This case should not be dismissed. I was co-sponsor and co-organizer of this event and spoke at it, and was there when the jihadis began firing. And this case is bigger than Bruce Joiner, which is not to say that his case is not of cardinal importance. The FBI clearly knew the attack was coming (although it didn’t bother to inform us or our security team), as the FBI agent was right there, following behind the jihadis, whom he had encouraged to “tear up Texas.” But even though they knew the attack was coming, they didn’t have a team in place to stop the jihadis. They had one man there, and one man only. The jihadis were not stopped by FBI agents, but by our own security team. If the jihadis had gotten through our team, they would have killed Pamela Geller and me, and many others. (They would no doubt have loved to kill Geert Wilders, but he left before they arrived.)
The Daily Beast wrote in August 2016 about how this undercover FBI agent encouraged the jihadis. The Beast’s Katie Zavadski wrote: “Days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”
What was the FBI’s game in telling them to “tear up Texas”? Why didn’t they have a phalanx of agents in place, ready to stop the attack? Or did they want the attack to succeed, so that Barack Obama’s vow that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” would be vividly illustrated, and intimidate any other Americans who might be contemplating defending the freedom of speech into silence?
We twice asked the FBI for an investigation into this matter. They ignored us. Of course. After all, it isn’t as if this happened to someone important, like Linda Sarsour.
Now that we are learning how corrupt and compromised the FBI really is, the last thing this case should be is dismissed. We need a full investigation of the FBI’s activities leading up to the Garland jihad attack.
“FBI, DOJ Argue for Dismissal of Suit About Garland, Texas Attack,” by Todd Shepherd, Washington Free Beacon, January 15, 2018:
The FBI and the Department of Justice are arguing for a liability case against them to be dismissed, while at the same time admitting to key details surrounding the bureau’s involvement in the 2015 terrorist attack on the “Draw Muhammad” event in Garland, Texas.
In that attack, the first in the United States for which ISIS claimed responsibility, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, drove to the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland in a car loaded with six guns and over a thousand rounds of ammunition.
The two men opened fire when they were stopped at a perimeter checkpoint. A security guard, Bruce Joiner, was shot in the leg and the two attackers were killed just yards away from where the shooting began.
Joiner filed suit last October, claiming the FBI was partially responsible for his injuries. His suit argues the bureau “solicited, encouraged, directed and aided members of ISIS in planning and carrying out the May 3 attack,” and is asking for just over $8 million damages.
Court filings from Thursday confirm that an undercover FBI agent was in a separate car directly behind the attackers when they opened fire, and that the agent, “was dressed in Middle Eastern attire and police almost killed him, but he saved his life by claiming to be an FBI agent.”
Lawyers with the Justice Department are asking the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the FBI is immune from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The origins of the attack stretch to Paris, France, in January of 2015 when radicalized Islamists killed 12 people at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo for the magazine’s depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.
Fewer than two weeks after the Charlie Hebdo attack, an Islamic group held a conference at the Culwell Center in Garland, called, “Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect.”
As a counter to the Islamic conference, self-described “free speech advocate” Pamela Gellar organized the “First Annual Muhamed (sic) Art Exhibit and Contest,” also to be held at the Culwell Center, slated for May of 2015.
Simpson and Soofi were part of a small cell of radical Islamists in the Phoenix area, which the FBI had been monitoring. An undercover agent, identified in Thursday’s filings only as “UCE-1,” had infiltrated the group for some time and had been in communication with Simpson.
Documents from a separate court case shed light on just how deep the agent’s activity had been, which included the following messaging between “UCE-1” and Simpson abut the upcoming “Draw Muhammed” event:
UCE-1: Tear up Texas.
Simpson: Bro, u don’t have to say that…U know what happened in Paris…I think…Yes or no…?
UCE-1: Right.
Simpson: So that goes without saying…No need to be direct.
A 60 Minutes exposé last March first revealed that the undercover agent was in a separate car directly behind Simpson and Soofi when the attack began, that the agent was taking pictures of the pair just seconds before they opened fire, and that the undercover agent tried to flee the scene once the attack began but was apprehended by local police.
The government’s only comment in response to the 60 Minutes report last March was to say, “There was no advance knowledge of a plot to attack the cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas.”
Joiner’s attorney, Trenton Roberts, says his client sued in an effort to get to the bottom of the FBI’s involvement in the attack.
Roberts says there are only two explanations of what transpired that day with the undercover agent.
