Pamela Geller on the Left’s ‘Stealth Jihad’ on Our Free Speech

Famed anti-jihad activist Pamela Geller made a splash with her appearance at the special Breitbart breakout panel, “The Uninvited,” at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

In true Breitbart fashion, Breitbart News–itself a sponsor of the 2013 CPAC–held its own panel and stocked it with some of those voices that were systematically prevented from officially speaking at the conservative event. Seeking to engage with voices beyond those approved by both the Old Media and the GOP establishment, Breitbart News sponsored “The Uninvited,” a panel featuring topics, experts, and personalities that were absent from CPAC this year.

Of the many outspoken guests, Pamela Geller has a record of raising the hackles of the liberal media and even some on the right that are squeamish of her topics and her command of the facts. Geller didn’t disappoint, either, when it came for her time to speak out that Saturday afternoon.

“Truth is the new hate speech,” Geller proclaimed. She went on to warn the audience of a “stealth jihad” that was being waged against free speech right here in America; a war meant to silence any dissent against sharia law and radical Islam. Geller was incensed noting that this stealth jihad is even being waged on behalf of radical Islam by the American right. She was sad to note that the right is too afraid to speak out for fear of being labeled Islamophobic.

All this, Geller hinted, is one of the reasons she had been barred from being part of the CPAC schedule. She went on to criticize CPAC for silencing this subject matter, something she called a crime.

“And that you have a gathering of 12,000 people that come here to get educated, to get activated, and you are not educating or activating them in the greatest national threat that this country faces is a crime. And for Al Cardenas to tell the Washington Post that I am banned because of this subject matter is egregious.”

Geller also reminded the audience that “Stealth Jihad” is the title of Robert Spencer’s book.

Next Geller stirred a wave of post CPAC criticism for saying that Suhail Khan is worse than Anwar al-Awlaki for having helped silence dissent both in America and at the CPAC conference.

“Now, am I saying that Suhail Khan is as bad as Awlaki? He’s worse,” Geller said. “He’s worse because look what he’s done to this conference, look at the influence that they have had on this conference.”

After the conference, Geller noted on her blog that she was beset with criticism for saying that Kahn was worse than Awlaki.

Geller also went into her various ad campaigns run on the New York subway system, on Chicago Buses and in San Francisco.

The thrust of her address was, of course, that we Americans are losing our right to free speech because too many are afraid to criticize radical Islam, sharia and jihadism. We need to take that right back, she warned, or we will lose everything. “The antidote to bad speech,” Geller said in summation, “is more speech” not less.

After the event was over, Geller was effusive about having been invited to speak at “The Uninvited.”

“It was a terrific panel, covering a wide range of topics,” Geller told Breitbart News.

“My topic being ‘The War on Free Speech,’ I was gratified that Breitbart News had the courage to invite me. The war on free speech, spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its allied Islamic supremacist groups in the U.S., is much more pervasive than most people realize,” Geller said.

“One of its chief and least-noted manifestations is the willingness of conservatives, out of fear or ignorance or both, to acquiesce to the leftist/Islamic supremacist demonization and marginalization of voices of freedom,” she said.

“Kudos to the Breitbart organization for not playing along, and allowing discussion of this all-important issue.”

Transcrpit: Pam Geller at Breitbart’s ‘The Uninvited’ Panel at CPAC 2013

It is indeed an honor to be here and poetic justice that I’m speaking here at the invitation of the Breitbart organization. I mean talk about a divine hand, here. It’s really gorgeous. So thank you, Steve for allowing me to speak and address this critical, this critical conference.

You know, truth is the new hate speech. And the translation of that means that the blasphemy laws under the sharia, you cannot offend or criticize Islam. And so, you can’t say that, but you can say truth is the new hate speech and I am telling you that this speech crushing device, and that’s what it is, is sanctioned by the right. It’s being silenced by the right.

If you look at the CPAC schedule over the past five years there is nothing–and I say nothing. Look, in over two dozen states there’s foreign law prohibition legislation moving through their state legislatures, anti-sharia bans. That takes a small army, that takes an enormous amount of manpower. How come it’s not being addressed here?

We’re thwarting jihadi attacks every week. A couple days ago, Oregon Muslim busted for aiding and abetting, uh, jihadi attack, uh, that killed thirty people. Two days ago an Imam in Florida was convicted of aiding and abetting Taliban terror. It’s all the time and the media is self-enforcing the sharia. OK. They will not discuss it.

Now, I’m going to tell you something. It is not Geller. OK? If I go out with a guy and if he doesn’t call me again, that’s Geller. He’s rejecting Geller, OK? This is not about Pamela Geller. It is about the subject matter and the war in the information battle space, the technique is to marginalize, demonize, and render radio active anyone that talks about it.

Now, people will say, “Oh, but you know, she’s really, she’s a provocateur, you know, she’s really out there, you know, I can do it better. I can do it softer. I can be a trimmer.” OK? NO! You are a racist, Islamophobic, anti-Muslim bigot if you touch this subject.

You understand me?

And that you have a gathering of 12,000 people that come here to get educated, to get activated, and you are not educating or activating them in the greatest national threat that this country faces is a crime. And for Al Cardenas to tell the Washington Post that I am banned because of this subject matter is egregious.

Now, am I saying that Suhail Khan is as bad as Awlaki? He’s worse. Listen to me! He’s worse because look what he’s done to this conference, look at the influence that they have had on this conference.

It’s Spencer’s book, it’s Spencer’s book the Stealth Jihad, that’s what it was, that was Stealth Jihad. You should read that book, it’s all there.

And so, the war on free speech manifests itself in our ad campaigns. And I’m going to go over it just briefly, OK? I am not being a provocateur. I am responding to a disinformation campaign in this country. Not one, not two, but three ant-Israel campaigns were running, hundreds of posters across the country. Nobody said boo, nobody.

I ran ten little ads, ten little Indians in a New York subway, this ad, the savage ad that in any war between the civilized man and the savage, you support the civilized man, HELLO, you support the civilized man! (Geller here held up a copy of her ad that reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”)

And I can’t get these ads up. I’ve got to sue. You know why I have to sue? Because I’m insulting the savages, that’s why.

We sued. We got those ads up. I want you to know it wasn’t even a narrow victory, that First Amendment victory. We won on all counts. Judge Paul Engelmayer threw out the New York MTA rules and regulations and standards saying they were un-Constitutional. Now that’s a big free speech victory. Did they talk about it here ever, ever, ever?

