A Hyatt hotel in Sugar Land, Texas, has abruptly canceled a previously scheduled tea party event at which author and Atlas Shrugs founder Pamela Geller was scheduled to speak on the dangers of Islam.
Geller said the decision came about because the hotel was “intimidated” into censoring her planned speech by “CAIR thugs,” referring to the controversial Islamic advocacy group Council on American-Islamic Relations.
She accused the Hyatt Place of enforcing Islamic law, or Shariah, under which no criticism of Islam is allowed. In Muslim nations, it can be a death penalty offense, Geller noted.
She said pressure from Islamic interests ultimately pressed the hotel to cancel her address to tea party members who had set up the event.
I would say the intimidation sends a louder message than any speech could hope to.
You keep telling us that the Tea Party is all about prudent fiscal policy … but these other aspects … they do keep cropping up.
I feel for the poor Hyatt. Rabble-rousing against government ineptitude is one thing: all uprighteous and proper, and you can rent space for such purposes without getting into trouble.
Ms. Geller’s activities are quite another matter: her activities border on hate-speech, which is illegal. You can get sued in the federal courts for promoting that sort of thing.
Pamela Geller is mentally ill. The Tea Party would be wise not to associate with her.
So much for the tolerance of Islamo-fascists and their front group CAIR. No wonder the left and the Rat party so love Islam, they use similar tactics. Call it professional courtesy. One of the groups involved in this cancellation is – TA-DAH! – the Sugar Land Democrats Club. See what I mean? Freedom of speech has its limits when it comes to Rats, the useful idiot party of choice for Islam.
Islam is dangerous. Dangerous to freedom, dangerous to free speech, dangerous to Christians or any non-Islamic tradition or religion, dangerous to homosexuals (Sharia mandates death for homosexuality, just in case you didn’t know), dangerous to human rights.
I have contacted American Islamic Forum for Democracy to see if they will give their take on this event.
Here is a local news story about it —
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/sugar_land/news/hyatt-place-hotel-cancels-tea-party-event-on-islam/article_dc000a87-ddbf-5a26-92dd-79c96f841f70.html
There must be a park nearby where the Tea Party could hang out, maybe set up a tent city, and hear what Geller has to say.
Funny how the so-called tolerant left is afraid to let others hear views that might challenge their own. Funny how they are willing to support intimidation practices to keep others from exercising their right of peaceful assembly and free expression. Hypocrits!
As For Pamela Geller, the accusations made against her by a few commenters on Post Scripts biased opinion and hyper-PC sensitivity that cripples their ability to clearly evaluate the enemy we face, to speak about it, or to allow others to speak about it.
Pamela Geller is a strong voice for America, American values and law, and American Muslims that wish to live in peace under our Constitutional protections and laws.
I think it is important to point out that she recently won a court case brought against her by one such enemy of America who set out to establish Sharia precedence in our courts using an attempt to discredit her as the vehicle.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46541
The Useful Idiots Are Lining Up!
1) “Ms. Geller’s activities are quite another matter: her activities border on hate-speech, which is illegal. You can get sued in the federal courts for promoting that sort of thing.”
2) “Pamela Geller is mentally ill. The Tea Party would be wise not to associate with her.”
Re Tina’s: “As For Pamela Geller, the accusations made against her by a few commenters on Post Scripts biased opinion and hyper-PC sensitivity that cripples their ability to clearly evaluate the enemy we face, to speak about it, or to allow others to speak about it.
Pamela Geller is a strong voice for America, American values and law, and American Muslims that wish to live in peace under our Constitutional protections and laws.”
Precisely, Tina.
The left and their Islamo-Fascist comrades seek to control who may and who may not exercise free speech rights in a free marketplace of ideas by marginalization, personal attack, slander, and concerted efforts to see they are not allowed a venue in which to speak. This, of course, has been a long held tenet of the left and Islam: Shut up anyone who opposes us.
Of course, the Hyatt is free to run their business anyway they see fit. I will remind them of that when I inform them that I will be actively encouraging people who value free speech to not patronize their establishments for caving to these evil people who wish to quash it.
Thank you Libby and Chris for being you and opening my eyes. You two are truly evil in one of its most hateful and ugly forms. I suspected as much of both of you, now my suspicions have been confirmed. If anyone has any doubt whatsoever just how evil the left is, I suggest you think about what has transpired here.
“You two are truly evil in one of its most hateful and ugly forms.”
Teeeeaacheeeeer! He’s being mean to me again!
Sniffle, sniffle.
Libby you are a small child…try some Kleenex, sweetie, and when you’re done blowing your nose get out the nap pad and we’ll read you a nice story with a happy ending.
lol…
A Hyatt hotels & The Hyatt corporation have a lot of Arab & Saudi ownership. This might have a lot to do with why the event was cancelled.
The more we rely on Arab oil, and therefore the more money we send over there, the deeper we are digging our own graves.
I’m the child?
Pie’s the spouter of vitriol … as opposed to substantive rebuttal.
And irony is for evolved sensibilities. I guess I won’t attempt it again.
So sad.
Libby, “hate speech” is not illegal in this country, but libel is. I will have to look into the libel case mentioned above, but Pamela Geller has certainly spread false claims about numerous American citizens and she has never had to answer for them.
Libby is right about the Tea Party, however. Jack and Tina, you often like to claim that the Tea Party is about fiscal issues, and that you want to avoid controversial social issues. If that’s the case, then why should the Tea Party invite one of the most inflammatory, bigoted people out there to speak on a topic which has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with her hatred toward a certain religion?
Geller is not just against “Islamofascism,” she hates all Muslims and is dedicated to advancing prejudice against them. A cursory glance at her batshit crazy website can confirm this.
For Tina to call her a “strong voice” in her movement proves to me that her movement is corrupt.
I guess I won’t be staying at any Hyatt Hotel in the near future . . . . . .
I thought there was some federal civil rights statute you could get harassed under. For all Ms. Geller’s talk of thuggery, I’d think the only thing that would have moved the Hyatt to back out is the threat of legal action.
Couldn’t be the bad press. They’re skunked there, one way or the other. Poor Hyatt.
I take back my statement that Ms. Geller is “mentally ill;” I have no way of knowing if she has legitimate medical problems, and I don’t mean to add to the stigma against those who actually struggle with mental illness.
But she is certainly disconnected with reality. This is a woman who recently claimed that Rick Perry is a “stealth jihadist candidate” because he doesn’t hate Muslims as much as she does.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/08/pamela-geller-american-thinker-rick-perry-the-stealth-jihad-candidate.html
Reading the article (masochist that I am), it appears that Geller is angry because Perry is friends with a moderate Muslim who supports Israel, and because he has no problem with teaching students about Islam, among other religions, in Texas classrooms.
This may not be evidence of literal mental health problems, but the word “crazy” certainly comes to mind when reading her absurd, breathless rants.
Many conservative blogs, to their credit, have called out Geller’s false smears against Rick Perry.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/26/perry-pro-sharia-curriculum/
http://redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/08/26/jihad-watchers-beclowning-themselves-over-perryismaili-thing/
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/320603.php
I’m not a fan of any of these websites–in particular, I’ve had a few bad experiences at Ace of Spades in the past–but I am glad to see that they are realizing that Pamela Geller is a liar with no credibility.
These are sites full of people who are very concerned about the threat of radical Islam and jihad. But they realize that Pamela Geller is not the right person to speak on this issue.
I have always had a lot of hope for this site, so I hope you will come to understand this as well.
Of course, no matter how crazy or wrong or bigoted Geller’s statements are, she has the right to say them. People also have the right to sue her later when the things she says about them turn out to be true. (Here’s a tip, Imam Rauf: you could take her for MILLIONS and use them to fund that nice community center.)
However, people do not have the right to use violence or threats of violence to shut her down.
That said: I doubt that actually happened. Pamela Geller is notorious for making herself the victim and claiming threats when none have occurred. Like almost everything she writes, she totally makes these things up. So I wouldn’t be surprised if that is exactly what happened here.
OK, despite linking to the Ace of Spades piece earlier I actually just got around to reading it now.
Last time I was there, it was some ridiculous article attacking a feminist for…having a wedding, or something. The comments were vicious and I was personally attacked.
But their article on Pam Geller is one of the best things I have ever read on the internet.
Just go read the whole thing. It is objectively awesome.
Chris I called her a strong voice for Amnerica.
But as long as you insist on condemning people for express a point of view you don’t seem able to understand, lets look at some of the associations we could make about you.
