Liberal Media Blaming Geller for the Terrorist Attack

by Jack

pamela_geller_aPam Geller, the organizer for the free speech rally in Garland where two Muslim terrorists were killed, is being labeled by liberals as a provocateur, inciting, baiting Muslims to do violence.   But, lets look at this from another perspective.  If she was a rape victim wearing a mini-skirt, would those same liberals say she brought it on herself because she wore a provocative dress?  Would they say she had it coming, that she provoked the rape?

Why then do some liberals now imply that the terrorist attack on an event organized by the group’s president, Pamela Geller, was the inevitable result of her provocation (Muhammad cartoon contest)?

For example, the Daily Mail is dredging up old divorce information on her and accusing her of a long history of hatred for Muslims.  But isn’t the hatred of the two shooters more relevant?

Do the liberals want to deny her free speech because some Muslim somewhere might be so offended he tries to kill in revenge?  We’ve seen that happen in other countries and now we have seen it here, but thankfully this time it happened in Texas where they know how to take care of business.

Geller has garnered national attention in the past by warning that radical Muslims are determined to bring their jihad to America.  She sees the Islamification of America being attempted by Islamic radicals who adhere to strict Sharia law.



This entry was posted in Religion and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Liberal Media Blaming Geller for the Terrorist Attack

  1. J. Soden says:

    Geller has more stones than Obumble and all of the PC Moron Media put together.
    Way to go, Pam! Don’t lose any sleep over the Loonie Leftie attacks. They haven’t had their rabies shots . . .

  2. Post Scripts says:

    Pie, I’m sorry to hear that WP is not working right for you. Anyone else having problems with submissions?

    • Post Scripts says:

      Pie, I am unable to duplicate the error message you are receiving. It must be something wrong in the software, but I assure you it’s nothing Tina or I are doing. If it continues I will contact our boss and see what he can do.

  3. Chris says:

    I mostly agree with you, and I was just arguing with a liberal about this. You all know my opinion of Gellar, but right now we should all be condemning the terrorists’ actions, not making excuses. Bigotry is wrong, but shooting people for being bigots is more wrong by a factor of about a billion. People have the right to be bigots in this country, as everyone should. Responding with violence is just fighting bigotry with even worse bigotry.

    I’m curious, Jack, how is the liberal media blaming Gellar for this? I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised if some are since I was just arguing with a liberal who said he couldn’t critique any reaction Muslims would have to this contest (which is insane–of COURSE it isn’t bigoted to criticize attempted murder), but I haven’t seen examples of the media doing this.

    I also strongly disagree with the rape analogy. Wearing a mini-skirt isn’t wrong, and is in no way comparable to what Gellar’s group does. Though again, the notion that they deserved to be shot at for their views is disgusting, and any liberal who would attempt to justify this isn’t worthy of the name.

  4. Chris says:

    I had the same issue as Pie the other day. I was trying to submit a comment on my iPad. When I used my laptop, it was fine. But now I’m submitting on my iPad with no problem.

  5. RHT447 says:

    Re: #3

    Yes. Happened to me one time. Closed my browser and tried again, then worked OK. I got the same message that Pie did.

  6. J. Soden says:

    Had a couple of times on Monday where I got “posting too fast” when clicking on submit. Reloaded and same message. Saw a button in a different place and tried that and it worked. Updating WP problems, perhaps?

  7. Tina says:

    A few years back the Huffington Post referred to the work, “Piss Christ,” by Andres Serrano as “iconic,” lauding the artist and quoting the curator of this work:

    The exhibit, which contains a number of works from the past 25 years of the artist’s storied career in addition to the contentious urine-soaked photograph, is curated by the former editor of Artnet magazine, Walter Robinson. In an e-mail to The Huffington Post, Robinson included the thoughtful and measured introductory essay to the upcoming exhibition. In it, he states, “When it comes to the global stage of the spectacle, many are called but few are chosen, but those who are, like Serrano (and Shepard Fairey, Robert Mapplethorpe and the rest) are to be admired, however uncertain and even negligible the results of their pass through the political cauldron may turn out to be.”

    This artist is to be admired! It’s admirable to denigrate the Christian religion and/or to celebrate this artists free speech right to disrespect Christ and the Christian religion. Why? And why is it different when it comes to the Muslim religion and it’s prophet?

