Government Zero : No Borders, No Language, No Culture (9781455563517)

by Savage, Michael

  Pamela Geller is not the problem. She’s the solution. The real problem here is cowardice. The real problem is not understanding that this is about freedom of speech, not about freedom of speech according to some. Geller may be a provocateur, but she did nothing wrong. She and those who participated in that event were peacefully exercising their right to free speech, in opposition to the murderous violence that occurred in France related to Charlie Hebdo and many others who have suffered or have been murdered because they dared to criticize Islam.

  There is no excuse for violence simply because someone said something or drew something you find offensive. That’s not the American way. What’s next? Is it okay for the LGBT crowd to bomb churches because their pastors provoke them by speaking out against homosexuality? Is it okay for some to attack liberal churches because they promote abortion?

  Of course not.

  This is pure evil. Pure evil kills for a cartoon. The essence of free speech is being threatened by Muslims in the United States of America and the world trying to shut down any criticism of their Quran and Muhammad. I have read the Quran. It is quoted extensively in my novel Countdown to Mecca. In over one hundred places they called for killing the infidel. Why doesn’t the New York Times talk about the holy book itself? Why doesn’t the New York Times, which attacks the Catholic Church on a regular basis, look into the Quran and see the more than one hundred verses, or suras, that call Muslims to war with those they call nonbelievers? Nonbelievers means anyone who isn’t Muslim. Why doesn’t the New York Times look at Sura 5:51, which says that Muslims are not to take Jews and Christians for friends? Allah describes them as “unjust people.”

  The answers are quite clear. We are living in a twisted world. Islam is at war with the West. We have a president who won’t say the word Islamic and a Soviet media who takes the side of Islamic murderers against Americans exercising their right to free speech. Liberty itself is under attack. These two would-be Islamic murderers were by no means alone. The FBI said they overlooked the Texas Muslim shooters’ violent tweets because there are so many like them. Think about what that means. Officials said there are so many like them that you have to prioritize your investigations.

  That wasn’t entirely honest. Did you know they were tracking the shooter in Texas for eight to nine years? Why didn’t they stop him when he bought his AK-47? Why didn’t they stop him when he bought his bulletproof vest? Why did the FBI permit the jihadi to come to Texas and open fire with his automatic weapon?

  Immediately after the thwarted attack, the Islamic State said they have at least seventy-one active Islamic State members in the United States trained to kill.12 One has to wonder why the FBI isn’t actively pursuing these people. They may be on the FBI watch list, but the FBI is too busy watching Christians, returning war veterans, antiabortion activists, and constitutional conservatives. That time and money would be better utilized looking at radicalized Muslims. Why are they bothering with patriotic Americans instead? In plain English, it’s because Hussein is in the White House.

  It should come as no surprise that the Muslim in chief didn’t back the defenders of free speech, either. He didn’t support or criticize Pamela Geller. He ignored the event entirely. This is the president who has never hesitated to weigh in on a shooting when it suits his demagogic agenda. When it allows him to further inflame racial division, he’s at the podium immediately. When he can use a tragedy to attack the Second Amendment, he’s as reliable as Old Faithful.

  I remind you that none of the local school or police shootings are any of his business. They are not within the jurisdiction of the federal government. They are state issues. Obama’s statements after each one of them have been as unnecessary as they have been harmful.

  However, when the shooters claim they are acting on behalf of an international organization with whom the United States is actively at war, attacking American citizens on American soil—that is precisely when he should get involved. Instead, the president flew to New York the night of the shootings to appear on David Letterman. When pressed, his press secretary, Josh “the new Goebbels” Earnest, said, “In the mind of the president there is no form of expression that would justify an act of violence.”13

  That’s great to hear. Why didn’t we hear it from the president firsthand? Why wasn’t he at his podium talking about taking executive action against Islamic sleeper cells, instead of disarming law-abiding Americans? Why wasn’t he saying “American lives matter”? Why is he suddenly silent when the shooters are Muslims and the victims are white?

  To be fair, at least Josh Earnest affirmed that it is still permitted to criticize Islam, at least for now. When asked, “Is it time for individuals or groups or even publications to stop depicting the Prophet Muhammad in cartoons or any other types of drawings?” he replied,

  Well, that’s obviously a judgment that we leave up to individual media organizations. The principle that I restated yesterday is one that applies, which is, that there is no expression, however offensive, that justifies an act of terrorism or even an act of violence. And that apparently is what these two individuals in Texas were trying to do.14

  By the way, whenever I hear the words “the Prophet Muhammad,” I’m a little disturbed. Why doesn’t anyone say “the Lord Jesus?” Why do they refer to Jesus merely by his first name, but to Muhammad as “the Prophet Muhammad?” Does that mean Muhammad is a prophet and Jesus isn’t the Lord?