“It seems like it had to have been one or the other,” Roberts told the Washington Examiner. “Just a complete botched operation where they [the FBI] don’t want the attack to actually take place, or, it’s something where they need the attack to take place in order for this guy [the agent] to advance in the world of ISIS.”
“And that’s really what I think. I think that they thought, ‘he’s undercover and in order to advance, he needed to get pictures or video of this attack,’ and then that would bolster his street cred within ISIS,” Roberts said.
The government’s response claimed that Joiner’s lawsuit, “provides only rank speculation that UCE-1 met up with and followed Simpson and Soofi to the event, and provides no well-plead factual allegations regarding what exactly UCE-1 did at or immediately before the event that could constitute the assistance, direction, solicitation, or encouragement of an assault. Rather, the only communication Plaintiff can point to as a basis for the assault claim is the comment to ‘tear up Texas.”
The curiosities surrounding the case have drawn the notice of some congressional leaders.
Ron Johnson (R., Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, complained in April of last year that he was learning details of the FBI’s involvement in the attack only through the media, and two years after the fact….
Elisha says
Just another example of treason by Obama, using the FBI in an attempt to assassinate Robert and Pamela. His islamo-fascist leanings all clear for all to see and he even admitted as much.
mortimer says
I agree that Obama’s policy was to favor the Muslim Brotherhood, which is by its own definition a JIHADIST organization and by implication, MB is therefore a TERRORIST organization.
There are worrisome aspects to an FBI agents escorting known and armed terrorists to an event where they were expected to commit murder! Why did the FBI not stop them on the way?
What was the reasoning of the agent? What was his order? Or did the government plan to assassinate the terrorists at the gate (which is what happened).
If valid security reasons are involved, the truth should be revealed at least in camera to valid representatives of the government before a judge. America is still a democracy and the FBI is NOT a law unto itself.
gravenimage says
Yes–we need to know what was going on here, what the plan was, and what mistakes were made.
brenrod says
agreed, hussein obama was assasinating his infidel enemies
J D S says
Whoever, Trump or others, should clean house in the DOJ and FBI and what was this i just heard on the news about a CIA
agent having classified material in his possession in areas he should not have had. Hmmmmmmmm.
Johnny Cuyana says
The PRIMARY responsibility of our USA govt, as explained explicitly in our Constitution, is to protect and defend the LEGAL USA CITIZENS.
If indeed this story is true — and, IMO, it seems to be here the most likely scenario — then these govt “officials”, and their respective agencies are either unaware of their Constitutional duties or, outright, they reject them.
Regardless of which, it seems that We The People have forsaken our collective responsibility to insist on workable checks and balances; where, such situations should not even be permitted to materialize.
RonaldB says
I think your remark is very sensible. It’s the checks and balances that keeps a government from becoming a tyranny or a banana republic.
Unfortunately, the government is moving away from effective checks and balances for many reasons not easily remedied.
1) The civil service act and rules which give bureaucrats tenure takes away for power of elected officials to exert control or take responsibility for, government actions. Any bureaucracy, which is what the government now is, increases in size, increases in power, increases in cost, and decreases in any accountability.
2) Diversity, which is supposed to be beneficial, causes the paralysis in government. The more diverse the representation in values, the more you have people who think differently, have different values, do not talk to each other, and see the world entirely in different terms. In other words, it is impossible to get the representative branch of the government to agree on any action, let alone exert control. This is a systemic problem of diverse communities and cannot be solved by political fixes.
3) The sheer size of the country makes the executive branch of the government unresponsive to huge parts of the electorate. The larger the country, the more government is an uneasy and unstable balancing act between regional differences. In my opinion, this was the major factor in the creation of the Confederacy, since the North and the South were actually not that different in terms of basic values and even their practical views on slavery.
4) There is a general tendency for governments and cultures to become rigid, fixed, and unresponsive to change as the civilization matures.
gravenimage says
Ronald, I don’t think the Confederacy had anything to do with the size of the country.
And no–abolition and slavery are actually opposites, which are *quite* different.
Johnny Cuyana says
Part 1of 2:
Ronald B., thank you for reading my comment and responding. At present, my time is short; however, I will try to address your points. Note: from my perspective, you can see that I quoted some of your statements but I changed your original numbering order. [Apologies, but, given my constraints, it’s the best I could do with my stream of consciousness].
[A] “It’s the checks and balances which keeps a government from becoming a tyranny or a banana republic.”
JC: Yes, it is checks and balances but, ULTIMATELY, this only works properly WHEN these checks and balances are the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Our system was designed to where the legal citizens, guided by the tenets of our Constitutional Republic, are to be the ultimate checks and balance.