Now, CAIR, Hams CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood CAIR, named in the largest terrorist funding trial in our nation’s history, the Holy Land trial, is running, um, is running a new campaign, a jihad campaign, because they say, quote, that Pamela Geller has hijacked the word “jihad.” Wow, I’m really big and powerful aren’t I? All by myself I hijacked the word “jihad.”

So, this is their campaign: “My jihad is to stay to stay fit. My jihad is not to burn the toast in the morning.”

This is so bizarre, and so insulting, and so offensive to the intelligence to the American people, but this is the war, you see. The war is in the information battle space. The war is in the war of ideas. And we are being completely shut out by our own! By our own!

So, I created a campaign, yes, with five high profile Muslims. The Prime Minister of Turkey; lovely fellow. Anwa… I mean, Awlaki, he’s the next one. Um, Times Square bomber, Foot Hood jihadi, Hamas TV, and I couldn’t get them up. I submitted them at the same time as CAIR, OK? The city government was colluding, Chicago was colluding with CAIR to keep my ads off. But you know I’m going to win on the free speech issue. They had, you should have seen the letter from the Chicago transit, like “Well, these are so Islamophobic and we hate them and it’s so ugly and we hate you, but we know you’re gonna sue us so we’ll let you run the ad.”

So, this ad goes up, and this is Hamas MTV, it’s a music video that says, “killing Jews is worship as it draws us closer to Allah.”

Now, let me tell you something. The San Francisco District Attorney and the entire city council held a press conference to denounce me and to denounce my ads and called this ad Islamophobic. Really? This ad looks anti-Semitic to me.

This is hard wired for delusion. They will not speak out, the same day that this ad broke on the busses the hostages, British, Christians, French, the hostages in Nigeria were slaughtered. Did they have a press conference about that? The constant slaughter of Christians in Nigeria, Buddhists in Thailand, Coptic Christians in Egypt, bloggers being beheaded in Bangladesh, not a word.

And then you see these gay spokespeople get up. So of course, my next, my next campaign, is, yeah I just submitted this campaign, you know, “the punishment for homosexuality is the death penalty.” This is the Sheik, this is the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. So I have the spiritual leader, I have Ahmadinejad–world leader–and then I have a Muslim radio show host, Ruby Ramadan, who said they should be tortured, they should be stoned, they should be beaten.

The point in all of this is that the antidote to bad speech is more speech and free men will be forced, free men will be forced, will have to resort to violence without the right to free speech.

HuffPo promotes meaningless gun statistic
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Brucehenry

    Geller is a kook and a nut and is absolutely a bigot. Her organizations are hate groups, not just according to SPLC, which I know you guys have no faith in, but by B’nai Brith’s Anti-Defamation League.

    If you are posting this, Warner, as an example of a serious person who has credibility about these matters, it says a lot about you. And it says a lot about the Breitbart organization that they would give this crazy person a platform from which to spew her xenophobic hysteria. And what it says is not good.

    CPAC didn’t invite her because her kind of “thinking” is something smart conservatives want to move beyond — her kind of bigoted blathering turns young voters OFF — and rightfully so.

    • jim_m

      links please.

      Link many lefty criticism of conservative blogs I suspect that you consider Atlas Shrugs bigoted because it happens to tell the truth about radical islam. I know that it hurts when people criticize your fellow travelers on the road to despotism.

      [edit] you correctly admit that the SPLC is a bogus race baiting organization that is itself so bigoted that they won’t employ a black person in any position of responsibility (you abbreviated that by saying that we have no faith in it). Foxman is also a goofy lefty who whined about Palin’s blood libel comments that other Jewish leaders were not fussed about. He was part of the left wing “civility” bullshit movement which attempted to give cover to violent references against conservatives from leftists and criticized every word spoken from the right. He has also fought against recognizing the Armenian genocide (as if by recognizing other genocides somehow the Holocaust would be diminished) He’s not a credible source either when it comes to criticism of conservatives. While I do agree with Foxman in many areas once you travel outside of the realm of anti-semitism he is out of his area of expertise. Foxman’s criticism of “The passion of the Christ” were completely wrong headed and out of bounds and bordered on anti-Christian bigotry.

      • Brucehenry

        Excuse me. IN MY OPINION Geller is a kook and a nut and a bigot. Do I need links for that?

        I’ve looked at her blog, and excerpts from it. I find her schtick revolting. You should, too.

        I don’t “admit SPLC is a bogus race baiting organization,” just that there’s no sense using them as a reference here because you guys don’t find them credible. Fine. And I see you have a low opinion of ADL too.

        That’s fine too I guess, but if you can’t see why people think Geller’s a bigot I don’t know what to tell you. All you have to do is peruse Atlas Shrugs. You’ll find lots of material.

        Like insinuating Elena Kagan supported Nazi ideology, or suggesting many Muslims have sex with goats, or doctoring photos to show the Muslim Usurper (ask ljcarolyne!) urinating on a US flag, or posting articles claiming Obama is the love child of Malcolm X.

        For evidence she’s a paranoid nutbag, look no further than the video Warner has posted here.

        But just for kicks, here’s a couple from MMfA showing both Geller’s nutbagginess and her bigotry:

        • jim_m

          I don’t have a low opinion of the ADL. They should just stick to their core competency. When they deviate from it they beclown themselves.

          And the SPLC is everything I said.

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe it is, but I didn’t admit anything in the way you phrased it.

            Also, please note I edited my above comment to include a couple of links from MMfA.

          • jim_m

            I thought the MMfA reference was a joke until I looked. I thought it would be hard to find an organization with less credibility than the SPLC but you succeeded. Congrats.

            And yes, I know you said nothing of the sort about the SPLC, I’m just messin’ with you.

            PS: vote for my caption contest entry. It’s “topical”

          • Brucehenry

            All MMfA did in these two links is report what was said.

          • jim_m

            OK. I hold no bill for Geller. I would like to see Wizbang be a better place though.

          • Brucehenry

            Like I said, it says a lot about Breitbart-groupie Warner that he has any regard for a kooky xenophobic nutbar like Geller. But on the other hand, didn’t Jay Tea used to defend her, too?

          • jim_m

            I don’t recall if JT did or did not. Are you as irritated as I am by the spam video player that WTH puts in his articles?

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t like that on any blog.

