was ‘provocative’ but we had a sane administration then and it was explained that unless that stretch of water was periodically used it would effectively lose its status as international water. The same idea shows up when a traditional public footpath across private land is abandoned . . . it ceases to exist as a public footpath. Stop using your right and people like Cuomo and the rest of the media, and maybe the activists in government, will begin to believe that the right does not exist at all. Pamela Geller’s cartoon contest is exactly what is needed to preserve our rights. God bless her. May she keep it up.

  55. LEE JAN says:

    Perhaps Greta is auditioning for her old job back on CNN

  56. JohnP says:

    The excuse from law enforcement for not heading off the attack in Garland –
    “Despite Simpson’s public calls for jihad on Twitter, one law enforcement official told the New York Times that this did not make him unique or demanding of special monitoring. “The ISIS guys are talking to these wannabes on Twitter all day long,” the official told the New York Times. “It’s like the devil is sitting on their shoulder saying, ‘Come on, they’re insulting the prophet, what are you going to do about it?’”
    The official added that “There are so many like him that you have to prioritize your investigations.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/06/official-fbi-overlooked-texas-shooters-violent-tweets-because-there-are-so-many-like-him/
    Really? What a whinny lame ass excuse from the people who have no problem with raiding the homes of people who use the Patriot a few times too many. The truth is ISLAM is a protected minority in this country and the government spooks have been ordered to give them a wide berth.

    • triper57 says:

      I think the truth is that they are too busy trying to intercept all the American citizen’s emails that they have no time for the real threats.

    • MaryfromMarin says:

      “The truth is ISLAM is a protected minority in this country…”
      YES, a million times, JohnP.

  57. mpmp2015 says:

    RE: Greta Van Susteren’s post on Facebook this morning – The First Amendment free speech clause right is key to a democracy, but how one exercises that right is likewise important. Good judgment is important.
    Granted, exercising “good judgment” is important in society, however, in a free society, you have to also tolerate (yes, tolerate) hate speech. Good example is those of Louis Farrakhan. Most of his speeches are hates speeches, but he feels perfectly safe because those he offends does not have a large number of crazy people willing to kill him for spewing his hate.
    What Pam Geller was trying to do and demonstrate, and lets be real, was provocative and can be considered hateful by a sizable majority of Muslims. However, what she was really trying to point out in a very dangerous way was that radical Islamists may actually try to kill her for doing this. She was within her lawful right to hold this event and that there are people willing to violate the law and kill her in the name of Islam. Obviously, she is proven right. Thankfully, the armed security made the Texas event a safer place for the attendees and something that might have been tragic was kept to a minimum.
    Hey, when our founding fathers decided to rebel and speak out against England, the greatest superpower of its time, what they did can certainly be considered “bad judgment” and can bring harm to them and their families, but without their courage, this country would not exist.

    • Mr. Olorin says:

      GvS’s idea of “good judgment” is her and her MSM ilk being in charge of telling us all what we can and cannot say.

      • joshua says:

        I was already tottering on the brink of channel flipping when her program comes on, and she made my decision….and O’Reilly did the same as well…and if the DONALD thinks he can Run for President…forget about ANY votes in Texas you NYC retard.

    • ctdar says:

      Bad judgement? The colonialists spoke out and ultimately rebelled against the crown because after letting them leave to seek a better life or for religious or political reasons, the British still tried to rule over them via the Stamp Act (to start) or in a another words taxation without representation.
      The Constitution was precisely framed the way it was by our founding fathers to avoid what they had previously had to live under in England.

  58. mimbler says:

    Although we are a tolerant nation, the US basically has a Judeo Christian culture. The cartoons at Geller’s exhibit did not appear to me to be out of the mainstream for political cartoons, only muslim reaction to them is unusual for our culture. If we were to give in on the cartoons, they would then be free to move down their list on all the other things that Americans do that are offensive to them. A few examples would be our immodestly dressed women, our tolerance of gays, our choice of pets, our use of alcohol, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I don’t feel it is our responsibility to change the culture of our country to appease intolerant immigrants that want to shape the US into the kind of hell holes they fled from,
    Mike

  59. TexasRanger says:

    How Islam is Taking Over The World: Islamization Explained…..
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpM6QKaAgP0
    Islamic Muslims Around The World.