You freely admit to being a progressive/liberal and an apparent supporter of the OWS fleabaggerz. By the rules you place on conservatives and TPers you are in full support of various terrorist organizations and all that they say and do. You support Americans who hate Jews. You don’t have a problem with public fornication and drug use or thwe trashing of personal property and you think others owe you higher education, student loan forgiveness, healthcare and other goodies. One organization you support by association is Hamas…if that isn’t a hate group I don’t know what is.
You don’t bother to judge yourself by the same rules which you apply to others…I suggest you sell your version of crazy someplace else.
Libby: “I’m the child?”
Well yes, at least on occassion:
Tina, your analogy makes no sense.
“You freely admit to being a progressive/liberal and an apparent supporter of the OWS fleabaggerz. By the rules you place on conservatives and TPers you are in full support of various terrorist organizations and all that they say and do.”
Bullshit. I have never condemned anyone simply for identifying as a conservative or a Tea Party member. You are the only one using these “rules,” and you are accusing me of employing them when I never have.
I criticized you for your support of a specific person. There is a huge difference.
This person, once again, thinks Rick Perry is a stealth jihadist. She once posted an article that claimed Malcom X is the true father of Barack Obama. She insulted the victims of the Oslo terrorist attacks after finding out that she was cited in the terrorist’s writings.
These aren’t just differences of opinion, Tina. They aren’t policy or partisan differences. These are examples of Pam’s work that should make any rational human being realize that she is not to be trusted or listened to.
“You support Americans who hate Jews.”
I specifically condemned the anti-semitism you and Jack brought up a few weeks ago, so you can shove this one.
“You don’t have a problem with public fornication”
I haven’t seen evidence from a reliable source that shows this has happened at an OWS event. If it did happen, I condemn it.
See what I did there? I condemned people who are actually on my side of the ideological spectrum! If only you were capable of such a basic feat. Yet every time I point out something horrible that someone on your side has said or done, you either ignore it or try to rationalize it away, like when you made the ludicrous claim that telling a 17 year old Arab Muslim girl to ride a camel or a flying carpet instead of traveling by plane, like a normal American human being with rights, is somehow not racist or religiously discriminatory.
I am also still waiting for someone here to condemn Rush Limbaugh’s support of the Lord’s Resistance Army, a terrorist group, over his own country’s president and military. No one has responded to this since I brought it up on this thread:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2011/10/99-anti-semitic-bigotry.html#comment-345131
You expected liberals to denounce the anti-semitism from random protesters, which I did. Yet you won’t denounce religious bigotry and support of a murderous death cult from one of the most influential people in the Republican party as well as the Tea Party?
THAT is why I continue to condemn you for the people you support, Tina. It’s not guilt by association. It’s that you defend and share all of their most bigoted and crazypants positions. If you continued to support these people while acknowledging the times they go over the line, that would be different. But you’re incapable of doing so. You probably won’t even condemn Rush for supporting an enemy of the United States and falsely telling his audience that Obama was “targeting Christians” by sending troops to help stop a genocidal gang of mass murderers and rapists in Uganda. I would like to believe you would, but at this point I have been disappointed by you so many times that I will honestly be surprised if you do.
“you think others owe you higher education, student loan forgiveness, healthcare and other goodies.”
I don’t think others “owe” me these things, but I do think making these things the responsibility of the government (and by extension, the taxpayer) serves to create a society with more opportunity. And I have plenty of evidence to back that up, since in almost every country that provides these services, social mobility is higher than it is in the U.S.
“One organization you support by association is Hamas…if that isn’t a hate group I don’t know what is.”
Once again, I did not accuse you of guilt by association. Like the terms “bigotry” and “class warfare,” you don’t seem to have any idea of what this term means, but you sure do like to use it to accuse others when in reality you are the one doing it.
You haven’t been put in your place until Tina puts you in your place.
The left espouses freedom and democracy yet what do they do?
They embrace, carry water, and run screens for one of the most intolerant, tyrannical, fascistic, oppressive, anti-Semitic, anti-woman, anti-anything-not-Islam, cruel, backwards, bloodthirsty, bigoted, male dominated religions on the planet and they call Pamela Geller crazy?
There is a reason Arabs supported and joined forces with the Nazis in WWII. There is a reason Nationalist Socialist is Socialist. They are merely different sides of the same coin.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the left is completely and utterly dominated by useful idiots who will get on there knees to anyone just to appear tolerant so they can play the “more moral than you” self-righteousness card.
The next time some left wing, Islam loving horse’s patoot goes postal about Christians opposing gay marriage when Islam prescribes they be put to death, I think I’ll puke.
And yes, ignorance and stupidity in the face of evil is evil.
Another ironic thing about you saying that I’m engaging in guilt by association, Tina, is that guilt by association is Pamela Geller’s ENTIRE SCHTICK.
That’s how she has come to the ludicrous conclusion that Rick Perry is somehow a stealth jihadist, as Ace of Spades points out here:
“The point is that you are engaging in Guilt by Association. This guy knows this guy, and this guy spoke with this guy, so this guy’s a dhimmi.
We are moving several steps from actual jihadis here. The chain goes: Rick Perry met with Grover Norquist for anti-tax agitation purposes; Grover Norquist has an institute for Muslim outreach; some guys at that institute have connections to, at least, people suspected of being jihadis, or at least, in one further attenuated step, knowing jihadis themselves.
I can buy the chain of shame all the way until the point that people who know Grover Norquist, but themselves are not guilty of anything, are now culpable, simply because they know him and have not, as Spencer and Geller seem to prefer, ostracized him, denounced him, and cast him out of their circles.
My point in mentioning the Wednesday Morning Meetings is– are those people dhimmis, too? That’s a Who’s Who of Establishment DC. Yes, I know, RINOs; but jihadist-enabling dhimmis?
Am I a dhimmi? Well, I know I am, for Spencer dismisses the entire magazine Commentary as “dhimmi” and surely I’m as dhimmi as they.
My point was that Grover Norquist — whether he should or should not be cast out of Republican circles — remains a DC fixture, and an establishment figure.
Is Michele Bachmann a dhimmi too? Or Mitt Romney? Or Newt Gingrich?”
http://minx.cc/?post=320661
That’s how guilt by association works, Tina. I haven’t engaged in anything like this. So if you are looking for people to accuse of engaging in guilt by association, start with Pam Geller.
Re Libby’s: Pie’s the spouter of vitriol … as opposed to substantive rebuttal.
Now isn’t this interesting. Well, mildly interesting at least.
Libby, who has never brought anything substantive to the table in this forum keeps asking for “substantive rebuttals”. This is same Libby who is also in the habit of calling Post Scripts folks idiots and who usually engages in little more than drive by snot tosses.
As I noted to Libby once before, her penchant for requesting “substantive rebuttals” implies that a substantive proposition has been made. I have never seen any such coming from Libby, nor do I expect to see anything that even resembles a substantive proposition coming from her in the future.
In fact, Libby’s requests for “subtantive rebuttals” are best translated “I haven’t had anything of substance to say and I still don’t have anything of substance to say so I’ll just pretend I have had something of substance to say and try to make others look insubstantive for not providing a substantive rebuttal to nothing, tee hee”.
We get it, Libby. *Yawn*
Nevertheless, in this particular instance I have provided Libby a substantive rebuttal to her post slandering Pamela Geller whose opinions and observations she asserts “boarder on hate speech”. (And, according to Libby, possibly criminal!)
The substance of my response was explaining how people like Libby think and operate, and how ugly, hateful, and evil they are.
My point was that what Libby engages in here is a formulaic form of hate speech used by the left to shut up anyone they disagree with by marginalization, personal attack, slander, and threats. (Except that Libby hasn’t actually threatened anyone.)
This formula was used by the Sugar Land Democrats Club to shut down the meeting and the Hyatt was forced to cancel the event because of they did not feel they could provide proper security.
I guess Libby wants free reign in this forum to spout all the evil and ugly things she has to spew without anyone taking her to task for her own vomitous hate speech.
So much for “substance” from a Queen of intellectual poverty and dishonesty.
“You haven’t been put in your place until Tina puts you in your place.” Amen to that brother!
Whoops. The sentence, “People also have the right to sue her later when the things she says about them turn out to be true,” should read, “People also have the right to sue her later when the things she says about them turn out to be FALSE.”
Tina, Pie, and Jack, I’d be curious what you think about Geller’s accusations against Rick Perry.