          • jim_m

            Just another sign of the decline.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh, I don’t know, I still like it here. For all the nostalgia about Jay Tea, he was, despite what I said the other day, upon reflection almost as much an internet bully as Rodney. And Warner, for all his faults as a writer and a human being, can for the most part take criticism and take a joke.

            Kevin knows the difference between a troll and a sincere dissenting voice, and I appreciate that a lot. It ain’t every blog that would let me get away with what I get away with here. Kevin, I think, is brave enough to allow dissenting voices, something few blogs on either side of the aisle do consistently.

            I do wish Drummond, Karipides, the Baron, Mallow, and the others would contribute more and not leave so much of the work to Warner. And don’t get me started on Rodney — Ryan A has him pegged: the officially sanctioned troll.

          • jim_m

            I’m not so much pining for the return of JT. I do wish that the other authors would contribute. There was a lot of variety, the discussions were better and it was more focused on issues of the day and less partisan politics.

            And my criticism is not about Warner. Without him there would have only been one post in the last week apart from the caption contest winners announcement. Without Warner, this blog is dead. It would have no content at all.

          • warnertoddhuston

            I sort of wish more guys would post more, too. I honestly don’t know why no one is of late. Maybe because I post TOO much? To tell the truth, I could post 5 pieces a day, but I limit myself to no more than 2 here. I sure hope the others don’t feel I’m pushing them out because that is 100% NOT my intention.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t know if y’all talk much, but maybe you could let them know that and see if that’s the issue. Or maybe they just got lazy.;)

            One thing I’ll say for you, Warner — you’re NOT lazy.

          • jim_m

            It’s not you. If you look back to 2009 there were as many as 7 to 9 articles per day written by 3 or 4 authors. I suspect burn out and disinterest and a lack of oversight by loose responsible for how the blog is managed.

            Granting exemptions for the emeritus authors who have moved on elsewhere, those remaining barely publish more than Hugh S. and he has an excuse for not publishing (I miss Hugh. He was a really good author and commenter).

          • warnertoddhuston

            Sorry about the auto play, but the code on that has no off code. It isn’t “spam,” though it is the video of Geller’s address at CPAC.

          • jim_m

            I don’t get her address at all. I get some AP story about a kid with a service animal. It’s spam. In fact every time you have posted such a video it has never been germane to the article (at least not the video that comes through on my browser). But no problem. I reset the settings on my Adblock Plus for Firefox and I shouldn’t be seeing any more of those.

          • warnertoddhuston

            It’s just you. Everyone else sees the Pamela Geller address. There is an ad that plays at the beginning, though.

          • Commander_Chico

            Here is Malaysia, the ad is for a Nestle milk supplement for kids.

            What sucks about autoplay videos is that if you are using a data plan on a smart phone or USB modem, you have to pay for the bandwidth you use and so loading this page costs you $$$.

          • herddog505

            Agreed. I detest autoplay videos. Not only are they a distraction, I’ve had too much experience with them locking up my browser.

          • herddog505

            What has Geller said that marks her as a “kooky xenophobic nutbar”?

            I admit that this sort of thing is in the eye of the beholder. For example, if somebody said that people in Austria speak Austrian I might – if I didn’t just ignore it as a slip of the tongue – think of that person as terribly ignorant and provincial. If somebody praised a black candidate for public office as “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”, I might – if I didn’t pass it off as a little gaffe, an inartful compliment – think that person something of a bigot.

            But what has Geller said that makes you think she’s a loony xenophobe?

          • Brucehenry

            I gave several examples in an above comment, and those were just the ones mentioned in the Wikipedia article about her.

            Take a trip down Nutbag Lane by perusing her blog for a day or two. If you don’t agree that she’s a bigot, at least see if you can see why others might get that idea.

          • herddog505

            OK. I’ll have a look.

          • herddog505

            I had a look.

            She comes across as rather shrill and certainly… um… single-minded. Man, she hates her some jihadis.

            On the other hand, her critics are no better. “We gotta stop this woman speaking at a men’s club in a synagogue!” (or, as lefties like to say, they won’t tolerate intolerance!)

            The people saying this, of course, are the same people who cry about “First Amendment” and “Free speech” and “Tolerance” when THEY are the subject of attempted censorship or criticism.

            Let’s look at the language in use:




            HATE GROUP!

            As a general rule, lefties start flinging these words around about five seconds after somebody says something they don’t like, so calling her these things means close to nothing. And the SPLC is against her, which is a mark in her favor in my book. They are, as you recall, the group that set that loon Floyd Corkins on the Family Research Council where (thanks to supreme incompetence) he DIDN’T manage to kill people. Sweet folks.

            I suggest that you’ve bought into the propaganda: enough people have screamed that she’s a mean, nasty, hatey Muslim-hating h8er, and that everything she says is mean and hateful, so she MUST be a h8er and a bigot and a whack-job.

            I am reminded of Ann Coulter’s remark about Joe McCarthy and the never-ending Two Minute Hate against him:

            “Yes, but WERE there communists in the State Department?”

          • Commander_Chico

            C’mon, you know better than that, herddog. Any private organization can control their message by allowing who speaks at their meetings.

            Geller is out of CPAC because she was whoring for attention by screeching that Grover Norquist and this Suhail Khan guy are agents of the Muslim Brotherhood.

            That’s not a war against free speech any more than the facts of Hurley v Irish American Gay and Lesbians were.

          • herddog505

            Careful. You might just be adding credence to the idea that SPLC DID set Corkins on the FRC.

          • Brucehenry

            The SPLC “set” Corkins on the FRC? Really?

            I don’t need “enough people” telling me she’s a bigot to form an opinion about her. I’ve looked at what she’s written and I’ve seen the stuff posted on her blog. Even YOU, inclined to defend her for the sake of argument, admit she’s “certainly…um…single-minded” and “hates her some jihadis.”

            Her problem is she doesn’t just hate “jihadis.” Despite her protestations that she doesn’t hate all Muslims, the tone of her blog is that Muslims are the enemy, that her enemies are trying to silence her, that there is a vast conspiracy to impose Sharia law in America and start lopping off hands and heads, that there is a “stealth jihadi” behind every bush — and that one of them is Grover Fucking Norquist!

            BTW, congrats on buying into the latest fad in conservative revisionist history — that McCarthy was a hero and a truth-teller, and not a drunken attention whore who posed a greater danger to American freedoms than the “commies” he claimed to be exposing.

