Salon whines about Spencer and Geller fighting back against smears and defamation

The Leftist/Islamic supremacist propaganda machine is crowing today about their victory over the freedom of speech and the truth about Islam and jihad in Worcester, Massachusetts — and Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald is enraged that Pamela Geller and I have the temerity to fight back against the endless barrage of libel, defamation, and smears that he and his colleagues constantly direct at us and our work. In a screed at Salon today that is remarkable for its hypocrisy, projection, and leaps of logic, Seitz-Wald sketches out his ideal world, in which Geller and I shut up, stop fighting for human rights, and allow them to demonize and destroy us completely as they march forward confidently to authoritarianism, a tightly controlled single-viewpoint public square, and Sharia.

Well, sorry, Alex. I am never shutting up, and I am never giving up. Every day’s headlines shows yet again that what I am saying is true (and rather obvious) and that your defamation and lies are in service of a truly sinister agenda: enabling jihad violence and Islamic supremacism.

Note the “anti-Muslim” in the headline and first paragraph — as if fighting for the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and equality of rights for all people were actually a fight to deny a group of people their rights. This is a common defamation tactic from the Left and Islamic supremacists, but it reveals more about them than about me: if fighting for human rights for all is “anti-Muslim,” Alex Seitz-Wald and others who use the phrase must think those freedoms are incompatible with being Muslim. So Alex Seitz-Wald turns out to be a greasy Islamophobe.

“Catholic diocese boots anti-Muslim speaker,” by Alex Seitz-Wald for Salon, January 31 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Add this to the increasing marginalization of radical anti-Muslim views: A Catholic diocese in Massachusetts today rescinded its invitation to Robert Spencer, a prominent anti-Muslim writer and activist, to speak about Islam at an upcoming conference….

The response from Spencer and Geller was predictable: Blame the media. Writing at FrontPage, Spencer claimed that he was “informed” that the Boston Globe’s reporter, Lisa Wangsness, “instigated the entire controversy” and that she “asked [Muslim groups] to call the diocese and demand the cancellation.” Spencer published his entire, lengthy email exchange with Wangsness, including her phone number and email address, along with a correspondence with Wangsness” editor. They declined to comment in an email to Salon.

I was indeed informed that Wangsness asked people to call the diocese and demand that my talk be canceled. I did indeed publish her email address and phone number. Seitz-Wald postures as if this were something heinous, without bothering to mention that I asked people to contact her and “politely and firmly” register their disapproval with her flagrant bias and unethical behavior. He doesn’t mention that I gave out her Boston Globe email address and phone number, which are easily obtainable public information. Reporters who have unpublished phone numbers and email addresses don’t get much reporting done.

Seitz-Wald never complained when his comrade in the “Islamophobia” industry, Reza Aslan’s tiny gunsel Nathan Lean, published on Twitter information about where he thought I lived, in an obvious attempt to frighten and intimidate me into silence in light of the many death threats I’ve received from the jihadis Seitz-Wald and Lean think I’m so hateful for opposing. Lean’s publishing what he thought was real personal information about my whereabouts got no protest from Seitz-Wald, but my initiating a phone and email campaign of protest against a Leftist journalist’s unethical conduct, after the manner of innumerable such campaigns initiated by the likes of Hamas-linked CAIR and other pals of Seitz-Wald — now, that’s beyond the pale! “Right wingers” aren’t supposed to fight back!

Geller picked up the same line of attack, writing, today, “I am surprised that Lisa Wangsness didn’t shout allahu akbar at her attack and victory over the free exchange of ideas.”

This is typical for a group of people who want the First Amendment to work only in their favor. They cry foul any time anyone writes something critical of their work, condemning the supposed infringement on their freedom of speech, yet they turn around and try to bully critical voices in far more aggressive ways than any action directed at them.

The audacity of Seitz-Wald’s projection here is astounding. Geller and I are constantly hounded by these people. The whole idea that we are “bigots,” “racists,” “hatemongers” and the like for resisting jihad and Islamic supremacism is a Big Lie they have invented and pound out every chance they get. And so desperately insecure and authoritarian-inclined are Leftists and Islamic supremacists that they can’t bear the thought of our speaking anywhere — they are determined to drive us out of the public square and render our message outside the bounds of acceptable discourse, and so every time we speak anywhere, they mount protests. They demand that we be canceled (and they succeeded in Worcester), and if that fails, they show up to yell obscenities and insults at us from the audience to try to drown us out and prevent us from speaking. They relentlessly retail lies, half-truths and distortions about what we say and do, trying to stigmatize us so that no one will dare invite us to speak for fear of all the controversy that will inevitably ensue.

