Tag Archives: Pamela Geller
Did Hillary Clinton support UN policy that would have criminalized Pamela Geller’s ‘Draw Muhammad’ contest?
By: Benjamin Weingarten
Presumed Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush was recently asked about the “Draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, TX that was attacked by two jihadists, and what Mr. Bush thought of event organizer and ardent counterjihadist Pamela Geller.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was not, but a new book gives insight into how she might think about the issue given her support as Secretary of State of a policy put forth by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the UN that comes into direct conflict with the First Amendment.
As Maj. Stephen Coughlin (Ret.) writes in his “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad,” which we discussed at length here, the OIC put forth a “Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century” approved in December 2005, one section of which dealt with “Combatting Islamophobia.”
In this area, the goal of the OIC — which some argue serves as something of a caliphate representing 56 Islamic states and the Palestinian Authority — specifically was to:
Emphasize the responsibility of the international community, including all governments, to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation.
Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia and to call upon all states to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishment. [Emphasis Coughlin’s]
This goal was codified in UN Human Rights Commission (HRC) Resolution 16/18. The resolution entails
Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief…
According to Coughlin — who in addition to being a leading advisor to the Pentagon on Islamic law is a practicing lawyer specializing in international jurisprudence — key to HRC Resolution 16/18 in the eyes of the OIC is the notion of criminalizing “incitement to violence,” as a means of “deterrent punishment.” The OIC desires that:
the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and all other non-Muslim countries pass laws criminalizing Islamophobia. This is a direct extraterritorial demand that non-Muslim jurisdictions submit to Islamic law and implement shariah-based punishment over time. In other words, the OIC is set on making it an enforceable crime for non-Muslim people anywhere in the world—including the United States—to say anything about Islam that Islam does not permit.
The crux of Coughlin’s argument is the language contained in an interlocking web of documents including the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.
Title: Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
Author: Stephen Coughlin
Purchase this book
Three particular portions of the ICCPR are critical:
- Article 18: (1) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. (2) No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. (3) Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. (4) The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
- Article 19(2/3): (2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. (3) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
- Article 20(2): Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Coughlin notes that the UN’s “Rabat Plan of Action on the Prohibition of Advocacy of National, Racial or Religious Hatred that Constitutes Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence: Conclusions and Recommendations Emanating from the Four Regional Expert Workshops Organised [sic] by OHCHR, in 2011, and adopted by experts in Rabat, Morocco on 5 October 2012” incorporates Article 20(2) explicitly by way of a footnote on the very title of the plan of action itself.
In other words, the UN Human Rights Council defines incitement according to ICCPR standards.
The action plan further states that HRC Resolution 16/18 “requires implementation and constant follow-up by States at the national level, including through the “Rabat Plan of Action” which contributes to its fulfilment [sic].”
The plan therefore would appear to serve the ends sought by the OIC in its “Ten-Year Programme of Action.”
Perhaps not surprisingly then, Coughlin reveals that during a 2012 interview, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu argued that the strictures of the ICCPR could be applied via HRC Resolution 16/18:
At this moment we have the Resolution 16/18 which was issued last year at the UN which forms a legal groundwork for criminalizing such actions that could lead to violence … there is in the International Agreement for Civil and Political Rights (Year 1966 Paragraph 18), a provision that would allow us to put limits on the misuse of the freedom of speech including misuse of freedom of press, freedom of thought, the misuse of these freedoms towards others, in a sense that it would encourage to violence and to hatred based on religious belief. [Bold emphasis Coughlin’s, italics ours]
But while the UN in general and OIC in particular make clear their intent to apply the ICCPR as a means of criminalizing acts of “incitement” in context of Islamophobia, the parallelism of ICCPR Articles 19 and 20 to the OIC’s Cairo Declaration is perhaps most telling.
Article 22 of the Cairo Declaration — which defines human rights according to Shariah law — reads:
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah. (1) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah. … (c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith. (d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination.
Coughlin argues that this language is fully consistent with the ICCPR, again leading to the repurposing of the word “incitement” as a means to enforce Shariah compliance. He states:
It is in this context that the OIC’s “test of consequences” narrative is used to turn the meaning of incitement in Article 20 Section 2 [of the ICCPR] on its head by converting it to a legal standard designed to facilitate the “shut up before I hit you again” standard associated with the battered wife syndrome. The OIC’s Fourth Observatory Report on Islamophobia [link ours], released in June 2011, calls for:
d. Ensuring swift and effective implementation of the new approach signified by the consensual adoption of HRC Resolution 16/18, entitled “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” by, inter alia, removing the gaps in implementation and interpretation of international legal instruments and criminalizing acts of incitement to hatred and violence on religious grounds with a view to curbing the double standards and racial profiling that continue to feed religious strife detrimental to peace, security and stability.
e. Constructively engaging to bridge divergent views on the limits to the right to freedom of opinion and expression, in a structured multilateral framework, and in the light of events like the burning of Quran geared towards filling the ‘interpretation void’ with regard to the interface between articles 19 (3) and 20 of the ICCPR based on emerging approaches like applying the ‘test of consequences.’ [Emphasis Coughlin’s]
Under the OIC’s redefinition of incitement, the “test of consequences” allows a third party to use an utterance as a provocation to violence, which then becomes sanctioned precisely because the third party acted out violently. Moreover, what criminalizes the utterance is the third party’s decision to respond violently. The “test of consequences” institutionalizes the calculated suppression of protected speech by naked use of force. This is institutionalized terrorism comfortably nested in facially neutral language.
What does a UN HRC resolution and the OIC’s interpretation of said resolution have to do with Hillary Clinton?