Further, for way too long, in DC we have many LAWS and RULES AND REGS but the great majority of them are the LAWS of the self-serving BIG DOLLAR focused entities, e.g., CRONY PROFITEERS, the MASSIVE GOVT BUREAUCRACIES and the MASSIVE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS [e.g., unions, various non-USA govts, dictators, tyrants, assorted bullies and ad nauseum].
IOW there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL reason for the fed govt — via mountains of laws and regs, often put in place by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats — to be controlling our society; where such laws and etc are there primarily for the PAID favor of these BIG DOLLAR focused entities.
K Street in DC is NOT there for NO reason! Too often, it seems, our elected reps, who arrived penniless in DC, put in their half-dozen, or so, years [of self-service] and leave as multi-millionaires. Ghee … how does that happen? Hint: they are NOT there doing the work of the people!
ALL of these centralized command-and-control entities are SELF-SERVING; by definition, they are disrespectful to the inalienable rights of the LEGAL USA CITIZEN. IOW, these entities could hardly care less about the individual citizen; where their “plan” is to buy-off the necessary elected reps, get included their favorable legislation — heck, my understanding is that many of these lobbyists WRITE their own legislation — and they make sure that our corrupt and immortal elected reps are paid enough so that they can get re-elected and repeat the cycle time and again; and, screw the legal citizen.
In short, the reason DC, and much of our country works this way — totally in contradiction with how our Constitutional Republic was designed by our Founders — is because WE THE PEOPLE have permitted such to happen. IOW, we have surrendered and forsaken, IMO, in most cases without a FIGHT, our responsibilities as freeborn citizens. I do NOT blame this in the govt; rather, I blame it on we the people.
[B] “Unfortunately, the government is moving away from effective checks and balances for many reasons not easily remedied.”
JC: [See above]. No, it is WE THE PEOPLE who have permitted the govt to do so. Such is our responsibility, and, such a breach in our national integrity is our fault. There is no one else to blame.
[C] “Civil Service Act”
JC: Again, see above … where, ultimately, IMO, this is the fault of the shortcomings of we the people.
[D] “Diversity”
JC: Screw diversity; where, certainly, IMO, diversity is NOT critical, and, in any place where it is prioritized over national foundational values, diversity is destructive. Diversity, IMO, is for nations and cultures which have forsaken their values; where the prioritization of diversity leads to cultural and perhaps national suicide.
Johnny Cuyana says
Part 2of 2:
[E] “The sheer size of the country”
JC: IMO, by virtue of the sheer size of our country, we are no where near stressing our govt; rather, we are stressing our “society” because we have forsaken the Federal System as was the original design of our Constitutional Republic.
In his basic notion, I agree with Tip O’Neil: ALL politics is LOCAL. IOW, there is next to NO reason for the fed govt to be involved, to anywhere near the degree to which it is now involved in our day-to-day LOCAL issues; where such was supposed to be addressed by the 10th Amendment [Haha!].
This is for the basic reason, as believed by our Founders, that there is NO WAY that the centralized fed govt can do as good a job on the countless tasks which we have surrendered to them; nonetheless, we have permitted DC to DUPE the majority of our legal citizenry to where we continue to write BIG DOLLAR checks to DC for things which, according to our Constitution, should be addressed at the State and local level.
Further, it is BECAUSE that we have surrendered so much to the DC SWAMP, that, for the great majority of legal American citizens — with families, jobs and etc — there is NO WAY by which we can provide the checks and balances necessary for the type of govt which serves primarily the needs of its people. If for no other reason than that geographically, such inherently confounding govt business is cloaked in an impenetrable rats nest labyrinth located much too far away from most. [Note: if you have not yet noticed, this rats’ nest is an insidious feature; it is by design].
[F] Regarding your comment regarding “in the creation of the Confederacy”.
JC: If you already have not, may I suggest that you collect and read the individual “Ordinances of Secession” as produced, starting in 1860, immediately after the election of one A. Lincoln [and even before his 1861 inauguration], by the respective seceding States. These ordinances — there are at least 10 of them — are analogous to our national Declaration of Independence; where each seceding State Assembly produced an official document pronouncing that and detailing why they were seceding.
Because of the particulars of the respective “transition” process — where some of the seceding States were just becoming “new” States — I do not recall entirely their stories; however, e.g., VA’s was 1-2 paragraphs and very general, while most of the others were quite detailed; where at least a half-dozen of them specifically listed “slavery” or the prohibition thereof, as being one of their primary motivators.