    I remember when this happened there were no calls from the left for the artist to temper his speech. No one on the left was worried that the work might offend someone, in fact, most took delight in making fun of those who were offended. The HP made a point of snidely noting that the work was “causing apoplexy” within various Christian organizations as well as with individual politicians, Christians and Fox commentators.

    A number of people expressed how deeply offensive the work was and some objected to it’s being financed by American tax dollars. There were protests but there was no real threat of violence against the artist or the showing of the work as far as I know.

    The kid glove approach the left takes with the religion is not only hypocritical but dangerous. It’s typical, however, for them to be on the wrong side when it comes to both the enemies of freedom and the defenders of freedom.

  8. Pie Guevara says:

    Pamela Geller does not provoke Islam, she exposes it for what it is.

    As such she draws the fire of left-wing liberal morons like Chris.

  9. Pie Guevara says:

    Tina reminds us. Thank you Tina

    No thought person gives a hoot what the paradigmatic left-wing lib chump Chris thinks about Pamela Geller.

    Geller is a brave and outspoken advocate for freedom, Chris is (snip) sucking up to Islam.

    There is a difference. And it is a stark one.

    Editors note; Please try to make comments family friendly

  10. Pie Guevara says:

    Tina reminds us. Thank you Tina

    No thoughtful person gives a hoot what the paradigmatic left-wing lib chump Chris thinks about Pamela Geller.

    Geller is a brave and outspoken advocate for freedom, Chris is a sniveling, groveling, equivocating PC coward sucking up to Islam.

    There is a difference. And it is a stark one.

  11. dewey says:

    Freedom of Speech is a right. It also comes with responsibility. Geller was within her rights but also did incite. When one puts the lives of others (especially law enforcement) in jeopardy they are irresponsible fools.

    Rape? A man’s inability to conduct himself in a proper manner is the responsibility of the woman? Short skirt? Legs?

    Women are not property nor sex objects to start with. Sex sells. Profit off sex is OK? Porn? Who cares?

    Every human is responsible for their actions alone. People who can not control their libido because of a perverted mind are not someone else’s responsibility.

    There is never an excuse for rape or sexual abuse by a male or female. Those are mentally ill humans who need help.

    Freedom is not to be dictated by those who can not control themselves. Moral guidelines are self evident. Excuses are just that excuses.

    How would this read if it was a christian cartoon contest?

    • Post Scripts says:

      “How would this read if it was a Christian cartoon contest?” Dewey, that’s too easy, it’s already happened a few hundred times. Nothing happened, oh, maybe somebody might have turned out to protest or picket, but no heads were chopped off. Next question…

    • Post Scripts says:

      So Dewey, then by your test, the right to free speech is limited to the degree by which it might offend others to the point of violence? So burning the flag is wrong because some veteran might beat the flag burner to death or it may place a cop at risk trying to defend that flag burner?

      Ever hear of this saying, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it?” That’s a pretty unequivocal statement. Police officers defend many rights with their lives and this includes your free speech right. This is their job. It’s also the duty of every American to exercise our rights as adults and do it in the most prudent way possible. Even then, we must accept that by doing so, we may incur risks from others that are offended and who do not respect our free speech rights. The law is there to protect us from those rash people, but they can’t be everywhere all the time, so we must be prepared to shoulder some of the risk some of the time.

      Progressives who claim a statue of Jesus in a jar of urine is art, they also tell Christians who are deeply offended…get over it. It’s art, it’s my right to self expression and if you don’t like it…tough. Angry Christians will be held back by police if necessary. There was a time when such art might get a person killed, but Christians did get over it and they don’t kill people over offensive art as a matter of their religious mandate.

  12. Peggy says:

    Here is what our Founder said about our rights including opinions.

    Property by James Madison –
    March 29, 1792

    “This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

    In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

    In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

    He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

    He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

    He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

    In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

    Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

    Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite cause.

    Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

    According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

    And then we have another brain-dead liberal on CNN who claims to be a lawyer say hate speech is NOT protected in our First Amendment. Guess he missed the resent Supreme Court ruling too in addition to those Constitutional law classes. Grab some popcorn, this is good.

    Chris Cuomo inducted into Douche Hall of Fame; ‘Clarifies’ his statement ‘for the last time’:

    Wow, even PolitiFacts gave him a “False” rating.

  13. Peggy says:

    Dewey, here is what Iran does with the Holocaust and has for the past couple of years. Did you hear about Jews showing up with AK-47s? Please share if you did.

    Iran’s Holocaust Cartoon Festival Draws Hundreds of Contestants:

    “With its second annual Holocaust cartoon contest, Iran continues promoting Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism.

