May 04, 2015

Garland, Texas terror attack proves Pamela Geller is right about radical Islam

Ezra LevantRebel Commander

I take issue with all those who are calling the Garland, Texas "Draw Mohammed" art exhibit "controversial."

What should be "controversial" is the horrendous idea expressed by many on the left right now -- that the shooting outside Pamela Geller's Garland art show was somehow excusable because she was being "provocative."

Anyone with common sense saw something different last night:

First, America's First Amendment was protected by the Second.

Then we got even more proof that Pamela Geller's constant warnings are right:

That radical Islam is putting down roots in the American heartland.

When will anti-cartoon terrorism come to Canada?

JOIN for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

VISIT our NEW group blog The Megaphone!
It’s your one-stop shop for rebellious commentary from independent and fearless readers and writers.

Who are Canada's radical Muslim leaders?
FIND OUT and fight back at

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-05-07 00:31:09 -0400
@maurice Potvin…you made a lot of good points…excellent!
commented 2015-05-06 01:52:33 -0400
It is pious moral vanity to spout off about not wanting to hurt the feelings of Islamist terrorists. If I am not Muslim why should I need to abide by any Isalamic ruling. What respect am I obliged to give to mo ? What century are we living in. I’m grateful for people like Pam Gellar.
commented 2015-05-05 23:51:18 -0400
Terry Rudden, see my comments to Julie Keshiro re: ""They call themselves “feminists,” but media hacks treat Pamela Geller like she “asked for it”" I’ll post it for you below:

" Julie Keshiro, the event was not “fuelled by hate” as you say, but by a refusal to relinquish ground to those who would impose their ideology on a democratic nation founded on the principles of freedom, foremost of these being fee speech; a freedom on which every other freedom hangs. Personally, I think Charlie Hebdo is a thoroughly vile and disgusting publication, and further more I don’t find it the least bit funny. I wouldn’t use it to line the bottom of a bird cage. Yet I would defend to the death their right to publish, and proclaim from the roof tops that those who were shot by the Islamist radicals were martyrs in the cause of freedom, my freedom and yours. It isn’t agreeable speech that requires protection, but speech that some would find offensive. There is no such thing as free speech without the freedom to offend, and being offended is a personal choice. The answer to offensive ideas is more and better ideas, not the silencing of opinions that we don’t agree with. And Pamela Geller wasn’t criticizing individual Muslims, the event was a thumb in the nose of “Islamism”. Name me one predominantly Islamic country where freedom of speech prevails, particularly for non-Muslims. You can’t. Name me one European or Western Democracy with an increasing Muslim population where freedom of speech isn’t slowly being eroded. You can’t, and if you think you can, you’re self-deluded."

I think you’re wrong, Terry. The event was important BECAUSE it challenged those who would take offence, and BECAUSE it tested the boundaries of Free Speech.
commented 2015-05-05 09:38:15 -0400
Atoken: see previous. Sorry.
commented 2015-05-05 09:31:09 -0400
Terry, it wasn’t an insult. It was an observation. You really do seem to have some kind of intellectual block. I was telling you for your sake, not to insult you. Read the whole post (and the after-post), and seek help.
commented 2015-05-05 07:05:41 -0400
Maurice, there are a few layers in my response to this event.
a) There is no excuse or defense for criminals who attempt to shut down free speech. I don’t shed a tear for the would be killers who were shot down.
b) I don’t admire people whose use their right to free speech specifically to enrage others by methodically offending others, especially if they do it as a livelihood. I defend their right to do so, but I don’t admire them for it. I myself don’t refrain from desecrating hosts, burning Korans or smashing menorahs out of fear: I refrain because my parents raised me to respect other peoples’ beliefs.
commented 2015-05-05 06:36:59 -0400
Atoken: life is short and I don’t read long comments that start with insults. Sorry.
commented 2015-05-04 21:23:41 -0400
Ezra Levant is correct with all that he said about freedom of speech and how people are giving up by allowing it only if it is not against islam. Like Ezra said, it’s one thing for muslims to uphold this sharian law about not to draw Mohamed, but to impose it on everyone else is sounding a lot like the middle east and is not freedom of speech for anyone. This is definitely the beginning of sharia law infiltrating into government. I do believe that we already have this in Canada or we’re dam close. If people can’t see this as a reality they must be brain dead. It’s putting muslims and islam above everyone.