The most lucrative antebellum south plantation regions —- Miss-Yazoo delta region, from Memphis, through Vicksburg and then down to New Orleans — in comparison perhaps only with Sucre, Bolivia, in their realization of that mountain of silver, El Cero Potosi, was the richest society in the world; and, this plantation culture of our South was the great majority competitively dependent upon the vile institution of human slavery; where, however, they chose to rationalize it, they were not going to give up that institution; i.e., not without a fight. From my understanding the argument put forth by the South was “States Rights”, but it was largely focused on their perceived right to maintain humans in absolute servitude … and the elites, within that culture, were simply not just going to give it up.
[G] “There is a general tendency for governments and cultures to become rigid, fixed, and unresponsive to change as the civilization matures.”
JC: A short note: of course, swamp-like govt [read: DC] loves the status quo; for which they are rigid and do NOT want to change; where, they do NOT want to give the “power” back to the people. The DC swamp I characterize as a classic retrograde culture which wants to have themselves — the fed govt — running the country; which is 180-degrees out of phase with our Founders, who, in their exceptional wisdom, wanted the people to run the country.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Johnny Cuyana, You write, “The PRIMARY responsibility of our USA [i.e., federal, not state or local] govt, as explained explicitly in our Constitution, is to protect and defend the LEGAL USA CITIZENS.”
Please justify your use of “explicitly” by quoting the provisions you are referring to.
Johnny Cuyana says
Mark Spahn., thank you for reading my comment and responding with a question of your own; to which I answer as follows: first, as I suspect you already are quite aware, the preamble to our Constitution — not the “provisions” within, which you referenced — reads as follows:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
In view of this preamble, to address directly your question, see item-a through -d:
[a] “establish JUSTICE” — this is explicit — which means, in plain English, that, by the “hand” of the fed govt, our law will be upheld, where each and every legal individual citizen is to have preserved, protected and defended, fairly and equally, their inalienable rights;
[b] “provide for the common DEFENCE” — this is explicit — [related to item-a, and with expansion];
[c] “promote the general WELFARE” — this is explicit — [related to item-a, and with expansion]; and,
[d] “and secure the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity” — this is explicit — [related to item-a, and with expansion].
[Note: in general, my interpretations of item-a through item-d not mine alone; where, there are many — including relevant writings of “Publius”, as the “three” of them explained and presented in their volumes of the Federalist — who interpret similarly, in conjunction with the respective details within the Constitutional Articles and Sections, the individual Preamble phrases].
I am hoping that you will agree that there is no need to bother with copy-paste of the explicit Presidential responsibilities as enumerated in several Sections of Article-II, regarding the execution of our just laws; where, of course, via Article-1, these ARE to be the laws of the people, as constructed by the elected representatives of the people, i.e., the laws from the legislature; where such derived laws are in line — theoretically and hopefully … as they are to be “checked-and-balanced” by the SCOTUS — with the themes of the Preamble.
Tying up the last loose end — also from our Constitution — I have copied-pasted the explicit Presidential oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
I will close it off by stating that I stand by my original statement … with the following possible exception: as the first word of this sentence, I might, but I am not certain, substitute the first “The” with the word “A”; where it may then read, “A PRIMARY responsibility of our USA [i.e., federal, not state or local] govt, as explained explicitly in our Constitution, is to protect and defend the LEGAL USA CITIZENS.” However, for all practical purposes — especially for a multi-tasking govt — I am in the camp which sees this as a difference without a distinction.
gravenimage says
Mark, the US Constitution does say, the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion”–Article Four, Section Four.
StellaSaidSo says
They can spin this one however they like, but anyone who has been paying attention knows that the traitor Hussein Obama wanted to be rid of the turbulent truth-tellers Robert and Pamela. Just as Theresa the Appeaser wanted to be rid of the turbulent truth-teller Tommy Robinson, and saw to it that he be placed in harm’s way.
gravenimage says
I hope it was not this bad–but this case is very disturbing, and needs to be investigated.
Matthew Bracken says
Beyond belief. Why this is not newsworthy to the left-wing MSM makes it even more unbelievable.
I used to have respect for the FBI. Not anymore. They have been hiring left-wing SJWs for a decade, and it may be impossible to prevent the damage they are doing.
StellaSaidSo says
Under Obama, all reference to Islamic jihad / terror was removed from FBI training manuals, and people with real expertise on the subject of Islam and its potential threat to US security were fired from their positions as trainers and advisers. Robert Spencer was among these, as was Major Stephen Coughlin. Agent ranks were filled with Obama supporters, as were other key positions. During the Obama administration, the Muslim Brotherhood steadily increased its influence in the White House.
