May 13, 2015
A crucifix in urine is divine but a cartoon of Muhammad is distasteful. The Virgin Mary in elephant dung is praiseworthy but a political drawing for free speech is worthy of death. A musical mocking the Mormon religion receives Tony Awards while images of a religious leader are awarded gunfire and death threats. To the mainstream media and Liberal pundits this all makes perfect sense, unless it happens to them.
Just 4 months ago, two Islamic terrorists rushed the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine, killing 12 people. The media elite, Hollywood elite, and the world, raised their voices in unity stating, “Je suis Charlie Hebdo” (I am Charlie Hebdo). People on all sides of the political spectrum marched arm in arm in the streets of Paris declaring the attack an abomination against humanity. Well, all except any member of the Obama administration. Even those who strongly disagree with the magazine and the sexual cartoons the artist’s drew of Muhammad denounced the terrorists' actions. This was a spontaneous support for freedom of speech and a condemnation of violent extremism from all but one nation.
Apparently only Liberal publications are awarded this unbiased support from political opponents. On May 3, the American Freedom Defense Initiative hosted a freedom of speech conference in Garland, Texas. As part of the itinerary, coordinator Pamela Geller held a contest for the best cartoon depicting Muhammad. Unlike the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, which were all sexual in content, the conference contest winner was a pure and simple statement on free speech. Muhammad was drawn holding a sword, stating, "You can't draw me." The caption read, "That's why I draw you."
The very same commentators who denounced the massacre in France ripped into Pamela Geller for purposely offending Muslims. Even a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist was able to excuse and defend his magazine's cartoons while blaming Pamela for inciting the attack in Garland. He claimed his magazine is an equal opportunity offender of religions while accusing Pamela Geller of targeting only Islam. The flaw with that argument is that Pamela Geller was making a very specific point. Christians don't kill when their religion is attacked. Jews do not slaughter when their faith is assaulted. Rare indeed are the mass beheadings conducted by Mormans or Seventh Day Adventists. If you are trying to make a statement about free speech, it doesn’t accomplish much to challenge those who believe you have a right to be offensive. You only prove that point by singling out the hypocrisy of the one group that refuses to be offended.
The fortunate difference in the Texas attack was officers who, unlike the French officers, were armed and quickly eliminated the threat in a matter of seconds. Protected with body armor, armed with AK-47s, the two ISIS terrorists intended to do significant carnage. However, an officer on a traffic post and nearby SWAT members ended the potential threat in less than 15 seconds. Armed good guys are always the best defense against armed bad guys. God bless Texas. The officers protected the convention goers, stopped the threat, and prevented a massacre like Charlie Hebdo.
It’s not just how these events ended that’s significantly different, but how the media reacted after it was over. If you are honest about your principles, your opinion should be consistent regardless the political position of the person presenting the event. If you are not, then you are just playing politics. The Charlie Hebdo massacre and the Garland attack were both senseless, horrific displays of intolerance by Islamic extremists. Regardless of whether you agree with any of the cartoons, you must defend the right for them to be drawn. This seems lost on most in the media.
Those claiming Pamela was purposely trying to offend Islamists are the same people who support and defend homosexuality. Do they not know that homosexuality is incredibly offensive to Muslims yet it is being forced into Western society in movies, television, and now by law? Islamists murder homosexuals throughout the Middle East, no questions asked. ISIS threw two off of a building in January, taking pictures and video to make sure everyone knows their beliefs on the matter.
So why are these sympathetic Liberals offended by Pamela Geller while they demand same-sex marriage? Shouldn’t they be more sensitive to the Muslim’s feelings on this subject? Why do they insist on insulting them? Actors and actresses will demonize Pamela Geller for offending Muslims while proudly participating in on-screen and often publicized off-screen love affairs. Adultery is punishable by death in Muslim society and is usually carried out without even a trial. An ISIS video shows a woman accused of adultery dragged across the ground while pleading and begging for her life, only to be pummeled with large rocks by those around her. Her covered lifeless body is the last image of the video. Hollywood, media, and political elite, are you still, “Je suis Charlie Hebdo?” Or do you only stand when the barbarians are at your gate?
On the plus side, there are a few on the Left who are remaining consistent. Far Leftists Jon Stewart and Bill Maher have both criticized the Garland terrorist attack as strongly as they did the Charlie Hebdo attack, standing with many Conservative commentators. Maher made his point very clearly by point out that the fringe Westboro Baptist Church, “Protest(s) me every week, and it never ends in a gun battle.”
Those who say Pamela Geller had it coming could have said the same about the assassinations of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. All these men stood on principle, not politics. By doing so they offended specific groups of people, including the Nation of Islam. A fatwa, or call for death, has been issued against Pamela Geller and anyone who hosts her events. Many, including some Conservatives, are condemning the cartoon event even going as far as claiming they were in fact inciting a violent reaction for holding the cartoon contest. By doing this they are declaring victory for the terrorists. Islamic extremists use threats, fear and panic to control others. The critics are masking their fear by calling it respect. It is not respect if it is controlled by terror. It’s only respectful when you know you can freely get away with the insult and you refrain anyway. By condemning Pamela Geller instead of the terrorists, critics are playing right into the hands of those organizing these attacks. Bullies win when you back down.
Discouraging anyone from producing images of Muhammad just gives more power to the extremists. Once they’ve won this battle and silenced their opponents, what will they go after next? Christianity? Jews? Women? Homosexuals? Adulterers? Already waging those wars. When will people start fighting back? When they finally come after those in America? They’re already here and already in full battle. If you start cowering to the fanatics and attack Pamela Geller, or the Christians, or the Jews, who will be left to defend you when they come after you and your sin?
We can’t back down and give in to the terrorists. If we stood together and all drew pictures of Muhammad, what could the terrorists do? They can defeat us 2 or 3 at a time, but if we all unite with a peaceful protest, we could overpower every last one of their weapons.
I am Garland!
That’s my 2 cents.
I AM GARLAND