anyone like Pam Geller?
ISIS is costing Pam thirty thousand a month for
security, given our 2nd Amendment. . what is the
justice in this??? -- j
.
security, given our 2nd Amendment. . what is the
justice in this??? -- j
.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
All the more reason for the 2nd Amendment, and why Pam Geller (and all citizens) have an absolute right to self defense.
But, no, she is not entitled to special protection at my expense.
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??
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.
are envious of Pam!!! -- j
.
I read somewhere that she is a Jew. (Someone here said she's Christian). I'm not a Jew but I don't care. Which or whatever.
Her being a Jew or a Christian with Jewish roots would in part explain her big time problem with radical Muslims.
I've read all the comments here and noticed that someone called her a bigot.
Modern day Muslim extremists are the worst bigots on the face on the planet. They act like bygone Nazis.
Modern day Christians and Jews do not kill people they disagree with.
Radical Muslims such as ISIS do not only commit multiple murders, they think up horrible ways of doing it. They also take little girls for sex slaves.
I've heard Geller speak speak against Shariah Law being implemented in the USA.
Shariah Law--Talk about a for really real big time barbaric war on women!
The lesson I learn here is that if these people are going to have the same constitutional rights as everyone else, then we at least need some police around who speak Arabic, so that it isn't any easier for them to hide crimes than it would be for you and me.
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
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
your words are. . Character. . Integrity. -- j
.
the media insisted on giving Caitlyn perhaps
more of us would be aware of what is really
happening re: Sharia Law. Go Pam!!
Christian beheadings facts show their character.
and, yes, I am speaking of radical Muslims only. -- j
.
of thousands, from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. -- j
.
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.
Their action or reaction is not justifiable in any way, however that does not stop them from it.
Having said that, IF I were to run through Harlem, I would make sure I had a small army with me to protect me from said reaction that I know would come.
I do something, I need to know what I am doing, how people will react and FUND the protection myself.
http://pamelageller.com/
-- j
.
financial backing. -- j
.
Back on track. What State or States.the Federal Governments power stops with the Second Amendment ruling for the most part. So what does the State or States Constitutions offer?
That's the local cops and the question What are they for? Unless a known threat exists they are for investigating afterwards. Clearly a known threat in this case.Since a known threat exists the police are automatically involved and responsible - to the extent allowed by the State Constitution etc. etc. etc. To embellish livefree-NH's comment.
Not to be overly facetious but any news network might offer to pick up the bill if the results would help them during sweeps week - as long as they had an exclusive with book and movie rights.
Given the scenario I would put more faith in the latter than the former as a means of protection.
Unless there is a drastic change in occupancy
I rather like the answer given by minorwork but I'd still go for the book and movie deal. Guaranteed that's what the biggies are going to do beginning with the legacy building Obeyme.
Did he decide to abdicate yet?
While I defend her legal right to be obnoxious, just as I defend the right of a woman to dress in skimpy nothing, get drunk, and walk through a bad part of town at night, alone, it is imprudent for her to do so and I do not take it as my responsibility to protect her from her foolishness.
Pam Geller's thesis is that Islam is taking over and that the end-game is sharia law. There is precious little evidence of this, except for the few extreme deranged people who have reacted to her provocations. The vast vast majority of Muslims have simply ignored her and her antics. The vast vast majority of Muslims are NOT lobbying for sharia to be legally adopted.
Pam Geller is a bigot. She may have an expectation to be left alone by the government when she says and does inflammatory things, but she is disingenuous when she claims victim status for purposely provoking the tiny number of Islamic hotheads when they do exactly what she wants them to do.
the cartoon contest. This is backwards. Islamists provoked a cartoon contest
with multiple atrocities throughout the world.
Go Pam!!
I don't watch often, but occasionally the police dramas. Post-9/11, I saw quite a few plots involving terrorists who had committed violent crimes, and were of course foiled or apprehended in the end. Fine, But then there was always the final scene wrap-up, and it almost always turned out that the terrorist had a town bombed, or a loved one etc.killed by a US bomb strike or something similar. Never really motivated by ideology, of course. These types of wrap-ups were strangely missing in the shows about your plain, vanilla murderer or rapist.
I am so tired of the ridiculous meme that we (the US) are creating these guys. C'mon...if I want the "abuse excuse" I'll tune into Oprah, Montel or Dr.Phil...
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.
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.
.
Not so with Muslims...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...
I used to ride bikes with one and ate lunch with
another several times -- fine people!!! -- j
p.s. things have sure become heavily stratified
in several areas -- religion, politics, race, wealth.......
.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...
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'm aware there are many strains of Islam. Your explanation is a nice concise overview. I'm also aware that until our military response to 9/11, the radical Islamists were fringe. We helped push part of the moderate Muslim world into the radical camp by our aggressive foreign policy of manipulation and domination that was a disaster for the Muslim world. Hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced. It would not be hard for many of them to conclude that the U.S.'s primary policy was anti-Muslim.
what she said on Fox when I saw her. . twice. . now,
Ayaan Hirsi Ali does include all of Islam -- but she
was cut when she was young, and has experienced
awful things. . Pam is not quite that inclusive. -- j
.