          • jim_m

            Yes. Corkins admitted that he used the SPLC hate group list to target the Family Research Council and others. In that way the SPLC’s irresponsible and, frankly, hateful labeling of opponents as hate groups is solely responsible for his choice of targets. It could be argued that without their hate-filled and hyperbolic rhetoric Corkins would never have committed his crime.

            The SPLC has innocent blood on their hands. I hope someone sues their ass in civil court for wrongful death and takes them for millions. The left is constantly making bogus complaints about right wing rhetoric but it is lefty rhetoric that is actually inspiring people to murder innocents.

          • herddog505

            RE: Corkins

            Isn’t that what we were told after that nut Loughner shot Gabby Giffords and those other folks? That “violent rhetoric” and Sarah Palin’s “target” map caused him to do it? This Corkins has a map provided courtesy of the SPLC: they marked down the FRC as a “hate group”, people so loathesome and vicious that it would be a public service to kill them off (he had a Chik-fil-A bag, I believe: hmmm…. what were lefties telling us all about Chik-fil-A at that time?). By liberal logic (I use the term VERY loosely), they set Corkins on the FRC. By conservative logic, he’s a dangerous nut who needs to be locked up. But we live in a world where nobody’s actually responsible for his own actions: an inanimate object made him do it, or “hate speech” made him do it, etc.

            RE: McCarthy

            A US senator who’s an attention whore? Really? I had no idea…

            Is the name Martin Dies familiar to you? Check him out… and his party affiliation. As for McCarthy and his “tactics”, this was started by the democrat-controlled House Un-American Activities Committee. Finally, the famous moment where Joseph Welch asked McCarthy, “Have you no shame?” arose from Welch badgering McCarthy’s aide about communists in defense plants and why wasn’t Cohn contacting the FBI about them; in effect, he was ridiculing Cohn: “If you know about commies, why don’t you tell us who they are so we can get them out pronto?”

            McCarthy did just that, pointing out the one of Welch’s aides had been a member of what the attorney general regarded as a commie front organization. Here are pertinent parts of the transcript:

            Mr. COHN. Sir, if there is need for surveillance in the case of espionage or anything like that, I can well assure you that Mr. John Edgar Hoover and his men know a lot better than I, and I quite respectfully suggest, sir, than probably a lot of us, just who should be put under surveillance. I do not propose to tell the FBI how to run its shop. It does it very well.

            Mr. WELCH. And they do it, don’t they, Mr. Cohn?

            Mr. COHN. When the need arises, of course.

            Mr. WELCH. And will you tell them tonight, Mr. Cohn, that here is a case where the need has arisen, so that it can be done by sundown tomorrow night?

            Mr. COHN. No, sir; there is no need for my telling the FBI what to do about this or anything else. . . .

            Mr. WELCH. Mr. Cohn, tell me once more: Every time you learn of a Communist or a spy anywhere, is it your policy to get them out as fast as possible?

            Mr. COHN. Surely, we want them out as fast as possible, sir.

            Mr. WELCH. And whenever you learn of one from now on, Mr. Cohn, I beg of you, will you tell somebody about them quick?

            Senator MCCARTHY. Not exactly, Mr. Chairman, but in view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist Party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, incidentally, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party, an organization which always swings to the defense of anyone who dares to expose Communists. I certainly assume that Mr. Welch did not know of this young man at the time he recommended him as the assistant counsel for this committee, but he has such terror and such a great desire to know where anyone is located who may be serving the Communist cause, Mr. Welch, that I thought we should just call to your attention the fact that your Mr. Fisher, who is still in your law firm today, whom you asked to have down here looking over the secret and classified material, is a member of an organization, not named by me but named by various committees, named by the Attorney General, as I recall, and I think I quote this verbatim, as “the legal bulwark of the communist Party.” He belonged to that for a sizable number of years, according to his own admission, and he belonged to it long after it had been exposed as the legal arm of the Communist Party.

            Knowing that, Mr. Welch, I just felt that I had a duty to respond to your urgent request that before sundown, when we know of anyone serving the Communist cause, we let the agency know. We are now letting you know that your man did belong to this organization for, either 3 or 4 years, belonged to it long after
            he was out of law school.

            I don’t think you can find anyplace, anywhere, an organization which has done more to defend Communists—I am again quoting the report—to defend Communists, to defend espionage agents, and to aid the Communist cause, than the man whom you originally wanted down here at your right hand instead of Mr. St. Clair.

            I have hesitated bringing that up, but I have been rather bored with your phony requests to Mr. Cohn here that he personally get every Communist out of government before sundown. Therefore, we will give you information about the young man in your own organization.

            I am not asking you at this time to explain why you tried to foist him on this committee. Whether you knew he was a member of that Communist organization or not, I don’t know. I assume you did not, Mr. Welch, because I get the impression that, while you are quite an actor, you play for a laugh, I don’t think you have any conception of the danger of the Communist Party. I don’t think you yourself would ever knowingly aid the Communist cause. I think you are unknowingly aiding it when you try to burlesque this hearing in which we are attempting to bring out the facts, however.


            Alger Hiss. The Rosenbergs. Fuchs. Harry Dexter White. Whittaker Chambers.

            WERE there communists in the US government? WERE there Soviet agents working against our interests?

            It’s fashionable to denigrate McCarthy, and I’d agree that he was a rather unsavory character (US senators being, as a body, not much better than La Cosa Nostra). However, he gets rather a bum rap:

            1. He was hardly alone in hunting for reds; that American past-time goes back at least to democrat Woodrow Wilson’s administration and the Palmer Raids;

            2. There WERE communist agents in the government.

          • Brucehenry

            And after Loughner shot Gabby Giffords, and certain screwballs claimed Palin bore some responsibility for it, did you not ridicule those screwballs? Aren’t you trying to have it both ways? I suggest a certain hypocrisy is present in anyone claiming SPLC “set” Corkins off and also claims Palin DIDN’T “set” Loughner off.

            I’m not gonna get into a long, link-filled argument about McCarthy. That was just an aside, a poke about revisionist history similar to Jim’s and Goldberg’s claim that Hitler was “of the left.” But no, McCarthy was hardly alone and certainly not the first to embrace Red Scare hysteria, and was only infamous for ruining MORE innocent lives than some of his fellow nuts.

