May 9, 2015 13 Comments
Well, I suppose we should speak a bit about Garland and all that, so let’s have done with it.
First, I carry no brief for Pam Geller, at the risk of sounding sexist, I think she’s a strident, loud, self-promoting jerk. But she has an absolute right to hold a poster exhibition (competition, whatever)about Mohammed, God, Jesus Lucky Luciano, the Devil, or anybody/anything else. It’s just that simple. Wise or not, she has that right.
This is the US and here we value free speech, as a God-given right, whatever Europe says, minus a few very minor exceptions pertaining to public safety, one can say anything one desires. And, incidentally, it is there specifically, to protect offensive speech, inoffensive speech requires no protection.
Second, Bill O’Reilly (of Fox News) is a superficial, idiotic, bloviating, unwatchable, idiot, whose ego gets in the way of his mind being able to figure out that 2+2=4. Anybody who ever uses the construction “There oughta be a law” is an idiotic statist who doesn’t have freedom’s interest (let alone yours) at heart (or anywhere else important to him.
So when he bloviates crap like:
Emotional displays like insulting the prophet Mohammed make it more difficult to rally law-abiding Muslims, for example. Including nations like Jordan and Egypt, who are actually fighting the fanatical Islamists,” O’Reilly said. “In any war, you have to win hearts and minds, and the situation in Garland, Texas goes against that. Again, the freedom of speech issue is bogus. No one is saying the exposition was illegal. The point is winning, defeating the jihad.
As Strieff at Red State said.
This is true if you work from the perspective that Muslims are unable to function in a pluralistic society. That may be the case. From what we’ve seen of how Muslim communities operate in Western Europe and Islamic ghettos like Dearborn, Michigan and the antics of CAIR and various “Muslim student associations” in suppressing free speech I think it is something that should be up for discussion. More to the point, if you need to rally “law-abiding Muslims” to oppose murder we have a problem completely different than the one O’Reilly thinks we have. And if the support of Muslim populations in the Middle East is dependent upon us totally kowtowing to their peculiar set of values then the war with ISIS is already lost because if they make a value judgment that they’d rather live under ISIS than have non-Muslim caricaturing Mohammed then they were never really in the fight to begin with.
I was going to tell you what I think, but I thought better of it. Why? Because Bill Whittle has already said it, and better than I could.
And by the way, about those shooters, AP really should learn that they decided to shoot a bunch of people at private affair, there is no reason to mourn that their decision got them dead. I think it comes under, “Good riddance to bad garbage.”