Jack,
Hmmm, I guess smearing Geller and attacking her personally wasn’t enough. Now add to that witless calumny from our left wing friends. Ya know, this is getting tiresome.
Geller has closely examined Perry’s behavior and that of his friends and has come to the conclusion he has been sucked into the Islamic propaganda vortex.
I think what she has to say is valid, legitimate, and informative. So far the only response to her analysis has been a smear campaign from the left and a dodge from Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi. No one has really addressed the important issues she has raised.
Geller writes, “In his piece attacking me for raising questions about Rick Perry’s associations, “Smearing Perry on Jihad,” Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi leaves out the most salient parts of my information about Perry, and then attacks me as if they don’t exist.”
And that is exactly what Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi did do. It was his purpose to obfuscate and dodge.
Below are links to the salient essays in their original forms, folks can read them and make up their own minds. Now doubt they will have no effect on the fixed minds of people who have already viciously labeled Geller a mentally ill hate speech monger.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/perrys_problematic_pals.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/smearing_perry_on_jihad.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/smearing_geller_on_perry.html
“Geller has closely examined Perry’s behavior and that of his friends and has come to the conclusion he has been sucked into the Islamic propaganda vortex.”
Pie, has it occurred to you that this is spectacularly insane?
“I think what she has to say is valid, legitimate, and informative. So far the only response to her analysis has been a smear campaign from the left”
WHAT?
Psst. Dude. Up above, you’ll see that I posted three different links to three different conservative blogs. Prominent, notable conservative blogs. Even they think Geller’s on dope.
I can’t believe you missed this.
“No one has really addressed the important issues she has raised.”
Clearly you didn’t read any of the conservative sites I linked to.
The “important issues” cited by Geller included three major points:
1) Rick Perry’s associations with the Aga Khan, the Imam of the Ismailis
2) Their partnership in constructing curriculum that teaches school children about Islam
3) Rick Perry’s associations with Grover Norquist, who she accuses of being too Muslim-friendly
Every one of these points has been addressed by many people, all of whom have completely destroyed them. You really should go read the links I posted in their entirety, because their rebuttals are quite substantial. But to sum up quickly:
1) The Ismailis are one of the most moderate religious groups in the world, and are persecuted by fundamentalist Muslims in majority Muslim countries. They explicitly reject a literal interpretation of the Koran. Their head imam, the Aga Khan, has even been described by Geller’s BFF and partner in the anti-Islamofascism movement, Robert Spencer, as a moderate who mostly does good in the world.
2) Only one lesson plan from the curriculum to educate students about Islam has been uncovered, and it is extremely critical of Islam and supportive of Israel and the West. Geller’s assertions that this curriculum amounts to indoctrinating children into Islam, or that Perry’s participating makes him somehow “pro-sharia,” are laughable. As Ace said about the lesson plan, “This reads like her ****ing blog for ****’s sake.”
3) Every single Republican candidate for president has associations with Grover Norquist.
Pie, I just read the piece by Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, and Pamela Geller’s response.
al-Tamimi makes good points, calling out Pamela Geller’s favorite tactic of guilt by association.
Geller responds by…proving him right, as her entire argument against Perry is nothing but guilty by association.
As I say, a sardonic irony is useless in some quarters.
Now, mind you, I haven’t exerted myself like this since the fruitless days of Nick, but, the wine was good.
Pie: “Re Libby’s: Pie’s the spouter of vitriol … as opposed to substantive rebuttal.”
Did you say something?
Pie: “Now isn’t this interesting. Well, mildly interesting at least.”
Did you say something?
Pie: “Libby, who has never brought anything substantive to the table in this forum keeps asking for “substantive rebuttals”. This is same Libby who is also in the habit of calling Post Scripts folks idiots and who usually engages in little more than drive by snot tosses.”
Did you say something at all pertinent?
Pie: As I noted to Libby once before, her penchant for requesting “substantive rebuttals” implies that a substantive proposition has been made. I have never seen any such coming from Libby, nor do I expect to see anything that even resembles a substantive proposition coming from her in the future.”
Did you say something?
Pie: “In fact, Libby’s requests for “subtantive rebuttals” are best translated “I haven’t had anything of substance to say and I still don’t have anything of substance to say so I’ll just pretend I have had something of substance to say and try to make others look insubstantive for not providing a substantive rebuttal to nothing, tee hee”.”
Did you say something?
Pie: We get it, Libby. *Yawn*
No, you don’t. And it’s so sad.
“Nevertheless, in this particular instance I have provided Libby a substantive rebuttal to her post slandering Pamela Geller whose opinions and observations she asserts “boarder on hate speech”. (And, according to Libby, possibly criminal!)”
Goodness … I missed it!
Pie: “The substance of my response was explaining how people like Libby think and operate, and how ugly, hateful, and evil they are.”
And a neener, neener to you too.
Pie: “My point was that what Libby engages in here is a formulaic form of hate speech used by the left to shut up anyone they disagree with by marginalization, personal attack, slander, and threats. (Except that Libby hasn’t actually threatened anyone.)”
I bring up a fact or two that contradicts you? How is this “hate speech”?
Pie: “This formula was used by the Sugar Land Democrats Club to shut down the meeting and the Hyatt was forced to cancel the event because of they did not feel they could provide proper security.”
That’s not what Ms. Geller says. She says it was the Council on American-Islamic Relations that shut her down. What are you blathering about?
Pie: “I guess Libby wants free reign in this forum to spout all the evil and ugly things she has to spew without anyone taking her to task for her own vomitous hate speech.”
Well, I do have a way with me. There’s no question about it. Read some … and you too will, in time, develop a way of your own that does not mimic the rhetorical abilities of an 8-year-old boy.
Pie: So much for “substance” from a Queen of intellectual poverty and dishonesty.
Weren’t you supposed to be answering my argument? I’m waiting.
Libby: “I bring up a fact or two that contradicts you? How is this “hate speech”?”
Libby, you have to understand the way people like Pie think about things such as hate speech, bigotry, racism, and oppression. Most of the time, to them, these issues don’t even exist. When liberals bring them up, they’re just being a bunch of college-indoctrinated whiners. Bigotry isn’t actually bigotry to them until it looks like a conservative might be the victim. (Many times, all it takes is a little criticism to make this charge.) At that point, bigotry then becomes a Very Serious Issue that must be stopped.
Example: When Kenneth Gladney said that he wanted his fake “beating” treated as a “hate crime,” he was supported by right-wing figures such as Breitbart, people who at other times have made it abundantly clear that they want all hate crime laws completely repealed.
Of course it’s hypocrisy. Were you expecting anything else?
These rigid ideological purity tests that Republican candidates are being subjected to is exactly what’s tearing your party apart. Like I said a while back, it seems clear that no actual human being can be as conservative as some people want them to be. Rick Perry’s too friendly to illegal immigrants and Muslims, Cain apparently can’t make up his mind whether he’s pro-choice or pro-life, Romney invented Obamacare…hell, even Michele Bachmann has never held a job which wasn’t subsidized by the government.
Here’s a tip: you may want a far-right ideologue in office, but the majority of Americans don’t. Why do you think Romney’s emerging as the front-runner?
Geller’s hysterical reaction to Perry’s totally uncontroversial relationship to Islam represents the far right at it’s absolute worst. She has now caused the sort of needless infighting that threatens to gobble up your movement from the inside out. Embracing fringe figures like her will only cause you to lose respect among ordinary, reality-based Americans.
Keep in mind, this whole Perry issue was started by a liberal blogger, Justin Elliot of Salon. He was the one who first called attention to Perry’s association with the Aga Khan and their partnership in developing curriculum for Texas schools that would teach students about Islam.
Elliot’s entire goal was to see if right-wingers would be stupid enough to take the bait.
Congratulations, Pie Guevara. You fell for it. You believed Pamela Geller, a mistake that no one with even the tiniest awareness of her record would make, and in doing so you made yourself look like a complete fool even to many of your fellow conservatives.
I hope you’re happy.
Weren’t you supposed to be answering my argument? I’m waiting.
What argument? I’m waiting.
Ooops, I forgot to link to this page from Geller too.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=334261#ixzz1VVaaeZ6w
Who was the unhinged jerk who posted to this forum that Pamela Geller is mentally ill?
Who was the clueless idiot who said what Geller has to say boarders on hate speech and is possibly prosecutable?
Who is the twit that erects a straw man in my name and then attacks it?
Bigots come in all stripes and colors. They all have one thing in common. They are usually not very bright.
