One Courageous lady, Two dead “Martyrs”, Islamist terrorism wins?

Breitbart News : “Many in the mainstream media have alleged that you crossed the line when it comes to free speech, and that you are responsible for inciting the terror attacks against your “Draw Muhammad” event. How do you respond to these criticisms?

Pamela Geller :” We incited no one. We didn’t call for violence, justify violence, or approve of violence. The people who were inciting were the ones saying that we should be killed for exhibiting Muhammad cartoons. There is no automatic or unavoidable response to being insulted. No one is forced to kill for being insulted. Those who choose to do so are responsible for their actions. No one else is.”

Breitbart News : “Even some conservative columnists and a potential presidential candidate ( Donald Trump ) have resorted to personal attacks against you as a preface before arguing in defense of free speech. Why do you feel that so many have come to attack the messenger?”

Pamela Geller: “This is the problem with the conservatives. This is why we can never nominate qualified, brave, true conservative candidates. The conservative movement has trimmed to accommodate the leftist media so much that they’ve trimmed themselves out of principle. They attack me because they’re desperately afraid that the leftist media will smear them by association with me. It is an act of sheer cowardice. “

This interview by Breitbart News with Pam Geller provides an excellent tutorial for self-righteous critics of Ms. Geller’s “Free Speech” conference, which ended Saturday in violent confrontation with some who object to the concept.

Bill O’Reilly, for one, would do well, and could serve his viewers and the nation well, to put aside for a moment his self-righteous moralizing and know-it-all pose and thoughtfully consider Ms. Geller’s points on why she organized the conference and why, it seems, there are many in the media, including conservatives and popular Fox News personalities, who seem to blame her and participants in her event for the attack by Islamist devotees rather than the would be killers.

We often disagree with O’Reilly. And on this issue with Donald Trump, Greta Van Sustern and, naturally , nearly all of the left wing mainstream media. But, we’re OK with that.
Wednesday morning CNN had someone they suggested as some kind of expert on terrorism or Islam, or something. The only item of significance in his remarks was his response to ISIS claiming credit for the failed attack on the Free Speech conference. He described the attackers as “keystone cop” types, noting they got themselves killed before they even knew what they were trying to shoot. “Naturally, ISIS would want to claim credit”, he said (paraphrasing) for an attack on US soil. They want Americans to believe they are here and to strike terror in this society even though these two were obviously stupid (not the CNN guest’s words but we believe an accurate portrayal). He suggested that the attack was so poorly planned and amateurish that it couldn’t have been an ISIS operation.

To this “expert’s” dismissal of these guys as too stupid to really be acting at ISIS direction, we might suggest that those ‘skillful” suicide bombers seem pretty stupid to us. Perhaps his assertion that these two were not being directed by ISIS to carry out this attack disregards a key terminology, “inspired by”. And we have already seen instances of this phenomenon. Even the Ft. Hood shooter was apparently not directed by AlQaeda to carry out his despicable action, but he sure admits to being inspired by radical Islamism!

The main point we’d like to make at Veritaspac, however, is somewhat different from what we hear most pundits and talk show hosts comment on this incident.

There aren’t many of us, we dare say, who would do what Ms. Geller undertook. We wouldn’t do it because we know that there are radical Muslims virtually everywhere in the world and most certainly here in the United States who are intent upon silencing critics of their understanding of Islam. There are Muslim organizations who will pursue in every way possible, through the media, the courts, through our own government agencies anyone who dares to publicly criticize the “Religion of Peace”, and they will try to make their life miserable. There are also people, like those we saw over the weekend, who will go further, to any extreme, including inflicting deadly violence toward anyone they believe, to use our president’s words, “slanders the Prophet”.

Pam Geller, however, is one of those rare and courageous people who is willing to risk the most terrible consequences to stand for the freedom to express one’s views and opinions openly, as this nation has guaranteed its citizens for well over 200 years.

Ms. Geller believes that freedom of speech is under attack, and we agree. She also believes, and we again agree, that there are too many people in America, on both sides of an ideological divide, who are unwilling to acknowledge that fact and too willing to accommodate the desires of those who wish to silence those with whom they don’t agree.
Frankly we were somewhat surprised when we learned Ms. Geller was going ahead with her “Freedom of Speech” conference. We were surprised given the current complacency and fear of offending the activists among us that she was able to rent a facility for the announced purpose of her event.

We believe it is, in fact likely, that she would not have found willing venues in many other places outside of Texas, where there is still a strong sentiment in favor of traditional values and a belief in the freedoms on which this nation was founded.

Given the reaction, which seems widespread among those who try to influence public opinion and to steer the nation toward some sort of “fundamental transformation”, we are, sadly, quite doubtful that although Pam Geller says she intends to have another such conference in defense of freedom of speech, she will find any venue available to her…at any price she’s willing to pay. And, with no place to stage the event, her purpose and the concept itself, of “free speech”, is effectively denied.

And such is how a great Republic surrenders . . .  not with a bang but with a pathetic whimper.

DLH

0

0