Tucker Carlson is way off base when he says that Pamela Geller “sets out to infuriate people.” What she does is tell truths that others fear to tell, and that infuriates the moneyed and powerful Leftist and Islamic supremacist elites. But his little avowals that he is not off the PC reservation concerning Geller aside, Carlson is absolutely right that jihadists “already won because they have successfully intimidated many of the elites in this country.” He is also right when he says: “The New York Times editorialized on behalf of Andres Serrano to do the crucifix in urine; they editorialized on behalf of The Book of Mormon, even though it offended religious groups; they editorialized against Pamela Geller. What’s the difference? Well, the Mormons and the evangelicals weren’t threatening to murder those artists.”
Indeed. The opposition to Geller by the erstwhile champions of free speech is a canonization of the assassin’s veto, an affirmation that terrorism works, which means we will only see more of it.
“Tucker Carlson: The Jihadists Have ‘Already Won,’” by Andrew Kirell, Mediaite, May 8, 2015:
According to Fox’s Tucker Carlson, the jihadists have already won by effectively “intimidating the elites” into never publicly criticizing Islam.
Appearing Friday morning on America’s Newsroom, Carlson suggested that while controversial anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller “sets out to infuriate people” and uses tactics that many reasonable people would find disagreeable, “you can’t use violence to stop people from saying things you don’t agree with.” The Fox & Friends Weekend host was referring to the thwarted attack on Geller’s “Draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, Texas, this past Sunday afternoon.
“You have a right to say what you think, period,” Carlson continued, in the clip first spotted by Grabien. “Nobody has a right to kill you for saying that; that’s the core value of America. Once you give that up, everything falls apart.”
Asked what would have happened had the two deceased gunmen been successful in their attempt to kill people at Geller’s event, Carlson said that jihadists “already won because they have successfully intimidated many of the elites in this country.” His example: “The New York Times editorialized on behalf of Andres Serrano to do the crucifix in urine; they editorialized on behalf of The Book of Mormon, even though it offended religious groups; they editorialized against Pamela Geller. What’s the difference? Well, the Mormons and the evangelicals weren’t threatening to murder those artists.”
Watch below, via Fox:
Paula Boddington says
Hey, he says ‘doesn’t mean you’d want to have dinner with Pamela Geller’ – I’d love to have dinner with her! She’d be so interesting to talk to. Who wouldn’t want to have dinner with her? Pamela you can come to dinner to my place if the Home Secretary ever lets you into the UK.
jihad3tracker says
Hello Paula — “from across the Pond”, as the expression goes. If Cameron and May ever come out of their privilege-guilt daze and lift the ban on Pam, I will fly over and cater that dinner you speak of.
NOTE TO ALL THE GUYS HERE COMMENTING AT JIHAD WATCH who would ALSO like to spend an hour in the same room with our Mega-Hot Warrioress : I’ve got dibs on the event with Paula , , , Eat your hearts out ! ! !
gerard says
Can I come too?
jihad3tracker says
Of course ! You can choose the wine to be served . . . a very important matter.
Proud Pork Fan says
I like that Tucker said “their prophet” and not “the prophet”. I am sick of non-Muslims saying “the prophet”. He is not my prophet. I tend to believe he didn’t even ever exist per Robert’s excellent book.
dsinc says
Same here, Just about every non-Muslim in the media talks about “the prophet” and this implies that they believe in the existence of Islam’s prophet, and by extension Allah, the non-existent higher power of Muslim’s who is causing so much hell on earth.
PRCS says
I try to send tweets to the folks who use the phrase “the prophet, Muhammad”, asking them if they also say “the prophet Jesus”, or “the prophet Moses”.
Wellington says
I have to say, “Huh?” to Tucker Carlson here. Most of what he said is correct—-about the double standard of The New York Times and the jihadists winning, but also to aver that Pamela Geller “sets out to infuriate people” is a total disconnect. Geller is not doing what she does to infuriate people but rather to illustrate how precious freedom is and how it is in great jeopardy of being stripped away, in America and all the West, courtesy of Islam and dhimmi apologists for Islam.
Howard says
True Wellington. It appears that that is another talking point (that Pam wants to infuriate people a la the “piss-Christ” artist) that has gained traction. Nothing could be further from the truth. Her bus ads are all about telling the truth and countering lies. And with respect to the art contest, the winning cartoon says it all. The contest was held because of the violent intimidation by thugs daring her not to hold it or draw their prophet in general.
It appears to me that this narrative (that Pam is out to piss people off) is being used as an appeasement to the violent thugs. It goes like this: “I think Pam is right but to prove I am not a racist, I will give you that Pam is a woman who wants to infuriate people”. They are just kowtowing to the thugs in their own little way. Despicable.
