ISIS threatened to murder Pamela Geller last night.
Rush Limbaugh defended Pamela Geller this week amid the media uproar after her group was attacked by radical Islamists in Texas.
Transcript via the Rush Limbaugh Show:
RUSH: We have the ISIS shooting in Garland, Texas, to deal with. Pam Geller is the leader of the group that was conducting this little convention, and she was fascinating on CNN this morning, being grilled, interrogated by the former Fox News infobabe Alisyn Camerota who has now moved over to CNN.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: “Two gunmen were killed Sunday after opening fire on a security officer outside a … contest for cartoon depictions of Prophet Muhammad in Texas and a bomb squad was called in to search their vehicle as a precaution, authorities said.” Now, I left out a word when I read that lead by the AP. They put the word “provocative” in there. Let me read it again. “Two gunmen were killed Sunday after opening fire on a security officer outside a provocative contest for cartoon depictions of Prophet Muhammad…”
Provocative.
You notice how the AP manages to blame the victims here without blaming the perps.
No, the victims are responsible for this.
Even this hatemonger that runs this specious organization called the Southern Poverty Law Center (which is somewhere in Alabama), this guy named Mark Potok… In fact, we just got a sound bite from this guy. Grab sound bite number 23. Listen to this. This is a classic example of a leftist, a leftist activist saying, “Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. You got the freedom to do what you want. You got the freedom to say what you say. BUT you had better beware that you are responsible for what happens to you,” or some such thing. Let’s listen.
POTOK: I couldn’t agree more. The First Amendment should be defended. Free speech is a good thing. It’s integral to democracy. But Pam Geller and her organization is a hate group today just as they were day before yesterday. I think that is important to remember. She really does specialize in this kind of events. It seems to me it’s rather similar to the Reverend Terry Jones burning Korans in Florida. These are provocations that are aimed at stirring the pot, and it doesn’t seem terribly surprising that, in fact, they get the response that, in a sense, they’re seeking.
RUSH: Yeah, they want to be shot at. Right. (impression) “They’re trying to provoke being shot at, see? They’re provocative. Freedom of speech? Heck yes! Use it all you want. But recall when you do that you are responsible for what happens to you.” Well, that doesn’t work in a lot of other things. I mean, in a rape case, try telling the woman, “Hey, you know, look at the way you were dressed.” Doesn’t fly, does it? Nor should it!
So here are people at a convention. Pam Geller… You’ll hear her in a moment. We have sound bites coming up. She simply doesn’t hate anybody. She just doesn’t want any part of Sharia law. She doesn’t want any part of Islamic extremism becoming mainstream in the United States. You know, I have a question, folks. It’s very simple question.
If Americans are to respect and obey the laws of Islam that say the drawing pictures of Mohammed is not permitted and should not be done — and you deserve what you get if you do — then why wouldn’t we have to respect or obey other things in Islam? What is it about drawing cartoons of “the prophet”? Why don’t we respect Islam’s punishment for gays and women, hmm? I mean, if they’re right, they’re right, aren’t they?
When do we follow and when do we not?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, I want to go back to the shooting in Texas, and before we get to the Pam Geller sound bites, a serious question here, folks, a very serious question. You just heard Mark Potok from this hate organization called the Southern Poverty Law Center. Make no mistake, that is a hate organization. And their hatred is for anything not Democrat. Their hatred is for anything Republican or conservative.
I wonder how the president is gonna with respond to the situation Garland, Texas. ISIS shooters show up because it is said they were provoked. Pam Geller and her group, oh, yeah, they can have a convention on drawing cartons of the prophet, but they are responsible for what happens. So if somebody pulls a gun out and shoots at ’em, it is their fault, not the perps, not the shooters. It is their fault because Islam tells us you cannot draw pictures of the prophet.
Okay, fine. If Americans are to respect and obey the laws of Islam, that prohibit the drawing of pictures of Mohammed, then why wouldn’t Americans have to respect and obey Islam’s laws and punishments regarding gays and women? I mean, if it’s that important to them, who are we to disagree? If they say you can’t draw pictures of the prophet, we say you’re right, we can’t, and anybody that does, why, they’re gonna get what’s coming to them.
Now, you move over to other aspects of militant Islam, and we know what happens to homosexuals in Iran or any other Islamic country. We know what happens to women. Well, if we’re gonna respect and obey the laws about drawing cartoons of the prophet, don’t we have to respect what Islam says about homosexuality and women? Where do we draw the line? We say, “Nah-nah, we can ignore that.” But this picture business, nope, we gotta follow that to the letter of the law. We gotta follow that to the letter of Islam. We gotta follow that to the letter of Allah. But the gay and women thing, not so much.
Now, the president of the United States, I wonder if anybody will say that he might have some involvement in this incident in Texas, because was it not President Obama who said something about the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet? “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet.” That would be Pam Geller and her group. And slander the prophet is according to Islam, not me. Militant Islam says drawing pictures of the prophet Mohammed is slander, it’s criminal, and Obama himself said the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet, i.e., Pam Geller and her group.
The president said that at the UN, he said it any number of places. Does that not sort of green light people in ISIS who want to take up arms and go after people who they believe are slandering the prophet? Could the president say this: The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet by allowing same-sex marriage. You know militant Islam prohibits that. When militant Islam prohibits the drawing of pictures of the prophet, we snap to. When militant Islam does not permit gay marriage or in fact homosexuality, are we gonna snap to and respect that?
What do you think? Obviously not. So why one and not the other? How do the Democrats, how does Mark Potok of the hateful Southern Poverty Law Center get to pick and choose which parts of Islam are going to be respected and which parts are going to be ignored?
Read the rest here.
