Just as ordinary police deserve to be lumped in with the corrupt ones because they (1) cover up and (2) look the other way for them, so the millions of moderate Muslims cover it up and/or look the other way when jihadists kill people for blasphemy, apostasy, or "honor," and thus deserve to be lumped in with them.

Anyone who is out to destroy Western religious tolerance and multiculturalism should not be allowed to benefit from those policies.

The same goes for the lefties whose idea of tolerance stops where political incorrectness begins. But at least most of them aren't killing their opponents, yet.

I am not that familiar with Pam Geller, but my guess is she would say there's little difference in ideology between so-called radicals and moderates, only in willingness to act. Unlike the Bible or the Torah, the Koran is essentially a call to action. Among such calls is the subjugation or slaughter of non-Muslims. Do so-called moderates disagree or are they simply lying in wait, and if we don't know, should we be importing them? That's probably Geller's main concern.

OK, let's test your analysis. . if it were not considered
blasphemy to draw a caricature of Mohammed, then
people would do it without concern. . since there is
concern, and since we have a first amendment,
drawing caricatures of Mohammed is essential
to preserving freedom. . thus, her contest was a
freedom-promoting activity. . the negative response
was anti-freedom illegal self-expression. -- j

p.s. Mary or Jesus in a jar of urine is also essential
to the preservation of freedom. . others can do it, though.
.

Ron, I am certain that Pam does not "get the reaction
she wanted." . I am certain that she wants NO reaction,
and gets a negative one. . it's like the U.S. flags
which fly from the dual antennas on my Harley --
I do not want a positive reaction, or a negative one --
it is self-expression. . I am a retired USAF LtCol. -- j
.

Yes! . and the donations are welcome at:::

http://pamelageller.com/

-- j
.

Aw drat! I am going to have to agree with RonJohnson. I LIKE Pam Geller, but what RonJohnson is saying is that (a) he does not 'like' her as a personal reaction, (b) he thinks that she is voluntarily putting herself at risk, and (c) she should not be protected by the gov out of tax money.

Sigh. I think all of those things are straight on.

I like Pam Geller (personal reaction) but I agree with (b) and (c). On the other hand, I wish that hundreds of people would sponsor "Draw a Cartoon of Mo" contests - and that each of them would lure a couple of fanatics out of the woodwork to be shot by off-duty heroic cops. Very, Darwinian, that.

Where I do not agree with RonJohnson is that 'only two' fanatics is not something that we should be concerned about. If there were a "Draw a cartoon of Pope Frank" contest and 'only two' Catholic fanatics tried to kill the organizer it would outrage everyone, including the Catholic Church (and Frank!).

I think I donated to her in the past, but I am going to look up her site again and throw a few bucks in her direction to defray a bit of the 30K.

Jan, mouth=money

it seems apparent that the "death to America" and
Christian beheadings facts show their character.
and, yes, I am speaking of radical Muslims only. -- j
.

Welcome to the gulch, Bethesda-gal !!! -- yes, we men
are envious of Pam!!! -- j
.

Good point. The Special Services teams in the Middle East lobbied for women to be permitted to join in part because they discovered that there were things they could not find out/ places they could not go because they were male - they needed female team members.

We do need cultural and linguistic Middle Easterners in our police force (and some of them will be Islamic). More, though, we need the police force itself to increase in quality.

Jan

Under the law, a president, including family,
would receive Secret Service protection for
l0 years. Good enough. But the WH PukePod
changed that to LIFETIME protection. Thinking
of himself? Or scared for himself??

How many Muslims have you actually come in contact with? I've dealt with many in my life, including working with the Turkish military. I haven't knowingly met any of the most violent, but I have had some tell me they are personally worried about the fanatic element in the faith, and how it is both dangerous and a misrepresentation. I found the Sufi Muslims to be passionate believers in non-violent outreach, and they worry about serious conflict among the faithful, and how the fanatics could start a world war. The Shiite "Twelvers" believe they have a duty to bring on world conflict, which will bring back the 12th Imam, and the Sunni extremists believe they have an obligation to bring the world under the control of the caliphate. It is those elements that are a real danger, both to the greater population of Muslims, and to the rest of the world.

Have read and donated to Pam over the years. Should she have received HALF the attention
the media insisted on giving Caitlyn perhaps
more of us would be aware of what is really
happening re: Sharia Law. Go Pam!!

Here's the Muslim response to the First Amendment
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...

The post had nothing to do with ISIS, just with whether or not we liked Pam Geller. I do not. I think she is unnecessarily abrasive, and I believe she is using provocation to incite unstable individuals in order to "prove" Muslims, and Islam in general, are dangerous.

As I stated in my comment, I defend her right to say whatever she wants, but I consider her to be despicable. She wants a violent response, that's why she does what she does.

But notice that she does not walk through a Black neighborhood in Chicago and yell "N-ggers" to prove that blacks are against free speech. She does not go to a biker bar and call them all "p-ssys' to prove they are anti-free speech. She would be just as likely to get a violent response in both of those cases as she has with the 'draw Mohammed' stunt.