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
.
.
Geller has more than ample evidence on her side that her opinions are actions are more than reasonable and well thought out. While "Nazis marching in Skokie" well fits your description of "ugly, provocative and unpopular speech" that yes should be protected speech, I don't think that describes what Pam Geller is saying and doing, nor the general public reaction to it.
No direct comparison intended, but I'm pretty sure that when Patrick Henry exclaimed "Give me liberty or give me death" he was damn well being provocative, and rightly so. And a lot of his contemporary fellow citizens did not
I like her, and admire her.
Apologies in advance for ranting against a very minor part of your post. The rest is excellent.
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.
No where is the initiation of violence tolerated by rational human beings. ISIS is not rational.
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.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07...
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/07/...
I agree with you, but we're not protecting her from her foolishness. We're protecting the right to be an obnoxious idiot from criminals. I believe the right to be an idiot or wear revealing clothes is absolute. Exercising those rights does not mitigate the guilt of someone who commits a crime against them.
People have every right to walk in a "bad part of town". She's exercising her right to be obnoxious.
Point is why are we or any country granting citizenship to those whose intent is to immediately show an overt and open contempt for the country? I wonder if during the swearing in ceremony does the presiding Judge notice any covered faces? How else would they know who was becoming a citizen?
Just a thought.
Prudence and common decency says that we don't go out of our way to offend. We don't use the term 'n-gger' because we know it upsets some people. We don't call Hell's Angels 'p-ssys' because it could lead to broken bones.
Frankly, Pam Geller could have drawn pictures of Mohammed all day long and it would not have been an issue...except that she made sure it WAS an issue by putting out a very public call for participation and sweetening her abrasiveness with a $10,000 award. Nothing could have been more in-your-face that what she did.
She had every right, legally and morally, to do what she did. But it does not change the fact that she was crass and insensitive. As with yelling "p-ssy" in a biker bar, she could reasonably expect a reaction. That doesn't forgive the attackers, but it makes Geller a lot less sympathetic as a victim. She was virtually begging to be attacked.
It is for her calculated intention to provoke that I don't like her. She is NOT interested in live and let live, as witnessed by the fact that she protested an entirely peaceful gathering of Muslims at the same venue in Dallas a couple of months earlier.
"The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
Wikipedia
I associate the phrase with the South. In my part o the country, someone saying something really mean and stupid is not an excuse to hit them.
I err on the side of free speech, though. I find it very dangerous to consider something that sounds remotely like discourse, even stupid angry childish discourse, as outside the domain of free speech.
I also am pretty sure we don't have them in my state. In the eyes of the law you can same something godawful about someone with no policy message at all, and it's not self-defense if someone gets mad and hits you.
Unless Geller is calling a person an Islamo-fascist to his face in a public place, there is no violation of the Fighting Words doctrine. If she did, however, and got a punch to the nose, she would be the cause of her own injury.
Fighting Words as a legal doctrine does not apply to Geller, as best I can tell.
Public rejection and defiance of savages running around trying to behead innocent people over religious accusations of "blasphemy" and threatening civilization is not "crass and insensitive". This is America, not the Land of Dhimmitude. They deserve to be obliterated back to the 7th century they came from and where they want to be.
As Pamela Geller's NY subway poster on behalf of defending Israel put it: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man" (which apparently came from a similar statement by Ayn Rand). The CNN interviewer displayed a big smirk when she "accused" Pamela Geller of saying that, illustrating once again the depravity of those who pander to the savages.
I am unclear as to who, exactly, she is opposed to. All people who follow the Muslim faith? Or is she only opposed to the fundamentalist radicals who have committed highly publicized violent crimes? If the latter, she has good company because the vast majority of Muslims also oppose the radicals. But Geller does not partner with any Muslims, as far as I have seen. Instead, she goes out of her way to insult them. Their response was to ignore her. Only a couple of unstable individuals reacted violently, and they were condemned by other Muslims. Perhaps Geller's, and your, understanding of how the vast majority of people practice Islam is flawed.
All religions have their fringe. There is a Jewish fringe in Israel that has openly advocated and justified the killing of non-Jews. Fringe Christians have used the Bible to kill doctors who perform abortions, or kill Jews who they believe are decendents of those who killed Christ. These individuals do not define Judaism or Christianity, nor do the two gunmen in Dallas define the tens of thousands of Muslims in Dallas, not one of whom so much as protested Geller's gathering. Geller, on the other hand, rounded up a few hundred people to protest a peaceful gathering of Muslims at the same place a couple of months earlier.
Geller is not defending freedom. She attempted to use government force to prevent Muslims from building a community center and a mosque in NY. She mouths the words of freedom, but she acts very differently.
Don't think the Muslims haven't noticed.
It is not enough to politely say "no thanks".
~1400 years of ignoring the gangrene infecting the middle east and supporting the Nazis 70+ years ago.
The violent psychotic mozlems using the superficial mozlems(mozlems that have been taking advantage of the West's hospitality, and not voicing the improvement in living standards they have gained by living in the INFIDEL created CIVILISATION) for camouflage and materiel support.