Saturday, May 9, 2015

It's the Hypocrisy That Bothers Me Most

I'm talking about the mainstream media's reaction to Garland. 

After January's Charlie Hebdo attacks, they were full of "Je Suis Charlie" and solidarity.  Condemnation of the attackers (not full-throated loud, still tons of PC-crap).  There was some "they had it coming" talk but the strong current was blaming the perpetrators. 

Here we are barely four months later and this time the tone is virtually completely blaming the victim.  "I support free speech, BUT...";  "Pamela Geller has the right, BUT..."  The UK Mail claims to be the most widely read news site in the English language and they attacked Pam on May 3rd, literally hours after the attack, with a headline proclaiming her "long history of hatred".  The NY Times, probably ashamed to be beaten to victim-blaming, declared her to be purely motivated by hate.
Charlie Hebdo is a publication whose stock in trade has always been graphic satires of politicians and religions, whether Catholic, Jewish or Muslim. By contrast, Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims.
To steal a quote from Mark Steyn,
The media “narrative” of the last week is that some Zionist temptress was walking down the street in Garland in a too short skirt and hoisted it to reveal her Mohammed thong – oops, my apologies, her Prophet Mohammed thong (PBUH) – and thereby inflamed two otherwise law-abiding ISIS supporters peacefully minding their own business.
To channel Heinlein, the correct way to punctuate, "I support free speech, but -- " is with a period after the "but".    Don't use excessive force in supplying such a moron with a period. Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about.  As everyone has pointed out, free speech is only important when we don't agree.  The more disagreement, the more free speech is needed.  The Mail, the NY Times, NPR, Bill O'Reilly, and all the people who have started their attacks on the victim are sanctimonious, hypocritical cowards.  Pamela Geller has the nerve to stand up and know she's putting a target on her chest.  She is doing this to demonstrate just how bad the jihad problem is.

This isn't simple dhimmitude, the media being docile pets to appease their Islamic masters, for the Lamestream Media it's America's insane politics writ large.  The attack on Charlie Hebdo was OK to be against, because there were no Republicans involved.  The attack on Pamela Geller was on an American Jew on American soil; it could end up affecting the 2016 election.  "If we support her, we may end up giving ammunition to a Republican". 
Nevertheless, this is fantasy...

Me, Je Suis Pamela Geller.


  1. Hmm, perhaps even better: 'Je Suis Garland PD'.

  2. Hats off to the 60 year old cop who nailed the two perps.

    Superb marksmanship!

  3. Old and busted narrative: "Terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. Islam is the religion of peace. You are a hateful racist to think otherwise."

    Today: "Obviously if you insult Islam or Mohammed, muslims will retaliate with violence, and may kill you. Only racists would incite them."


    1. Notice the press always prefaces "Mohammed" with "the prophet". Notice they do not do this for Jesus.

    2. The goal is the eradication of the 1st Amendment. The Progressive (read: communist) movement relies on disinformation and lies to further its goals, thus silencing any opposition is crucial.

    3. The press is asking for Geller to apologize for upsetting the muslims. Will they also be asking for Sandra Fluck to apologize to Rush Limbaugh for upsetting him so much he called her a slut? Will Obama be calling Geller to "see if she is ok"?

  4. Hypocrisy from the media whores?
    I'm shocked and amazed!

    Tell me it isn't so.....