On July 15, 2011, then-Secretary of State Clinton offered America’s backing to OIC Secretary General İhsanoğlu to garner support for the implementation and ratification of HRC Resolution 16/18. Secretary Clinton stated:
I want to applaud the Organization of Islamic Conference and the European Union for helping pass Resolution 16/18 at the Human Rights Council. I was complimenting the Secretary General on the OIC team in Geneva. I had a great team there as well. So many of you were part of that effort. And together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs. Under this resolution, the international community is taking a strong stand for freedom of expression and worship, and against discrimination and violence based upon religion or belief. [Emphasis Coughlin’s]
The resolution calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence. We will be looking to all countries to hold themselves accountable and to join us in reporting to the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights on their progress in taking these steps.
America apparently would be subject to this resolution, as Clinton noted that she had asked:
Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom, Suzan Johnson Cook, to spearhead our implementation efforts. And to build on the momentum from today’s meeting, later this year the United States intends to invite relevant experts from around the world to the first of what we hope will be a series of meetings to discuss best practices, exchange ideas, and keep us moving forward beyond the polarizing debates of the past; to build those muscles of respect and empathy and tolerance that the secretary general referenced. It is essential that we advance this new consensus and strengthen it, both at the United Nations and beyond, in order to avoid a return to the old patterns of division.
To be fair to Secretary of State Clinton, Coughlin asserts that “it is not clear that the Secretary knows OIC concepts of tolerance and human rights are based on shariah.”
But, Coughlin continues, “she nonetheless committed to the underlying logic of Resolution 16/18.”
Moreover, Coughlin believes that Clinton tacitly recognizes the conflict between the policy she supported at the UN and Constitutionally protected free speech, with Clinton continuing in her 2011 statement:
In the United States, I will admit, there are people who still feel vulnerable or marginalized as a result of their religious beliefs. And we have seen how the incendiary actions of just a very few people, a handful in a country of nearly 300 million, can create wide ripples of intolerance. We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy. So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor. [Emphasis Coughlin’s]
These sentiments might help to explain why Secretary of State Clinton along with President Obama felt compelled to send a message to the Muslim world in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi disavowing any link between the U.S. government and the infamous “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video.
Given what we know, one wonders what Secretary of State Clinton might say about Pamela Geller’s “Draw Muhammad” event.
Note: The links to the book in this post will give you an option to elect to donate a percentage of the proceeds from the sale to a charity of your choice. Mercury One, the charity founded by TheBlaze’s Glenn Beck, is one of the options. Donations to Mercury One go towards efforts such as disaster relief, support for education, support for Israel and support for veterans and our military. You can read more about Amazon Smile and Mercury One here.
Pamela Geller And Free Speech
By: Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.)
Right Side News
Right and Left Question And Condemn Pamela Geller’s “Provocation Of Islam”
On The Right:
Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly: “Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid. It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad. . . . The goal of every decent person in the world should be to defeat the Jihad and in order to do that you have to rally the world to the side of good, our side. Emotional displays like insulting the Prophet Mohammed make it more difficult to rally law abiding Muslims… In any war you have to win hearts and minds, and the situation in Garland, Texas goes against that.”
Fox News’ Laura Ingraham: “There are a lot of things that we can say, that we have a right to say, that we shouldn’t say. We shouldn’t unnecessarily insult people, personal attacks.”
Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren: “It’s one thing for someone to stand up for the First Amendment and put his own you-know-what on the line, but here, those insisting they were defending the First Amendment were knowingly putting officers’ lives on the line — the police.”
Donald Trump on “Fox & Friends”: “What is she doing drawing Mohammed?…What are they doing drawing Muhammad. Isn’t there something else they can draw?…I’m the one who believes in free speech probably more than she does, but what’s the purpose of this?”
On The Left:
New York Times: “There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers. But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “This is problematic to me, because I wonder whether this group that held this event down there to basically disparage and make fun of the prophet Muhammad doesn’t in some way cause these events. Well, not the word ‘causing’ — how about provoking, how about taunting, how about daring?”
CNN host Alisyn Camerota to Geller: “And nobody is saying that this warrants the violence that you saw. I mean I haven’t heard anyone in the media saying that it’s okay for gunmen to show up at an event like this. But what people are saying is that there’s always this fine line, you know, between freedom of speech and being intentionally incendiary and provocative.”
CNN’s Jake Tapper to Geller: “Nothing justifies the attack, the violent attack. There is no justification, but I do want to ask you about your reasons for holding the event, if you’ll permit me. Charlie Hebdo ran a magazine in the name of satire and criticism and the magazine continues to attack every religion, every political party, all sorts of leaders. What was the purpose of holding an event that specifically focused on the prophet Muhammad?”
The Essence Of Right And Left Criticisms
Both sides of the political aisle are in agreement in condemnation of Geller’s exercise of her 1st Amendment right, that is, subjecting the “religion of peace” to 21st century satire.
Their complaints include that :
1) it was an unnecessary, insulting provocation which dishonored the U.S.,
2) it was disrespectful to “moderate Muslims,” thus alienating them from assisting us in the conflict against jihadists,
3) it was taunting in nature, putting innocents in gratuitous danger, and
4) it was pointless in terms of a winning strategy.
Answering The Right And Left Criticisms
National Review’s Rich Lowry: “Today, criticism of Islam is at the vanguard of the fight for free speech, since it is susceptible to attack and intimidation by jihadists and calls for self-censorship by the politically correct. . . . Yes, there is such a thing as self-restraint and consideration of the sensibilities of others, but it shouldn’t be the self-restraint of fear. Pamela Geller is a bomb-thrower, but only a metaphorical, not a literal, one. That’s the difference between her and her enemies — and between civilization and barbarism.”
Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens: “The higher criticism of Ms. Geller is that, while her constitutional rights are not in question, her judgment and wisdom are. I happen to think that Ms. Geller’s [is a] substantive contribution to the great foreign-policy debates of our time . . . A society that rejects the notion of a heckler’s veto cannot accept the idea of a murderer’s veto simply because the murderer is prepared to go to greater extremes to silence his opponents. . . . We live in an era where people like the idea of rights, so long as there is no price to their practice. We want to speak truth to power—so long as “truth” is some shopworn cliché and “power” comes in the form of an institution that will never harm you. Perhaps it was always so. But from time to time we need people to remind us that free speech is not some shibboleth to be piously invoked, but a right that needs to be exercised if it is to survive as a right.”
The Essence Of The Answers Defending Free Speech
As far as being an “unnecessary, insulting provocation that dishonored the U.S.,” when free speech is threatened, it is absolutely necessary that it be robustly and vigorously defended. And ANY criticism of Islam, including refuting the “religion of peace” lie by quoting Islamic scripture, is considered by Muslims to be an insulting provocation. So, any intellectual position or declaration, which is short of completely agreeing with and submitting to Islam, will be condemned by Muslims as provoking them. Finally, regarding free speech exercise dishonoring the U.S., like it or not satire is inbred in the U.S. culture. The true dishonor rests with Islam for being a religion that must kill people that intellectually disagree with Islam’s supremacist tenant that a negative assessment of Islam is punishable by death.
When it comes to the exercise of free speech being “disrespectful to moderate Muslims, thus alienating them from assisting us,” this is just a silly argument. Leaders in nations like Egypt and Jordan, which are threatened by Islamic jihadists, know that fighting jihadists is not a matter of pride – it is an existential matter of survival. To be clear, Muslims mortally threatened by jihadists are not going to decline to fight by our side because of pridefulness. Furthermore, Muslims are well aware of the criticisms against Islam. To pretend that the criticisms don’t exist is childish.
The assertion that “it was taunting in nature, putting innocents in gratuitous danger” is best answered with the question: “Why are innocents put in gratuitous danger by the exercise of free speech?” This assertion is acknowledgement that those opposing free speech are barbarians. Again another question: “Is there are code of conduct that guarantees safety when dealing with barbarians?” From the ancient Romans to Neville Chamberlain, such a code of conduct has proven nonexistent. Barbarians will attack when they believe it is to their advantage. Muslim culture is founded on the proposition that “might makes right,” and what is “right” and “moral” is doing whatever furthers the interests of Islam, irrespective of the human damage.
Finally, regarding “it was pointless in terms of a winning strategy” – nothing could be further from the truth. Such is the sentiment of the appeaser, or of the “dhimmi” to use the term common in the Muslim world. The U.S. and Western Civilization are currently losing the intellectual and psychological wars with Islam because no clear position has been enunciated by the leaderships. Pamela Geller finally drew an unmistakable line in the sand.
The Islamic jihadists’ declaration of war was undeniably made known at the World Trade Center on 9/11. President George Bush replied by falsely declaring that Islam is “a religion of peace.” President Barack Obama has doubled down on Bush’s fallacious declaration. Pamela Geller’s “Draw the Prophet Mohammed” contest exposed that Islamic terrorist violence is targeted at U.S. constitutional rights and underlined that we are in an existential war for our constitutional freedoms. Now it is up to U.S. political leadership, media, and American people to come together and show the same intellectual and physical courage as Pamela Geller did in Garland.
Pamela Geller — America’s Churchill
When Adolf Hitler published “Mein Kampf” in 1926, he spelled out his vision for Germany’s domination of the world and annihilation of the Jews. Germany would not have lost WWI, he wrote, “if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas.”
In 1933, Hitler’s Nazis took power. The few people who had read Hitler’s manifesto and took him seriously fled in time to save their lives. But most – including most Jews – didn’t. Comfortable, often prominent, and fully accepted, they believed in German society and could not fathom that a madman actually meant what he said and intended to fully carry out his malevolent vision.
Even as things grew increasingly menacing – through Kristallnacht, book burnings, the stultifying restriction of civil liberties, the expulsion of Jewish children from schools, the construction of Dachau, Auschwitz, Treblinka, and other death camps – there were Jews and others who downplayed Hitler’s ominous threat. Worse, they derided and vilified those who took him seriously, calling them fear-mongers and haters and liars. Sound familiar?
Today, the entire world faces the threat of galloping Islamic terrorism. We see this every day in every newscast – grisly individual and mass beheadings, people chained in cages and set on fire, hundreds of schoolgirls kidnapped, raped, and worse; Christian churches burned to the ground with their desperate congregants locked inside; innocent cartoonists shot dead and their colleagues gravely injured in France, Jewish babies murdered in their cribs and strollers. Increasingly, we see “honor killings” in the United States, as well as other freedom-smothering manifestations of Sharia law.
What happened in Germany in the 1930s and ’40s is happening in America today, except the assault on our system is not coming from Nazism, but rather from radical Islam. The mullahs in Iran and their surrogates around the world stand at podiums and declare boldly: Death to America, Death to Israel! They tell us outright that their goal is to create a caliphate in which Sharia law is the law of the land, in which all infidels – anyone who does not practice or has not converted to Islam – are relegated to second-class citizenship, draconian taxes, and groveling servitude, if not outright enslavement. Some of our own elected officials echo their words. All of them, like Hitler, rely on apologists who flagrantly lie about this escalating threat. Shame on them!
During WWII, Winston Churchill was the proverbial canary in the coal mine, repeatedly issuing the earliest warnings to the Western world of Hitler’s psychotic megalomania and evil intentions. Again, few listened, while prominent, educated, and sanctimonious types derided and vilified Churchill and called him a fear-monger and a hater and a liar. Sound familiar?
Since 2004, when she founded the Atlas Shrugs website (now PamelaGeller.com), Pamela Geller has been our Winston Churchill, warning of the increasingly aggressive actions of radical Islamists, the terrifying acts they commit, and their fervent goal to eviscerate our Constitution and Bill of Rights – you know, those little documents that afford us spoiled Americans the right to say what we want, be it in speech, drawings, art, movies, and music, without fear of being murdered!