Yet even if they were to succeed in demonizing us utterly, such that everyone will fear to have anything to do with us, their enterprise in a larger sense is doomed to failure, because what we say is true, and its truth grows clearer all the time. That’s why they have to keep the heat on, and make it ever hotter, as hot as they can, for us and for every freedom fighter — only by a never-ending barrage can propaganda succeed in drowning out the truth, and even when that barrage seems to have succeeded, the blades of grass will always poke through the concrete. Seitz-Wald and his friends know this, also — and so they know they have to yell all the louder, and smear us all the more energetically, in their increasingly desperate attempt to obscure the truth.

Pamela Geller makes a superb point on this: “Seitz-Wald claims that we ‘want the First Amendment to work only in their favor.’ Uh, wrong. I only want the First Amendment to work. Period. I want to be able to run my ads without having to file six-figure First Amendment lawsuits. I want to speak and not get canceled. I want a scintilla of truth to be reported about the work I do. Just for starters, we are anti-jihad, not anti-Muslim. No matter how many tens of thousands of posts, columns and books I write to the contrary or how many Muslim girls we help get to safe houses — these tools propagandize and carry water for the most notorious Islamic supremacists. Seitz-Wald shills for the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth and he is pulling moral superiority. What he lacks in spine and guts he compensates for in cojones.”

Any journalists or public advocates who cross them are bound to have their emails published and a string of ad hominem attacks thrown their way in a manner than can only be intended to intimidate. This effectively silences many critics, who may feel it’s not worth incurring the hate to write about Geller or Spencer.

I had to laugh. It seems as if every few days I am writing a response to another critical article defaming me and disparaging my work. There hasn’t been any silencing of any critics as far as I can tell. Nor have I ever published the email address of a reporter before, because I never before asked people to complain about the conduct of an irresponsible journalist. And as for “ad hominem attacks,” I laughed even harder. Seitz-Wald here is accusing us of exactly what he and his friends are actually guilty of: they keep up an endless stream of ad hominem attacks in order to effectively silence us, doing their best to intimidate people into being afraid to associate with us.

Of this reporter, for instance, Geller once said it was “only a matter of time before he is getting measured for a suicide vest.” She called a Jewish group in Chicago that spoke out against her anti-Muslim bus and subway ads “Judenrat,” as in Jews who collaborated with Nazis.

Alex, you left out that I called you a “dim bulb” for calling a column of mine an interview and then admitting you hadn’t even read it before pouring out your vitriol. He provides no link to that one — probably because he doesn’t want anyone to see a post that includes much more than just that name (which he richly deserves): a comprehensive evisceration of his factual assertions, logical deductions, and journalistic integrity.

Seitz-Wald is firmly ensconced in the Left’s academic and media echo chamber, where only one perspective is heard and challenges are not allowed. Guys like him are amazed when their work is not received with fawning praise. In contrast, Geller and I know that every mainstream media reporter who ever contacts us is going to try to make us look as bad as possible, and that our views will never get a fair hearing in that mainstream. We know we’re not going to get a fair shake, and just hope we can get enough in to show someone who is reading a truth of which he may have been unaware.

That’s fine and they have the right to call anyone whatever they want, just as the diocese is free to rescind its invitation to Spencer and the Muslim groups are free to criticize it and the Globe is free to write about it, but you can’t have it both ways. It seems Spencer and Geller are not interested in “the free exchange of ideas,” as Geller said, but rather licence [sic] to express themselves with impunity and without criticism.

More projection! He accuses us of not being interested in the free exchange of ideas, when it is I who have asked innumerable Leftist and Islamic supremacist spokesmen and writers to engage in discussion or debate, on my ABN show or in another venue, and they have almost all refused. Meanwhile, when I write substantive responses to opposing views, there is hardly ever a response — no discussion, no free exchange of ideas. Here are two recent ones: responses to Haroon Moghul and Harris Zafar. Moghul and Zafar did not bother to respond to the points I raised; they didn’t have to, because the propaganda machine they serve had already sufficiently demonized me with ad hominem attacks that they didn’t think it necessary to reply to the “Islamophobic bigot.”

