As If Only Followers of Islam Take Offense

 

In the wake of the “Draw Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” in Garland, Texas, the world of reporting and opinion journalism has largely taken the side of the Jihadists taking great offense each attempting to out-do the Muslims in taking insult. Their grand excuse is that what Ms. Geller, Mr. Spenser and Mr. Wilders were not expressing free speech but were expressing hate speech and therefore not worthy of Constitutional protection. I wonder if this exception which makes the “Draw Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” not protected speech as it gives strictest followers of Islam so upset that they believe that Ms. Geller, Mr. Spenser and Mr. Wilders, especially Ms. Pamela Geller, deserve to be put to death for their insult to Islam also apply to my distaste and deep seated ire when Islamic Imams and others when they call for “Death to Israel” or compare Jews to Apes and Pigs. Would the same self-righteous giants of the world of news and opinion journalism and other media moguls give the same leeway to Jews if they were to respond to such insult in a similar manner as the two would-be jihadists and assaulted the Imam making such reference and took out the same righteous indignation taken from such insult? We all know the answer to such a situation, they would claim that the Imam’s speech was protected as free speech and religious freedom and my insults taken were insufficient for me or others so taken with insults and angers to be permitted to take such drastic actions. There appears to be a slight difference of standards to which Jews, Christians, Hindus, Bahá’í, Buddhists, Shinto or virtually any religion other than Islam are held but to such behavioral expectations the most violent and easily offended practitioners of Islam are granted a special sympathy and understanding. So, according to some of the greatest stalwarts of the left, right and center of the media who control the reporting of news, opinion and the making of standards for the masses concerning that which is to be tolerated and that which must be persecuted as they deem that Islam has special rights when it comes to expectations of actions, commentary, even the simple drawing of pictures of the Prophet Mohammad even should they be honorable and perfectly good taste and distinctly noble by those outside Islam and even presumably by the adherents to Islam. Never mind that there exist a plethora of renditions representing the Prophet Mohammad in books and paintings from numerous periods of Islamic history.

 

Still, the lack of nerve shown by so many but at least there have been those who did stand upright and take a stand for free speech such as Foxx News Megyn Kelly and former CNN host Piers Morgan, while I doubt this will endear him to his old bosses and regain him his position with them, though perhaps it would be to their credit to take him back for showing a modicum of fortitude taking the path less taken. There were many others who have usually stood when others crumbled like a house of cards but this time they too tumbled and trembled from the fear of Islamist disapproval and violence. Such former heavyweights as Don Imus and the No Spin Zone’s own Bill O’Reilly among others went limp and wilted blaming Pamela Geller, and interestingly enough Pamela Geller alone not mentioning Robert Spenser and Geert Wilders taking on the most vulnerable target, the one already targeted for her standing against Islam and the attacks from so many Islamist groups such as CAIR which is tied to Hamas, Muslim American Society which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups which have also slandered and assaulted the reputation of Pamela Geller as well. It was a disgusting case of piling-on the weakest target. Fortunately for Ms. Geller, she has experienced such targeting before and continued to bounce back and continue in her crusade to uncover the less attractive sides of Islam and its most vehement and violent reactions which go beyond the accepted norms and expectations placed on all other religions.

 

The vehement attacks on Ms. Geller is a reaction she has faced before which will not have the effect which her attackers may hope it might as she has made a practice of walking the edge in her efforts to display the duplicity of the reactions to Islam and Israel and the media hypocrisy. We should not expect for Ms. Geller to calm her approach continuing forward though it is very likely she may not see any sympathetic media coverage with perhaps a few brave souls who have already warmed to her side already claiming that her freedom of speech though controversial is exactly the kind of speech the Constitution’s First Amendment was designed to protect. Where the First Amendment also protect the free exercise of religion, such freedom of religious exercise does not include murdering those who may not follow the precepts of ones’ religion and no matter what rules the religion exercises. Ms. Geller will continue pushing the envelope and continue proving that in the United States the people’s freedoms are paramount and will not be compromised simply because somebody’s sensitivities might be upset beyond measure and to the point of violence. Instead, if one uses violence to silence any American they may likely find the freedoms are better protected than initially believed. Let us hope that the freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution continue to be kept sacred and not compromised in order to placate the sensitivities expressed and even to respond to the fact that some were driven to violence as a response. Violence must not be used to sacrifice freedoms as once such a response to violence destroys freedoms then all freedoms will become suspected as vulnerable to violence attacks over time. Such weakness can eventually lead to the compromise of all the Constitutional freedoms and the end of the promises of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which have survived just over two-hundred years. Could this be the first assault which will lead to the compromise of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and an end to the freedoms which have been taken for granted by the American people since the institutions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified and took their place as laws never before enshrined by any government in history. That may depend on the reaction of We the People and fortunately not on the weak kneed media elites, and for that the world can be thankful.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