It will take President Trump a long time to clean up the mess.
RonaldB says
What you say is correct as far as it goes.
The penetration of the government and Executive in particular was well advanced under the G W Bush (the younger) administration. The Justice Department official who was most responsible for the Justice Department rules forbidding the use of CIA information to prevent domestic terror, Jamie Gorelick, is now Ivanka Trump’s lawyer. So, the penetration of the US government by Muslims and leftists is not limited to Democratic administrations.
StellaSaidSo says
Plz note that I did not claim that the penetration of the govt and executive was limited to Dem administrations. I referred to the Obama administration because the Garland attack occurred on his watch. Dubya certainly gave the MB the green light, and never missed an opportunity to assert that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’. Ivanka Trump has some very dubious associations. Jamie Gorelick is not the only one. Dunno about you, Ronald, but I think Daddy should pack her and Jared back to NY!
vlparker says
Jeff Sessions is a timid weakling. Trump has named way to many people to Cabinet positions who oppose draining the swamp.
Bodega says
A number of us thought this whole excuse of “protection” was bogus. I am so grateful Spencer and Geller survived and had the sense to get security beforehand. .
Yes, the FBI needs to be torn appart and re-invented, so to speak. At this point I think no one in the FBI should be trusted. At this point I’m thinking no one in any government department is trustwortthy…all departments need to be emptied and refilled with people out here who wouldn’t thnink of doing or be involved with such nefarious activity. I do think all new hires should understand such activity does take place and take responsibility for stopping it.
The more I hear of our Traitor Obama the more I want to know why he isn’t on the gallows pad. Also while I have never like him I never wished him ill until this past year when his activites with his consorts Jarrett et al became so clear.
Why is Trump the only human in this administration willing to call a spade a spade? Who else has the courage? And why is he not being more aggresive? I know the Dims and MSM hate it when he calls a spade a spade. I think their continuing the narrative of him being a caveman and doing what needs to be done, should be allowed to occur.
Bezelel says
Hell no don’t dismiss. The FBI DOJ swamp needs draining bad. This needs to be spotlighted. Front page . Any bets on the anonymous agent being a muslim? Don’t agents take an oath to uphold the Constitution? Isn’t freedom of speech protected by the Constitution? Tells them to “tear up Texas” and then sits there with his finger up his ass and watches? Conspiracy to commit mass murder at least. Enemy of the State? Gitmo would be appropriate. For life without parole.
Mark Swan says
Absolutely Bezelel
Thomas Kimball says
He was probably recruited from gitmo! Hand picked by the disaster in chief his self! “Bad grammar on purpose”.
Bill says
Private citizens are being forced to do Jeff Sessions job for him. That is pathetic.
The same is going on in California where conservatives, lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights, are victims of State sanctioned beatings by lefty organizations supported by California cities, police and universities.
I hope the lawsuit survives. This has the look of a deep state assassination attempt of US citizens exercising their First Amendment rights in opposition to the Obama Administration. While Geert Wilders had left the premises before the FBI sponsored assault was launched, that does not mean he was not also a target. So we have the FBI sponsoring attacks on foreign political leaders too.
Jeff Sessions where are you?
Thomas Kimball says
It’s time for Californians to apply the 2nd amendment to the 1st if this is really going on! That’s why our founding fathers put them in that order and right next to each other!!!!!!
Wellington says
Ever increasingly I find a split widening for me between my country and my government. The former I love. The latter is becoming more disgusting by the year.
For anyone with any sense, that person should know that just about the best thing America has going for it right now is Trump, whatever his faults, which pale in comparison to all those in government who don’t even realize how gigantic their faults are.
Mark Swan says
Yes indeed Wellington,
We need dedicated public servants—who love their people and their rights.
Joe says
You are a lawyer, right? How do the people investigate the FBI and DOJ. Between Lynch, Clinton, Comey, Garland, and probably Las Vegas we seem to find nothing but a nightmare of filth in the government. How does one clean that? The cases that I mention barely scratch the surface.
They certainly need to fire 30% of the FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, and so forth. The other 70% need a 30% reduction in salary. The whistle blowers should be rewarded.
The agencies should have no secret money, but they currently spend trillions that they have no accounting. 95% of their secret material should be published. We have far more to fear of internal secrecy than we do of outside invasion.
