Why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammad drawing contest”?

Because we must. Free speech is the bedrock of our society.  If we lose it, we lose everything. But that’s not how  the useful idiots see it.

Spencer & Geller had it coming, right?

We need more Mo-toons!

“Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammad drawing contest”?—Rukmini Callimachi,  foreign correspondent for the New York Times

There is no prohibition on creating images of Prophet Mohammed in the Qur’an by Tareq Fatah:

ISIS was unequivocal about the purpose of the attack. In a radio statement it said:

We say to the defenders of the cross, the U.S., that future attacks are going to be harsher and worse. The Islamic State soldiers will inflict harm on you with the grace of God. The future is just around the corner.


“If you feel the need to mock Muhammad in a cartoon, just realize that Muslims may decide to exercise their #2A (Second Amendment) rights on you.”--Islamo convert Bob Estes

Doesn’t work like that. Cartoons are legitimate, murder of cartoonists is not. Its the same Islamofascist supremacy that Mona Eltahowitzer displays when she vandalises posters that Pamela Geller paid for. Mona has a right to buy her own advertising campaign, but she has no right to destroy. This is  a logical thought process that eludes Mohammedan savages entirely.


Violent Muslim riots   took place in the town of Trappes after a veiled Muslim woman and her husband reported that they had been subjected to mistreatment by the police when she was stopped for an identity check.

The purpose of the cartoon above  is to dismiss this claim of police harassment as false. It depicts a police officer innocently approaching a Muslim couple, with the husband saying “You’ll see, I’ve a feeling he’s going to provoke us”.



Hey, all you male “defenders” of free speech…



(WARNING: MATURE LANGUAGE) Is it blasphemous to say Jesus F*****g Christ I’m getting pretty sick of seeing all your castrati articles about free speech qualified with “while I don’t like Pamela Geller”?

(See, Christians won’t kill anyone for that…just sayin’.)

Anyway, what I would like to tell you all is that you’re all a bunch of exquisitely fragile, over-cautious weenies and she has more stones than the whole lot of you.

“I really don’t like Pam Geller BUT…”

Oh look, a spirited defense (SNORE) of free speech with added “I don’t like Pamela Geller BUT” from “Ace of Spades”, who remains anonymous!

How brave!

Piers Morgan: My word, that Pamela is disgusting and vile BUT she gets free speech. 

Brad Thor got it right. There is no “oooh Pamela Geller is so icky” bit in here. But he is in the minority.

Ben Shapiro got it right.

Megan Kelly got it right as did Eugene Volokh. 

And of course, the great prophet Mark Steyn, PBUH, got it right.

(Insert obligatory Steyn AkbarULULULULULU, etc…etc…here….)

For the most part, the anti-Geller commentary ranges from wrong to vile to bonkers, see “worse than ISIS” here.

But notice that most of the male commentary has been along the lines of ‘oh of course I am for free speech but that woman is (whatever whatever whatever blah blah blah).

I think all these men are just plain jealous that she has more courage than them.

They all want to make sure that they keep get invited to RINO cocktail parties.

This must be a very humiliating episode for them.

A ballsy Jewish broad from New York is taking on the blasphemy and free speech project all by herself, facing down evil, defending free speech on behalf of the gutless, on behalf of the semi-gutless and on behalf of the people who don’t have a clue what this is really about, and on behalf of the people whose speech she disagrees with (which is the whole point).

Well we can’t have that now, can we?

We must slap her down a little while we “defend” our rights.

A pox on all their eunuch houses.