American Anti-Semitism Alive and Flourishing

 

What happened to Pamela Geller with her being raked over the coals for provoking the attack by a pair of ISIS wannabes by insulting Muslim sensitivities and asking to be assaulted as she had invited people to draw the prophet Mohammad and was honoring those instigators from Charlie Hebdo who also provoked an assault by Islamic enforces of the Sharia. Pamela Geller had gone beyond accepted speech and had all but yelled “fire” in a crowded theater or its equivalent which was unprotected speech. After all, did not Ms. Geller have this coming as she had been tweaking the noses of Muslims everywhere at every opportunity with her support for the Apartheid State of Israel and its genocidal policies towards the Palestinians whose lands they occupied. She had been a defender of the indefensible, a stick in the eye of every sensible person, an itch which just had to be scratched out of existence and came close to finally getting her just rewards there in Garland, Texas. The real problem with these provocative actions of Pamela Geller was the fact that she always had innocents who she would inevitably place in danger and this time one of the guards who checked the invitations of the participants who received a bullet to the leg before the off-duty traffic cop who managed to shoot and kill the two ISIS wannabes in a flash of an exchange of bullets where the two would-be jihadists were encased in full body armor armed with AK-47 .30-calibre high powered rifle rounds capable of penetrating straight through the light chest-protector armor worn by the officer who was shooting back with the Glock version of a M-1911A-1 semi-automatic pistol firing .45 caliber pistol rounds which was incapable of doing more than leaving the smallest of indentations to the heavy body armor and would only prove effective by a shot to the head or a number of shots to the exact same location fired at close range. The wannabe-Jihadists likely thought they were invulnerable against the handgun used by the officer who, unbeknownst to the world, was probably the highest scoring officer in his department every year during qualifying as he placed head shots, the only place the officer could strike the assailants and do any damage, on both assailants as they moved towards the entrance dispatching both to Allah within fifteen seconds from the first shot. Pamela Geller is so absolutely fortunate that the officer at the front entrance was so cool under distress and engaged in a lethal firefight with all the odds stacked against him yet he calmly set his aim at the one place the assailants were vulnerable, a target of less than a square foot on each attacker and struck them both while under a hail of bullets fired from the two AK-47s which would have proven lethal if any round had struck the officer in the torso or head; yet he remained uninjured and saved the day for all inside the event, a real and perfect hero whose name must remain unspoken such that he does not become a target for other Jihadists but who knows he is a hero.

 

The above is the gist of the coverage Pamela Geller has received from the mainstream media from both ends of the political spectrum. She has been berated by both those on the left and those on the right though a few brave individuals on the right have bothered to place the blame where it belonged, to the two heavily armored jihadists who came guns blazing with ineffective fire and were put down by very effective and well placed shots which put an end to their assault almost before it began. So few, Fox News’s Megyn Kelly and CNN’s Piers Morgan both proved the exception and stood with Pamela Geller and the First Amendment guarantees of the freedom of speech, all speech, especially political and controversial speech as popular and easy, uncontroversial and uncontested speech needs no protection, only that speech which is likely to draw opposition or hatreds with threats of violence to silence one is the speech which requires protection from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. How soon we forget that the speech which requires protection is solely such speech which is most likely to ruffle some tail-feathers which requires protection such that freedom of speech is one of the five protected items in the First Amendment and the officer at the front entrance used the Second Amendment for the exact reason it is the Second Amendment and the enforcer of the First Amendment freedoms and the rest of the rights listed within the Bill of Rights and those from without but still guaranteed free men everywhere though some will face the scorn of their governments and its peoples who, like the majority of the United Stated mainstream media, refuse to step-up to protect the very Amendment which guarantees their very existence and rights to deliver the news, all the news and not just the light news of flower shows and other events having no controversies, having no enemies of freedom who will always attempt to silence those who brace the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and outrageous speech needful of the protection of the Second Amendment and the willingness for the rest of us to protect by echoing their words loudly bringing them into the light where the haters fear to tread.