That is why, as journalist Jonah Goldberg points out, the First Amendment applies to things that people find offensive, for instance Andreas Serrano’s “Piss Christ,” in which the “artist” urinated in a glass and then placed a plastic icon of Jesus on the cross into it, or the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s exhibition of a portrait of the Virgin Mary, which was partly comprised of pornographic pictures and elephant dung.
As I recall, all the holier-than-thou hypocrite who are calling for Geller’s head were bleating their support of “free speech” back then.
That is also why people who cherish the First Amendment agreed that it was okay to have a loathsome Nazi contingent walk the streets of Skokie, Illinois (with its formidable Jewish population) in the mid 1970s, and why other protest movements have been so powerful and important: for instance Patrick Henry’s bold declaration, “Give me liberty or give me death”; the Yo No rebellion in Cuba against its repressive government; the Boston Tea Party’s “no taxation without representation” protest; Susan B. Anthony’s “illegal” vote for women’s suffrage; Henry Thoreau’s demonstrations against slavery; the history-changing actions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks against racial discrimination…the list of heroic people sounding the alarms is endless.
Throughout history, all of these crusaders for freedom have been insulted by the cowardly accommodators among us, the appeasers, the apologists, and the deluded masses who thought, as Churchill said, that “the crocodile [of tyranny, fascism, murder, even genocide] would eat them last.”
Pamela Geller succeeded in literally flushing out the enemy within, two of the many jihadists in our midst. Only days after their failed assassination attempt, ISIS claimed credit for the attack and embarrassed our Department of Homeland Security into increasing security conditions at U.S. military bases and elevating the threat level in the U.S. to BRAVO – not the highest level, but pretty damn high!
But instead of praising Geller for her foresight and courage, cowards and apologists on both the left and right used the tactics of radical Saul Alinsky (described in his own manifesto, “Rules for Radicals”), which are to: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Hurling gratuitous epithets and insults and lying are also in their repertoire.
But in spite of it all, Geller is not intimidated, because like Churchill she has truth on her side! She awarded First Place to a graphic artist who left Islam for the freedom that the First Amendment offers.
Still, it is clear that few people have learned the lessons of September 11th and the 14 years that have followed about the increasingly urgent need for vigilance against a deadly serious enemy, and for the equally compelling need to thank and to celebrate people like Pamela Geller for risking everything to protect our priceless freedoms.
As journalist and author Mark Steyn reminds us, “you’ve heard them a zillion times this last week: ‘Of course, I’m personally, passionately, absolutely committed to free speech. But…and the minute you hear the ‘but,’ none of the build-up to it matters.”
“…all the nice respectable people are now telling us,” Steyn adds, what Mohammed Atta told the passengers on 9/11: “Stay quiet and you’ll be okay.”
Phony “Conservatives” and Britain’s Cultural Collapse
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
The usually astute Heritage Foundation commentator Nile Gardiner calls the win by the Conservative Party in Britain a defeat for socialism. Yet, Conservative Party head David Cameron ran on a platform boasting that “we have protected the National Health Service, with 9,500 more doctors and 6,900 more nurses, and ensured generous rises in the State Pension.”
Based on this precedent, we can anticipate that Republican Party politicians here in America will one day run on a platform of making Obamacare more affordable, rather than seeking to abolish it. This, then, will be defined as the “conservative” position.
The coverage of the recent British elections has demonstrated that the term “conservative” has lost much of its meaning. It’s time to take a hard look at what the term has come to mean in Britain and how it is being distorted and transformed here.
In addition to the Conservative Party’s embrace of socialist programs, the Cameron government, which has ruled Britain for five years, has embraced Islamic immigration to Britain, going so far as to pay more deference to global Islam than traditional Christianity. Demonstrating this bias, the supposedly “conservative” government in Britain banned American anti-Jihad activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from the country. Geller and Spencer had intended to rally opposition to the Islamization of the West. Spencer called Cameron, who has labeled Islam “a religion of peace,” as the “dhimmi appeaser.” The term means a non-Muslim who accepts Muslim dominance.
Cameron and his Conservative Party have also embraced the legalization of homosexual marriage. The Conservatives’ 2015 manifesto says: “Our historic introduction of gay marriage has helped drive forward equality and strengthened the institution of marriage. But there is still more to do, and we will continue to champion equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people.”
We can easily anticipate the Republican Party going down this road in the United States. In fact, the publication Politico notes that GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush is among those trying to “have it both ways” on homosexual marriage. “While he publicly maintains his opposition to same-sex marriage, reaffirmed over the weekend by a surrogate he sent to Iowa, Bush is sending signals that he may be more accepting of ‘marriage equality’—the strongest signal, perhaps, coming when he referred to the issue using that term favored by LGBT advocates—than he’s able to let on,” the publication reported.
It noted that Bush has hired a communications director, Tim Miller, who is openly gay, and his inner circle of staffers “have all expressed strong support for marriage equality, including Mike Murphy, hired to run his messaging shop, who wrote about the GOP’s need to evolve on policy following Romney’s defeat in 2012.”
Jeb Bush is shaping up as the David Cameron of the Republican Party.
In Britain the changes keep coming, now at an astounding rate. Andrea Williams of the British group Christian Concern says the Cameron government has not only “destroyed marriage” by redefining it to include homosexual couples, but it is also pursuing liberal policies in other areas. For example, she says the government has liberalized abortion and refused to outlaw abortions on the basis of the sex of the fetus. She says that in Britain nurses and teachers have been suspended for wearing Christian crosses, judges have been replaced for refusing to place children in homosexual relationships with two fathers or two mothers, and Christian street preachers are being jailed for “offensive” comments. “We have no leader at the helm of any of our main parties, whether it’s the Liberal Democrats, the Labor Party or the Conservative Party, who are speaking a moral vision,” she says.