    Iran’s second Holocaust cartoon contest is reportedly a big success, drawing hundreds of entries from several countries around the world.

    Massoud Shojayee Tabatabayee, secretary of the Second International Holocaust Cartoon Contest, announced that 839 entries have, so far, been received by the secretariat.

    Tabatabayee told Iran’s Fars News agency on Monday that “839 artworks have also been sent to the secretariat, 686 of them have been sent to the cartoon section and 153 more are related to caricature section.”

    He said that a 12-day exhibition will be held in Tehran on May 9. The winner will receive a cash prize of $12,000, with those in second and third place taking home $8,000 and $5,000 respectively.

    Top works from the upcoming competition will be displayed at the Palestine Museum of Contemporary Art in Tehran and several other locations throughout the Iranian capital.”


  14. Chris says:

    Peggy, I agree with you that Cuomo’s statement was idiotic. And of course, it goes without saying that Iran’s Holocaust denial and making fun of that atrocity is disgusting and evil.

  15. Pie Guevara says:

    Banned Speech at the Hyatt: Pamela Geller, “Truth is the New Hate Speech”

  16. Peggy says:

    Different case, but nice to see this AP reporter challenge a State Dept. spokesman about the Clinton Foundation. The reporter sounds very frustrated.

    • Post Scripts says:

      #19 – Yep, this is exactly what I was saying to Dewey. The left has a blatant double standard. Between this article and Peggy’s video, Dewey and Chris should be fully enlightened with all the information they need to abandon the progressives for a more honorable entity.

  17. Chris says:

    Jack: “The left has a blatant double standard. Between this article and Peggy’s video, Dewey and Chris should be fully enlightened with all the information they need to abandon the progressives for a more honorable entity.”

    Are you suggesting we join the mob?!

  18. Peggy says:

    #19 Pie, great video. Just shared it with everyone I know of FB and email.

  19. Peggy says:

    This morning I received an email about Holland reversing its multi-cultural policies concerning Muslim immigrants. So, I went to the internet to see if it was true and here is what I found. We would be wise to adopt a similar plan of action to preserve our own nation’s values and to preserve our rights guaranteed in our Constitution.

    The Netherlands to Abandon Multiculturalism:

    “The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands.

    A new integration bill (covering letter and 15-page action plan), which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads: “The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people. In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role. With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society.”

    The letter continues: “A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens. It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands. The integration will not be tailored to different groups.”


    Islam in the Netherlands:

    “In the past years the Netherlands passed immigration laws which force future immigrants and their prospective Dutch partners to abide by very strict requirements. Immigrants must pass tests showing knowledge of Dutch in their home countries. The Dutch partner must be at least 21 years old and prove an income of at least 120% minimum wage. These strict laws have caused Dutch interested in marrying people from other countries to move to Belgium for a temporary period, in what has been called “The Belgian Route”.[6]


    Whereas all foreign nationals who have legally resided in the country for five years have the right to vote in local elections, Moroccans traditionally turn out in low numbers, while turnout among Turks is comparable to that among native Dutch.

    After the 2003 elections, there were at least ten MPs from Muslim background among the 150 Members of Parliament,[15] but as few as three among them may have been active believers, while two explicitly classified themselves as ex-Muslims.[16]

    Nebahat Albayrak (ex-State Secretary of Justice) and Ahmed Aboutaleb (ex-State Secretary of Social Affairs and Employment, now mayor of Rotterdam) were both the first Muslims in the Dutch cabinet.

    Geert Wilders of the Dutch Party for Freedom was put on trial for inciting racial hatred, relating to his inflammatory comments regarding Islam in early October 2010.[17] Wilders was acquitted on June 23, 2011, the judge citing that his comments were legitimate political debate, but on the edge of legal acceptability.