 

But speaking to protect Israel and her people, the Jews, is no longer affordable speech and has been relegated to the darkness hidden in the shadows where it is spoken only in whispers for to do otherwise brings forth those who would slay us for less. On numerous college and university campuses whenever there is a counter protest in response to a pro-Israel rally, the pro-Israel rally is more often than not made to pack up and end their rally even if the pro-Israel rally had been set and received all the required approvals and the counter rally was apparently an impromptu response which occurred as a popular response. These counter rallies are often just as planned and have even been known to have approached the administration of the college or university demanding that when their demonstration begins it would be wise to close down the pro-Israel rally before anybody was injured as to allow the pro-Israel rally to continue would be an affront to their demonstration and a provocation to violence. A study performed by the Louis Brandeis Center in Washington resulted in findings that over half of Jews had been subjected to or witnessed an anti-Semitic act in the past year with a sizable number having witnessed or suffered multiple such acts. In the majority of instances the student was advised to let it pass rather than file a complaint. It is becoming more common on American university and colleges for Jewish students to be forced to prove their disapproval of Israel or face what can only be described as hate actions which will only be terminated once they have performed a mia-culpa and satisfactorily renounced any pro-Israel feelings. Student body election candidates have been requested to sign agreements whereby they promise to refuse any trips to Israel offered them by numerous Jewish organizations which have Zionist support but they are not made to sign any similar promise against Israel tours offered by pro-Palestinian or Muslim outreach organizations. When such petitions are brought to the attention of the administration there is often a lax attitude claiming such petition demands of the candidates cannot be turned away as such is simply freedom of speech issue. One can only wonder what their reaction might be if the petitions were made from the opposing viewpoint. Many of the anti-Israel campus efforts are well-organized, well-financed and often work in partnership with one or more parent organization which will arrange for additional support for any counter-rally in order to force the termination of any pro-Israel rallies. These coordination of events are mostly occurring on major universities and have turned particularly disconcerting in California university systems. The America college and university campus is rapidly becoming a hostile environment for Jewish students, especially any who are religious or particularly pro-Israel. One can only wonder how much longer before Jewish students are simply found unacceptable to attend college or university in many of the mainstream campuses in the United States. Another item to keep in mind and this is an item of great foreboding, or at least should be taken as such, what one witnesses on the university or college campus today will be main-stream in society a decade later. Imagine the average large sized company being slowly forced to let every Jewish employee go if they hope to keep order in their company and avoid unrest and potentially rioting at their front door threatening all their employees not to cross their demonstration lines and those who refuse the warnings find their vehicles damaged or destroyed when leaving that day. How many vehicles need be damaged before their employees are afraid for their lives and inform their superiors they will be unable to return to work until the demonstrators’ demands are satisfied? Whatever you so please do not make the same mistake the Jews in Germany during the Weimar Republic and even the initial two years after the Nazis initially took power and tell yourself, “It cannot happen here. We have an advanced and open culture where everybody is treated equally.” This is not true on many college and university campuses right now, how much longer before it invades the society when sufficient numbers of students have been so conditioned at their university or college? It most definitely can happen in the United States and has already started in Europe. How much longer before the United States society and governance is demanded to turn on Israel and then soon followed by demanding they turn against their Jews? Twenty years? Ten years? Five Years? Watch your local university and college campuses and see what happens should a pro-Israel individual be invited to give a presentation and see if they are permitted to speak freely. There was one instance last year where one such speaker was permitted to give his speech he had prepared but was told there might not be anyone attending their lecture. This was almost the case but a couple dozen students braved all opposition and the event was transferred at the last minute to a classroom and not the school’s auditorium. The even more frightening question is how long before these activities and hate campaigns move to the high schools and permeate the entire school curriculum. Think this is impossible? Check your school board or the textbook committees in your state and see what choices they have made for history and other course books. These school boards and particularly the state committees that choose the textbooks are often being infiltrated by people who choose books which omit mentions of Jews from their history lessons and show Jews in a dark light when they are mentioned. The history lessons and often the reading assignments in English classes include subtle anti-Semitic phraseology and in some cases outright anti-Semitism. This is an insidious creeping infestation of the secondary school curriculum and is slowly moving into earlier and earlier levels of education. Do not simply think that this is impossible and cannot happen in the United States as that has been the response throughout history and in just about every case it did happen here and the people eventually accepted it as an inevitability and would make the excuse simply asking, “What could I do against the whole of society?” It would do well for every person of good faith to remember and be mindful of the warning which was initially sounded by John Stuart Mill though also often credited to Edmund Burke which stated, “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” The variant most often heard and probably more familiar goes something like this, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” So, when you see this evil approaching do not rely on your neighbors to launch into action, take the charge and lead them to action, the feeling of empowerment to have acted and thwarted such evils is reward in and of itself, the gains of society are immeasurable.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Trembling Before Societal Threats