Chris: “These rigid ideological purity tests that Republican candidates are being subjected to is exactly what’s tearing your party apart.”
As if this wrangling for position doesn’t happen in Democrat primaries. Our party is doing just fine but I wouldn’t say the same for yours.
“Here’s a tip: you may want a far-right ideologue in office, but the majority of Americans don’t. Why do you think Romney’s emerging as the front-runner?”
First of all its way too early to tell. Secondly, the left wants him and the media likes to push what the left wants.
Here’s a tip for you. Choosing a man that was never properly vetted and, as it turns out, is the epitomy of a far left ideologue, not to mention an incompetent boob, isn’t exactly working out for your party either. Not one democrat would sign his name as a co-sponser to Obama’s so called jobs bill…few voted for it. Many democrats are running away from him as fast as they can for fear of losing in the next election. And the American people are fed up with the spread the wealth (code for waste our money and crash our economy) hope and change you all swooned over in the last election.
You have no ground to stand on when speaking of embracing radicals…your party is full to the brim with radical elements and you elected one that associates with and lends support to some of the most radical of your party. Obama’s early associations reveal hard core radicals. His czars have been hard core far left radicals. He has endorsed the OWS which includes just about every radical organization on the planet.
The American people are, in general, self proclaimed conservatives. Young people (naive and well meaning) embrace all the left wing gobbledygoop but most change as they take on adult responsibilitiers. The adult far left controllers of your party are hard core and way out of step with American values and the American system…and still they claim to represent the majority. It’s a pathetic lie. You win, when you do, not in the arena of ideas but by trickery and empty promises like “hope and change”. You run popularity contests and depend on silly slogans rather than substance. Being “down for the struggle” is a tool that keeps a lot of your voters oppressed and in the dark.
Free speech is not something your party embraces…it’s one of the cornerstones of our Republic. Get a clue Chris.
Tina, the majority of America supports OWS.
What do you think of Pamela Geller’s charges against Rick Perry?
Evidently slur mongering, calumny, ad hominen, and erecting straw men is what passes for “argument” from the left and “debate” in college these days.
Pamela Geller has made a good case with her examination of Perry and his associations. The school curricula alone (which was quickly yanked from the internet) was damning enough. Whatever one may think of Geller, filing a libel suit is not winning a libel suit and this is not about that libel suit. (By the way, as the result of a settlement Geller has taken down statements from here website she made about Omar Tarzi.)
The left’s (and the Democratic Party’s) including the wanna-be dorks too in this microcosm response has only been to engage in a formulaic form of hate speech used by the left to shut up anyone they disagree with by marginalization, personal attack, slander, and threats. (All though no specific threats have been issued here, yet.)
So, everything about Geller is attacked, Tina is attacked, I am attacked, but not the case Geller makes. Not one bit of Geller’s observations or analysis has been dealt with honestly by any of the left wing participants in this forum.
So much for “substance” from the Kings and Queens of intellectual poverty and dishonesty.
As for the the articles themselves, anyone wishing to specifically address what Geller and others have to say may read them.
That is why I posted them.
If some jerks still want to respond to these articles by personally Geller and then by attacking me by suggesting that I am insane …
Sorry, been there, seen that. *Yawn*
Pie: “So, everything about Geller is attacked, Tina is attacked, I am attacked, but not the case Geller makes. Not one bit of Geller’s observations or analysis has been dealt with honestly by any of the left wing participants in this forum.”
That’s just not true. I rebutted Pamela Geller’s three main objections to Rick Perry in my comment on Oct. 21 at 5:56 PM. Did you not see these rebuttals, or did you not think they were substantial? If the latter, can you tell me precisely what quarrel you have with my comments, instead of speaking about me in generalities and using the third person?
You also keep acting as if all of the objections toward Geller have come from “hate speech” from “the left,” ignoring all of the conservative sites I have linked to which have rebutted Pamela Geller’s claims.
You say that “The school curricula alone (which was quickly yanked from the internet) was damning enough,” but I’m not clear what you mean by this. What about the curriculum do you, personally, object to?
Keep in mind that what Geller originally claimed was school curriculum was in fact a sampling of abstracts from a conference attended by some of the teachers, and was not actually taught to students in Texas schools. So you may be basing this conclusion on false information.
There was actual curriculum by a Texas teacher posted, and that has not been “yanked from the Internet,” nor was it at all pro-Islam. You can view this curriculum at the Ace of Spades article I linked to.
Chris: “the majority of America supports OWS.”
OK. How many of them would say they support the Marxists, Nazi’s, and socialists and how many would continue to support them if they had even the slightest clue what the power behind the movement wishes to accomplish?
I’m not very inpressed by polls in general and I am very suspicious of the polling about this movement…a lot of it could be a part of the movement for all I know. Look at how the left and media covered the Tea Party. Not one bit of coverage was honest or impartial. Much of the polling is strictly show business! And for all I know the question being asked go something like, “Is the OWS movement right about waging this protest?” or, “Do you think government should have bailed out banks?”. Affirmative answers to these questions do not translate to ideological agreement with the protesters.
“What do you think of Pamela Geller’s charges against Rick Perry?”
I don’t know enough of the background to comment. I’ve been a little out of the loop since my surgery.
But I will say this, I’d rather see the questions asked and discussion and debate follow during elections than see the white wash created prior to Obama being elected. The media were his cheerleaders asking softball questions, doing zero real investigation or criticism of his qualifications or past associations, and swooning and gushing like teenage girls. They personally attacked anyone that dared to offer an alternative picture. The unethical and irresponsible, not to mention nasty and underhanded, smearing of Sarah Palin (because they saw her as a real threat to their chosen one) was a failure of media and free speech. It is a tactic often used by the far left that has taken over the Democrat Party…and it is not a good way for to elect good people to office.
Your side is a joke when it comes to free speech, open discussion of ideas and honest vetting of candidates. As far as I’m concerned you don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticism of the opposition. Your side is a bunch of phony balogna posers and tricksters who thoroughly disgust me. (You are a rare exception but even you seem not to care about anything but the game and winning…perhaps the enthusiasm of youth)
Again, folks may read each article for themselves and make up their own minds. Geller raises some very important questions about Perry, his associations, and his judgment.
As the story I linked to above reports —
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/sugar_land/news/hyatt-place-hotel-cancels-tea-party-event-on-islam/article_dc000a87-ddbf-5a26-92dd-79c96f841f70.html
the Sugar Land Democratic Society threatened a protest and the Hyatt felt it could not provide proper security for the Tea Party meeting as a result (this official reason from the Hyatt was reported elsewhere).
So, Chris, the following will be my one and only comment to you personally this day, and hopefully from here forward —
1) Gfy with your “blathering” comment.
2) Your summation is hardly substantial, except in your mind. It is cherry picked and you dedicated far more space to personal attacks in here on Geller and others as is your habit.
Sadly I keep getting drawn in to replying to this snotty, specious, radical left wing college stooge. I really need to learn to ignore him. I really believe his college professors have done the poor kid a real disservice.
While Geller engages in what I think are some over the top hyperbole to make her point, she brings to light some very disturbing events and connections that are neither over the top nor are they hyperbolic.
The curriculum which was wiped from the web she talks about and quotes from in “The Real Perry/Aga Khan Curriculum Is Bad For Children”. Read it for yourself and do not be side tracked some jerk who made up his mind before he even read any of what I linked to above (assuming he actually did read any of it).
Conservative bloggers (or anyone else for that matter) may formulate whatever opinions they like of Pamela Geller. Whatever conclusions they may draw has no effect on what Geller has brought to light.
Nor should it.
Tina,
By the way, while I agree with your opinion that Pamela Geller is a strong voice for America, American values and law, and American Muslims that wish to live in peace under our Constitutional protections and laws, I am not a big fan of Geller.
I hold M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D. of the American Islamic Forum For Democracy in high regard and earlier this year Geller aimed and fired on him.
Geller Punches
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/king_abdicates.html
Jasser Punches Back
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/american_islamists_find_common.html
One would think that Geller would be trying to build bridges with Jasser, not at cross-purposes. In my view Geller is a loose cannon of sorts, but I believe her motivations are true and your characterization of her valid. I think Geller sometimes picks fights that are unnecessary and not very helpful if ultimately destructive.
Nevertheless, the Tea party event was canceled by joint efforts of CAIR and the Sugar Land Democrats Club. Tina, you are correct, free speech is not something the left, Democrats, or Islamo-fascists embrace, and given the vomitous screed from the local left in this thread it is pretty obvious whose drumbeat they follow.