  60. Eskie Mom says:

    Chip, you said, “That’s odd. I didn’t realize that the freedom to exercise my natural rights ended at the boundary of my hometown. All this time, I’ve been doing it wrong…”
    So then, you’re okay with busing “protestors” to a targeted location to make some kind of point? I didn’t say- or imply, that your free speech rights ended anywhere. Although they are usually contained to the area we normally inhabit- or we would go to the person (ie Congress, our representative’s office/ city council) to whom we wished to appeal, wouldn’t we?
    I’ll look up this “Heckler’s Veto”. This is a new one for me. I’m not sure how you get from the predictable consequences of speech, free or otherwise, to “the infringement of all speech”. Not to pick nits, but aren’t conspiracy laws, laws against collusion, sedition (repealed?), & treason laws “infringement” on free speech? How is the surveillance state not (at least) an obstacle to free speech?
    If you think you can bully me into backing down on my assertion that communists should have been prosecuted (for trying to undermine the government) or kicked out of the country for their “free speech”, that’s not going to happen. Propaganda, deceit, manipulation, exploitation are facts that we are all aware of & currently living the consequences of. I do think some provision (I don’t know what. I’ve never thought it out that far.) should have been made to safeguard our society from those.
    “Generating awareness, fighting propaganda, and dealing with anti-American hostiles is exactly what Pam Gellar and Geert Wilders did. Do you not see it? How could you miss it?”
    But that’s just it. It really didn’t do that. It wasn’t “inspiring” or necessarily enlightening to the average person. (Did they even get the point?) Preaching to the choir (those of us who even know who Pam Geller & Geert Wilder even are)…well, we already knew what they were saying, didn’t we? It didn’t deal with anything, which is, at the heart of it, my complaint. I’m sorry, Chip. I don’t see it. I see, now, that it was (maybe?) meant to be “showing” (or educating) people-in-general. Did it work?
    It kills me to admit it, but people are pretty shallow, self-absorbed, & (I guess) not that bright (or maybe the right word is “aware”). They’re probably not going to get the message unless you spell it out in direct, simple terms what’s going on & what it means to them.
    I don’t think this was “cost effective”. It put the people of that area (or maybe America at large) at a greater risk for some kind of terrorist chimp-out, with potentially deadly consequences, for the sake of some kind of “parable” (if I’m understanding the point correctly.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      So then, you’re okay with busing “protestors” to a targeted location to make some kind of point?

      I may have a problem with it, but I recognize the inherent right of people to engage in such activity. My problem with that tactic is that it is used to perpetuate a falsehood. My response would not be to tell people that they can’t/shouldn’t do it; rather, my response would be to call them out for their duplicity.

      I didn’t say- or imply, that your free speech rights ended anywhere. Although they are usually contained to the area we normally inhabit…

      This makes absolutely no sense to me. My rights are inherent to my person, and may be exercised wherever I find my person.

      I’ll look up this “Heckler’s Veto”. This is a new one for me. I’m not sure how you get from the predictable consequences of speech, free or otherwise, to “the infringement of all speech”.

      Then perhaps you should study up a bit more on the concept, along with gaining a better understanding of the definition of consequence.
      Would-be terrorists picking up rifles and attempting to shoot a room full of cartoon artists is not a consequence of those artists drawing cartoons; rather, their action is a consequence of would-be terrorists being brainwashed in hateful, savage propaganda that teaches them to kill infidels.
      To restrict the lawful expression of cartoon artists because it is known that terrorist savages may attempt to kill them would be an exercise of the Heckler’s Veto. It is merely an exercise in subjecting rights to the delicate sensibilities of the perpetually aggrieved. If you continue to infringe upon rights in order that the perpetually aggrieved not be offended, then eventually those infringed rights will cease to exist.
      That is how you get from a cartoon contest to the loss of all freedom of expression.

      Not to pick nits, but aren’t conspiracy laws, laws against collusion, sedition (repealed?), & treason laws “infringement” on free speech?

      No, actually. In order to be prosecuted for such things, the speech/expression must first take place. There is no prior restraint of the expression, and in fact, prior restraint of speech/expression is unconstitutional. As you have said: freedom of expression does not mean freedom of consequences of that expression. If freedom of speech is used to commit treason, then the consequence is prosecution as a traitor.
      Divulging state secrets is treason, and therefore unlawful. Drawing cartoon images of Mohammad is perfectly lawful. Can you not understand the difference?

      But that’s just it. It really didn’t do that. It wasn’t “inspiring” or necessarily enlightening to the average person.