  I’m just trying to show you how language is used. In the new Progressive-Islamist America, Islam is constantly legitimized and Christianity is constantly ridiculed and scorned.

  Incidentally, ISIS called Jewess Pamela Geller khanzeer, which means “pig.” I’m afraid to tell all of you good, liberal Jews who are wringing your hands that this is the essence of the whole problem. You have a pathologically willful blindness to what is going on in the world. You have no idea what U.S. Muslim attitudes are toward Jews and Christians. You like to think that because they appear at interdenominational events they’re on your side. You ought to find out what they’re saying about Jews and Christians behind your backs.

  This is the beginning of the battle. Geller may be repugnant. Geller may be obnoxious. Geller may be a provocateur, but she did the world a favor. She exposed the hatred that exists within Islam itself. She showed everyday Americans why they need to wake up and realize their own lives and liberty are threatened by these fanatics right here in the United States.

  As I’ve said numerous times, if you look back into the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament, it’s filled with hate. It says to kill homosexuals, kill adulterers, and more. I’ve read Leviticus, including on the air. But modern Jews, even modern Orthodox Jews, don’t kill homosexuals and they don’t stone adulteresses. They know the difference between a five-thousand-year-old text and the real world, the civilized world built upon Judeo-Christian values, but which eschews those passages that obviously proceed from man’s barbaric past and not from the mind of God.

  Christianity also used to put people to the sword for blaspheming Jesus. That was in the fifteenth century. But Christianity went through a reformation. Islam has not gone through a reformation. It needs to. Don’t take my word for it. We heard precisely this from one of the bravest women alive today, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali is a Somali-born former Muslim herself, who once believed in fatwas and supported the Muslim Brotherhood. She had a revelation after the 9/11 attacks, when Osama bin Laden used the Quran to justify them. She renounced Islam and became an activist against its many outdated, barbaric tenets. Her life has been regularly threatened by the throwbacks ever since.

  Earlier this year, she wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in advance of her new book, Heretic, in which she said a lot of the same things I’ve been saying for years. The problem isn’t just with “radical Islamists.” It is an inherent part of the religion itself, as understood even by peaceful Muslims today. In her own words, “the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts
of Islam.” She goes on to say,

  It is not just al Qaeda and the Islamic State that show the violent face of Islamic faith and practice. It is Pakistan, where any statement critical of the Prophet or Islam is labeled as blasphemy and punishable by death. It is Saudi Arabia, where churches and synagogues are outlawed and where beheadings are a legitimate form of punishment. It is Iran, where stoning is an acceptable punishment and homosexuals are hanged for their “crime.”15

  This is why the majority of armed conflicts around the world involve Muslims at war with their neighbors. As I said before, it’s not just with Israel. Muslims are fighting non-Muslims or each other in dozens of countries. Ali quotes the late political scientist Samuel Huntington, who said in 1996, “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards.”

  How did the media react to Hirsi’s brave statement, made under death threats from the maniacs beheading people all over the world? Did they commend her for her bravery and thank her for defending freedom and tolerance? Of course not. They made excuses for the maniacs and mercilessly attacked this heroic champion of freedom.

  Time magazine called her proposals “a tone-deaf declaration rather than an opening of a conversation.”16 Its reviewer Carla Power says Hirsi “doesn’t get” Islam. Can you believe the nerve of this Ivy League white liberal? She has a degree in Middle Eastern studies from an American ivory tower, so she thinks she knows more about Islam than a woman who grew up a Somali Muslim and was the victim of female genital mutilation at age five.

  Massachusetts-born Haroon Moghul was quick to jump on the bandwagon, saying Hirsi is “in over her head” when talking about Islam and calling Heretic “one of the worst books, period.”17 He said Islam has already had a reformation. Really? We ought to air-drop him into Iraq and let him experience the reformation himself. He’s another ivory tower liberal with a degree from the same universities teaching global warming and rape culture.

  Of course, the media assault on Hirsi wouldn’t have been complete without court jester Jon Stewart wading in. He had Hirsi on his show for an interview,18 which was really about discrediting her arguments almost from the moment she sat down. Of course, he took the opportunity to remind everyone how terrible Judaism and Christianity are and how violence was committed in the names of those religions seven hundred years ago.

  That’s the point, Jon. It was seven hundred years ago. Nobody disputes that. Show us the Christians burning people alive today. Show us the Jews beheading people for drawing cartoons.