And one final irony. Seitz-Wald is whining about Wangsness’s freedom of speech, but remember: the Globe reporter didn’t just “write about it,” but (if my sources are correct, and I have no reason to doubt them) worked to make sure that I would not be heard in Worcester. Free exchange of ideas, indeed. But perhaps I shouldn’t expect more rigorous thinking from such a dim bulb as Alex Seitz-Wald.

Diocese of Worcester canceled Robert Spencer talk at insistence of self-proclaimed "friend and supporter" of convicted jihad terrorist Tarek Mehanna
Boston Globe does victory dance after engineering cancellation of Robert Spencer talk
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    I just went and read the offending article, in situ, at ‘Salon’.

    Then I read the sixteen Comments that have attached themselves to it so far.

    UGH. Some of them left me feeling like I needed a bath.

    I have never seen such a bunch of idiots, obscenely gloating over what amounts to a de facto imposition of the Ummah’s Blasphemy law, and the forcing – by clever use of proxies – of the Catholic diocese of Worcester to behave *exactly* as if they were Catholic dhimmis living within an Islamic state. (And some of those Comments were, I think, by Muslims who knew damn well that that was exactly what this Useful Idiot, Alex Seitz-Wald, is promoting).


    We really must revive the Jihadwatch dhimmi and anti-dhimmi awards.

    With a special subsection for efforts in Journalism.

    I nominate both Lisa Wangsness and Alex Seitz-Wald as candidates for Dhimmi Journalist of the Year, USA.

    All recipients of the Dhimmi awards should receive framed copies of the Pact of Omar, so they know *exactly* how they are supposed to behave toward the Muslims who they have allowed to become their de facto lords and masters.

  2. says

    This is not the first time Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald has enabled Jihad.

    He Tweeted this idiocy just a couple of weeks ago:

    “Salon wonders if ‘jihad’ can survive Pamela Geller”

    And here he is, in 2010, blaming Randall Terry for any Muslim savagery that might result from his ripping pages from a Qur’an.

    Seitz-Wald apparently doesn’t consider Muslims threatening violence over critics speaking out about the savagery of Islam to be an issue.

    Now, I consider reasoned critiques such as Robert Spencer’s to be a more fitting response to Islamic barbarism than is tearing up a Qur’an, but Terry had *every right* to express himself in this manner.

    “Quran Destroyer Randall Terry Dismisses 9/11 Families’ Concerns About Politicizing Terror Anniversary”

    Of course, the idea that 9/11 itself somehow wasn’t political is idiocy.

    Terry’s group also carried signs reading “9-11 = Koran + Sharia Law”. Tellingly, Seitz-Wald didn’t bother to indicate exactly how he believed that sign to be incorrect.

    And here he is last year, standing up for Shari’ah in the US:

    “Adam Hasner: Islamophobe for Congress”

    He took issue with Hasner saying, “We are not in a War on Terror. This is a civilizational struggle against an ideology of Sharia Islam.”

    Hasner’s phrasing is a bit clunky, but he is essentially correct. I wish more congressmen had as sure a grasp of the issue as he appears to.

    And going after Hasner is not enough; he also takes pot-shots at Pamela Geller in that same piece for the egregious “LoonWatch”.

    He says that “they’re clearly comrades in the fight against Shariah law””as if that’s a bad thing. I suppose Seitz-Walsd would welcome Shari’ah here, instead.

  3. says

    Good idea, DDA, if any publicity could be generated by it (and not hijacked by the recipients…), it could be quite useful. But. alas, when a 10th rate “news” personality did a vicious cut and paste hit piece on a female VP contender in 2008, instead of unemployment, she was given an award by her peers… They live in a bubble, and what it would take to burst their bubble, is probably enough to start WWIII. And even then, they would blame the victims…. Sorry for being so down, the media is rather… contemptable, with too few exceptions.

  4. says

    The left never misses an opportunity to cozy up with those that hate America and the West. Be it the former Soviet Union, the North Vietnamese, communist China or various marxist regimes in Central and South America, they are willing to make their bed with any bit of filth that despises the US. Islam is their latest bed time friend, and Mr. Hyphenated over at Salon is simply carrying on the legacy of Duranty and Cronkite. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wins a Pulitzer for his efforts.

  5. says

    There is also this:

    “What a Debate,Muslim Scholar Al-Haddad and His Surprising Statements”

    Who is Al-Haddad?