            That there were communists and Soviet agents in government in Truman’s time is not in dispute, just as it is not in dispute that Pollard was an Israeli agent and that FBI guy who was the subject of that Chris Cooper movie was a Soviet agent in Reagan’s time. So? Does that give some paranoid nut the right to go on a witch hunt and falsely claim this guy or that guy were Israeli or Soviet agents with little or no proof?

            Of course not. That it didn’t happen in the 1980s is due to the fact that “McCarthyism” had become a dirty word — and rightfully so.

          • jim_m

            The difference between the left claiming that Palin’s rhetoric incited Laughner and the right claiming that the SPLC’s rhetoric incited Corkins is that Corkins admitted he was lead to his actions by the SPLC and Laughner has been shown to have had no prior knowledge of Palin’s words at all.

            You say that our complaint is hypocritical, but I have already posted a link demonstrating just what I have said here. The SPLC really did influence Corkins. Laughner was a mentally ill person who was ignorant of Palin’s comments.

            Your claim proves that you really are a useful idiot. (despite what the newbies say they appear to have stumbled into the truth on this issue).

          • Brucehenry

            Fair enough that there is a difference, but you get my point. SPLC has posted lists of what it calls hate groups for many years and this is the first time, to my knowledge, anyone’s tried to shoot anyone at one of them. Kooks are kooks, Corkins and Loughner are both examples. Hinckley blamed Jodie Foster.

          • jim_m

            This is because the SPLC has devolved into what is essentially a left wing hate group itself. It is using thug tactics in an attempt to silence its ideological opposition and its silence on this issue betrays the fact that the SPLC actually is pleased with people murdering its opposition.

          • herddog505

            Brucehenry[A]fter Loughner shot Gabby Giffords, and certain screwballs claimed Palin bore some responsibility for it, did you not ridicule those screwballs? Aren’t you trying to have it both ways? I suggest a certain hypocrisy is present in anyone claiming SPLC “set” Corkins off and also claims Palin DIDN’T “set” Loughner off.

            First of all, it wasn’t just “some screwballs” claiming that Palin – somehow – set Loughner on Giffords: the cries for “civility” and “stop the violent rhetoric!” were pretty heavy from the left for weeks afterward. ABC then beclowned themselves trying early on to link the Aurora shooter to the Tea Party. Seems that one side in our country has no problem making the other responsible for every murderous act coming down the pike. Now that I think of it, lefties have even tried to make us gun owners and the NRA responsible for Newtown and murders in America generally.*

            Second, I know quite well that the SPLC, hateful and twisted an organization as it is, didn’t actually set Corkins on the FRC; I am simply playing by lefty rules, which I must say makes me feel rather dirty. The man is a loon; he ought to either be locked up in a mental institution or else a prison cell for many, many years. Had he actually killed somebody, in the absence of good proof that he’s mad, then I’d say, “To the gallows with him.”

            BrucehenryDoes that give some paranoid nut the right to go on a witch hunt and falsely claim this guy or that guy were Israeli or Soviet agents with little or no proof?

            My point is that McCarthy has been given a bum rap by the left. There WERE commies in the government and McCarthy was certainly not alone in trying to smoke them out. However, lefty propaganda is nothing if not thorough: his name has become a byword that lefties use almost as often as they do “RAAAAACIST!” whenever anybody says something they don’t like. I suggest that the left is trying to do the same thing to Pamela Geller: shout her down as a bigot, an islamophobe, a “hate group” leader, etc., etc. Let’s not talk about the facts; let’s not have any sort of debate about Islam in our country. Let’s shove our heads in the sand, pretend that Ft. Hood was “workplace violence”, that Hamas and Hezbollah are just like the Canadians, that Sharia is just another legal system, that radical islamists only hate us because of economic inequality, etc. Let’s show how sensitive we are… by calling anybody who says otherwise a nazi.



            (*) Notably that sawed off little tinpot wannabe c*cksucker Bloomberg:

            “We’re not trying to take away your right to advance the interests of gun owners, hunters, people who want to protect themselves,” Bloomberg told anchor Cynthia McFadden. “But that’s not an absolute right to encourage behavior which causes things like Connecticut. In fact, Connecticut is because of some of their actions.”


          • Brucehenry

            McCarthy was also “given a bum rap” by prominent lefty Dwight Eisenhower, who detested and feared him for his skill at rabble-rousing and fear-mongering. But as I said, McCarthy’s a side issue here; I only called you on it as an example of how the right likes to rewrite history, to make Hitler a man “of the left” and to make dangerous nutjobs like McCarthy, Macarthur, and LeMay into heroes. Next you guys’ll be lionizing General Edwin Walker.

            BTW I agree with you that sharia is not “just another legal system” and that Ft Hood was hardly just another case of workplace violence. But do you buy into the Bushian nonsense that radical Islamists ONLY hate us “for our freedoms?”

            No, I contend that hatred for America among Islamists is due to the perception that we have replaced Britain as the imperial power in the Muslim world. If the US had not become the hegemonic superpower it is today, and if Britain still retained that role, the the UK, not the US, would bear the brunt of jihadi hostility and violence.

            You may say the perception is wrong; I may say so too. But that doesn’t mean it’s not there and widely believed. Blowback from meddling in Iranian affairs in 1953 and what is perceived as unquestioning, one-sided support for Israel to the detriment of Muslim Arabs contributes as well. It doesn’t help that we are seen as Goliath facing a billion Davids. We may think it unfair, but that, I believe, is where the hatred originates.

            I’m not suggesting we should abandon Israel or apologize profusely for alleged past transgressions, but I think we fool ourselves if we embrace the notion that Muslims hate us “for our freedom.” That’s ahistorical nonsense, and kinda sorta racist, too.

            Like many of the bugaboos of the right, this “anti-Sharia” nonsense is a grift, by grifters like Geller, Frank Gaffney, and others, to get page views, sell books, fearful rubes. Sharia will NOT replace American civil or criminal law in our lifetimes, or that of our great great great grandchildren either.

          • herddog505

            Your reference to Lemay is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about. Try reading his autobiography: what you’ll find is a very intelligent, thoughtful man with strong devotion to his family, the Air Force, and his country. I was shocked to find him saying kind words about Mao, for example.

