Friday, May 8, 2015

Free Speech Wars, Garland, Texas Front (UPDATE: U.S. BASES INCREASE THREAT LEVEL)

UPDATE: U.S. Military Bases Raise Threat Level to "Force Protection Bravo -- Increased and Predictable Threat of Terrorism."

Pamela Geller

Here's a chance for the Bear to polish his interfaith / political correctness credentials, as many wobbly conservatives are doing. What's that? The Bear doesn't have any? Oh, dear. Well, it is Bear Danger Awareness Month.

First, here's Pamela Geller's Bear-Approved website. What she did in Garland, Texas was indeed provocative and dangerous. It also proved a point that people still fail to grasp. It exposed just how close the Muslim threat is, and how fragile free speech is. As a bonus, we flushed out two dangerous jihadis at no loss of innocent lives. The Bear bets we're already gathering valuable intel on the next level up.

See the picture above. Does anything strike you as odd? Muslims attack us, and we are the ones who have to be reminded to be nice? This is a standard tactic: play the victim card. Close down discussion. You don't want to be a hater, do you?

The condemnation of Pamela Geller's free speech exercise in Garland, Texas by L'Osservatore Romano was unintentionally hilarious, as were thousands across the globe. They might as well have said that Muslims are mad dogs who can't control themselves when something (Muhammad drawing, accidental Quran burning, the historical fact of First Crusade, Friday) triggers their irresistible urge to kill. Because in their warnings not to do anything that might offend our delicate Muslim cousins, they not only damn free speech, but could not be more condescending to the very people they're trying to protect. They're like Bear Safety Tips.

The Bear would not be the first to draw a comparison to someone blaming rape on the way women dress. "Geller had it coming." Oh, come to think of it, the last person the Bear remembers doing that was Chief Australian Muslim cleric Taj al-Din al-Hilawi in 2006.

Sheik Hilawi was quoted as saying: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the back yard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem." Yep, ladies, better keep that cat-meat covered!

Pope Francis, who never saw a religion he didn't like -- except some elements of Catholicism -- has said you cannot make fun of another religion.

Drawing a picture of a supposedly historical figure is not making fun of any religion. Giving some group advance veto power over speech is the end of free speech in principle.

Here is a basketball team picture of one of the jihadis, Elton (a.k.a. Ibrihim) Simpson.

It has since come out that Simpson was on probation for lying to the FBI about trying to travel to Somalia to further his interest in jihad. The Government put on plenty of evidence of Simpson's determination to engage in jihad, through an informant at Simpson's mosque.

Interestingly, the imam at the mosque warned members of a possible informant. This imam looks like gang boss Avon Barksdale from The Wire, obsessing on wiretaps and snitches. Why is he more concerned with uncovering the FBI than terrorists? Was this a "bad" mosque, or typical? (The Bear supposes it's a pretty good one to post $100,000 cash bond for Simpson. Do you think your parish could or would do the same for you?)

The case against Simpson fizzled when the Government relied on an FBI agent for the second part of its case. It had to prove that Simpson's destination, Somalia, raised the terrorism flag. The Government used the same FBI agent who had investigated the case. The the judge was unimpressed with his expert witness credentials. (The Bear can promise you it would have been enough before the federal judges he practices in front of!)

Simpson should have been in a federal prison, not Garland, Texas, armed to kill as many innocent people as he could. 

The other gunman, Nadir Soofi seems to have been the "junior partner." His mother, Sharon Soofi, was a divorced, Catholic nurse. Soofi was 34, had a 9-year-old son and ran a pizza parlor.

But the more religious he became, he quickly became more radical. 

It is difficult to read these testimonials without a sense of exasperation. With all due respect for the grieving Soofi family, and for loss of human life – no matter how misguided or evil – in the Garland attack, these are very obvious warning signs. Nadir Soofi was ranting about America’s role in Middle Eastern conflicts, sending his mother DVDs of sermons from one of al-Qaeda’s top recruiters and spiritual leaders, and hanging around with a man who got busted by the FBI for trying to join the jihad in Somalia.

Texas Terror Shooters Parents Say He Was Pushed Into Jihad, Brietbart.