      Moving the goalposts? Just because something doesn’t have an impact on the “average person” doesn’t mean that it had no impact whatsoever.

      It put the people of that area (or maybe America at large) at a greater risk for some kind of terrorist chimp-out, with potentially deadly consequences, for the sake of some kind of “parable”…

      No, it most certainly didn’t. The choices and actions of would-be terrorists did that. A cartoon contest did not force/compel would-be terrorists to act. They acted of their own volition.
      To claim otherwise is classic ex hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

      • joshua says:

        from New York Daily News headline:
        ISIS threatens controversial blogger Pamela Geller in message boasting of ’71 trained soldiers in 15 different states’

        • Chip Bennett says:

          ISIS threatens controversial blogger Pamela Geller in message boasting of ’71 trained soldiers in 15 different states’

          How cute. We have 100 million armed Americans in 50 different states.

  61. yankeeintx says:

    For those of you who might be wondering, Garland ISD had the right to refuse the “Stand with the Prophet” event. The contract for rental states that “PROHIBITED ASSEMBLIES” include those that “are not in harmony with the goals and purposes of the district. (Based upon the opinion of the board). They must have felt educating about the supposed Islamaphobia and pro-sharia speakers were in compliance. After making that decision, they were forced to offer the venue to Geller or be sued.
    At the event in January there was a Jewish man with a radio show based in Florida that had flown in, and he was denied entry, as was Jesse Watters. All media were only allowed in for the first 20 minutes, and then were told they would have to leave. That is in direct violations of the rental contract, which states all ticketed events must be non-discriminatory. I live in Garland, and I hope the moslems are not welcomed back.
    http://www.garlandisd.net/departments/facilities/documents/GKDlocal.pdf
    http://www.curtisculwellcenter.com/documents/policies/Policies%20Procedures_11.13.12.pdf

  62. joshua says:

    BUT…..I thought the entire USA Obama administration said that our Ambassador and staff were MURDERED in Bengazi because of a VIDEO that insulted the Muslims by portraying Muhammud…..and has everyone forgot what a “cartoonish” movie video that was??? Gretta, Bill, and Donald are IGNORANTLY OUT OF LINE with their elitist egotistical pronouncement and pretense at supporting CONSERVATIVE America loving citizens. Quisling comes to mind. Maybe they need to have their heads shaved in SHAME???? We have NO more ADULT CONSERVATIVES in the media…except Levin and Rush.

  63. James F says:

    I guess rebuilding the WTC is just taunting Muslim terrorists and spurring a violent attack.
    I guess continuing to have the Boston marathon and putting up billboards that say “Boston strong” is inviting another muslim terrorist attack.

  64. jakeandcrew says:

    Cannot reply to this on it’s thread (too big), so I’m replying here:
    realitycheck said ~
    “Ms Geller’s actions have ramifications beyond what she individually says. Ms Geller is NOT a religion. She is a radical and people who follower her are swayed by her writings.
    If a person writes about encouraging others to commit an atrocity, do we not “police” that? If a person encourages attacking synagogues, do we not address that?”

    You are attacking Pam Geller, and that’s not the point. She’s a radical? Well, we could debate that, starting with the definition of “radical”. She encourages others to commit an atrocity? I’d need to see an example as proof. But all these things are not the point.
    No, we should not police what someone writes, but yes, we can address what someone writes. It’s the marketplace of ideas. If we don’t like what is written, there are many ways to express that. But if we’re going to limit what can be written, who makes those decisions? The government? No way!
    “…people who follow her are swayed by her writings…”
    I’m swayed by the writings of many people. On the other hand, some things that are written I find repulsive. But what I choose to DO about what I’ve read is totally my own responsibility.

  65. dekare says:

    There is an old saying…”If you want to see who controls you, just find out who it is you can not criticize”
    So, if we can’t say anything about islam for fear of offending or worse, causing muslims to kill, then what does that say about us and about muslims? Does islam control us? Do aggressive muslims control us? Do people who think drawing mohammed is bad control us? Whatever the reason given for saying SOMETHING should not happen, such as a drawing contest, then those that try to stop it, or we fear retribution from, are in control and we are not free.