What bothers me about these shootings is why are the perpetrators always shot dead at the scene. You’d think that the FBI would keep them alive to gather information so they could get to the bottom of things.
commented 2015-05-04 21:09:51 -0400
Right on Salmon Rushdie! Keep speaking. When I was growing up, being drawn in Caricature was a compliment. You have made an impression and have been noticed. What the Islamists are afraid of, is that their “prophet” may be noticed for the monster that he purportably was, leading to the present state of affairs in Islam. The present state of Islam mostly confirms that monster status. Every attack on free speech solidifies that hateful premise of the Islamists.
commented 2015-05-04 19:35:12 -0400
Terry Rudden, the fact that the consequences of one’s actions can often be predicted does not delegitimize the actions. There are certain moral principles that I believe in, that are more important than the mere preservation of my own physical life. I would hope that if and when the time ever comes, that I would have the courage to stand by those principles, even in the face of death. I don’t know whether I would or not, and I hope I never have to find out, but I hope I would. That’s what Marten Luther King Jr. did. As his last speech indicated, he had a premonition of his soon demise, but that did not deter him from his path because he believed the cause of freedom for all was bigger than him. In the Book of Acts, Paul is warned not to go Jerusalem by the prophets, as they prophesied he would be arrested, and eventually killed. He did not let that deter him because he believed the mission was bigger than him. That’s what those Coptic Christians are doing when confronted by ISIS to either convert or die. And that’s what the likes of Pam Geller and Robert Spencer are doing when they host events like this. The principle of free speech is worth dying for. It’s not like the fool who flashes a big roll of cash around in a gang-infested part of town, and then gets drunk and stumbles through the darkened back allies. Yeah, it’s quite predictable what’s going to happen to him as well, but it serves no purpose except to demonstrate his stupidity, and the fact that criminals exist. What Pam Geller did was to take a stand against Islamic tyranny by defending free speech. That’s worth putting one’s life on the line for.
commented 2015-05-04 19:32:29 -0400
Hear, hear, Peter Netterville!!
commented 2015-05-04 19:29:49 -0400
Free speech is not free speech if it is forced to be curtailed in any way. Even if there is only one small restriction it is no longer free speech.

Now, would it be simply wiser for some people to just keep their mouth shut rather than cause a stir? Probably, but I am not one to say they cannot say it, or draw it.

And no matter how you look at it, the act of violence against someone who practices free speech is a crime regardless of what they said or drew.

I stand for free speech for even those people that speak out against me or the things in which I believe.
commented 2015-05-04 18:46:43 -0400
Like I was saying, before my computer so rudely interrupted me; You may FEEL like you’re in the right, but trust me, you’re not.
commented 2015-05-04 17:47:57 -0400
Judy – Wowee!! You could lead a revolution with those words. Finely spoken with a strong voice. Bravo!!
commented 2015-05-04 17:22:09 -0400
Terry Rudden – I do equate the two. King intended to provoke. He knew his views would provoke. But he persisted, despite increasing provocation, on principle, because he believed what he was doing was necessary to achieve justice and equal human rights.

Geller also intends to provoke but persists, despite the risks, also on principle, because she believes what she is doing is necessary to preserve free speech with which to protest injustice like King fought and like the Jews lost six or seven million to, give or take.
commented 2015-05-04 16:24:35 -0400
I watched Geert Wilders short documentary as recommended below. Sort of reminds me of what happened to the Huguenots a few centuries back and what is happening to the Afrikaner today in South Africa.
commented 2015-05-04 15:38:35 -0400
We would la de da our way to Sharia Law were it not for strong voices like The Rebel.
commented 2015-05-04 15:31:28 -0400
Ron: Sorry, you either misread or failed to understand my comment to Joan.
Joan: Yeah, sort of, if you equate MLK’s battle for emancipation with Pam Geller’s serial coat trailing.
commented 2015-05-04 15:27:22 -0400
Just goes to show how radical were those men and women of America over the centuries who took up the saying spoken on March 23, 1775 by Patrick Henry: " Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" “GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH”!

That was, in a real sense, the spirit of the group who met in Texas this week…they were challenging others to take up the gauntlet for true LIBERTY…because, dear people, the manner in which we are living now, is a daily trading of liberty for oppression with every submission to the command to be silent and to refrain from offense against Islam or anyone else who demands we surrender our freedom. Every person who chooses to avoid confrontation has already SURRENDERED…but it is not too late to turn back and stand our ground. In Texas, they WERE RIGHTLY provocative because WE MUST PROVOKE, and we must invoke Almighty God, who hates oppression, against those who are presently demanding our surrender with every daily threat! Radical Islams’ actions are ongoing, deliberate threats, that the media deflects, as though they were nothing…even surrendering to the charges of the likes of Trudeau who has shown that he prefers submission to liberty.

We many soon come to understand the reality of the POWER of this saying by Patrick Henry..

Islam, when it speaks fatwas is demanding of us CHAINS AND SLAVERY to their system…THEY HAVE ALREADY SURRENDERED to chains and slavery…but we are still free for a while…we either submit or we oppose with all our might…in the immortal words of Winston Churchill “we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall NEVER surrender.”

The spirit of Patrick Henry was the spirit of our ancestors who fought to the death for liberty….ISLAM NEEDS TO KNOW ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME THAT OUR COLLECTIVE MIND IS FOR LIBERTY. We have seen what they call Islam, for it IS SUBMISSION by definition. We know their collective mind and how they have so often surrendered their liberties to autocratic brutal and cruel ungodly leadership that rapes and slaughters innocents with no remorse. Will we be worthy of the centuries of blood that has been shed for OUR freedom?
commented 2015-05-04 15:07:53 -0400
Terry, you mean like how Martin Luther King could have predicted his persistent free expression of civil rights ideology, despite the clear offense it caused some bigots, would get him jeered at, jailed, ridiculed and eventually killed?