Another British group, the Christian Institute, confirms these ominous trends and warns that “…here in the UK religious liberty is being increasingly challenged…Street preachers have been arrested. Christians have lost their jobs for answering questions about their faith or for taking an ethical stand. Christians in business have come into conflict with equality laws and faced fines for holding to the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Commentator Charles Moore had warned in March 2015: “Socially conservative moral views are now teetering on the edge of criminality, and are over the edge of disapproval by those who run modern Britain.”
In arguing that “Britain is at heart still a conservative country,” Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation was talking about a country that no longer exists. His only reference to Britain’s cultural collapse came in his observation that Cameron had “alienated many grassroots supporters with highly controversial ‘modernizing’ policies such as backing gay marriage and increasing spending on foreign aid, both deeply unpopular with the Conservative base.” In fact, as we have seen in the statements quoted above, the conservative base has been betrayed on a host of issues. Today, even free speech is at risk in Britain.
In the U.S., it appears that big money is driving the Republican Party to the left, along the same path taken by Britain. The Politico article quoted earlier noted the influence of hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, who has decided that since his own son is gay, the Republican Party should embrace the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual marriage. The publication said that Bush is determined to win Singer’s personal support, and added that “other billionaire bundlers like Seth Klarman and Dan Loeb, another hedge funder known for asking any candidate who enters his office where they stand on gay rights,” are also looking for Republicans to finance and push their pet causes.
As these developments unfold, it will be up to conservatives in the media and the think tanks to shine a light on the attempted takeover of the Republican Party. That will be much harder to do if the conservative media become part of the problem and go AWOL on the need for a moral vision to save the country.
In this context, Guy Benson, the political editor of its conservative Townhall.com website, has announced that he is a practicing homosexual. Benson, a supporter of homosexual marriage, is a Fox News contributor who appeared on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News show to discuss coming out of the closet through a footnote in his new book. “I think it’s very brave,” Kelly told him.
Fox News has been a major financial backer of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, a group that featured a male stripper at its recent New York City fundraiser. However, Townhall.com’s parent company is a Christian firm, Salem Media Group, which has refused comment on whether Benson will retain his influential position within the company. The company describes its mission as “targeting audiences interested in Christian and family-themed content and conservative values.”
You’re on the Front Line of the Islamic War
By: Alan Caruba
Does anyone remember what happened on September 11, 2001? Or is it just “ancient history” at this point? Some three thousand totally innocent Americans were murdered by a sneak attack on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Who did it? The same murderous Islamists who attacked an event in Garland, Texas to focus attention on the insanity that passes for one of the world’s great “religions.”
Islam is not a religion. It is a cult around the so-called prophet Mohammad and his assertion that the Koran was the word of Allah. The name Islam means “submission” and the purpose of Islam is the tyrannical control over the entire world’s population. Within this alleged holy faith, two sects, Shiites and Sunnis, have been at war almost from its inception, never failing to kill one another.
The turmoil in the Middle East is the direct result of this murderous cult and those Muslims who oppose the killing that flows from Islam must keep their silence or become its victims. Jews and Christians can speak out and debate about aspects of their faiths, but Muslim risk death when they do so. For those Jews in Christians living in Middle Eastern nations, death is always a prospect for no other reason than not being Muslim.
Americans have not yet fully embraced the fact that they are on the front lines along with other Western nations in a global war with Islam.
Will it take another 9/11? Surely the recent attack by two Islamists on May 3rd in Garland, Texas, was another wake up call. They arrived intent on killing as many of those attending the American Freedom Defense Initiative event. A Garland police officer killed both before anyone had to die in the name of the Bill of Rights.
But why Garland, Texas? Because, as my friend Amil Imani noted in a recent commentary, “The venue was chosen as a defiant response to a Muslim group that had held a conference entitled ‘Stand With the Prophet Against Terror and Hate.”’ Ironic, eh? Their response to the event that invited cartoons of Muhammed as to want to kill the participants. If that is not war, I do not know what is.
If Muslims feel hatred, they have earned it here in the United States and elsewhere they have attacked any criticism or defiance, from Charlie Hebdo in France to the countless attacks around the world from Mumbai, India to Bali. A website, the Religion of Peace, com, posts news of the daily assaults by Muslim on both other Muslims and those they call “infidels”, unbelievers.
Pamela Geller who leads the American Freedom Defense Initiative has been widely assailed for her event that was intended to respond to the earlier one in Garland that Amil Amani noted “was convened to eliminate free speech or any expression, verbal and/or artwork depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammad in a negative light.”
“As a life-long expert on the subject of Islam, I felt that this event—more than anything else Pamela could have done—would be the target of a violence terrorist attack in the name of the religion of peace, either real and explosive or on social media at the very least.” It was real.
The Garland police were taking it seriously. Amani said “I was astonished at the large police presence already there. Some of the cops were dressed in tactical gear and carrying AR-15s. The security was ubiquitous, almost as if something untoward had already happened.”
Speaking in an interview with Sean Hannity on May 6, Geller noted that neither the FBI nor the Department of Homeland Security has yet to have contacted her about the thwarted attack. “This is a serious threat” said Hannity. “Basically a Fatwah, a death threat, has now been issued.” Geller noted the lack of interest or concern expressed by those in our government one might expect to at the least make an inquiry, adding that “I have a team now, private security, and NYPD counterterror has been in touch with me.”
Now I call that a level of courage for which Pamela Geller should be praised, but I heard too many criticisms that she was being “provocative.”
When are Americans going to realize that the Islamists do not need any provocation? When are we going to start acting like we are at war? A good first step would be to stop inviting Muslims to immigrate to America. The Obama administration has been importing as many as possible. The next step is to understand that it is Obama and his administration that are part of the Islamic war.