 

What we witnessed in Garland, Texas was the intentional display of one American freedom and the necessary display of a second |American freedom. Though somewhat risky, the first freedom on display was a risky, outright, and in your face expression of free speech, the kind of free speech which Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders have both made their signatory claim to fame though I would be hard pressed to choose which has been more brazen. The third person mentioned in the coverage of the event also is no stranger to controversy though his method is through political writings where Robert Spencer has also challenged Islam and the Western World’s cowardly reaction, something extremely appropriate at this event as here too subjects and brutal truths were the theme of the day. The three are all well-known by the media and often interviewed leading up to and in the aftermath of their often edgy events or their provocative speaking engagements, but this time have been mostly left high and dry by media at both extremes of the political spectrum and many inbetween. What makes this particular series of events an interesting juxtaposition was how the First Amendment right to free speech was so appropriately protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This was proof in spades that the First Amendment would be worthless without the Second Amendment to protect it and why the Second Amendment needs to be forever protected by the First Amendment. The main spectacle displayed was the depiction on the inexorably changing media view of Draw Mohammad Cartoon events with near universal expressions and even outright support and praise across the political spectrum for the bravery of the original draw Mohammad cartoon contest when it first appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten which published twelve initial editorial cartoons on September 30, 2005; which shrank to largely conservative and libertarian support for Charlie Hebdo Magazine and its slaughtered cartoonists and staff in the assault on their offices by two violent Islamist extremists in Paris, France; to the near universal condemnation from the self-proclaimed stalwarts of the conservative media as well as the liberal media, which has long held out long knives for Pamela Geller, for the event in Garland, Texas sponsored American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) of a Draw Mohammad Art Contest to honor the murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. Equally craven has been the excusing of those condemning this event claiming that the main reason for the sudden timidity exhibited by much of the conservative media has to do with the proximity of the Texas event bringing the kind of threat to people attending one such event from happening in “distant” Europe and bringing it to America’s doorstep and in this they saw in this their own vulnerability to attack by similar forces over much of their former coverage of such events and this motivated the weak-kneed responses as they attempted to back away and distance themselves from such controversial and provocative events.

 

We would be remiss were we not to point out the true hero of the hour who stood single handed, out gunned and facing what must have appeared to be certain death and with the cool and steady hand one could only expect to see on a movie screen, an off-duty police officer who before his heroic stand had been assigned to traffic duty. The statement made by Garland police spokesman Joe Harn stated the obvious, “He did what he was trained to do and under the fire that he was put under, he did a very good job.” I might be tempted to go slightly beyond a “good job” in my description and be inclined to use words like heroic, herculean, courageous and the kind of actions beyond all expectations and more inclined to be witnessed performed by movie heroes than expected from one previously not apparently inclined to such heroics. The officer’s name is being withheld for his own safety and rightly so. Even so, there was a SWAT team also on location placed behind the building just in case they might prove needed, and they would have been except for the gargantuan bravado of a single man to whom many owe their lives. The two would-be jihadists were armed with, according to a law enforcement source close to the investigation, six guns, a mix of assault-style semiautomatic rifles and handguns exited their vehicle firing AK-47s, a high-powered assault style semi-automatic .30-calibre rifles against the lone armed officer with a .45-caliber Glock semi-automatic pistol. Making the standoff even more uneven was the fact the would-be jihadists were wearing full body armor leaving only limited target area vulnerable to the officer’s handgun while he at best was wearing standard police protective jacket which the rifle rounds would have torn through almost effortlessly. Still, when the smoke cleared and by the time the SWAT team arrived on scene from behind the building the lone officer who was accompanying the unarmed security person who had been responsible for checking the tickets of those entering the hall and who did receive injuries, had taken down both perpetrators and did so in under fifteen seconds. That is what is called excellent and efficient gun control, the good guy standing his ground despite being grossly overmatched in firepower and armored protection and yet calmly and coolly took down both threats presented before him. One could continue to lavish praise upon praise and still not match the acts of pure bravado and stouthearted selflessness by this sole brave individual and had preventing the two criminals from gaining entrance to the hall where events were still unfolding.

