Reblogged … in parts …
Jjihad just took place in Garland, Texas, a suburb of Dallas, in the United States of America. Was it in the mainstream, the lamestream media? If it was, was it not mostly dismissed?
A hired, armed guard took a bullet for your Freedom of Speech . . . and we get a short glimpse, here in the USA. Constitution anyone? Liberty?
Not today, not here . . .
We are living in infamous times. Reality outpaces fiction, and the worst case scenarios keep unfolding in our daily headlines. We cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Some believe that Geller et al are doing just that, causing trouble when trouble can be avoided if one only follows Islamist guidelines. Others already urge we follow Sharia . . .
Some fight back . . . in different ways, some using only our pens.
Few, stand strong, launch demonstrations and lawsuits. Some push the envelope, looking for certain trouble, welcoming it, in order to provide an object lesson to those who will not see the Jihad upon us, the Jihad that only Israel once faced, the Jihad that is destroying the Middle East and the Muslim world.
Our president and elected representatives ensure Jihad’s to come here by leaving our borders vulnerable.
- Critics of torturers and mass murderers are demonized as “extremists” and “provocateurs.”
- Israel is accused of human rights atrocities it has never committed by those very entities who themselves actually commit such atrocities; anyone who points this out is deemed an “extreme conservative” and a “racist.”
- Sensitivity training is the “Liberal’s answer.”
- Anti-infidel hate speech—as long as it is directed against America and Israel—is seen as protected by the First Amendment and by the doctrine of Free Speech; exposing the diabolical Big Lies is considered politically incorrect “racist” hate speech which has no place in the Western media, on campus, at the UN, or in any international human rights organization.
Either the West fights back or we surrender to these Orwellian rules. Too many Western intellectuals prefer scapegoating Israel and surrendering quietly to these diabolical Islamist rules rather than risk their reputations and their lives.
Many moderates, elitists, scholars, and fence-huggers favor “nuance;” “sensitivity;” “anti-racism,” “inter-faith dialogue.” But they should favor freedom more … and double standards less.
Enter Pamela Geller, the blogger-activist and founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Robert Spencer, the best-selling author and founder of JihadWatch, and Dutch Parliamentarian and filmmaker Geert Wilders—all long-time freedom fighters against radical, terrorist Islamism. These three have just joined the august ranks of the publisher of the original Mohammed cartoons and the International and Danish Free Press Societies, not only in terms of their having all been awarded pariah status as “Islamophobes” and “racists,” but now in terms of having “provoked” criminal gunfire.
Westerners have absolutely no trouble criticizing Christianity and Judaism. Why so much angst about criticizing one religion only: Islam? If what Geller, Spencer, and Wilders have just done advances the cause of freedom of speech, we may not all have to follow their tactics, but we should at least acknowledge that we support their goals.
If not, what exactly are our alternatives?
Read the stimulating article: // by Prof. Phyllis Chesler – a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum and recipient…