Okay. Fair enough.

But that is no reason for the courageous visionaries among us to pull their ideological punches. In fact, it is all the more reason for the courageous to persist in exercising free speech. Especially free speech that challenges oppressive and cruel ideology and acts.

I believe Geller, Spencer, Wilders and their ilk are well aware they are targets for assault and murder based on their determination not to be silenced. And I applaud them because I too have been the target of nasty efforts to silence my views. I am not talking about the mean-spirited ad-hom criticism levelled at me on, but about the real assaults some will tell me I deserved because, in one instance, I stood up for Jews in my classroom against a campus police officer who was openly promoting complete genocide of all Jews. Three hooded men later grabbed me and threw me around as I got into my car one night after leaving work. Police made no arrest despite one of the men told them he sat in the parking lot at my work for a week before the assault “to try to determine her schedule”. Instead, they advised it was no longer safe for me to return on campus without 24/7 police protection. One officer called the attack “terrorist”. Rather than arrest the offenders, police told me I should just pack up and leave town.
commented 2015-05-04 14:53:25 -0400
For anyone who hasn’t viewed it, Geert Wilders short documentary “Fitna” is worth watching:
commented 2015-05-04 14:51:08 -0400
Ezra, thanks for sharing that clip of a speech given by Salman Rushie, wherein, he talks about the “but brigade”, “I believe in free speech, but…..”
RON ZAGER, it is not a case of “responsible government over real free speech”, but responsible government and free speech. Then, wow, we have lefty, TERRY RUDDEN, citing Pope Francis’ untoward comment for a ‘Christian’ that if somebody offends you, it is okay to punch him or her (or worse, according to the Muslims). Welcome to the “but brigade”, Terry. Timely earlier comment by VLAD JOHNSON, “Freedom of speech is also despised by socialists/communists/marxists/liberals. Should be interesting to hear what the lefties will say to this event”.
commented 2015-05-04 14:36:18 -0400
Joan, the Pope wasn’t “defending” violence. He was pointing out that it’s a predictable consequence of some behaviours. Of course you “can” burn a Koran if you want to; and no-one is justified is assaulting you for it. But if you’re doing it deliberately to provoke, then don’t be surprised if you achieve your goal.
commented 2015-05-04 14:34:48 -0400
This Muslim apostate gets it right in this 2-minute clip:
commented 2015-05-04 14:30:58 -0400
@ Jared Wyatt… What do you mean by :Extremists trying to kill extremists. " I see only one extremist group trying to kill anyone here…who do you refer to in the second case and what manner were they using to KILL other extremists?
commented 2015-05-04 14:29:13 -0400
Terry Rudden, quoting the pope?

Listen, the pope was not speaking ex-cathedra and was wrong that it is okay to punch in the face anyone who speaks ill of mothers. In a free and democratic society, the rule of law criminalizes assault. It is a crime to punch anyone for verbal or other offense. Provocation only goes to ameliorate sentencing not conviction because assault is not justified by offense. Under current law.

Saying one can expect to be physically assaulted for causing offense is really dangerous, in my view. Often I speak or write views that I do not intend to offend anyone and yet they do. I am always surprised because I intend no offense. Should I therefore expect an assault?

How chilling!!

Some people will say a girl in school is offensive and deserves a bullet to the head, like the Taliban clearly believed Malala deserved. Some will say intellectual criticism of government corruption is offensive and deserves assault, to rationalize sending around the thugs to beat me up …

Some will say the sight of disabled offends and deserves life termination. Some will say old age offends and deserves euthanasia (as opposed to assisted suicide). Some will say gays offend and deserve to be first, tossed from a high place (such as gender equity) then stoned to death.

We must tolerate all verbal offense except what threatens or menaces personal harm or that libels or slanders personal integrity under Legislation that is written by freely elected representatives of a free and democratic people. And when it does violate law, we must respect our rule of law enough to not take justice into our own hands with an assault but follow the rule of law to set right the wrong.

Because offense that does not violate law is in the eye of the offended and whatever vigilante lobby may stage and use such incidents to strike terror into the hearts of their ideological opponents.
commented 2015-05-04 14:25:40 -0400
If we feel obligated to hold our tongues not to offend what’s the point. To cause a controversy over free speech should not “be” the controversy, people who think that they have to kill because of free speech "that’s " the controversy. To keep bringing up our right to free speech to finally spark a dialogue with the immams that may cause this so called religion to finally grow up an lay down their arms is our obligation. This I know will never happen in my lifetime but it will happen. It will come to a major conflict with guns and bullets many will die but before this happens I pray that it closes the gap between the right and left in the west that seems to be ever more vacuous. This is what I hope for and this should be every Canadians obligation.
commented 2015-05-04 14:15:38 -0400
Extremists trying to kill extremists. Big surprise. Both sides need to realize they have more in common than with the average person.
commented 2015-05-04 14:06:45 -0400
I would take responsible government over real free speech any day. We have neither in this country. Provoking terrorists to come out shooting is irresponsible on the part of the organizers of the event. Fortunately they did did beef up their security.