It is the Pamela Geller’s that are crying out to us. We need to listen. We need to support them. We need to arm ourselves if we have not done so already. Then we need to secure “concealed carry” laws in every State of the Union. We are at war.
Cities On Fire – Dallas/Garland
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Hat Tip: Arlen Williams
How very appropriate that on May Day, May 1st (Commie Day), protests were staged in Dallas, Texas against immigration and police brutality. Two groups joined forces for the protests: Mothers Against Police Brutality and the Texas Organizing Project. Their common stated goal was an end to law enforcement terrorizing their communities. Translation… the federalization of our police forces. The protests in Dallas were only violent in message, not deed, but they are setting the country on fire Constitutionally and figuratively. This is not grassroots – it’s staged. Things are never ever what they seem anymore.
Let’s have a look at exactly who was behind the protests in Dallas on May Day…
We’ll start with Moms Against Police Brutality. I’m sure all of you have heard of the various Mom’s groups out there: Moms Against Drunk Driving, Moms Against Guns, Moms Against Knives and now Moms Against Police Brutality. There are a number of others as well out there. I suspect they all have similar roots.
The mission of Mothers Against Police Brutality is to:
- Unite and support Mothers and families nationwide whose children’s lives were stolen and have suffered injustice at the hands of local police.
- End the killing of unarmed and mentally ill persons by law enforcement personnel.
- Change police deadly force policies, practices and training.
- Hold police accountable through independent investigations of misconduct, brutality and homicide by police officers.
- Help restore trust between police and the communities they are sworn to serve and protect.
In the end – what their mission is boils down to the nationalization of our police forces. Plain and simple. Brought to you by Barack Obama and his wing man, Al Sharpton.
Their partners are some very familiar organizations. Along with numerous chapters of Students Against Police Brutality, their national partners include:
- Bill of Rights Defense BORDC
- Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression
- Families Living for Justice
- National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression
- The Prodigal Child Project
- Stop Mass Incarceration Network
- Texas Moms United to End the War on Drugs
- Veterans for Peace
And what do a number of these groups have in common? The Communist Party USA and United for Peace and Justice: UFPJ is a coalition of more than 1400 local and national groups throughout the United States who have joined together to protest the immoral and disastrous Iraq War and oppose our government’s policy of permanent warfare and empire-building. They are a partner organization of the Institute for Policy Studies, which in essence is George Soros. The National Coordinator is Leslie Cagan. Several Marxist organizations are involved in the UFPJ leadership, but the most influential has been the Communist Party USA, through their members and Steering Committee such as National Coordinator Judith LeBlanc, Steering Committee members such as Jacqueline Cabasso, Libero Della Piana and Siri Margerin and affiliate leaders including Rosalio Munoz, Alfred Marder and Erica Smiley.
Mothers Against Police Brutality also allies with Cornel West. They gave a special thank you to the Nation of Islam as well for providing security.
Protesting Police Brutality (Shutterstock)
Texas Organizing Project is the new alias for ACORN. ACORN is the Progressive zombie organization exposed by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles that just won’t die. They just keep being resurrected under different names.
TOP received $20,000 from the Tides Foundation – yep, George Soros again. They also got a grant from the Open Society Institute. They claim to seek social and economic equality in Texas – how very Marxist and un-Texan.
Nice flag you’ve got there…
Protesters rally against police brutality in a demonstration outside the
Frank Crowley Courts Building in Dallas. (Vernon Bryant/Staff Photographer)
Signs with sayings such as “black lives matter” and “unarmed but still a possible victim,” were paraded and displayed. “Dallas is Baltimore. Dallas is Ferguson,” said John Fullinwider, with Mothers Against Police Brutality. Backing the Blue rallied on behalf of the police.
The marches ended in Dallas after about five hours with no arrests reported. About 500 attended – not a big number, but in a conservative state such as Texas it shows the Progressives are busy little Marxists who are at war, intending to turn a red state into a blue state with whatever it takes… chaos, protests or riots. These things are on their hit parade and are coming. Their chants of “This is what democracy looks like!” mingled with “Down, down deportation; up, up immigration!” and “Si, si, puede!” will reverberate across the nation this summer. I suggest ear plugs and antacid.
Open Carry supporters peacefully stand watch over protesters. Photo Courtesy Annie Kobus
Notice the Nation of Islam standing right there.
Pamela Geller – Atlas Shrugs
In Garland, Texas at the “First Annual Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest,” which this site promoted, two armed gunmen with semiautomatic weapons opened up on a security guard wounding him in the ankle. He will be fine thank God. They supposedly had explosives. The event was sold out with about 300 attendees and ran late – which probably saved their lives. As this was going down outside, they sang God Bless America inside… I couldn’t be prouder of everyone there. Most of them were also armed. And I am overjoyed the two ISIS thugs are dead.
From CBS here is the timeline:
7:45 pm CT: Officers tell Gabriel Roxas that two suspects were shot dead. Pamela Geller spoke to CBS 11 from lockdown via phone at 7:45 pm CT. In addition to echoing our ground team, she told a news producer, “I heard officers talking of possible explosions in backpacks and the car.” Sources told CBS 11 there was a report of a ‘grenade’ at an area Walmart, but the Garland PD said none was found.
8:11 pm CT: Joe Harn, spokesman for the Garland Police Department, tells CBS 11 two men pulled up in vehicle on the roadway in front of the center and began firing at a Garland ISD security guard. Garland Police returned fire and killed both suspects.
8:11 pm CT: Suspects’ vehicle being checked for explosives. It is scheduled to be detonated.
8:20 pm CT: Authorities tell CBS 11 that SWAT will escort 48 people at a time out of arena soon, but many are parked in a now secured area and cannot access cars.