  66. dekare says:

    So, if you think that geller should not hold drawing contest, then you are saying you should have control over her. Or if you think there should be a law restricting mohammed drawing contests, then you think the govt should be in control.
    A free person is NOT controlled. If someone seeks to control anyone or acts of any kind, they are trying to subjugate the people who would do what they think should not be done. Who put them in charge? Who is to say what is bad and what is not? If anyone wants to have a mohammed drawing contest, then they should do so. In fact, we should have one in every damn city in America. And if you don’t agree. you have a problem with freedom….get over it.

  67. Monroe says:

    How were the jihadists offended? The 2 men never entered the building and never viewed any cartoons. The shooters acted on the possibility that there might have been something offensive within the building.
    Consider this perspective. I see your pickup truck with the rifle rack, Confederate flag, and doggie box. I’m with PETA and I think you are vile for killing animals so I shoot at your house or I think you are a klansman and I shoot at you. Shooting you would be illegal and my assumptions are pure conjecture, and you have the right to hunt or be a klansman.
    Hence the shooters acted upon a potential and not an actual offense and used an illegal action to express their opinion.
    Geller’s intent is irrelevant and every involved person was aware of the consequences and most would have proudly died standing for their freedom.

  68. jakeandcrew says:

    “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
    ~ President Obama, UN Speech, 9/25/2012
    Chilling.

  69. strat4evr says:

    Jakeandcrew. Reading your posts I was so close to being swayed that maybe you were a person of intelligence that I might could learn and expaned my knowledge . Unfortunately your ignorance prevailed. That is such a waste but you are exactly right. Choices are your own responsibility.

    • jakeandcrew says:

      Really curious – where exactly has my “ignorance” prevailed? Seriously, I want to know.

      • stella says:

        Me too. I couldn’t figure it out.

        • doodahdaze says:

          Doo Dah Knows. I always know the big picture ahead but not the details of the present discombobulation. So far nobody says I do not and have not been able to provoke an opposite argument. Though I would like to. These things should be argued about. I want someone to take an opposing view,,….but noooo.
          Here:
          Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today’s society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance . Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do know that in the “real world”, however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other.

      • doodahdaze says:

        You are under the veil of ignorance but you do not know it yet. Sorry.

    • doodahdaze says:

      How can one be exactly right and such a waste? Yougottabekiddingme.

  70. Jill says:

    Southern Poverty Law Center To Add Cartoonist Who Won “Draw Mohammed” Contest In Garland To Its “Hate Group” List
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-usa-shooting-texas-cartoonist-idUSKBN0NP1ZS20150505

    • Les says:

      Smacks of censorship.
      Someone please tell the black folks they are not Arabs or Egyptians.

    • doodahdaze says:

      PLC is and always was a communist front. Not even infiltrated. The are illegal and should be arrested if law was enforced.

  71. doodahdaze says:

    The opponents of Pamela Geller advoacte “submission.” To Islam. There can be no doubt about this fact. Doo Dah guarantees it. Any other psychobabble is irrelevant. Submission is the name, of the liberal game. Any arguments?

  72. georgiafl says:

    ISIS has opened a resort for jihadists in Iraq. It seems Coca Cola is doing business with ISIS. That is disgusting. I am boycotting Coke until that stops.
    http://weaselzippers.us/222827-islamic-state-opens-five-star-resort-for-jihadists-in-iraq/#disqus_thread

    • Les says:

      Iraqi Coke tastes like carp. So does Mexican Coke.

      • Les says:

        And Pepsi is already over there, so don’t drink that, either.
        Good American water is best.

      • Monroe says:

        Mexican Coke uses a different sweetner. Coke uses different sweetners for different populations. Originally it was due to available resources in the bottling region. Now some genius is spouting that different ethnicities metabolize sweetners differently. If your Diet Coke or Diet Sprite taste different, it would be because of a sweetner change to increase consumption by AA.

        • stella says:

          Mexican Coke is sweetened with sugar, like ours used to be before corn sweeteners. You can buy it in this country – I’ve seen it in Mexican stores in the Chicago area.