In fact quashing free speech is what the left, Democrats, and Islamo-fascists all have in common. The shut down of he Tea party event at the Hyatt attests to that common bond.
If the Tea party had invited Pamela Geller to a local event it might have marked the first time I have ever attended a Tea party sponsored function. I would like to hear her speak if only to tweak the noses of the liberals, leftists, Democrats, and Islamo-fascists who would try to shut it down.
To them I can only say, “In your face you jerks. Get off my freedom.”
Re Tina’s: I don’t know enough of the background to comment. I’ve been a little out of the loop since my surgery.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery. I had major surgery eight months ago and am still dealing with issues from that. It can be a long haul, but I hope that is not the case for you.
Re Tina’s: Your side is a bunch of phony balogna posers and tricksters who thoroughly disgust me.
Ditto, but I demur to join your opinion on the “rare exception”. I believe his path has been decided and directed for him and the journey has been enjoined with the enthusiasm of a true acolyte and believer.
Pie: ” I think Geller sometimes picks fights that are unnecessary and not very helpful if ultimately destructive.”
I agree, Pie. i think she’s motivated at times by emotions she feels about injustices that are ignored by so many in the “free world”.
I too am often emotionally frustrated and amazed at the deaf ear and blind eye approach to this enemy, especially by those who claim to be for women’s rights and gay rights. I guess there’s just no accounting for people…lol.
Pie, you didn’t answer my question. What problem do you, personally, have with the curriculum?
Geller’s problem seems to be that not enough attention is focused on the negative side of Islam. I hesitate to believe any of her characterizations of the curriculum, however, given her history. Her article provides links to screenshots of the actual curriculum, but none of them work.
I am glad to see you and Tina realizing that she can be over the top and hyperbolic, but I wish you would realize that this isn’t just a “sometimes” thing with her. That’s all she does.
This is a woman who once posted an article claiming that Malcom X was the true father of Barack Obama, and she remains convinced that the president’s birth certificate is a forgery.
She swallows up every conspiracy theory imaginable, and has now moved into the realm of genocide denial. She’s defended the butcher of Bosnia, Radovan Karadzic, from the genocide charges levied against him even though all evidence points to his guilt.
She insulted the victims of the Oslo terrorist attack after being cited by the terrorist himself, and while she condemned his acts, her words also seemed to justify them. She compared the targets to the Hitler Youth and wrote, “Breivik was targeting the future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, who commit major violence against Norwegian natives, including violent gang rapes, with impunity, and who live on the dole all done without the consent of the Norwegians.”
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/pamela-gellers-racist-comments-oslo-victims-werent-pure-norwegians-just-middle-eastern-or-mixed/
This is pure legitimization. She might as well say, “These kids had it comin’.” She also felt the need to comment on the racial makeup of a photo of the teens who were murdered.
It’s not surprising that Breivik was inspired by Geller. The comments on her articles are often filled with people advocating violence and even genocide against Muslims. Geller often deletes comments from liberals who criticize her, while letting these threats stand unchallenged. She has never publicly discouraged such comments. She knows she is whipping her readers into a hate-filled frenzy; that’s her whole job.
She often claims that she is not against Muslims as a group, but this is clearly a lie based on everything she has ever written on the subject of Islam.
I never thought I’d see the day when I’d feel the need to defend Rick Perry from Pie Guevara…but such is the Bizarro world inhabited by Pam Geller and those who believe her.
One more thing that should be noted, Pie: despite your meaningless and confused accusations of “hate speech” toward me, it’s Pam Geller’s group, “Stop the Islamization of America,” that has actually been classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Pie, thanks for posting the American Thinker article by Zuhdi Jasser, it was very interesting. While I have a number of disagreements with Jasser, especially regarding the Peter King hearings, it seems to me that he is much more honest and intelligent than Geller. I agree with him that Geller’s refusal to acknowledge the existence of moderate Islam only adds legitimacy to the claims of radical jihadists. It seems that the “anti-Islamization” movement needs more people like Jasser.
I think Geller is doing the same thing to Perry that she did to Jasser–character assassinations and lies. This is all she does.
Keep in mind that Perry probably did not have an active hand in shaping exactly what the curriculum would be, so even if you do find it inaccurate I don’t think it’s an issue that should hurt his chances of being president.
I have a number of issues with Perry, but this shouldn’t be one of them.
Look, if you really want to believe Geller’s accusations that Perry is some kind of “fifth column” candidate whose election would bring us one step closer to sharia law, then go ahead, believe away. I can’t stop you and I won’t try to again.
Chris the Southern Poverty law Center started out as a needed legal support organization for civil rights in the sixties. They have since become little more than a weapon of the left to discredit and quash free and open dialogue in America. They use the legal system to harrass and harangue anyone who has an opinion that differs from the leftist PC line.
“The comments on her articles are often filled with people advocating violence and even genocide against Muslims.”
You don’t seem to mind very much that Muslims are calling for the elimination of Israel and death to all infidels or that they are in the process of killing Jews, Christians, and Gays in their midst or that they advocate beating, mutilating, and oppressing women and girls or that they use their children as human triggers and bombs.
Funny how you paint with a broad desparaging brush about anyone who tries to call attention to these things and some of the organizations and people with questionable associations and ties while conveniently turning a blind eye to the actual reality of these despicable ACTS…like the three monkeys, you see, hear, and say nothing about them. And you support groups like SPLC who seek to restrict and prevent discussion about these things by using the power of the legal system to accuse and abuse them into silence. You have become a true blue PC soldier.
Is it any wonder the people who are brave enough to speak out about these obscenities and the radical Muslim plan to create a sharia compliant caliphate worldwide are effusive, feisty and stubbornly committed? MY God, someone better be!
Chris: “I agree with him that Geller’s refusal to acknowledge the existence of moderate Islam only adds legitimacy to the claims of radical jihadists.”
In like fashion your willingess to jump on anyone who wishes to discuss the threat to the free world that the radicals present or who question shady associations many who claim to be moderate have, calling them racist or bigoted, adds legitimacy to the designs and plans of the radicals.
Tina: “In like fashion your willingess to jump on anyone who wishes to discuss the threat to the free world that the radicals present or who question shady associations many who claim to be moderate have, calling them racist or bigoted, adds legitimacy to the designs and plans of the radicals.”
Except that I don’t jump on “anyone” who wishes to discuss the very real threat of radical Islam. In fact, if you read the very line you quoted from me, you will see that I had complimentary things to say about the head of the AIFD, who gives a lot of time to calling attention to the problem of radical Islam. I’ve acknowledged this problem countless times. And every time I do, you ignore it, and pretend as if I somehow think that radical Islam is not a problem at all.
I am getting sick and tired of you characterizing me in this way. It is unfair and it is unsupported by anything I have posted here.
As for my accusations of bigotry against Geller, if you feel like responding to the specific points I raised then please do so. I have good reason to accuse Geller of bigotry and racism.
“You don’t seem to mind very much that Muslims are calling for the elimination of Israel and death to all infidels or that they are in the process of killing Jews, Christians, and Gays in their midst or that they advocate beating, mutilating, and oppressing women and girls or that they use their children as human triggers and bombs.”
Of course I have a problem with these things. That’s why I don’t support people who advocate for these positions or link to their websites. Yet you have supported Pamela Geller, who runs a site in which calls for genocide and violence are very frequent.
Re Tina’s: “the Southern Poverty law Center started out as a needed legal support organization for civil rights in the sixties. They have since become little more than a weapon of the left to discredit and quash free and open dialogue in America. They use the legal system to harrass and harangue anyone who has an opinion that differs from the leftist PC line.
Exactly. To be sure, there are plenty of horrid, racist, violent, bigoted fringe groups on their list. That has become their cover for using the center’s reputation as a weapon to discredit groups that they wish to slur.
Typical left-wing modus operandi. Nothing is too low for the left.
By the way, Tina, the accusation that Pamela Geller’s web site calls for genocide and violence is just another slur. Like I said, nothing is too low for the left. They have targeted Geller and no slander or slur no matter how false and reprehensible is to out of bounds as long as it insures her destruction.
Your young friend here loves to call others bigots, but the true bigoty begins with him and his nasty associates. They and he disgust me.
Re: “Look, if you really want to believe Geller’s accusations that Perry is some kind of “fifth column” candidate whose election would bring us one step closer to sharia law, then go ahead, believe away. I can’t stop you and I won’t try to again.”