8:30 pm CT: Garland ISD spokesman Chris Moore says one of their security guards was shot. His name is Bruce Joiner. He has been with the district for 8 years. He has non-life threatening injuries after being shot once in the leg. He’s in stable condition at a local hospital.
9:00 pm CT: Security guard Bruce Joiner released from hospital.
9:12 pm CT: No press conference until authorities have cleared the suspects’ vehicle.
9:29 pm CT: Muslim Response to Dallas Shooting. Harris Zafar, Vice President of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association told CBS 11 via email: “People need to hear a strong Muslim voice condemning this insanity.”
9:29 pm CT: Suspects’ bodies still at the scene.
10:16 pm CT: Joe Harn of the Garland Police Department told CBS 11, “We were prepared for it.”
10:33 pm CT: Harn holds a press conference. When asked about the suspects, he said, “They drove out, got out, and opened fire on the security officer.” When asked about their identities, no information was disclosed.
10:34 pm CT: There were reports of a third suspect, but Harn said, “I don’t have any idea about that.”
ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack – the contest was held at the same location and in the same room as a pro-Shariah law event was held just recently. When the killers opened fire and one reached for his backpack, one police officer didn’t hesitate, he took them out. That’s exactly what should have happened. That officer and others there did their jobs and I’m proud of them for it.
The SITE Intelligence Group reported that an ISIS fighter claimed on Twitter that the shooting was carried out by two pro-ISIS individuals. In a series of tweets and links, a Jihadist named as Abu Hussain AlBritani, which SITE said was British ISIS fighter Junaid Hussain, claimed that ‘2 of our brothers just opened fire’ at the Prophet Muhammad exhibition in Texas. ‘They Thought They Was Safe In Texas From The Soldiers of The Islamic State,’ added the tweet. And ISIS thought they could do whatever they wanted – not in Texas evidently, you asshats. Both of the dead terrorists were from Phoenix, Arizona. It is also being reported that the FBI knew of their planned attack for several hours at least beforehand and did nothing about it. FBI director James Comey revealed that the agency had information that Elton Simpson was interested in heading to Garland, Texas, before he and his companion, Nadir Soofi, opened fire at the Mohammed cartoon contest. Comey told reporters that the FBI had alerted the police in Garland, Texas, shortly before the event. Officers on the ground never saw the warnings, however, and no attempt was made to warn the organizers or their security team of the threat.
The suspects’ bodies are seen next to their vehicle as it is searched for explosives
at the event. Two men got out the vehicle and opened fire, wounding a security guard in the leg,
before they were shot dead by police.
ISIS supporters claimed on Twitter that one of the gunmen was a man calling
himself Shariah Is Light.
Their getaway vehicle also looked like there was damage from an explosion to it, probably form SWAT preemptively blowing it up just for good measure.
Since the attack, ISIS has taken credit and both men were confirmed Islamists. As Pamela Geller put it on Fox News, this is a war on free speech. Pure and simple. Islam is trying to strip us of our Constitutional rights and we will not be silenced.
There had been no credible threats before the event and the shootout lasted seconds with about 20 shots being fired. Although there were no threats, Pamela and Robert have traveled with security for over 10 years and they had paid for heavy security for the event. This is a way of life for Geert Wilders. What a sad statement that is.
Any innocent blood spilled is all over Obama’s hands on this… he opened the borders and let them in. Hell, he’s flown and bused them in from all over the world. He’s brought ISIS here and now the fight is at hand.
Artist Bosh Fawstin (left) is presented with a check for 12,500 by Dutch politician Geert Wilders (center)
and Pamela Geller (right) during a ceremony at the Curtis Culwell Center just before the shootings occurred.
Here is a captured timeline from one of our readers on Twitter – this account has now been suspended:
And know that every time you insult the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w we will respond harshly, from paris to texas u are not safe at all.
3 retweets 5 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 14m 14 minutes ago
They showed their love for the prophet Muhamamd s.a.w by sacrificing their lives for his honor – #GarlandShooting
7 retweets 5 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 15m 15 minutes ago
The brothers in texas may have had no experience in shooting but they was quick to defend the honor of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w !
6 retweets 5 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 47m 47 minutes ago
“And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah , “They are dead.” Rather, they are alive, but you perceive it not”
8 retweets 5 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 49m 49 minutes ago
The 2 Brothers attained shahdah in texas! O Kuffar know that death is better than living humiliated! Allahu Akbar !!! #garlandshooting
17 retweets 10 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 53m 53 minutes ago
If there is no check on the freedom of your speech, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions #GarlandShooting #TexasAttack
8 retweets 8 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 58m 58 minutes ago
They Thought They Was Safe In Texas From The Soldiers of The Islamic State – #garlandshooting #TexasAttack
18 retweets 9 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 1h 1 hour ago
Kill Those That Insult The Prophet – #GarlandShooting
16 retweets 8 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 1h 1 hour ago
Allahu Akbar!!!!! 2 of our brothers just opened fire at the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) art exhibition in texas! #TexasAttack
44 retweets 16 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 1h 1 hour ago
@atawaakul May Allah swt reward you and give you Jannah !
0 retweets 3 favorites
Shariah is Light @atawaakul · 2h 2 hours ago
The bro with me and myself have given bay’ah to Amirul Mu’mineen. May Allah accept us as mujahideen.
31 retweets 21 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 4h 4 hours ago
The knives have been sharpened, soon we will come to your streets with death and slaughter! #QaribanQariba
12 retweets 7 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 4h 4 hours ago
“They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it” -61:8
3 retweets 3 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 4h 4 hours ago
Im back, follow & shoutout inshAllah – JazakAllah khair.
The Daily Mail couldn’t even bring themselves to show Mohammad in their report. After the Charlie Hebdo murders, this should be a stark reminder to Americans we are not immune from such atrocities. The war is now here and touching each of us personally. Matthew Vadum at FrontPage Mag says it best, “The anti-cartoon Jihad has come to America.”