How am I the bigot? I have asserted no virtues or sins on anyone for any membership in any religion. I have made clear that taking an overt violent act is not to be tolerated. You clearly didn't read my comment.

However, I have also criticized Pam Geller for purposely trying to incite the rare unstable Muslim so she can smear the millions of peaceful Muslims that live all around us.

Lest you think that only Muslims are incited to violence by protected First Amendment activities, let me remind you of David Cole. As a young man he did a documentary in which he asserted that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, and he went so far as to associate with Holocaust revisionists on broadcast TV to promote that point of view. The result is the ADL put a price on his head, and he was forced to issue a retraction he did not believe, change is name, and hide his identity for the next 20 years.

Did the ADL and Jews in general 'reveal themselves' when they threatened him with death? NO! That was actions taken by specific individuals...never prosecuted, by the way.

That's all Pam Geller is doing. She's inciting the unstable, and she is a fool for doing so.

She knows what she's doing. She has a passion and is prepared to defend it.

Your fear of Islam is outsized. There is no danger of America succumbing to Sharia Law, just as there is no chance that we will all be forced to be kosher.

I don't care if Pam is a bigot, either. The question was whether or not I like her. I do not. I don't like her bigotry, I don't like the way she disrespects people. I defend her right to be a bigot under the law, and therefore anybody who attacks her should be prosecuted. I also recognize that she is intentionally trying to set off some unstable individuals in order to smear an entire population of peaceful people. That is despicable.

Hmmmm. Test that thesis: if Pam Geller had not purposely, intentionally, and publicly set out to incite some unknown Islamic hothead into taking an overt act, she would almost certainly still be roaming the streets without bodyguards and without fear.

In fact, only TWO Muslims took overt criminal action. Millions of Muslims in this country, and tens of thousands in the Dallas area, ignored her, which was the proper reaction.

Even if there are 120 million Muslims that 'want to kill or subjugate all non-Muslims' (a highly dubious assertion) they are most certainly not here. Of the millions of Muslims in this country, only a infinitesimal number have used violence to advance their religious principles. With so little evidence of danger to us non-Muslims, I have to chalk up your comment to paranoia or intentional fearmongering.

I suspect you did not read my comment very carefully, because I said that I would defend the right of a woman to dress provocatively if she wished, but I would consider it foolish for her to do so in certain circumstances. Of course the attacker is the guilty party, but a fine lot of good that knowledge does her when she is permanently scarred by an attack. Prudence would have been better protection than your moral outrage.

"Society" DID say the specific reaction by a specific individual was criminal. Nobody is disputing that. Pam Geller has used that one attack as her evidence that 1.2 billion people (or the radical 120 million, you say) are also guilty. Nonsensical. Unjust.

I love Pam Geller, as I do Brigitte Gabriel. Pam is Jewish from NYC, and Brigitte is a Christian, originally from Lebanon, now an American. But both are incredibly brave women ( braver than any men I can think of !) to speak truth to the evil of (radical) Islam. Pam also started a blog in 2004 called Atlas Shrugged.
For anyone who doubts that there is a powerful faction of Islam that desires to restore the caliphate and sharia law around the world really isn't paying attention.

Some MSM commentators have opined that Geller provoked Islamists with
the cartoon contest. This is backwards. Islamists provoked a cartoon contest
with multiple atrocities throughout the world.

Go Pam!!

I like her because she is a patriot, exercising her rights under the constitution. Screw the muslims and the liberals if they don't like it.

That is the "Cost of doing business"

When you take a stand, you execute on a strategy, take a risk into a particular business, or activity, YOU are accountable for the "Risks" involved, be it walking through Harlem yelling racial epithets, or having Mohammed cartoon contests.

Where the "Injustice" is is expecting tax dollars to pay for her security since we are accountable for our own safety in life and business

If she asked for donations to fund her security I would be happy to contribute from a "Self-Interest" standpoint, but I would be offended to be FORCED to pay for her security via taxation.

I don't care if Pam Gellar is a bigot. The first amendment isn't to protect popular speech, but it ugly, provocative, unpopular brother. The problem with your assessment of Islam not trying to impose sharia law is that it doesn't require the vast majority to impose it. It just take our acquesience to allowing the radicals to dictate the playing field. So if I am afraid of drawing Mohammed, I am allowing the radicals to take a step forward to pursuing their agenda because they now have me cowed. And can use the same tactic to press the next "law" they want to pursue. And if you disagree, look at the progressive agenda put forth in the United States. It's been almost 100 years in the making to dismantle this country's greatness and move it towards socialism. You don't make big changes, just little ones that slowly move the society in the direction you want it to go. Because once that little move become accepted, it's easier to make the next step and so on.

One of the key (wrong) principles of Islam is not to blame men who commit crime, but find someone who "provoked" or "tempted" it and blame them instead.

You are doing that here. You are the bigot.

Pam Geller is absolutely right to force people who follow that principle to reveal themselves, hopefully before they kill anyone.