Wellington says
Agreed, Howard. After all, qualified support for liberty, especially in view of the fact that a totalitarian ideology like Islam despises liberty, doesn’t add up to much—–fair-weather patriots a la Thomas Paine and all that.
In the winter of a noble cause, as existed both literally and metaphorically with Washington and his men in late December of 1776, fair-weather patriots simply couldn’t be counted on. Nor can they now, such as those who only support Pamela Geller kinda’, sorta’. Kinda’, sorta’ support is exactly what fair-weather patriots engage in——and it’s not worth much. And it’s now winter.
stevea54 says
I thought that this sentence from Rich Lowry at Politico (as you linked), summed it up quite well:-
“A free society can’t let the parameters of its speech be set by murderous extremists.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/why-wont-pamela-geller-shut-up-117716.html#ixzz3ZfElNrMl
noellsq says
The more people like Pamela Geller are badly needed. The attempt by the two animals show how crazy these people are. I am an American and I believe in G-D and my Country Ma’s apple pie. Let these animals come to my town and cause trouble and they will meet G-D which is the name of my side arm. Remember we hold our freedom of speech very holy.
Angemon says
It may be part that, but I’d wager that at least a part of the so-called “elites” do so because it’s the chic thing to do – standing with the (professional) victims, being patronizing and condescending as if they’re little puppies who chew shoes and pee on the carpet because they don’t know any better, all along forgetting that muslims who play by their tune have minds and goals of their own.
profitsbeard says
Pamela Geller built a bug
Why people are complaining that it worked is the mystery.
Do they support plague- carrying vermin?
(Is a pilot in a cage being set on fire not serious enough for them ? Would they prefer cities?)
profitsbeard says
bug zapper
vlparker says
What is it with all these people who just have to take a dig at Pamela before they defend her? That in itself is an act of cowardice. It’s like, “yeah, she’s right, but don’t associate me with her.” They make me sick.
Scott says
He’s done a wanna be Bill ORongly imitation here.
He uses the broad brush to demonize Pamela Geller while pro-porting to support free speech.
You know Tucker, you’re a real Johnny Come Lately to siding with the O’Rongly Gang.
You have no idea what Pamela Geller says or believes.
Go to her website and stop “making it up as you go along”.
Red Bee says
Pamela Geller “sets out to infuriate people.”; [some *] people set out to infuriate Pamela Geller.
What is your reaction when someone points a gun at you?
http://members.ziggo.nl/iiat/
* jihadi’s & other enemies of freedom.
wildjew says
Late January 2015 Fox News commentator Chris Wallace (son of the late Mike Wallace, 60 Minutes) went on the Saturday or Sunday morning Fox show to promote his Fox News Sunday segment on the upcoming “malicious” and “wicked” Bibi Netanyahu, the man who was “sneaking in” to undermine Obama’s Iran negotiations. Tucker Calson did not disagree with Wallace. He looked as though he shared Wallace’s opinion of the prime minister’s speech before a joint meeting of Congress last February.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
I’ve always disliked Tucker, or Tuck, as I like to call him. He’s got the prep school elite look, with the oh so longish hair do, the blazers, and penny loafers. Just to make sure in case anybody doubted his prepihood, he once said on Fox RINO that he was uncomfortable with Sarah Palin because she didn’t seem educated enough.
(Geller) sets out to infuriate people.
What Mr. high born heavily educated Intellectualoid *should* have said is that Geller sets out to infuriate people, although it *is* true that Holy Prophet Mohammed had two critics murdered because they criticized him, now a tradition passed down to contemporary Moslems through the Hah-Deaths.
But, he probably didn’t have time to account for that salient fact on the 24/7 news entertainment TV channel, he probably wanted to talk about the Abu and Asma murders but they needed to cut to a commercial break. Maybe he can mention that very important information as weekend host on Fox RINO and Friends morning show.
Prinz Eugen says
Agreed with the above, never trusted Tucker. He has lasted so long on the air because he is the ideal RINO wimp. Sarah isn’t smart enough — but sultan Barry, the lying mad mulatto with the hidden past, is “brilliant?” And what about dumb Biden? And that dumb old white hag, Hillary? Seems Tucker buys all the left’s tired and worn talking points.
ron hargreave says
If the Jihadists had already won, Geller would not have mounted her protest. In that protest, the Jihadists lost. The real lesson that the country should take from Geller’s draw the Prophet contest is that Geller found the one successful way to fight back. And she is the only one who did. In Geller’s case, $10,000 was spend on security for the event, and it paid off.
When people ask: what if someone had been killed? what if the gunmen had succeeded, they need to realize that is is out and out war. In war, sometimes the soldiers on your side get killed. This is a fight to the death for our First Amendment rights. Either we are going to have them, or the Islamists will be telling us what is de facto in our Constitution. If we don’t go to war over this, why go to war over anything?