The New Jersey Star-Ledger recently editorialized that Pamela Geller is not Charlie Hebdo. Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative hosted the Muhammad Art Exhibition in Garland, Texas, that was attacked by free speech-hating Islamists. The Star-Ledger wrote:
Pamela Geller this week published a response to those who say she provoked the attack on the anti-Muslim event she organized in Texas: "This is a war," she said.
And that's all you really need to know about Pamela Geller. She wants to incite a war. That is not bravery, it is a dangerous stunt -- like the idiot who swaggers into a bar and deliberately insults somebody with a racial slur, then expects you to have his back.
This is the major difference between Geller and the slain cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, with whom she has tried to equate herself. Whether or not you approve of Charlie's renderings of the Prophet Muhammad, they were intended to be satirical, not bigoted.
The artists saw themselves as equal opportunity offenders, mocking the pope and rabbis alongside the prophet. Of their hundreds of covers over the past decade, only seven were about Islam.
I left these comments:
“‘This is a war,’ she said.
And that's all you really need to know about Pamela Geller. She wants to incite a war.”
But that’s not even close to “all you need to know.”
A militant Islamist fundamentalist movement declared war on America and the West in 1979. They have told us explicitly for decades that this is so. They have backed up their words with an ideologically explicit, relentless campaign of terrorist aggression. Despite infighting within the Islamist movement, Islamic fundamentalists everywhere are united and motivated by a literal interpretation of their religion that is the equivalent of, and just as evil as, Soviet communism and the Axis Alliance. The Islamists are imperialists who seek world domination under a totalitarian Islamic theocracy. Iran, the practical demonstration of Islamic totalitarianism and the spiritual and ideological inspiration for Islamist fundamentalists everywhere, declares explicitly in its constitution that worldwide Islamic revolution and domination is its ultimate goal and duty. Of the Iranian Revolution, the constitution of Iran states:
The Mission of the Constitution is to identify itself with the basic beliefs of the movement and to bring about the conditions under which the lofty and worldwide values' of Islam will flourish.
The Constitution, having regard to the Islamic contents of the Iranian Revolution, . . . provides a basis for the continuation of that revolution both inside and outside the country. It particularly tries to do this in developing international relations with other Islamic movements and peoples, so as to prepare the way towards a united single world community.
. . . the Islamic Republic's army, and the corps of Revolutionary Guards . . . have responsibility not only for the safeguarding of the frontiers, but also for a religious mission, which is Holy War (JIHAD) along the way of God, and the struggle to extend the supremacy of God's Law in the world.
If this, coupled with the acknowledged fact that Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism, is not proof that “This is a war”—and that Islamist fundamentalist aggressors everywhere are part of that war—then what is? Do we have to wait for a nuclear bomb to explode in NYC? Geller is not out to “incite” war, but to do what too many of our political, intellectual, and media leaders are too cowardly to do—acknowledge that we are in a war initiated by Imperialist Islamic totalitarianism.
“This is the major difference between Geller and the slain cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, with whom she has tried to equate herself. Whether or not you approve of Charlie's renderings of the Prophet Muhammad, they were intended to be satirical, not bigoted.
“The artists saw themselves as equal opportunity offenders, mocking the pope and rabbis alongside the prophet.”
But Christians and Jews are not the religionists blowing up civilians and trying to crush free speech. It is only the Islamists. Geller may or may not be a bigot (and she is, if she paints all Muslims with a broad brush). But that is beside the point. Whether or not you approve of Geller’s view of Muslims generally, we all—enlightened Muslims and non-Muslims alike—should give kudos to Geller and any others who single out the Islamist fundamentalists and say, in effect, “WE WILL NOT LET YOU INTIMIDATE US INTO SILENCE!” We all should have that kind of courage—the courage of a Hebdo and a Geller.
The Star-Ledger did manage to acknowledge:
For all her bizarre rantings, though, Geller is right in one respect. Both she and Charlie Hebdo have the right to say whatever they want. Muslim Americans would be the first to agree with that, because it is possible to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time: That bigots have a right to free speech, and that bigotry is still bigotry.
Nice of them. I wonder if the Star-Ledger would also say—“It is possible to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time: That bigots have a right to freedom of association, and that bigotry is still bigotry”—about Christian caterers who refuse to serve gay weddings, because of their religious convictions.
The only reference to the Islamic attackers was in the last sentence:
Let's not let her make herself into a martyr now, just because two extremists accepted her challenge. A poor security guard was seriously injured protecting her right to spew bigotry. He's the real hero here.
Notice the contradiction. Geller has a right to free speech, yet the attackers were merely responding to a “challenge,” which she provoked by exercising her right. That’s the same as blaming a rape victim for “challenging” the rapist with sensually stimulative clothing. With defenders like the New Jersey Star-Ledger, freedom of speech doesn’t need enemies.
NEW EPISODE OF THE YARON BROOK SHOW: CHARLIE HEBDO AND THE THREAT TO FREE SPEECH