            Lemay learned in the school of hard knocks: he saw at first-hand what happens when a country tries to play fat, dumb and happy, ignoring looming threats and deliberately handicapping its ability to deal with them. When he took his 305th Bomb Group to war in 1942, it was with a lot of youngsters who barely knew what a B-17 or a Norden bombsight or a 50-caliber machinegun was, let alone how to use them. The result was poor performance, heavy losses, and a prolonged war with more attendent casualties (how would things have been had the US armed forces of 1944 been available in 1941?). As a consequence, he was damned well determined that we wouldn’t be in that situation if war with the Soviets ever came: with nuclear weapons, there wouldn’t be a second chance for us.

            But he’s demonized for understanding and SAYING that war is a tough, ugly business, and that the best way to avoid it – or, at least, to avoid the prolonged slaughter on both sides – was to be in a position to win quickly and decisively. The Soviets understood that, so they backed down in 1962 over Cuba. But he’s the villain.

            Now we’ve got admirals who claim that our biggest national security issue is global warming. Jebus…

          • Brucehenry

            Well, you may be right that I spoke in some ignorance about LeMay. I did know he had a terrific WW2 record, but I think it’s fair to say that if you accepted the position of George Wallace’s running mate in 1968, you had become a dangerous nutjob in your golden years.

            And yes, I know Wallace was a Democrat — but he didn’t run as one in 1968.

          • herddog505

            I fear that Lemay well may have gotten a little potty in his declining years. On the other hand, the presidential field in ’68 was hardly inspiring:

            We were getting rid of LBJ, a big spending blowhard who was getting thousands of GI’s and Vietnamese killed to no good purpose every week, but replacing him with a choice between:

            — Nixon, a pathologically self-aggrandizing hack with the moral instincts of a mafia hoodlum;

            — Humphrey, an also-ran;

            — Wallace, a bitter old-time democrat.

            What a deal!

          • Brucehenry

            Humphrey was a hero, a true hero, of the time. I can suggest “The Walls Of Jericho,” by Robert Mann, about the interplay between him, LBJ, and Richard Russell of Georgia and how it affected the Civil Rights struggle.

          • bill reitzes

            Would you please point out for me exactly where Pam Geller ever made a call for violence? Or made a call to hurt muslims?
            Hate is a human emotion that we all feel from time to time and it still is not illegal to have feelings
            Acting with violence is against the law. Pam would not bring herself to the level of the cancerous islam and make calls for violence. islam is all about Supremacy Submission Hate and Hostility and defeating it is not through Supremacy Submission Hate or Hostility.
            Defeat will come through education and open dialog and will probably have to include separation. God bless

          • bill reitzes

            So you find fault with a blog or two on Pam’s site. Let’s say that represents 2% of her blog and it is wrong. What do you have to say about the other 98%. Is she really a nutbar because of those 2%? Where is her credit for the other 98%?
            When are we going to see your apology?

          • Brucehenry

            I gave examples of some of the more egregious stuff on her site. YMMV.

            Your comment upthread about “cancerous Islam” and “defeating” Islam reveals all I really need to know about the value of your opinion, dude. God Bless.

          • jim_m

            There is a strain in islam that has sought to subjugate the rest of the world since the 7th century. Can you really blame people if the recent increase in prominence of that strain makes them suspicious of all muslims?

            You need to go to the EU and interact with the muslims there. They are very different from the ones here. The assimilation here n the US is not great but it is even worse over there. They really are an alien presence and they really do resent the local culture.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, perhaps Western Europeans, if they could have a couple of centuries to do over, wouldn’t have conquered or otherwise exploited the rest of the world and wouldn’t have to deal with the unintended consequences of that hubris and racism. White Man’s Burden and all that, you know.

          • jim_m

            Do you honestly think that today’s islamists or Chinese communists are any different from the Europeans of two centuries ago? You are living in a fantasy world where human nature is something different than it really is.

          • Brucehenry

            My point is there probably wouldn’t BE so many Muslims living in, say, The Netherlands if the Dutch hadn’t conquered and exploited Indonesia for 4 centuries. Ditto France and Malians, Algerians, etc, and Britain with its Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Germany and its Turkish population is admittedly a rather different scenario, somewhat akin to the US-Mexico thing.

          • jim_m

            Actually, it is more an issue of economics. European nations needed workers and the left wing culture of Europe discouraged the native population from reproducing at rates anything close to replacement. In order to maintain their economies they imported workers. Multiculturalist BS meant that they then discouraged assimilation resulting in a large alien population that is becoming an occupying force.

            You don’t see this in the US because we still believe in assimilation for the most part.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, mistakes have been made, and the concept of “multiculturalism” is indeed flawed, I’ll grant you that. But my point stands. Most of the Muslims in the Netherlands are Indonesians, in France Algerians and other North Africans, etc. In other words, they come from conquered lands.

          • bill reitzes

            You are skirting the issue. I asked you about the other 98% of her blog. I agree with you that there may be some errors. When will you give her credit for the correct material that is on her blog?
            As to my feelings about islam being cancerous, how else should a man feel about this proliferation of islam? You can’t possibly find islam attractive can you? How else would you describe islam?
            As to defeating islam, I sure do look forward to seeing it shunned from Western society. How do you see Democracy and that sharia operating together? Can you give us an example of this successful integration of sharia and Democracy anywhere in this world?

          • Brucehenry

            No, but Turkey has done OK until recently as a secular society.

            Part of the problem post WW2 has been that secular governments in Muslim lands have attempted to stamp out liberals and socialists and so the only opposition to what is seen as godless tyranny has been Islamism. The US must accept its share of blame for this, as it supported secular despots like Mubarak, Saddam Hussein, and others. The Shah tried to reimpose long-forgotten Persian imperial trappings in his pathetic puppetry.

            I don’t find Islam attractive, nor do I find Christianity or Judaism so, any more than I find attractive Shintoism or Norse mythology. Just not a religious guy. And I would describe Islam as one of the three great Abrahamic religions, deserving of the same respect or lack of it as the other two. I’m certainly glad I don’t have to live under its rules, just as I’m glad I wasn’t born into 14th century Europe or 1st century Palestine..

          • Commander_Chico

            I looked up who this Suhail Khan that Geller was ranting about was – he’s a former Bush administration official and on the board of the American Conservative Union.


            Saying this guy is worse than Awlaki, who was a propagandist for Al Qaeda, marks her as a nutball.

            BTW, that Geller has had more work done on her than the Brooklyn Bridge. Grotesque, almost like Michael Jackson.

            She’s an attention and money whore.