Their mosque didn't stop them, and their parents didn't stop them. Somebody should have tried. Especially Soofi, it seems, might have been stopped at some point.

There is a group of Muslims who want to live here, but they don't understand freedom. We believe the cure for bad speech is better speech. What if every time there was a drawing of Muhammad, Muslims would use it as a teaching moment and explain the role Muhammad plays in their religion and lives?

Just to say that is to bring a sigh of hopelessness. That's not the way they are. Catholics endured horrible discrimination and ridicule in our nation's newspapers. But we hung in there, blended into the societal fabric, and today, well, today we are attacked for other reasons, after a brief peace. But we are able to use free speech to defend and educate. Muslim's aren't in that program, however. They use violence, and by hate-shaming us into silence. They're the group that needs to be in a discussion, if not as part of one, then as the subject of one. That's why we need to protect freedom. But it doesn't look good. Here's what Facebook did to the winner of Geller's contest.

 Bears get irony.


  1. 90% agree, but I think you raise a false premise....

    "What if every time there was a drawing of Muhammad, Muslims would use it as a teaching moment and explain the role Muhammad plays in their religion and lives?"

    That might play to some extent if Muhammed had been something other than what he was, factually and historically. No good fruit can possibly come from this wicked, rotten, poisonous vine: He was a bloodthirsty warlord, who engaged in pedophilia, torture, brutal murder, mass theft, rape, forced adultery, forced (at the edge of a sword) conversions, and about 100 other pleasantries, that point to his more than probable demonic a matter of fact, in the actual 'satanic verses' of the koran, he himself states as much. All of the above can be plainly seen by reading the koran and the hadiths....i.e., not my personal opinion. islam calls him "the perfect man, fully worthy of all imitation". THAT'S a BIG problem.

    islam is NOT a is an ontologically violent, brutal, totalitarian political system with a veneer of religion; that veneer being a combination of an arian heresy gone to the nth degree of violence, and paganism, with allah being the proper name for the chief rock god of the kabah (the Arabic word for God is Ilah, not allah) is the rock embedded in the side of the cube to which they are required to bow down, at least once in their lives on haj. I know the Eastern Catholics use the word Allah in their liturgies to mean God, but believe me, we aren't praying to the same God. Read up on the 360+ rock gods that the quresh tribe (to which muhammed and his father belonged) worshiped, and how muhammed tossed them all out except for one...the black meteorite of the 'moon goddess', now embedded in the cube at Mecca.

    Bottom line...this is a violent, pagan, 'nazi-ism', and we can never make 'peace' with it, because the only peace they recognize is the total violent conversion of the world to islam (and again, that's not my opinion; it's in their writings), and the ones who are really following islam and imitating muhammed (what would be called 'good muslims'), are the ones waging violent jihad. We must pray and work for the conversion of those muslims whose hearts might still be open to the Truth, NOW more than ever; but never EVER expect good fruit from this 'religion' sent from satan. Read 1John today, and see what the Apostle has to say about islam and its adherants, 600 years before they came to be.

    1. Yeah, that was the point -- it could never happen.

    2. sorry...badgers are a little slow on the uptake sometimes...'specially when we're very, very tired.

      Did ya hear what happened here in Fairfax VA with the schoolboard? Honestly, hell has been emptied all around us...that's the only possible answer to what we're seeing on EVERY level of life now. Deus, miserere nobis!

    3. Sorry, Bears can be surprisingly subtle. I'm tired too. It took me six hours to write that. A lot longer than usual. Part of it is simple coordination with the keyboard. And there's something up with my brain that can't call be attributed to side effects of the medicine I take for distemper. I had a CAT scan of my brain, and not only did I have one, it was normal. I used to blog so effortlessly, and now it's hard labor.

    4. So glad your brain's sure write like it is :)

      Mr. Badger and I gave each other 'virtual physicals' last year for our 29th anniversary (romantic, huh?)....they're full body scans including the head. So when the radiologist was going over the results with us she started with the brain and said, "unremarkable". I replied with a straight face, "that's perhaps the most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me." She looked at me with deer-in-the-headilghts eyes for a full 5 seconds, and then went on.