    • Monroe says:

      Check out the ethnicity of the Coca Cola CEO. Another of my former clients.
      Ahmet Muhtar Kent (born 1952) is a Turkish-American business executive. He is the chairman and chief executive officer of The Coca-Cola Company. He was born 1952 in New York, where his father, Necdet Kent, was the Turkish consul-general. After completing high school at Tarsus American College in Mersin, Turkey in 1971….
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhtar_Kent

  73. BertDilbert says:

    Somebody did a Piss Christ and nobody died. If you did a Crap Mohammad, wingbats would come out of the woodwork.
    So here is my idea. Do a Crap Mohammad, probably in the south that has year round warm weather. It would be a giant water fountain with brown water squirting all over an effigy of Mohammad with a turban. On top of the turban would be an animal pen with numerous pigs roaming about. The pig deification would be separately contained so as not to contaminate the water.
    The initial filling of the fountain would be reclaimed water from the city sewage treatment plant.
    Strategically positioned around the Crap Mohammad art will be duck blinds for hunters to hang out as they await the wingbats to show up. Maybe we should rather call them bat blinds instead of duck blinds.
    The blind rental should pay for the electricity to run the fountain pumps making it self sustaining artwork that can be appreciated year round. The media will be more than happy to provide free advertising for the project making an advertising budget entirely unnecessary.
    To start off the project, I was thinking a small corn dog and lemonade stand until we can get a better judge of traffic volumes. Naturally, Pam would be invited on opening day.

  74. doodahdaze says:

    Me, I think it is time to stop beating around the bush.

  75. Aslan's Girl says:

    I remember when conservatives (including, iirc, Geller HERSELF) attacked Pastor Terry Jones for saying he would burn Korans in 2010. Palin, Romney, Obama, etc called it “needless”. I was infuriated by them. Those attacking Geller now are in my permanent “bad books”. Cowards. Geller was threatened by ISIS itself yesterday and her response is to host more free speech events.
    The DM said that she is full of “hatred”, the only thing Geller hates is oppression. And that is something we should all hate.
    I thought the other day that this event was a great way to get terrorists to come out of the woodwork. Bait them in a place like TX and then the world has two fewer bad guys. Win/win. We should do this more. So it’s really cool to hear Whittle saying the same thing!

    • BertDilbert says:

      We have 350 million people in this country and at any given time would naturally have a number of terrorist or those that consider violence as a way of settling disagreements. Rather than waiting for them to blow up at some future point, you might as well draw them out with free speech artwork and have them operate in a controlled environment.
      As a matter of public safety it is a win win.

  76. Aslan's Girl says:

    Stories like this really show how imperfect humans are. I’ve just learned that Franklin Graham, whom I usually love, has come out to attack Geller and defend Muslims. I could literally cry. I expect SO much more from Franklin due to his history of wisdom regarding Islam. And now this? God Almighty, we cannot put our trust in ANY man. Arghhhhhhh.
    http://therightscoop.com/the-folks-in-garland-texas-were-wrong-rev-franklin-graham-on-terrorist-attack/

    • lilbirdee'12 says:

      Please don’t be so disheartened by what Mr. Graham said. Not a single one of us can totally agree with another person. Franklin Graham is a man of peace. I doubt he has ever raised his voice or consciously said a harsh word to anyone in any threatening manner. He is a man of God, his opinions have not caused me to lose my trust in him.

    • Aslan's Girl says:

      Ha, I saw a tweet yesterday that said “my favorite drawings at the “Draw Mohommed” event was the two chalk drawings outside”. So much awesome!

  77. PatriotLRRP says:

    No amount of free speech is to much; especially when it’s the truth which is being spoken and the speaker is ready to protect their 1st amendment rights by exercising their 2nd amendment rights upon tyrants and domestic/foreign enemies who are hell bent on removing our rights.

  78. Deserttrek says:

    either we are all free to say what we want or none of us are .. there is no middle ground or exemptions or job descriptions

  79. Les says:

    Muslims say horrible things about Jews and infidels. All the time. It’s part of their script. They don’t get more respect than they have earned. I’m not even sure why they expect to. They have some things twisted. They’ve had thousands of years to get a clue.
    If it were up to me, the Dome of the Rock would be blown up. They made up, it was added much later, the fake story about Moomoo’s dream BS. That is enough of a pass and causes enough trouble in the world.

  80. “Good judgment is important.”
    This is only true insomuch as good judgment is important in every aspect of how we live our lives. That being said, whether or not we first exercise good judgment, our speech is free. Period. There is no but, unless, or else, etc. As Americans, we are free to speak and express ourselves however we see fit. If it offends someone, or an entire class of someones, so what.
    What the media has done is shamed us into compliance in so many ways. That is what they’re attempting to do with this “respect” for Islam mess, too.
    I agree with Bill Whittle – let’s set 1,000 – 10,000 of these ISIS traps and kill the rats now, while their numbers are still somewhat manageable. Forget being cowed by the threat of terrorism – that’s coming our way no matter what we do. We can face it like Americans or die like lily-livered cowards. Pandering to them won’t change a single thing they have planned for us. Not one thing.