            It’s also pretty rich that Warner is talking about a jihad on free speech, when he advocates outlawing Islam.

          • warnertoddhuston

            Groupie? Idiot, I am an EMPLOYEE of Breitbart. I make my living from the Internet!

          • Brucehenry

            I apologize, then. I should have said, “It says a lot about Breitbart employee Warner that he has any regard for a kooky xenophobic nutbar like Geller.”

    • Warren Raymond

      Brucehenry is a kook and a nut and is absolutely a bigot.

      Ignorant and clueless too.

      There you go, fixed it.

      • Brucehenry

        Says the denizen of the comment sections of anti-Muslim blogs even more creepy and paranoid than Geller’s.

    • Jimbo

      Only one bigoted, delusional idiot here methinks…..It’s people like yourself “Brucehenry” that encourage the murders of innocents because of your continual state of denial about the threat that Islam and many of its devotees present to all free peoples and nations….Left-wing Liberal appeaser of the worst kind……Josef Stalin had a name for people like you….”Useful Idiots”….look it up…You might learn something about your own mindset…

      • Brucehenry

        Who are you two newbies? Express an opinion of your own and then get back to me.

      • herddog505

        I’m not getting how Brucehenry is in a “continual state of denial about the threat of Islam”. All I’m getting in this case is that he thinks that Pamela Gellar is a kook. Even I think that she’s rather shrill.

        As for the “threat of Islam”, there is a definite threat from certain people who profess to be Muslims, but “Islam” is no more a threat than Methodism or Shintoism: there are about 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, the vast majority of whom are as peaceful and law-abiding as the average Catholic, Jew, Buddhist or atheist (some of them are friends of mine). The murderous fraction that cause us trouble is a relatively tiny number, most of them from countries like Saudi, Iran, Pakistan, and Syria that are despotic and (IMO) have governments that use them as cats paws: they hate us but don’t want to get their own hands dirty, so they quietly arrange funding for groups like AQ to do the dirty work for them.

        Calling Islam a “threat” not only insults the millions of people who most certainly AREN’T a threat, but it also obscures what the real problems are.

      • Brucehenry

        Oh, and also, too, speaking of looking things up, you may want to look up “how to use ellipses”…….you know?

    • bill reitzes

      Always attack the messenger. Have you even considered the content of her message? Are those ads wrong? Do you deny the quotes in the ads? If I can give you documented proof of the sources of her ads, will you apologize for calling her a bigot a kook a nut?

      Do you deny that a muslim, was fulfilling his jihad, on March 21 2013 in Damascus Syria, when he detonated his suicide belt, as he prayed allah uahkbar and killed 48 worshipers at a mosque.

      How about on the 19th of March in Tirah Pakistan when another follower of the prophet(PBUH) detonated his suicide belt to the tune of that greatest of all prayers allah uahkbar and killed 46.
      Wow man, a lot of people are dying in this allah worship, wouldn’t you agree.
      And you attack the messenger? Be a man, stand up and stop with your nonsense. Start doing the right thing. Support the messengers of the message. Be smart. God bless

      • Brucehenry

        Dude, see herddog’s comment above. No one denies religious fanatics are blowing themselves up and killing others in the process. They are hateful, deluded, paranoid zealots who must be stopped, if possible. There has been a wave of these attacks, especially in the years since 9/11, that’s true.

        But let’s have some context. 100 years ago and more, there was a similar wave of terrorist explosions. Restaurants were bombed, along with parliament buildings and train stations. The King of Spain, various other crowned heads, even the President of the United States, were assassinated. The world was terrified — of ANARCHISTS!

        Is the world now run by anarchists? Did anarchists infiltrate the corridors of power and implement “stealth anarchy?” Pffft. The world defeated anarchism by not overreacting to it. It will do the same in this case.

        • bill reitzes

          Thanks for your lesson on history and I’ll remember every word of it.
          You are truly elusive.
          A lot of people are dying in this allah worship correct?
          We, the opposers to this allah worship, bring it to the attention of the Western world as we call for a peaceful solution to this creeping threat of islam
          Bruce, I’ll be a mensch and give you an out so to speak.
          Give us one example of where islam has been fair with infidels, when islam dominates demographically. Just one please.

          • Brucehenry

            What’s your “peaceful solution to this creeping threat,” dude?

            May I suggest if you want a “peaceful solution” you don’t call another guy’s religion “cancerous” and call for it to be “defeated”?

  • Out of curiosity, can anyone cite a case in which sharia law was admissible in a civil court in the USA? It is one thing for Muslim extremists to promote sharia law in the USA, but it is another thing for sharia law to be accepted in a civil court in the USA. The former can take place without the latter taking place.

    • Commander_Chico

      Sharia law should be admissible in civil court, if the parties to a contract choose it, just like any other law in a choice of law provision.

      For example if the parties chose Islamic financing structures in a real estate deal.

      • herddog505

        Not so sure about this on legal grounds. Obviously, people making a civil contract ought to be pretty free to set such terms as they choose. However, I’m not sure about how Sharia law regarding finances might conflict with US law; perhaps it doesn’t.

        The fact is that certain aspects of Sharia – at least, as they are practiced in some countries* – have given this type of law a VERY bad name. Any legal system that condones such a truly vicious, cruel (dare I say “savage”?) treatment of women, for example, doesn’t exactly commend itself to the average American. On those lines, I suggest that this is something that sets Geller off: she points out (rather… um… pointedly) that Sharia is not exactly friendly to gay rights, something that is overlooked by many lefties. I think that their willful blindness on this point really grinds her gears.


        (*) I get the idea that Sharia works reasonably well in south Asian countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, where they (I think) don’t quite take it to the extremes that we see in places like Saudi Arabia or A-stan under Taliban rule. As draconian a view of law enforcement as I have, even I balk at lopping off people’s hands for thieving.

        • Jwb10001

          Or this notion that men own women and they have virtually zero rights. Wonder how that view of things would work out in a civil action say like a divorce? Chico can always be counted on to be contrary if it is at all possible.

        • Commander_Chico

          My understanding of Islamic finance is that it makes your lender a partner in the property you are acquiring by the loan, where they share in the effective revenue of the property.

          In other words, not really much difference from regular lending, just that there is a fig leaf over the interest-on-money part of things, by the lender taking a part of the “rent” on the property rather than a “rent” on the money.