      Guess badgers can be pretty subtle too....who knew?!?

  2. Bear, your post is too wordy. Remove "some elements of".

  3. Elephant dung on the Blessed Virgin, however, is fine art. It is just fine to be provocative in such cases, you know.

  4. I will, however reluctantly, disagree with the bear's conclusions as they appear to me. We can agree that US law, per the First Amendment, dictates that we all must tolerate each others' abuse of sacred images to a fair degree. Sadly, this piece seems to imply that this event was a good idea. That I cannot agree. If the bear wishes to argue that this event at least made plain that we're at war to some degree with radical Islam or that radical Muslims may already be found amongst us, I wish to agree. I wish to remind the bear, though, that events from the past 15 years should provide ample evidence already. We simply have not been bothered, as a nation, to admit thus. In a sense, this isn't surprising: Almost any time a person might negatively critique Muslims in general, we can rely on CAIR to inflict a smear campaign directed against the critic. Sadly, they are simply the most prominent; they aren't the only group, Muslim nor not, that routinely demonize America. We have ample cause to know that radical Muslims are here and have been so for some time. We would do well to adjust our behavior a little to account for this understanding.

    Simply put, I think Gellers' event was remarkably stupid.
    If we should not go out of our way to avoid offending others, neither should we go out of our way to inflict offense. ..And I think it quite plain by now that Muslims have no tolerance for any image of Mohammad that isn't strictly needed, whether it's intended to be reverent or not.

    If you choose to slap your neighbor in the face, you have nobody to blame but yourself when your neighbor promptly kicks you in the groin.

    1. Good idea? I don't know that you could quite call out that. Effective agitprop? I think so. Geller was also incredibly lucky.

    2. "If you choose to slap your neighbor in the face, you have nobody to blame but yourself when your neighbor promptly kicks you in the groin."

      You do realize that we're talking about drawing a picture of a man. Drawing a picture of a man (!) The point was, that we are not (yet) under sharia law; but to give into the demand to not draw a MAN, is to place ourselves under sharia....w.i.l.l.i.n.g.l.y. What will you do (or stop doing) next to avoid 'offending' them, because you know this will never stop....cease eating bacon, or even allowing it to be sold in a store?...cause that offends them. Deny that Jesus is God?... cause that offends them BIG time...those are capital offense words under sharia. How far are you willing to bend over?

      Your statement I quoted above is every bit as offensive as telling a woman she deserved to be raped because she wore a tight skirt....and yes, they are very much analogous. In fact it's almost the exact words that muslim men are using to justify their rape jihad of native Norwegian and Swedish women. How far are you willing to bend over?

      Think I'm hyperbolic? this.....

      This will never end, until we (especially our men; if there are any left in the west) work up the testosterone to end it....cause let me tell you, the muslims will never, NEVER stop.

      And Geller wasn't lucky; she was unspeakably brave. She has already stated that she is ready and willing to die for this cause of opening people's eyes up to the truth. It may already be too late.

    3. Wow...came across this tonight, and all I can say is......booyah!.

    4. I can't even remotely agree with your view, Susan, nor with the views proffered by the Breitbart article. If Geller and the other participants had been concerned about Sharia law being imposed or a need to defy radical Islam, they could certainly have said so. They did not. All they really said was that they were infuriated that anyone would attempt to shoot them, even though they had ample cause to know what radical Muslims might do.

      In my comments, I've attempted to emphasize the idea that even when something might be legal, that something may not be at all prudent. I do not believe Geller to be very brave at all, nor prudent. If anything, she's closer to being an agitator who'll incite outrage, merely because she can.
      She hasn't warned anyone about any concern we didn't know about. If anything, she's made further violence all the more likely, precisely because of her provocative intentions.

      She may "win" the argument, but doing so may cost more blood in the long run that merely a few radicals who chanced to be shot by a traffic cop.

    5. Don't know what you're watching or reading, but she has made it abundantly clear, and stated innumerable times exactly what I laid out above. And when exactly did we stop requiring people whom we allow to live among us, to control their rage?...even when 'provoked'? Did you see the winning cartoon? was utterly brilliant, and a perfectly legitimate political point.