I don’t believe that. I think she raises some valid concerns as I have noted above.
Gfy Chris. Stop putting words in my mouth to suit your purposes you bigoted, prejudiced, and presumptive left-wing dirt-bag ignoramus from liberal hell. Now go crawl back under the rock you squirmed out from under.
Pie: “I don’t believe that. I think she raises some valid concerns as I have noted above.”
OK, Pie. I’m sorry if I mistook your support for Pam Geller’s “valid concerns” for a general agreement with her conclusions. To be fair, I don’t think that was a leap. If you didn’t agree with Geller’s conclusion that Perry is a fifth column candidate who will bring the U.S. closer to sharia law, then I wish you would have made that clear earlier, because your supportive comments of her case against Perry gave me good reason to conclude that you agreed with the overall point about Perry she was trying to make.
I wish you would answer my question about what, specifically, you had a problem with in the curriculum.
As I said before, Geller’s website does often include comments from regular posters that call for violence and genocide, and that is a fact. I usually wouldn’t judge a site by the quality of its commenters, but the fact that these comments are so frequent, and the fact that Geller never challenges them or deletes them while instead choosing to delete comments from liberals who criticize her, lead me to believe that she gives these comments her tacit approval. Her defense of the butcher of Bosnia, who attempted to commit genocide against Muslims, also lends credence to my accusation. You call it a “slur,” but you haven’t responded to my actual points. You seem to put a lot of effort into insulting me, as well as all liberals, but little effort into making a cogent rebuttal.
Speaking of influential right-wing loons who defend genocidal murderers, and who are in turn supported by participants of this blog, I find it curious that still no one has responded to my comments about Rush Limbaugh’s support of the Lord’s Resistance Army, a death cult responsible for numerous atrocities in Uganda.
To reiterate, Limbaugh accused President Obama of “targeting” and “wiping out Christians” for his decision to send troops into Uganda to help defend the country from this mass murdering terrorist group. He then read a list of noble-sounding goals of the group in a clear show of support. Rush admitted that he did not know anything about the LRA, but that didn’t stop him from siding with this terrorist group over our president and our military. He could not be bothered to do five seconds of research to find out why his country has decided to help defeat this enemy of freedom and human rights, because he was too busy attempting to smear the president as somehow anti-Christian and pro-Muslim. He attributed this motivation to our president without knowing any of the facts of the matter. His hatred of the president runs so deep that he just did not care to inform himself before misinforming his viewers.
At the end of the broadcast, Rush said he had just gotten word that the LRA has been “accused of some really bad stuff,” and promised to do his “due diligence” in reporting on this topic. He has since broken his promise. Rush has not acknowledged his mistake or apologized for defending this death cult since his initial comments.
In an article about Occupy Wall Street a couple weeks ago, this website posted videos showing hateful anti-semitic comments from demonstrators in the movement. I whole-heartedly condemned these comments and the people who said them.
I now call on the owners and other participants of this blog to condemn Rush Limbaugh for his support of a violent terrorist group, his ignorant lies about our country’s motives in helping to stop them, and the blind hatred and prejudice that led him to side with a ruthless gang of mass murderers over our president, our military and our country.
This blogger, Hunter, perhaps says it best:
“I am not sure what exactly we can even expect, in a case like this. It is mostly unprecedented: this level of shit-laden vitriol usually results in the speaker being shunned from any even remotely serious circles, even in “serious circles” where Nazi comparisons ring out daily, where conspiracy theories are probed as actual news, and where it is commonplace to declare that so-and-so hates America because they have not sided with you. But choosing the literal group of murderers, in your dedication towards your daily smearing of the president: that still, thank God, counts as a very damn rare occurrence. We could marvel at all the stations that still carry Limbaugh, the Limbaugh who chose the murderers over the Democrat because his hatred was just that strong, but would mere advocation for the rights of nice Christian murderers really chafe them any more than all of the nonsense and bile Limbaugh already lets loose on their airwaves? We could ask his party to condemn him, instead of treating him as the goddamn Duke of Conservatism, but they seem incapable of such a thing. There is more of a chance of Inhofe apologizing to Limbaugh for his rather mild remarks than of any group of politicians coming out in force against Limbaugh siding with a murdering, terrorizing army in his conspiracy theory against the president and demanding he retract the asinine statements in question. We live in a time, after all, when even the mere perception of a celebrity uttering a racist thing, or an anti-American-sounding thing, results in an orgasm of public condemnation: where are the other media outlets now? If Imus was a story, why not this? If the freaking Dixie Chicks were a story, why not this? Does this lunatic truly have a free pass for literally everything?”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/19/1027912/-Rush-Limbaugh-still-taking-the-side-of-the-Lords-Resistance-Army
Chris, 1 800 282-2882
The left is bound and determined to smear Rush Limbaugh because he destroyed the momopoly they once had in the media. They (you) cannot stand (will not tolerate) any speculation, suggestion, discussion, query, or observation that does not blindly support leftist gods and beliefs.
Daily Kos has not exactly been a fount of decency through the years. The following links find that site smearing Sarah Palin as suffering from bipolar disorder, lying about Trig (child was not her son but her grandson), and responsible for the Gabrielle Giffords shooting and murders.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/17/13652/5430/398/601684
.
http://hillbuzz.org/2008/08/30/utterly-disgusting-daily-kos-today-claims-sarah-palins-fifth-child-is-not-hers/
http://www.mrctv.org/2011/01/founder-of-daily-kos-politicizes-shooting-tragedy-tweets-mission-accomplished-sarah-palin/
Rush was discussing and speculating about a news story on abc about Obama sending support troops into Africa. He remarked how strange it was since Obama had been so critical of Bush sending troops where there was no obvious “national interest”.
Our readers can read the entire transcript, the conclusion of which is excerpted below, at the following link:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians
Christians are being murdered in the Middle East and it doesn’t spark any similar sympathies or military moves on Obamas part.
Tina, I’m not a big fan of the Daily Kos and you are right that those smears about Sarah Palin are unfair, and in some cases, just plain crazy. Palin birtherism is no better than Obama birtherism in my book; I stopped paying attention to Andrew Sullivan precisely because he wouldn’t shut up about that stupid conspiracy theory.
However, on this issue this particular blogger was right. And Kos is hardly the only site that has criticized Limbaugh’s support of the LRA. Here is a Christian who was mightily offended:
thegreatbout.xanga.com/755857666/rush-limbaugh–the-lords-resistance-army/?page=2#viewcomments
More moving is the video response from a survivor of the LRA’s terror tactics. She insists that the LRA are not Christians.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/rush-limbaugh-defends-violent-lords-resistance-army-survivor-responds/2011/10/18/gIQA8CjxuL_blog.html
That said, given the Daily Kos’ past dabbles into conspiracy theory, I will try to avoid linking to them in the future. I strongly condemn their hateful, fact-free smears against Sarah Palin and I think they have hurt their credibility.
I wish you could do the same for people on your side when they say things that are clearly untrue and bigoted.
“Rush was discussing and speculating about a news story on abc about Obama sending support troops into Africa.”
You are spinning this into something far more innocent than it was. Rush wasn’t just “speculating.” He was passing judgment. His whole headline on the transcript you linked to is “Obama Invades Uganda, Targets Christians.” Why do you think he chose to frame the issue this way, Tina? You are not naive. You know his goal was to portray Obama as anti-Christian and pro-Muslim. And he was so determined to portray the president this way that he didn’t bother to get the facts first.
Rush was clearly not just “speculating,” but even if he were…why would he speculate–on nationally syndicated radio–about the U.S.’s decision to help in the fight against a certain group of people, when he admits that he knows nothing about that group of people? Why couldn’t he do a five second Google search of “Lord’s Resistance Army” first? How could he think his speculation would be at all useful for his audience, or even for himself, without the bare minimum of information needed to form an opinion on the subject?
Is it common for Rush Limbaugh to speculate, on air, about issues he knows absolutely nothing about? If so, why do you continue to listen to and defend him?
I should say that apparently Limbaugh did do at least SOME research before he made his comments, since he had that handy list of nice-sounding goals of the LRA. How he managed to find this, yet miss all the info out there about their murdering and raping ways, is a mystery to me.
Unless he didn’t miss this information at all, and intentionally chose to overlook it in order to portray Obama as anti-Christian.
You also don’t seem to realize that he smeared not only our president, but our military as well. How offensive is it to say that our soldiers are “wiping out Christians” in a foreign country? Are you really OK with that, Tina?