    • Yellowhouse

      The interesting thing about shariah is that it doesn’t actually need to be codified to be effective as a law. As long as there are committed muslims willing to engage in violence and threats of violence on its behalf, it is effective as a restraint on behavior and a de facto law. This is very evident within muslim families. As for the public square, I would describe the following as evidence of the de facto enforcement/implementation of shariah: The decision of Yale to remove images of the Danish Cartoons from a book about the Danish cartoons over the objection of the author, the shredding of “The jewel of Medina,” the blacking out of images by Comedy Central, the “disappearance” of Molly Norris, as well as the promise by the State Department to publicly “shame” those who “defame islam” as a means of implementing res. 16/18.

    • herddog505

      I think that Gellar’s problem is that lefties, in the name of “tolerance” or “multiculturalism” or “diversity” or whatever buzzword you care to name, will allow it in US courts: “Oh, it just isn’t FAIR to try that poor Muslim using our eurocentric, racist, exlusionary, capitalist, imperialist, intolerant legal system. Why, the obviously right thing to do is to use the legal system that he’s familiar with, the one that understands his culture.”

      On a related topic, Gellar cites an FNC news story to about the DHS decision to allow Saudi nationals to take advantage of the “Trusted Traveler” program:

      Only an exclusive handful of countries enjoy inclusion in the Global Entry program — Canada, Mexico, South Korea and the Netherlands. According to the IPT, some officials are questioning why Saudi Arabia gets to reap the benefits of the program, when key U.S. allies like Germany and France are not enrolled; Israel has reached a deal with the U.S., but that partnership has not yet been implemented.

    • bill reitzes

      Wasn’t there a case, about 2 years ago, where a mooslem immigrant attacked a guy dressed up as the prophet(PBUH) at Halloween. The mooslem claimed that his feelings were hurt at the mockery of the prophet(PBUH). The Judge agreed that mooslem was right in defending the prophet(PBUH) and found the infidel guilty. There was talk around the Judge being a converted mooslem or something like that

      • Brucehenry

        Need a link.

        • bill reitzes

          Bruce, did you notice that my comment was in the form of a question. Do you have the link to the incident in question?

          • Brucehenry

            Nope, and I suggest it may be an urban legend. You should stop repeating it until you know WTF you’re talking about. God Bless.

          • bill reitzes

            The event in question happened on Oct 11 2011 in Mechanicsberg PA. The names of the involved are Judge Mark Martin, the mooslem attacker was Talaag Elbayomy and the victim was Ernest Perce V. Google the event. WTF Bruce, you have been one upped again. Apparently it’s not an urban legend. The only urban legend that I have heard from you today, is your belief that islam is a religion of peace and that Pam Geller is a bigot. You can deny facts all you want Bruce, but the truth will always remain the truth

          • Brucehenry

            If you knew what you were talking about why not say so up front? Do you imagine yourself clever playing silly games?

            Do you know how to link?

          • bill reitzes

            WTF Bruce I have given you so much today, can’t you do something for yourself. And yes Bruce I DO KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT. And no Bruce, this mooslem threat to our society is not a joke. Do you know why I consider it a mooslem threat? Cuz these people believe in islam, the modern curse to the free world. So I believe in Democracy and Free Speech and being Jewish, I hereby allow you to call me a Joo. Knock yourself out buddy

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not interested in grade school playground taunts. I’ll leave that kind of thing to guys like you, guys who KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT. Lol.

            And I don’t think you know how to post links.

          • Jwb10001

            Having been at the receiving end of your petty name calling, I’m call straight bull shit on this post. You can be just as petty and condescending as any on here. More so if you get your shit shoved back in your face.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh really? What petty names were you called? I usually use a sarcastic “genius” or an angry “rube.” In either case, in response to something someone says or does, not what they ARE.

            Do you not consider “mooslem” a juvenile, bigoted schoolyard taunt?

            But perhaps my memory is self-serving. Want to link to the times you were “on the receiving end” of my name calling?

          • Brucehenry

            Oh, and “mooslem”?? Really? What are you, twelve?

          • bill reitzes

            No, I’m not twelve. What do you call mooslems?

          • Brucehenry

            Muslims. The same way I call Christians “Christians” and not “Xtians.” Or call Jews “Jews” and not “Joooos.” Because I’m not a bigoted middle school student.

          • bill reitzes

            Wow, for someone who has been put in my hip pocket time after time here today, you really have a high opinion of yourself. So far you have been chased all over this site here today. You are of little substance as most of those mooslems are.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, you’ve really showed me! Is my face red, or what?

  • Pingback: Canadian Police Become Sharia Enforcers — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami()

  • SoCalMike

    The need to smear Geller or anyone else as a kook without addressing their ideas is symptomatic of those who can not address the argument.

    Geller may lack elegance but she is not a kook and a nut.

    She correctly points out that Islam is not a peaceful religion and Muslims around the world wage war in the name of their god every day.

    CPAC didn’t invite her because they are socially conformed and afraid to speak the truth because they know the Brucehenrys of the Western world and their Islamic supremacist allies will immediately smear them as racists and haters.

    The professional left in this country enables and empowers jihadism in both the media and geopolitics.

    Take a peek at the map of the ME.

    • Brucehenry

      I’m not the “professional left,” dude. I don’t have “allies” of the Islamic supremacist variety or any other. I work in the pest control industry. Before that I sold sub sandwiches and pizzas. I think for myself.

      Geller IS a kook and a nut, in my opinion, but, looking at your comment profile, it’s not surprising you don’t recognize it

      .A guy who advocates shooting “these parasites” (government employees) — a guy who calls “Repubes” (Republicans) “dk sucking cowards” — a guy who refers to Chris Christie an “obese turn coast pig” — a guy who refers to opinions with which he disagrees as “verbal diarrhea” — that guy could hardly be expected to recognize a kook and a hater when he sees one.

      But you see, unfortunately for you, not everyone has hung out on hateblogs so long their minds have been twisted.

      CPAC didn’t invite Geller because, as I said in the very first comment on this thread, they’re trying to sell their messsage, and hatred of “the other” is something younger voters ain’t buying. Whether it’s banning gay marriage or this “anti-Sharia” paranoia, you’re not gonna attract younger voters with a message of fear and exclusion.

      So, keep it up, Genius!

  • Pingback: Pamela Geller on the Left’s ‘Stealth Jihad’ on Our Free Speech » PolitiTalk()