    Haitham Al-Haddad is a Muslim scholar who teaches what is the Islam of Muhammad and the Caliphate that in one way or another lasted till 1924 .He is a member of the UK’s Islamic Sharia Council.

    A majority in the Nederlands parliament tried to block entrance into the Nederlands of Al-Haddad for his views.He was invited to an Amsterdam University to debate with a politician and a journalist, about the position of Islam in the West.Al-Haddad had been invited by the Amsterdam Islamic students association.

    Al-Haddad says in the Debate that Women and Men who are Adulterers are to be Stoned

    1.From minute 1:50 till minute 3 you hear nothing but after that the sound is fine.

    2.But before,around minute 30 a woman in the audience began arguing with Al-Haddad and a minute later she was allowed to sit at the table and participate.And incredibly Al-Haddad claimed that he had been approached by European women who had committed adultery and wanted to go to a Muslim country to be stoned for their bad deeds.

    Later an Iranian ex-Muslim begins to ask him a question

    Asked by him,a member of the audience,who left Islam what the cleric thought of him, al-Haddad told him apostates should be killed in an Islamic country.

    About Irak

    He also said 1.5 million have been killed in Irak because of Western democracy.The lady asks him about stoning women and Al-Haddad finally says that many Western women had even asked him to be stoned to death.”


    “Oriana Fallaci(1929-2006),Italian Journalist,Atheist and Feminist,who was Anti-Islam,also said she was a Christian Atheist”

  6. says

    Speaking as an ex-Muslim, what I find most odd about Islam supporters such as Salon’s Alex Seitz-Waldhen, is that they seem incapable of making the leap of logic to grasp the fact that when non-Muslims support and/or defend Islam, they are supporting and/or defending the following:

    * Slavery:

    Qur’an 16:71
    And Allah hath favored some of you above others in provision. Now those who are more favored will by no means hand over their provision to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Is it then the grace of Allah that they deny?'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Slavery#Islam_Permits_Slavery

    * Sex Slavery:

    Hadith, Sahih Bukhari Vol.7, Bk.62, No.137:

    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Apostle about it and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.”

    * The death for penalty for the apostates of Islam:

    In Islam, the rejection in part (of any of the pillars, or individual principles of Islam), or discarding the faith as a whole, amounts to apostasy. It is not a quick or easy affair for an apostate or heterodox believer of Islam, as the punishment for apostasy in the Islamic faith is death. Though it may be argued that this is not clear through the Qur’an alone, scholars have found justification for the penalty from within its pages, and there are also numerous Sahih (authentic) hadiths confirming this punishment as attested by Prophet Muhammad. In Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57 we see it as “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him'”, and it was also one of only three reasons given by him where killing a Muslim is permitted.

    * Child molestation:

    Qur’an, 065.004
    And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair.

    * 100 Lashes for unmarried adulterers: Qur’an 24:2

    * Stoning for married adulterers:

    Sahih Bukhari, Vol.8, Bk.82, Number 826:

    Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid:
    Two men had a dispute in the presence of Allah’s Apostle. One of them said, “Judge us according to Allah’s Laws.” The other who was more wise said, “Yes, Allah’s Apostle, judge us according to Allah’s Laws and allow me to speak (first)” The Prophet said to him, ‘Speak ” He said, “My son was a laborer for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife, and the people told me that my son should be stoned to death, but I have given one-hundred sheep and a slave girl as a ransom (expiation) for my son’s sin. Then I asked the religious learned people (about It), and they told me that my son should he flogged one-hundred stripes and should be exiled for one year, and only the wife of this man should be stoned to death ” Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I will judge you according to Allah’s Laws: O man, as for your sheep and slave girl, they are to be returned to you.” Then the Prophet had the man’s son flogged one hundred stripes and exiled for one year, and ordered Unais Al-Aslami to go to the wife of the other man, and if she confessed, stone her to death. She confessed and was stoned to death.

    We ex-Muslims living with Islam’s formal and informal death penalty for apostasy know that the cruel, über violent cult of Mohammedanism is a despicable fraud.

    Islam is no “religion of peace.” Islam is primarily a religion of “injustice, intolerance, hatred, and violence.” The fact is, if we non-Muslims were to say about Muslims what the Qur’an says about us, we would be arrested for hate speech. The Qur’an largely preaches discrimination, death, and imposition of its dogma on everyone. Certainly some Muslims will be offended by such statements, but frankly, so what? Judaism and Christianity, the world’s two other major monotheistic religions, have had to face the harshest of scrutiny and criticism for several hundred years which continues to this day. Islam must not be granted any special privileges or be exempt from such treatment – the implications are of tremendous importance.