  Instead of attacking Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Pamela Geller for exposing the true nature of the “religion of peace,” the media should be investigating what animates the morons at the lowest level of what some call a political movement disguised as a religion. But they’re not interested in that. The leftist media is interested in tearing down the Judeo-Christian foundation of American society and replacing it with atheist progressivism. If they have to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed in the name of Islam and smear defenders of free speech to do so, they’re willing to do just that. It’s an all-out propaganda attack on our basic freedoms, starting with the first, most important freedom: freedom of speech.

  They are aiders and abettors to radical Islam, who are using a Trojan Horse approach to get into this country and try to tell us how to live. Today they object to cartoons, tomorrow it’s pork on the menu. After pork on the menu, it’s other graven images they don’t like. After that, they’ll take down the crosses off churches, because they find them offensive. They’ve already accomplished similar coups in places in Michigan. They’ve stopped church bells from ringing.

  We found out just how biased the media really is when the Clinton Cash scandal broke earlier this year. Virtually every national media organization one could name has made sizable contributions to the Clinton Slush Fund, which poses as a charitable organization.19 Many of these contributions were in the millions of dollars. Does anyone seriously believe media outlets forking over this kind of cash to the Clintons are reporting the news objectively?

  Politico was kind enough to publish a list of the media outlets who contributed, broken down by the size of the contribution. I’ve included it here:

  $1,000,000–$5,000,000

  Carlos Slim, chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder

  James Murdoch, chief operating officer of 21st Century Fox

  Newsmax Media, Florida-based conservative media network

  Thomson Reuters, owner of the Reuters news service

  $500,000–$1,000,000

  Google

  News Corporation Foundation, philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company

  $250,000–$500,000

  Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, publisher

  Richard Mellon Scaife, owner of Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

  $100,000–$250,000

  Abigail Disney, documentary filmmaker

  Bloomberg Philanthropies

  Howard Stringer, former CBS, CBS News, and Sony executive

  Intermountain West Communications, local television affiliate owner (formerly Sunbelt Communications)

  $50,000–$100,000

  Bloomberg L.P.

  Discovery Communications

  George Stephanopoulos, ABC News chief anchor and chief political correspondent

  Mort Zuckerman, owner of New York Daily News and U.S. News and World Report

  Time Warner, owner of CNN parent company Turner Broadcasting

  $25,000–$50,000

  AOL

  HBO

  Hollywood Foreign Press Association, presenters of the Golden Globe Awards

  Viacom

  $10,000–$25,000

  Knight Foundation, nonprofit foundation dedicated to supporting journalism

  Public Radio International

  Turner Broadcasting, parent company of CNN

  Twitter

  $5,000–$10,000

  Comcast, parent company of NBCUniversal

  NBCUniversal, parent company of NBC News, MSNBC, and CNBC

  Public Broadcasting Service

  $1,000–$5,000

  Robert Allbritton, owner of Politico

  $250–$1,000

  AOL Huffington Post Media Group

  Hearst Corporation

  Judy Woodruff, PBS Newshour coanchor and managing editor

  The Washington Post Company

  We don’t even have to ask that question about George Stephanopoulos, who gave at least $75,000 to the Clintons without disclosing it, as any journalist with integrity would have. But Stephanopoulos isn’t a journalist and never has been. He’s a paid male escort for the Clinton machine. His involvement with the Clintons since becoming a news anchor goes much deeper than the well-publicized $75,000 contribution.20

  Stephanopoulos certainly isn’t the only political operative posing as a journalist. Propagandists claiming to be news reporters are endemic in American media.

  Zero Freedom of the Press

  I wonder if the media would be so eager to support the Progressive-Islamist government if the Muslim in chief were ever to get his way. He’s stated openly he’s against a free press. He complained about a “balkanization of the media” and longs for “a common place where we get common facts and a common worldview.”

  That’s what they had in the Soviet Union.

  While he simply ignored the Garland shootings, he certainly made clear his contempt for freedom of the press shortly thereafter. Opining during a summit on poverty about how terrible conservatives are for criticizing the most opulent welfare state in human history, the president actually came right out and said freedom of the press should be abolished:

  And so, if we’re going to change how Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like.21

  In case you have any d
oubt, we means “the government” to our socialist dictator. He came right out and said he wants to control how you think and how the media reports the news. He’s openly called for recreating the Soviet Union right here in America. What does this man have to say or do to receive the impeachment he so richly deserves?

  He didn’t waste much time putting his plans into action. Three days after his comments about “changing the way the media reports,” the administration “urged” the media to change the way it reports on ISIS. Emily Horne, spokeswoman for retired general John Allen, the State Department’s special envoy leading the international coalition against ISIS, made the following statement:

  We are urging broadcasters to avoid using the familiar B-roll that we’ve all seen before, file footage of ISIL convoys operating in broad daylight, moving in large formations with guns out, looking to wreak havoc.… It’s inaccurate—that’s no longer how ISIL moves.22