 

In the aftermath the coverage had mostly been vindictively assailing Pamela Geller claiming that she had endangered people needlessly by her provocative actions. CNN reporter Chris Cuomo accused Pamela Geller in his tweets of being guilty of hate speech is not protected by the Constitution and the First Amendment. Kudos goes to Fox News’s Megyn Kelly shooting down a guest and the host, Bill O’Reilly, on the O’Reilly Factor. According to the presumed intrepid Bill O’Reilly, “It’s always cause and effect, OK? And the cause, because they did it, the two jihadis are dead. Now I know a lot of people aren’t feeling sorry for them, and I’m certainly not either because they were trying to kill other people. However, all right, this is what happens when you light the fuse. You get violence.” This is from the ‘No Spin Zone?’ This sounds more like the ‘Centrifugal Spin Zone’ where the target of Mr. O’Reilly had shot straighter and with less spin than was evidenced on his show. Megyn Kelly’s retort ending the discussion may have appeared over the top but how else does one halt a charging O’Reilly on his own show, so she shot back, “You know what else the jihadis don’t like? They hate Jews. Should we get rid of all Jews? That’s the path we’re gonna go down if we start catering to the jihadis.” Still, she has a point even if the description was a bit coarse and over the top. Then there was one we must credit with getting it correct; Piers Morgan, somebody I likely feel about the same towards as he does Pamela Geller, but he got it right stating, “Pamela Geller is a revolting human being. I despise everything about her, and everything she stands for. Yet I also support her right to free speech.” Very well stated and framing the argument near perfectly. I believe it was attributed to Voltaire as a summation of his attitudes towards free speech where it was succinctly put, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

 

That should be the attitude of every American and every lover of freedom when it comes to free speech. Uncontroversial speech does not need protection. Popular speech needs no protection. Everyday banter at the water cooler needs little protection. Political speech, especially radical speech, that is what needs protection. Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer with their Mohammad Cartoon contest and tribute to Charlie Hebdo required protection of free speech and if the two men who came to shoot the purveyors of speech with which they disagreed had instead of baring guns and the intent to use them had instead broken out protest signs and protested replete with their speaking out against the insult they perceived, that too would have deserved protection. Where people may have been offended by somebody’s spoken word, no words spoken have ever killed somebody and if there has been speech which called for violence against others, especially if the intent was purposeful to have people thus act, that is not protected. That is true hate speech which many are attempting to equate Pamela Geller with making. Their argument falls apart under any scrutiny as the only people threatened to become victims of the speech being practiced within the convention hall in Garland, Texas, were the people inside the hall exercising free speech for which two men illegally were attempting of denying them their right to free speech. Had somebody held a counter rally outside the convention hall, they too would have been making protected free speech. But had either the people within the hall or those outside the hall called for their group to proceed to kill the others, that is not protected speech. What so many are getting confused over is the difference between ‘hate speech’ and ‘call to violence speech’. The former is protected while the latter is not protected speech. Where both are a form of hate speech, only the one calling for the commission of violence is illegal. Has everybody forgotten the fight in the courts over the Nazi Party’s plans to march through the largely Jewish community of Skokie, Illinois, outside Chicago where a Nazi concentration camp survivor brought suit to stop their march and the ACLU and some of their lawyers who happened to also be Jewish defending the Nazi right to march won the Nazis defense of their freedom of expression. The march itself never took place and their demonstrations drew less than fifty people total including the media, but they won their day in court against a Jewish man while having Jewish lawyers argue their case, a point they were quite pleased with, but they proved there can be no limit to speech provided there is not call to violence. If Jews can defend the rights for Nazis to march through Skokie, then why have so many former defenders of free speech turned out to have arguments of clay as soon as it becomes slightly dangerous to protect their freedoms? Has the desire to remain free wilted to such an extent that we now must fear the death of those freedoms? I pray not, for the United States should stand for the rights of the weak and the threatened against all threats of violence and do so steadfastly and with the bravery shown by one exemplary actions of a traffic cop who must remain nameless in Garland, Texas. Perhaps if he could depend on all Americans to stand as he did when the chips were falling, then perhaps he would not need to have his name withheld and we could celebrate this man as he deserves.

 

Beyond the Cusp