      Frankly, what you're pushing has a word ready made in islam to describe's called dhimmitude. And soon, because of this attitude of 'men' in the west, we'll all be paying the jizya . Appeasing bullies N.E.V.E.R. stops their aggression, it only and always emboldens them; especially bullies with a massive superiority complex written into their 'religion'.

      Geller has more stones than 95% of the men in the west today, and if civilization survives, it will be because of her and those like her. I think more probably we will be living "A Clockwork Orange" in reality, and we'll have the new Neville Chamberlains to thanks. So a wee bit in advance, 'thanks a lot'.

    6. John, I understand where' you're coming from, and I agree with you that Geller's exercise was not "prudent." But a lot of worthwhile things aren't prudent. Whether we lose our right to free speech by having the government taking it away from us or our own fear of provoking the worst elements in our society by exercising it doesn't matter. Your argument would suggest that Rosa Parks shouldn't have taken a seat at the front of the bus, but merely issued a press release about the injustice of it all. Besides, Elton Simpson's trajectory wouldn't have changed. He was going to die as a jihadi somewhere, sometime. These people are already provoked.

    7. Susan,
      I begin to wonder if perhaps you might misunderstand the point I'm trying to make? I'm not suggesting that these guys acted in an acceptable manner. I'm trying to point out how Geller's actions and comments and the present state of affairs come across to me as being..incompatible..with each other:

      Keeping things very concise, Geller's actions and statements come across to me as those of one who does not fully comprehend the risks she's taking, then complaining that someone actually carried out a threat that could've been legitimately understood.
      When people act this way, as though they need not worry about how others will perceive their actions, wars tend to begin and blood tends to start flowing.
      I think she needs to cool her attitude a little unless she intends to start an active, shooting war.

    8. Bear,
      Given that response, I must ask: Are you prepared to suffer arrest or death in order to make plain that we won't tolerate people acting violently in this manner?
      I'm not suggesting that anyone should back down from the threat of radical Islam. Rather, I'm suggesting that we'd best be prepared to suffer the consequences of opposing radicalized Muslims. If we intend to maintain freedoms as written in the Bill of Rights, we'd best be prepared to shed blood for them, because the other side has already demonstrated a willingness to act thus.

    9. John, the Bear is a pacifist, and does not advocate violence. Prepared or not, shedding blood is a remote, but real possibility for all of us. Geller has chosen to court that risk, which is why she it's brave. Trust the Bear, she knows the risks she faces. Her event and the attack have sparked discussions like this across the country. But if the Bear got himself killed, who would write SCB? That's not a joke. We all have our role, and the Bear's is far more humble than Geller's. Not all methods of preserving freedoms involves some sort of drama.

    10. John...I just shook my head when I read this today; and in Italy! I guess these guys "went out of their way to inflict offense"?

      I suppose if one of the 'offended' had opened fire, the blame would have been on the processors...provoking them and all.

      Again, how far are you willing to bend over?

  5. This heightened state of alert is a way of Obama's team blaming Geller for the allegedly "increased" threats. Yeah, she smoked out the domestic threat of Islamists, but they've always been here. The threat is not new or greater than in the past frankly. She's gotten the feds to admit it exists.

    1. I don't think the federal government has changed it's view in the wake of the Garland event. Geller has merely provoked a greater willingness for people to act foolishly.

    2. John, Can you say "Innocence of Islam", "Benghazi" and "It was all caused by that video"? Lying liars who lie, and they're playing out Rules for Radicals #13 again on Pam Geller....and where are the good men defending the girl getting beaten up by the bullies? Oh for a King St. Louis IX, St. Pius V, or even a Don John of Austria.

      Go hide in the corner and avoid eye contact all all cost. You might be safe....for awhile. At least until they've killed all the real men; like Pam Geller.


Moderation is On.

Featured Post

Judging Angels Chapter 1 Read by Author

Quick commercial for free, no-strings-attached gift of a professionally produced audio book of Judging Angels, Chapter 1: Last Things, read...