“We say to the defenders of the cross, the U.S., that future attacks are going to be harsher and worse. The Islamic State soldiers will inflict harm on you with the grace of God. The future is just around the corner.”
And the AFP:
“Two of the soldiers of the caliphate executed an attack on an art exhibit in Garland, Texas, and this exhibit was portraying negative pictures of the Prophet Mohammad … We tell America that what is coming will be even bigger and more bitter, and that you will see the soldiers of ISIS do terrible things.”
After being attacked by both sides of the aisle for holding a contest to draw Mohammad, a contest that basically showcased free speech, Pamela put it bluntly, “Everyone seems so eager to surrender. I never will.” And neither will I. Those who stand against Pamela Geller and anyone taking a stand for free speech against Shariah Law and the Islamists, I’ll ask you what Bill Whittle has asked… which are you… a fascist, a coward or a moron? Or are you all three? #IStandWithPamelaGeller
“We saw the ugly face of radical Islam in Garland, Texas, recently,” Cruz said of a “Draw Muhammad” event there, “Thankfully, one police officer helped those terrorists meet their virgins.”
‘Saturday Night Live’: Draw the Prophet Muhammad
Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement – Free Speech In America Is Non-Negotiable
Watch Video: Pamela Geller Spars with Judge Jeanine Pirro Over Free Speech
I didn’t start this holy war, but I won’t lie down and submit, either. And I certainly won’t take the blame. The jihad doctrine and the sharia incites these devout Muslims, not I.
Stand With Pam
By: Trevor Loudon
Great interview with Pam Gellar from Newsweek:
After organizing the contest for Prophet Muhammad cartoons in Garland, Texas, where two men opened fire, the conservative blogger has drawn scorn from both sides of the aisle and made her way to the top of an ISIS hit list. Geller is promising more controversial events like the one in Texas. While many are calling her an Islamophobic provocateur, Geller calls herself a freedom of speech champion.
Few would argue about your right to draw any cartoons you wish, but isn’t it just bad manners? Why insult a religion? Why not make your point in a way that doesn’t offend people?
The point was not to insult a religion. It was not I, but the jihadis, who made Muhammad cartoons the flashpoint for the defense of the freedom of speech. If they had announced that they were going to kill non-Muslims for not obeying any other element of Shariah law, we would have made our stand on that. They are trying to intimidate free people into submitting to Shariah blasphemy laws by killing over the cartoons, so it was over the cartoons that we had to make a stand.
All cultures have contributed in their own way to making their imprint on America. What, specifically, is wrong with the Islamization of America.
The problem with Islamization in America specifically involves the aspects of Shariah that conflict with principles of human rights and constitutional freedoms. I stand for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all before the law, and individual rights. I oppose the elements of Shariah that deny the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women, non-Muslims, and gays, etc.
Do you attribute the violence in the Muslim community to an extremist faction within the religion? Or do you view this as deeper problem involving the core worldview inherent in Islam?
The Islamic jihadists refer to the texts and teachings of Islam—the Koran and the example of Muhammad—to justify their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. Those Muslims who reject that understanding of Islam are not doing anything to combat it. There is, for example, not a single program in any mosque or Islamic school in the U.S. to teach young Muslims to reject the Islamic State’s understanding of Islam. With the Islamic State [ISIS] energetically recruiting young Muslims in the U.S., that is a significant omission.
Since you have been calling out Muslim extremists for violence and intolerance for years, what, if anything, surprised you about the violent reaction to the contest? Or was it expected?
I have been working in defense of freedom since 9/11. I always have security because I understand the threat. This art exhibit was no exception. I was aware that something could happen (something can always happen)—that’s why we spent tens of thousands of dollars on security. People say I was hoping for an attack or trying to provoke one—that’s a repulsive libel. I was standing for the freedom of speech against violent intimidation. In doing so, I knew the risks and took them into account, and our security measures worked: The jihadis were prevented from entering the event and committing mass murder.
Does anyone think that these two jihadists would have lived quiet lives as peaceable and loyal Americans if we hadn’t held the contest? They would have waged jihad elsewhere, on a less-protected target, and killed more people. The jihadists were the end of the line. By drawing them out, we exposed their network. And because we secured the perimeter, we were able to expose the network without getting anyone killed. The FBI can now go after the sources. They are gleaning intel from their computers as we speak. We smoked out a terror structure. This was a watershed.
ISIS has made a clear terrorist threat against your life. What kind of support, or protection, have you received from the federal government? What kind of contact have you had? Are your children protected?
I have no comment on security issues, for obvious reasons.
Could you elaborate on the nature of the death threats you have received from ISIS? Were there others that the public doesn’t know about? If possible, please go into depth and be specific.
I have received many death threats over the years. Some have been made public, and some haven’t. The Islamic State threat is a matter of particular concern because they have made clear their intention to strike in the U.S. and have shown that many Muslims in the U.S. are anxious to heed their call.
If ISIS manages to make good on the threat against your life, will it have been worth it?
Is freedom worth fighting for, worth dying for? I love life, it’s why I do what I do. I do not want to die. But I am not willing to live as a slave. I have fought for freedom for well over a decade now and will continue to do so to my dying breath, with no regrets. There is no other option. Silence is far scarier.
What is next for Pamela Geller? Specifically, do you foresee yourself engaging in future contests or activities to draw cartoons of the prophet?
We have been holding events like this for years. I think that more events like the one in Garland have to be staged, or the jihadis will get the message (again) that terrorism works, violent intimidation works, threats work.
If we surrender on that point and stop drawing Muhammad, we’ve established a precedent of surrendering to violent Shariah enforcement, and once established, we will be made to reinforce it again and again.
Everyone seems so eager to surrender. I never will.