  81. doodahdaze says:

    Seems like a lot more people are up on CTH compared to pre- Zimmerman. I have only been up here and noplace else but seems the word is getting out a bit here and there. More and more.

    • stella says:

      That’s true, Howie. Our daily visitors count has steadily climbed, with occasional huge spikes.

  82. TexasRanger says:

    ISIS in US Ready to Attack ‘Any Target We Desire’
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiY9pcpRvT8

  83. Millwright says:

    I want to erect a very tall, long sturdy granite wall. Chiseled deeply in that wall is the following:
    “What part of “inalienable” don’t you understand ? ”
    Our right of free speech doesn’t stem from government. Its “inalienable” and our government is expressly prohibited from circumscribing it in any manner for any reason without due process.
    I’m increasingly irate over government officials, judges, cops and bureaucrats abusing the term, “right”, to justify some outrageous action, when what they actually have are “powers” – powers ceded to them – ( and delimited) by the public they serve. Its an important distinction you see violated every day. Until we – as a nation – call out our public servants on this commonplace transgression we will continue to have conflicts over all our “inalienable rights”, not just the first.
    Closer to topic, its the most “offensive speech” most in need of our strongest support. Any – or all – speech contrary to prevailing, popular, or “acceptable” opinion in one era or political climate might well be popular in another. But the “trapdoor” inherent in any threatened proscription of free expression is it empowers a minority, (or majority), to dictate the “terms of debate” on any topic of public interest. You don’t have an “inalienable right” to not be offended ! You do, however, have a moral and ethical obligation under our governing philosophy to support it !

  84. judyw says:

    China Declares War On Islam: Prayer In Mosques Is Outlawed And All Muslim Shopkeepers Must Sell Alcohol Or Face Prosecution
    The Chinese authorities launched a series of “strike hard” campaigns to weaken the hold of the drug of Islam in China’s western region. So they have ordered Muslim shopkeepers and restaurant owners in its troubled Xinjiang region to sell alcohol and cigarettes, and even promote them in “eye-catching displays,” Alcohol and tobacco, while it is a problem, to the Chinese is the lesser of the two evils.
    Government employees and children are also barred from attending mosques, lest they consume the drug and are even prohibited from observing the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. And in many places, women have been barred from wearing Hijabs and the men are discouraged from growing long beards.
    What the west needs to learn, and they will, slowly, is that Islam is the antithesis to western ethics: the more you have repentant Muslims, the more they are prone to violence while in the Judeo-Christian ethics, it is usually that the repentant gives peace and also finds peace. The reason for such a reverse between the two ethics is simple to understand. Firstly, Islam focuses on the outward forms of holiness: Hijabs, beards, no drinking, no pork and no smoking. Secondly, Islam’s concept of ‘peace’ has nothing to do with western understanding of the term. Peace in Islam is the Muslim definition for ‘justice’ and is foreign in all aspects, be it the concept of peace, the definition of peace and the practice of peace. In Islam, peace can only exist when Sharia reigns supreme.
    http://shoebat.com/2015/05/06/china-declares-war-on-islam-prayer-in-mosques-is-outlawed-and-all-muslim-shopkeepers-must-sell-alcohol-or-face-prosecution/

  85. jakeandcrew says:

    http://i57.tinypic.com/atk688.jpg
    Wow. Wow. Wow.
    A must-read – “Texas terror: Inside event targeted by Isis”
    http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/texas-terror-inside-the-event-targeted-by-isis/

  86. Chaz says:

    Steve Green, the Trifecta fellow in the center, referred to Geller’s gathering in Texas as a “provocative art contest.” This terminology blames the victim. I can’t believe how often I hear such things coming from people who should know better. It is to say that peaceful, constitutionally protected behavior that violates no one’s rights is the problem – and the demented savages were simply responding to “provocation.” It shifts the blame from those who engage in violent behavior to their victims. I’m not saying Green is on the side of the savages. I’m simply saying that words matter – they convey ideas. Green was careless in his phrasing and used terminology that gives aid and comfort to those who want to excuse barbarism. Green and everyone who supports freedom must pay attention to their language so as not to inadvertently strengthen the position of those who want to destroy us.

Comments are closed.