    A Mosque in The Hague.
    The murder of Theo van Gogh by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch citizen of Moroccan descent, on 2 November 2004, as well as the arrest of the Hofstad Group on charges of terrorism, caused a lot of discussion about Islam and its place in Dutch society. The possibility of banning the burka was discussed in the cabinet.[18]

    These incidents took place against the backdrop of increasingly suspicious and fearful perceptions of Muslims, which have developed over a longer time. In May 2006, a poll by Motivaction / GPD (1,200 Dutch adults +/- 3%) found that 63% of Dutch citizens felt that Islam is incompatible with modern European life.[23] A poll of June 2004 found that 68% felt threatened by “immigrant or Muslim young people”, 53% feared a terrorist attack by Muslims in the Netherlands, and 47% feared that at some point, they would have to live according to Islamic rules in the Netherlands.[24]

    Feelings of fear or distrust coincide with a high degree of social segregation. About two-thirds of Turks and Moroccans “associate predominantly with members of their own ethnic group,” while a similar proportion of native Dutch “have little or no contact at all with immigrants.” Moreover, contacts between the groups are decreasing, notably those between second generation Turks and Moroccans and native Dutch.[25]

    Sharia law in the Netherlands[edit]

    In 2006 Minister of Justice Piet Hein Donner provoked a widespread public outcry when he suggested the Netherlands might accept Sharia law in a constitutional manner. “It is a sure certainty for me: if two thirds of all Netherlanders tomorrow would want to introduce Sharia, then this possibility must exist. Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say ‘this isn’t allowed! The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy.” [26] The statements were categorically refused by parties across the political spectrum, as well as by one Muslim leader.[27]


    After the murder of Theo van Gogh in November 2004, Minister of Integration and Immigration Rita Verdonk commissioned an inquiry into the radicalisation of young Muslims. The conclusion was that many of them experience alienation, feeling disconnected with both their first-generation immigrant parents and from Dutch society. Previous reports had already found that young Muslims don’t share the deep ethno-national attachment their parents feel with their country of origin, and instead are coming to identify primarily with their religion. While they participate less in religious activities than their parents, they more strongly link their identity with Islam and with the global Muslim community; radical and orthodox Islamic groups offer some of these young Muslims clear answers and a firm sense of belonging. While prior research found that the degree of religiosity in general decreases among Muslims with higher education and stable employment, the new report noted that highly educated young Muslims can also experience “relative deprivation” all the more strongly – the sense that despite their efforts they receive fewer opportunities than native Dutch of the same generation – and turn to radicalism in anger and frustration.[28]

    Sound familiar?

  20. Chris says:

    I meant the organized crime type of mob, Jack. It was a joke.

  21. Chris says:

    “Feelings of fear or distrust coincide with a high degree of social segregation. About two-thirds of Turks and Moroccans “associate predominantly with members of their own ethnic group,” while a similar proportion of native Dutch “have little or no contact at all with immigrants.” Moreover, contacts between the groups are decreasing, notably those between second generation Turks and Moroccans and native Dutch.[25]”

    Obviously, the solution to this problem is to promote more fear of Muslims.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Chris said, “the solution to this problem is to promote more fear of Muslims.” Question, which came first? 1. Muslim Radicals promoting fear 2. Other people promoting fear of Muslims

      • Post Scripts says:

        Chris, what you are failing to see is how Geller’s “in-your-face radical Muslims” approach with this Muhammad cartoon contest was actually helpful. Yes…helpful!!!!

        Look, I’m sorry that the moderate Muslims must pay the price of being offended, along with the radicals, but don’t blame Geller, blame the Muslim terrorists killing in God’s name and setting this up to happen.

        Geller just wants to acclimate radicals to the point of not blowing up and going all crazy over a stupid cartoon, or maybe some other perceived slight. She is the reaction to their action. Cause and effect.

        We (as civilized people) can’t run around with a hair trigger ready to kill over some freaking insult that is in reality of no consequence. Radicalized Muslim are her target and her message is a good one, albeit one that comes with risks. Well screw the risks, and screw the hate filled crazy Muslims that would kill us over a freaking cartoon. I have no patience for them or for anyone that would come to their defense. Good for Geller…she has courage and she is on the right track. We should all be wearing cartoon characters of Muhammad until they (radicals) get over their hyper-sensitivity and murderous inclinations.

  22. Peggy says:

    Get real this was an attempted mass murder. I can’t believe people are attacking the targeted victims instead of the attackers.

    All Geller is guilty of is bringing attention to a problem for which she was very successful and in my opinion she deserves credit. Geller and others set themselves up as decoys and flushed out those two terrorist.

    Does anyone seriously want another Boston or Ft. Hood massacre? ISIS says they have 71 more trained terrorist in 15 states. I hope we learn who they are before they are successful, where these two failed.

  23. Pie Guevara says:

    Re # 32 Peggy: Damn straight.

  24. Peggy says:

    Bill Whittle NAILS It Again. If You Believe In Free Speech, Get Ready To Stand Up And Cheer.:

Comments are closed.