The crime at the top of these organizations is so foul, that we run the risk of losing to them, as other countries have lost their freedom to some criminal.
vlparker says
Interesting article about Mueller’s 2001 FBI at American Thinker.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/trumprussia_not_muellers_first_botched_investigation.html
Ed Lee says
Robert, you use the words “corrupt and compromised” to describe the FBI. There is an additional word that should be added: incompetent. I base that on an encounter with the FBI that a good friend had in Los Angeles in 1976. The downhill slide of this organization is nothing new.
Ron says
Wouldn’t you be interested to see the FBI’s video footage of the Pulse nightclub attack as recorded by one of their own undercover agents? Maybe even get to view the special agents words of encouragement sent to Omar Mateen days in advance of the attack, saying “Blow away the Gays”?
gravenimage says
FBI, DOJ argue for dismissal of suit about their foreknowledge of Garland, Texas jihad attack
…………………..
No way. This needs to be thoroughly investigated.
Wellington says
“No way. This needs to be thoroughly investigated.”
By whom, gravenimage? What investigators do you have confidence in? Offhand, I can’t name one. Part of the “problem” and all that.
gravenimage says
Sorry, Wellington–I was not trying to be flippant. I very much take your point.
I just meant that concerned Americans should not just quietly let this go away.
Wellington says
Fully understood, my friend. Indeed, after I posted my comment I thought it might have been a bit too harsh on you and I didn’t mean it that way.
George says
If your suit fails contact Judicial Watch. They’ve had a lot of success breaching Obama Justice Department stonewalling. An investigation by the Justice Department Inspector General Office might take up the case and accomplish the same thing that you desire.
CRUSADER says
Texas is getting sad.
Look what occurred with the Crusader mascot here:
=======================================
University Changing Mascot – “Crusaders” may be offensive
University of the Incarnate Word ^ | 23 April 04 | AgentEcho
Report from the Task Force on Changing the UIW Mascot Introduction
The Revised Edition of the Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary
(originally published in 1979 and reissued in 1991) lists the following definitions for the word,
crusade:
1) any of several military expeditions by the Christian nations during the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims;
2) any vigorous concerted action for the advancement or defense of some cause;
3) to engage in a crusade.
noun—crusader.
It is interesting to note that this dictionary follows the common practice of arranging the senses of use “according to their frequency of use.”1 So, the most common sense of the word, crusade, is that series of “holy wars,” waged in the name of God. So, presumably the most common connotation of the term, crusader, then, is a person who participated in one of those Holy Wars. But, there is the other sense of the word that many Americans think when they hear the word: a crusader is someone vigorously advancing or defending some cause. This is especially understandable when perceived out of the context of religious history.
But what if the word is coupled with the image of a knight on a horse, within the context of a sports event at a Catholic university? Which of the connotations is being invoked most strenuously, even if indirectly?
The Current Situation
The Crusaders. “It’s just a mascot.” “It doesn’t offend me.” “Nobody around here thinks about Holy Wars and killing in the name of God.” “We mean ‘crusader’ to mean ‘people passionate about a cause.’” “Incarnate Word has a deep tradition that we should respect. Crusader has been here forever.” “Why change now? What’s the problem?” “Can’t we all just get along?” “Can’t the complainers just get a life? This isn’t that big of a deal. Don’t they have anything better to do with their time?” “Besides, won’t it cost a lot of money?” “What about our identity?” “Shouldn’t the students decide?”
These are some of the most common arguments against changing the mascot from the Crusaders to something else. The Mascot Task Force agrees and understands that this issue is not a life or death matter. The fact is, though, the mascot that we have now needs to be changed to something more culturally sensitive.
Why?
One, the Crusades were nothing to be proud of. Two, the history of the mascot at UIW is not very old. Three, we must lead the way when it comes to reaching out to our global community. We must remove impediments that could muffle our effectiveness in a post-9/11 world. Four, in a litigious society, it would be wise for us to be sensitive to those who may feel harassed by our current mascot. Finally, the cost of change is not as costly as remaining rooted in the status quo.
======================================================
gravenimage says
Yes–stuff like this is disgusting.
nicholas tesdorf says
Clearly the FBI, DOJ and O’Bummer are guilty as charged.
Eric jones says
The Robert Spencer law suit should not be dismissed. Put pressure on the Congressional representatives for the Garland Tx. area to lend support to your case. You might want to file a complaint with the Internal Affairs Office of the FBI. They will have to look into it and write a report.
Robert Spencer get as many JW supporters as you can in the court room as your case comes before judges. Good Luck.
Eric