    Here is a recent statement from a group of Bangladeshi apostates living in the UK explaining the reasons why they have abandoned Islam:

    “One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Qur’an 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way…

    The statement continues,

    Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.”

  7. says

    Good luck to RS in turning around this abusively politically correct nonsense. Here is my comment to Salon.

    Once again SWald tries to demonize Spencer. For anyone who has actually read Spencer it will be obvious that the current attack piece is inaccurate and unfair. Only those who are ignorant of the facts may be convinced that Spencer is a hateful bigot. Those who want to know the facts should read Spencer’s reply to this piece at All of SW’s false claims are exposed as such.

    The Catholic church and its Worcester diocese are free to invite and dis-invite whoever they wants to their conferences. It’s obvious that in this instance the diocese succumbed to the pressure exerted by organizations composed of pious Muslims who apparently inundated the diocese with requests to censor Spencer. What do you expect of an organization that preaches a doctrine that there can eternal damnation in hell for having consensual sex but lacks the moral fortitude to clean its own house of pedophiles? The diocese once again demonstrated a lack of ethics. But that’s another story.

    What’s missing from this attack on Spencer for being anti-Muslim when in fact Spencer is anti-jihad is any description of the Islamic belief system. When one examines that belief system one finds the following evidence of human and civil rights abuses. Islamic ideology and inherent sharia law:
    1. Is misogynistic in that women do not have equal rights with men under the law. They are second class citizens. For example, in Morocco a rapist may go free by simply offering to marry his victim.
    2. Is supremacist in that non-Muslims do not have equal rights under the law. Try getting a building permit to build a church in Saudi Arabia. The new constitution of Egypt makes sharia the law of the land.
    3. Is barbarically homophobic and sexually repressive. Homosexual acts and sex acts between consenting adults are serious, even capital, crimes.
    4. Does not permit freedom of religion or freedom of conscience. Apostasy is a serious, even capital, crime in all schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
    5. Does not permit freedom of speech. Blasphemy (consisting of insulting, inter alia, the KKKoran, the pedophile, highwayman criminal prophet that is the perfect example of man, or any the hate-filled scriptures) is a serious, even capital, crime.
    6. Prescribes a theocratic form of government in which there is not only no separation of church and state, but the directives of unelected religious freaks overrule those of elected officials. A theocracy may be okay for some, but it doesn’t comport with liberal western values upon which our society is built. Even the Catholic church has come to accept this.
    7. Has scripture that contains so much hate-filled and supremacist preaching, so many directives to engage in holy jihad that pious practitioners of the faith justify atrocities by citing and relying upon said scriptural authority. These mujahadeen are engaging in what Islam describes as a duty for all, jihad, to spread and “defend” the faith. Oh yes, it is not the greater jihad, that inner struggle by which one promises to work out every day. It is the lesser jihad of engaging in acts of war aka terrorism to kill indiscriminately civilians of all ages, even other Muslims of a different sect. Look around at all the suicide bombing and mayhem that is going occurring in the world today, atrocities in Mali, Somalia, Nigeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Eygpt, Syria, now in Turkey (US embassy bombed today) almost all of which is carried out in the name of Islamic religion – the religion of peace!

    Islamic ideology is antithetical to 21st century concepts of morality and world peace. It is a supremacist belief system frozen in the 7th century which seeks to dominate the entire world. If I support my opinion by accurate references to to Islamic scriptures and world events, does this make me a bigot? Let someone well versed in Islamic ideology speak up and show me the errors in my thinking.

    What many suffer from today is cognitive dissonance. By that I mean that well meaning people want world peace and can not bring themselves to accept the notion that a popular religion is actually inhumane and abusive of accepted civil and human rights and that by its own precepts seek to convert, subjugate or destroy all people of other faiths. Cognitive dissonance takes over and they pretend Islamic ideology isn’t all that bad. They grasp at straws to allow themselves to maintain the belief that all will be well, that world peace will be achieved when we accept one another. So they happily misinterpret anything they hear so they can keep that all-important faith in world peace even when confronted by the harsh reality of an ideology that promotes jihadist terror around the world.
    People like Spencer are lucid educators and people like SWald suffer from cognitive dissonance.