Do you really think it’s OK for a highly influential radio personality to falsely claim that President Obama has ordered our military to “target Christians” in a foreign country, despite admitting to not knowing anything about this intervention? And do you think it is then OK for said radio personality to claim that he will do his “due diligence” in getting to the bottom of the story, and then not mention it again for two weeks?
I shouldn’t even need to ask these questions. The only logical response to them is “No, of course that’s not OK.”
“Christians are being murdered in the Middle East and it doesn’t spark any similar sympathies or military moves on Obamas part.”
Ridiculously false. We have much more of a military presence in the Middle East than in Africa, and you complain about that too.
Chris: “Kos is hardly the only site that has criticized Limbaugh’s support of the LRA.”
I read the transcript (and vaguely recall hearing it) and I didn’t take anything Rush said as “support for the LRA” or offense against out troops. He admitted he knew nothing about them LRA, even asked if any staff had ever heard of them…they had not. He was expressing cynicism about the motives of the president and he acknowledged at the end of the monologue that it was being reported the group was doing a lot of evil stuff.
Rush was also highlighting the hypocricy Obama displays in just about every area. His criticism of Bush on the war (he has done as much and more) and his criticism of banks and Wall Street (now he’s in bed with them) are just two examples.
Of course anyone who despises Rush will hear and make of this short dialogue exactly what they want…they do it every day of the week. He is that big a threat to their carefully crafted worldview and their power and influence, of course.
The PC crowd is not allowed to speculate or talk openly about things and they don’t allow anyone else to talk about them either. If anyone dares to do so they will be smeared; much ado will be made of every word they utter. Huge significance will be made of even the most casual remark. It’s comical given the modus operandi of the political left smear machine (You witnessed it under Bush, surely you recall).
This post is about a Tea Party event that was cancelled to quash open discussion. It was not posted to become a forum to vilify Rush Limbaugh.
Got a problem with him…give him a call:
1 800 282-2882
The President has had very little to say about Christians being murdered in the ME; he certainly hasn’t sent troops to specifically help them. One has to ask, is it politically incorrect for the President to speak out against the atrocities waged against Christians and Jews in the Middle East? And isn’t “can’t we all just get along” the flimsy substance behind his entire approach? He will not name the enemy.
Too bad that some of us refuse to fall in line like good little lefty surfs fawning with admiration for the empty suit occupying the WH. Too bad that some take a very cynical view of nearly everything he does…he hasn’t exactly inspired genuine admiration or trust, nor has he been examined, questioned, or criticized by those charged with discovering and reporting the truth. The press goes out of its way to avoid hard questions; it covers for him and spins information to make him look good.
Meanwhile…we free citizens are not allowed to talk about such things as radical islamists and the threat they pose to peace loving people of all faiths all around the world without being harrassed and smeared by the robotic, PC, thought police who criticize a guy on the radio and cover for the failure running the country, perhaps the world, into the ground.
Oh my God, Tina. It is not a “casual remark” to say that our president and our military are “targeting Christians” in Uganda; it is a fu#*ing LIE. And of course it is insulting to our military to say that they are “wiping out Christians.” And the whole tone of the transcript is supportive of the LRA while demeaning of the president. I don’t see it this way because I am so prejudiced against Rush Limbaugh. I see it this way because I am not a blind follower who refuses to believe that Rush Limbaugh could ever do or say anything wrong.
The examples you posted of lies and conspiracy theories from Daily Kos were bad…I admitted that. But they are not nearly as bad as falsely claiming that our military is “wiping out Christians” in a former country! How can you not acknowledge how sick that is? Why aren’t you capable of seeing that?
There is something fundamentally wrong with the way you think. You see the world completely in black and white. Rush Limbaugh = Good, Barack Obama = Bad. So when Rush Limbaugh says something clearly false about the president, it doesn’t register to you. Even though, by extension, he has smeared our military, supported one of the most evil terrorist groups on the planet, and even smeared Christians by associating them with this group. But that doesn’t matter to you. If a liberal had said something like this you would be all over them, and rightly so.
Chris: “Oh my God, Tina. It is not a “casual remark” to say that our president and our military are “targeting Christians” in Uganda…”
Fffirst of all please avail yourself of the star and other symbols if you are going to use bad language. jack and I shouldn’t have to monitor your every word before posting.
It would be a lie if, a) Rush were reporting the news, and b) that was all he said during the monologue. You and the likes of you don’t care about what he said; you care about smearing and discrediting him. Your own evaluation of the man is chock full of lies and fabrication.
“I see it this way because I am not a blind follower who refuses to believe that Rush Limbaugh could ever do or say anything wrong.”
Ypu aren’t a blind follower. You are a cliche of the left!
It isn’t that he didn’t get it wrong, he did. The report was just out when he went on the air. Obviously the story he read didn’t include much informatiion about the group and he didn’t have the facts. He made a mistake and reacted…this is a rare occuranbce in my estimation after many years of listening and observing.
You want to crucify him because of a mistake. Go ahead…but please don’t expect me to join you in your intolerant and nasty crusade to vilify the man. He gets a lot more right than he gets wrong and his opinions, although different from yours, are shared by a lot of Americans.
” How can you not acknowledge how sick that is? Why aren’t you capable of seeing that?”
Does it occur to you that you are so tightly wound that anytime you hear key words you go off like a firecracker? Your ears are looking for reasons to vilify and condemn…that’s sick if you ask me.
I didn’t take Rush’s words seriously…he was being synical because he doesn’t trust the motives of this administration. I don’t blame him. If he wanted to actual accuse the President of this he wouldn’t have admitted that he may have had the wrong information he would have just continued with a smear…like your side has done with Clarence Thomas, Sarah Palin, Colonel Oliver North, Ronald Reagan, and anyone else who poses a threat to the left agenda.
“There is something fundamentally wrong with the way you think…blah blah blah”
Thanks for sharing. Your thought process is often questionable to me as well. The PC rulew book is particularly offensive and stupid. You refuse to accept or acknowledge the difference between a discussion or ongoing conversation (something that is filled with speculation, questions, consideration, doubt, approval, disapproval, etc) and a concerted, planned effort to target and destroy. You are the one who views things in black and white…we must all use the same template when speaking and there is no room at all for error, even when acknowledged.
1 800 282-2882.
Tina:”It would be a lie if, a) Rush were reporting the news, and b) that was all he said during the monologue.”
These requirements seem pretty arbitrary to me. A lie is a lie is a lie.
Sorry about the language, but my anger was justified. Rush’s accusation was far more offensive and distasteful than a little f-bomb.
This issue may seem irrelevant to this thread but I brought it up because I had previously mentioned Pam Geller’s support of a murderous regime as well, and no one responded to that point.
“You and the likes of you don’t care about what he said;”
I care very much about what he said, which is why I brought it up.
“you care about smearing and discrediting him.”
I’m not “smearing” him and I shouldn’t have to discredit him. If our political dialogue were at all healthy or sane, Rush Limbaugh would have been discredited in the eyes of all Americans through his own absurd behavior years ago. But instead, we let him off the hook every time, and he is still inexplicably considered an influential political commentator.
“Your own evaluation of the man is chock full of lies and fabrication.”
Please name one.
“It isn’t that he didn’t get it wrong, he did. The report was just out when he went on the air. Obviously the story he read didn’t include much informatiion about the group and he didn’t have the facts. He made a mistake and reacted…”
OK, I am very glad that you were able to at least admit this. I wasn’t sure if you would. Thank you.
“this is a rare occuranbce in my estimation after many years of listening and observing.”
After years of listening and observing Rush as well, this is part of a pattern. It’s what he does.
“You want to crucify him because of a mistake.”
Tina, it’s not just a “mistake” to accuse our president and military of “wiping out Christians” in a foreign country and vocally supporting the enemy…in earlier times this would have been considered sedition. I am not implying that any government action should be taken against Rush, but his statements were clearly unpatriotic by any conservative standard.
“Go ahead…but please don’t expect me to join you in your intolerant and nasty crusade to vilify the man.”
“Intolerant,” “nasty…” These are words that objectively describe Rush Limbaugh’s behavior in this instance and countless others. Have you ever known Rush to show tolerance toward those he disagrees with? Do you think he treats his political opponents with respect? If so you must be listening to an entirely different person than I have heard.
“Your ears are looking for reasons to vilify and condemn…that’s sick if you ask me.”
