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?

 

 

Advertisements
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. 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.

    Liked by 7 people

    • 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.

      Like

    • 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.”

      Like

  2. 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.

    Liked by 20 people

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

      Liked by 3 people

    • 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

      Liked by 1 person

      • 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.

        Liked by 1 person

        • 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.

          Liked by 1 person

          • 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.

            Liked by 1 person

    • 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.”

      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.

      Like

    • 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.

      Like

      • 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.

        Like

  3. 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

    Like

    • 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.

      Like

  4. doodahdaze says:

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

    Liked by 1 person

  5. 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

    Like

    • 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?

      Liked by 6 people

      • 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.

        Like

        • 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.

          Liked by 11 people

          • Blonde in Red says:

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

            Like

            • 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!

              Like

          • 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?

            Like

            • 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.

              Liked by 10 people

              • 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.

                Like

                • 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.

                  Liked by 6 people

                • realitycheck says:

                  and the radical jihadists got what they deserved. They are wrong.

                  Like

                • 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.

                  Liked by 4 people

                • Justice_099 says:

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

                  Like

                • 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.

                  Liked by 3 people

                • lilbirdee'12 says:

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

                  Like

                • Justice_099 says:

                  Thank you, lilbirdee

                  Like

                • 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.

                  Like

                • joshua says:

                  (that was for REALITYCHECK…got posted way beneath the original comment)

                  Like

                • 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.

                  Liked by 5 people

            • 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.

              Liked by 1 person

            • 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.

              Like

            • 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?

              Like

            • 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.

              Liked by 3 people

            • doodahdaze says:

              Here, Reality is applied to reality.

              Like

            • 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!

              Like

            • 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.

              Liked by 1 person

          • 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.

            Like

          • 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

            Liked by 1 person

          • 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…

            Liked by 2 people

            • 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.

              Liked by 1 person

          • 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.

            Liked by 1 person

        • 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?

          Liked by 13 people

          • 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.

            Liked by 2 people

          • realitycheck says:

            How about the Norwegian situation? >>> Anders Breivik

            Like

            • stella says:

              Immaterial.

              Liked by 3 people

              • 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”

                Like

                • 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.

                  Like

                • 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,

                  Like

                • 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.

                  Liked by 2 people

                • 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?

                  Liked by 1 person

                • 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?

                  Like

                • 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).

                  Liked by 5 people

                • 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.

                  Like

                • joshua says:

                  Jesus was a provacateur too…so what?

                  Like

          • 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

            Like

          • kinthenorthwest says:

            You hear that Stella thats us treepers
            Well Said–Can’t say it enough Stella.

            Liked by 1 person

          • 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.

            Like

        • 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.

          Liked by 1 person

          • realitycheck says:

            If I INTENTIONALLY offend you, you are correct

            Like

            • 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.

              Liked by 1 person

              • 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.

                Like

              • 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.

                Like

                • stella says:

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

                  Like

                • realitycheck says:

                  Am I stating hatred towards any other group?

                  Like

                • stella says:

                  You could. Free speech. Especially if what you say is true.

                  Like

                • Blonde in Red says:

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

                  Like

                • 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)

                  Like

                • 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?

                  Liked by 4 people

                • realitycheck says:

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

                  Like

                • stella says:

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

                  Liked by 3 people

                • 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.)

                  Like

                • 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.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • 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.

                  Like

                • 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.

                  Liked by 2 people

                • 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.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • 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.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • 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?

                  Liked by 1 person

                • jakeandcrew says:

                  Yes! Thank you!

                  Like

            • 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’.

              Like

              • 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)

                Like

                • Blonde in Red says:

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

                  Like

                • 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

                  Liked by 1 person

                • manickernel says:

                  It is the prescription drugs you gotta watch out for.

                  Like

                • Blonde in Red says:

                  /dead LOL!!!!!!!!!

                  Like

                • realitycheck says:

                  not if you are in Colorado

                  Liked by 1 person

            • 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?

              Like

              • Blonde in Red says:

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

                Like

              • 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.

                Like

          • 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.

            Liked by 1 person

            • 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?

              Like

              • 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.

                Like

              • Monroe says:

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

                Like

        • 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!

          Like

        • 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.

          Liked by 9 people

          • Blonde in Red says:

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

            Like

          • 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.

            Like

            • 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.

              Liked by 3 people

              • 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’.

                Like

                • smarty says:

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

                  Like

        • 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?

          Like

        • 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.

          Like

        • 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.

          Like

    • Mr. Olorin says:

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

      Like

    • doodahdaze says:

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

      Like

    • 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.

      Like

  6. 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.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

    • 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.

      Liked by 9 people

      • 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.

        Liked by 1 person

      • 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.)

        Liked by 1 person

        • joshua says:

          bengazi video maybe????

          Like

          • 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.)

            Liked by 1 person

            • 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.)

              Like

      • doodahdaze says:

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

        Like

      • 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

        Liked by 2 people

    • 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.

      Liked by 1 person

    • 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.

      Liked by 2 people

      • 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.

        Like

    • doodahdaze says:

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

      Like

  8. 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.

    Liked by 12 people

  9. LEE JAN says:

    Perhaps Greta is auditioning for her old job back on CNN

    Liked by 2 people

  10. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

    • 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.

      Like

    • MaryfromMarin says:

      “The truth is ISLAM is a protected minority in this country…”

      YES, a million times, JohnP.

      Like

  11. 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.

    Liked by 3 people

    • 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.

      Liked by 3 people

      • 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.

        Liked by 1 person

    • 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.

      Like

  12. 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

    Liked by 2 people

  13. TexasRanger says:

    How Islam is Taking Over The World: Islamization Explained…..

    Islamic Muslims Around The World.

    Like

  14. 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.

    Like

    • 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.

      Liked by 3 people

      • 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’

        Like

        • 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.

          Liked by 2 people

  15. kinthenorthwest says:

    Liked by 1 person

  16. 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

    Liked by 3 people

  17. 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.

    Like

  18. 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.

    Liked by 5 people

  19. 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.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. 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.

    Like

  21. 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.

    Like

  22. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. jakeandcrew says:

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

    Chilling.

    Like

  24. 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.

    Like

    • jakeandcrew says:

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

      Liked by 1 person

      • stella says:

        Me too. I couldn’t figure it out.

        Like

        • 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.

          Like

      • doodahdaze says:

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

        Like

    • doodahdaze says:

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

      Like

  25. 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

    Like

  26. 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?

    Like

  27. 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

    Like

    • Les says:

      Iraqi Coke tastes like carp. So does Mexican Coke.

      Like

      • Les says:

        And Pepsi is already over there, so don’t drink that, either.

        Good American water is best.

        Liked by 1 person

      • 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.

        Like

        • 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.

          Like

    • 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

      Like

  28. 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.

    Like

  29. doodahdaze says:

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

    Like

  30. 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!

    Liked by 1 person

    • 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.

      Like

  31. 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/

    Like

    • 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.

      Like

  32. kinthenorthwest says:

    Like

    • 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!

      Liked by 1 person

  33. 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.

    Like

  34. 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

    Liked by 1 person

  35. 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.

    Like

  36. “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.

    Like

  37. 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.

    Like

  38. TexasRanger says:

    ISIS in US Ready to Attack ‘Any Target We Desire’

    Like

  39. 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 !

    Liked by 1 person

  40. 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/

    Liked by 1 person

  41. jakeandcrew says:

    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/

    Like

  42. 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.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s