Tina, in this case I had very good reason to condemn him. I don’t have to “look” for reasons. You know that I will condemn or compliment people based on objective criteria, no matter their partisan alignment. I condemned the Daily Kos in my earlier posts for their wrongdoing and I complimented many conservative sites and commentators earlier in this thread, even though I disagree with them on 99% of the issues. I think I am being perfectly fair here.
“I didn’t take Rush’s words seriously…”
Unfortunately, many of his listeners did. Eric Erickson and Sen. James Inhofe (R) have both said they received a ton of calls and e-mails asking them why President Obama was “targeting Christians” in Uganda. Both felt the need to clarify that this wasn’t happening, Erickson on his blog and Inhofe on the Senate floor. Limbaugh mentioned Inhofe’s speech, but not the part about his “targeting Christians” smear. He has still not corrected or apologized for this smear and hasn’t mentioned it since he laughed off a portion of Inhoffe’s comments.
“You refuse to accept or acknowledge the difference between a discussion or ongoing conversation (something that is filled with speculation, questions, consideration, doubt, approval, disapproval, etc) and a concerted, planned effort to target and destroy.”
I think it’s you who is failing to see the difference here. Accusing the president and the military of “wiping out Christians” in Uganda when that is in no way true, is not “discussion.” It’s not honest or civil, it’s not productive, it’s not intelligent, it’s not something that was done in good faith. It was only, to use your words, part of “a concerted, planned effort to target and destroy” this presidency. I honestly don’t see how it can be interpreted as anything else.
“You are the one who views things in black and white…we must all use the same template when speaking and there is no room at all for error, even when acknowledged.”
You act like I have such an unreasonable standard! “Don’t accuse the president and the military of targeting Christians in order to wipe them out when you admit you have no clue what you’re talking about” is not that tough to live up to. It’s the way most people manage to conduct themselves every day. Most people wouldn’t say this kind of crap to a buddy or family member unless they have looked into the matter a little bit, yet I’m supposed to be more understanding toward a guy whose voice is heard by millions of people every single day? I’m supposed to let it slide that he intentionally gave millions of people false information just because he hates the president? Please.
Your implications that this action in Uganda indicates some sort of bias for or against any specific religion is unfounded. Congress passed legislation to assist in this matter back in 2010. The vote was unanimous. Does every single Republican member of Congress also have a bias against Christians and for Muslims? No, of course not. Once can question whether it’s a good use of our resources and the rationale used to justify where we involve ourselves and where we don’t. But pinning this on an alleged religious bias on President Obama’s part is ludicrous.
Chris: “These requirements seem pretty arbitrary to me. A lie is a lie is a lie.”
That world of yours is wrapped up tight. Your talking about a talk show host engaged in conversation with his audience. President Obama, in the last week or two, stood in front of various groups of potential voters and told them: “Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.”
See the video here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/17/obama_gop_wants_dirtier_air_dirtier_water_less_people_with_health_insurance.html
This is thr most powerful man in America, if not the world, using the power and prestige of the presidency to LIE to the people for votes. I’m sorry but a short conversation by a radio guy, no matter how popular, pales in comparison.
There is one more thing. Your assumption that those who listen to Rush are idiots waiting to be imprinted by the all powerful Maharushy is not only wrong but incredibly condescending. You obviously think much too highly of yourself…no wonder you are wound so tight.
Please stay tuned. I will make a concerted effort over the week end to produce an article highlighting the despicable and devious LIES perpetrated over decades by your party leadership with full fledged support of the MSM.
“…I’m supposed to be more understanding toward a guy whose voice is heard by millions of people every single day?”
You aren’t required to understand anything. You aren’t required to do anything. In fact I’m growing very tired of you using Post Scripts as a forum to bash Rush Limbaugh. Get your own blog if you feel that strongly about it.
“I’m supposed to let it slide that he intentionally gave millions of people false information just because he hates the president?”
Your supposed to admit that how you hear what Rush says is how you hear him. You don’t get to decide what his listners have heard or how they have interpreted or understood what he said. You don’t get to decide that he has some kind of voodoo influence, insulting his listners with your own prejudiced and biased opinion.
At last the evidence that you insert your opinion and bias into the situation:
“Your implications that this action in Uganda indicates some sort of bias for or against any specific religion is unfounded.”
What implication? I attempted to explain to you what happened. i further attempted to let you know that your reaction to the soundbite is way over the top compared to Rush’s audience…we know he is often synical…we are too. So what? It’s not like the same kind of thing doesn’t happen every day on left radio and blogs.
“Congress passed legislation to assist in this matter back in 2010.”
Congress gave Bush the authority to use whatever means he saw fit as president to fight the war on terror…it didn’t stop them from pretending they didn’t or trying to undermine his efforts.
I’m done with this insane diatribe. Our readers have the link and can evaluate what was said for themselves. Yes, I’m telling you to go away…and please, if you must continue dial 1 800 282-2882 to talk with Rush directly.
Limbaugh Turns To Rumor Mill To Continue Attacks On Michelle Obama
October 27, 2011 1:45 pm ET by Kevin Zieber
Rush Limbaugh rarely needs a reason to launch attacks on first lady Michelle Obama. This week, he was given the perfect opportunity to further his attacks when he parroted unsubstantiated claims from the Drudge Report that claimed “Michelle Obama [was] furious with cooking queen Paula Dean [sic].”
The Drudge headline linked to a National Enquirer article alleging that Michelle Obama “is now furious with Southern cooking queen PAULA DEEN for crowing that the first lady, a healthy-eating advocate who’s waging a war against childhood obesity, pigs out on fattening foods.” The Enquirer quoted an unnamed source saying, “Michelle’s spitting mad. … She thinks Paula is trying to smear her and her family just as the 2012 presidential election race swings into gear.”
The Enquirer further reported:
The trouble first began before Barack Obama was even elected president in 2008, when Michelle made a guest appearance on Deen’s popular “Paula’s Party” show and revealed that fried shrimp was her family’s favorite meal.
Then in an interview after filming the program, Paula quipped that Michelle would be serving high-fat, greasy and sugary foods in the White House if Obama won the election!
Now Paula is rehashing those attacks on Michelle in an attempt to plug her latest cookbook and offset Michelle’s new book about eating healthy, noted the source.
“She’s no different than the rest of us,” Paula said about Michelle in a new interview.
Paula added: “She probably ate more than any other guest I ever had on the show! She kept eating even during commercials. Know what (the Obamas’) favorite foods are? Hot wings. Y’know — those kinds of foods that aren’t necessarily top-of-the-list healthy foods.”
Not known for his fact-checking skills, Limbaugh stated:
LIMBAUGH: I read all of this, and nowhere do I see Moochelle getting around to denying what Paula Deen is saying. All Moochelle’s upset about is that Paula Deen is saying it. But Moochelle’s not denying liking all that food. Just mad that Paula Deen’s saying so.
[…]
LIMBAUGH: By what measure or standard is Michelle Obama qualified on these subjects? So, she’s first lady. That means she’s qualified to tell everybody else how to eat, what to eat, when to eat, and where to eat? And not just food advice. Moochelle is now giving parenting advice. What makes her think most parents in this country need lectures from her about parenting? I mean, the arrogance of these people, folks, it’s just astounding.
It’s not clear whether the Enquirer, which markets rumors as news, tried to reach Deen before running with the “Obama vs. Dean [sic]!” “food fight” report. However, just hours after Limbaugh hyped the rumor, it was quashed by Deen herself. The New York Post’s Page Six reported:
Paula Deen says there’s no beef between her and Michelle Obama. After reports that Deen was in trouble for crowing that the healthy-eating first lady enjoys fried foods, Deen told us, “There’s no truth … that Mrs. Obama called me to stop talking about her [2008] appearance on my program. We had the best time. I taught her how to make fried shrimp and fries. It was easy to see by her buff arms she follows a healthy lifestyle, but it didn’t stop her from enjoying the food. Everything in moderation!”
Limbaugh previously berated Michelle Obama for, of all things, shopping at Target. So it’s a given that we haven’t heard the last of his “Moochelle” attacks.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110270018
Rush Limbaugh routinely speculates about issues he knows nothing about, peddling misinformation and lies to his listeners in an attempt to unfairly smear his political opponents.
Hello dear.You have written a great post. Going to share with my followers on twitter. Thanks for sharing.
I was amazingly amazed via the depth of data you chose to share below.
Thank you for using enough time to write down these kinds of an insightful
and educational piece