Posted: 10 May 2015 07:18 AM PDT
When two terrorists in
body armor and carrying assault rifles came for a roomful of cartoonists and
fans of freedom of speech in Texas, the media took the side of the
terrorists.
CAIR,
a Muslim Brotherhood front group with ties to terrorists, spun the attack by
claiming that the contest had been intended to “bait” the terrorists. The media
quickly picked up the “bait” meme.
The New York Times, the Atlantic Journal Constitution, the Dallas Morning
News, CNN and even FOX News all accused the cartoonists of “baiting” the poor
Muslim terrorists into attacking them. The actual attempt at mass slaughter
was dismissed as the terrorists “taking the bait” from the cartoonists who
had been fiendishly plotting to be mass slaughtered by them for the
publicity.
The Washington Post not only stated that the contest was “bait”, but its
headline huffed, “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in
Texas.” And why won’t the 9/11 dead apologize?
Journalists often tell us that a free press is the best defense for a free
society. Every major newspaper and news network once again proved them wrong.
The best defense for freedom of speech came not from the journalists or the
civil rights groups, from the speechmakers or the activists. It came from an
off-duty traffic cop working security outside the event targeted by Muslim
terrorists. His partner, an older guard, didn’t even have a gun, and took a
bullet to the leg.
He could have pulled back and let the terrorists have a clear path. No doubt
he had a family and plenty of reasons to live. Like so much of the media, he
could have disguised this cowardice by blaming the cartoonists for bringing
the attack on themselves. Instead he held the line. The traffic cop with a
pistol took on two terrorists in body armor, armed with assault rifles and
extra ammo. And when it was over, two Muslim terrorists were dead and freedom
of speech was alive.
"He had two people shooting at him, plus he's trying to take out two
targets. And if he had to make headshots," Mark Sligar, a firearms
instructor, said, "That's awesome shooting. And look at the people's
lives he saved, just because he was able to take care of that."
Like Kevin Vickers, the retired 58-year-old Sergeant-at-Arms, who armed with
a 9mm handgun stopped Muslim terrorist Zehaf-Bibeau from carrying out a
massacre of Canadian parliamentarians, the unnamed older police officer did
more to protect freedom than all the self-styled defenders of freedom ever
have.
And he did it with the tool that many of those defenders of freedom want to
outlaw; a gun.
The left promises us collective security through civil rights while taking
away our freedom. Their idea of collective security is disarming the
citizenry, then disarming the police and then appeasing the killers. There
will be more murders than ever, but at least those carrying them out will be
representatives of oppressed groups, such as inner city drug dealers and ISIS
terrorists, ‘punching up’ at the privileged.
We’ve already seen how worthless collective security is. In Baltimore, the
Democratic mayor turned over the city to rioters and looters. Every Democrat
who was at all involved in fighting crime, from Bill Clinton on down, is
frantically apologizing to the social justice mobs for daring to protect
Americans. The media is busy explaining why the looters were right and the
lootees were in the wrong.
After the Texas shootings, the media popped up to blame the attacks, not on
the attackers, but on those who came under attack. CAIR’s “bait” meme,
adopted by the media, reverses responsibility. It contends that anyone shot
at by a Muslim terrorist has to prove that he didn’t intend to provoke the
terrorists.
Despite the impeccable left-wing credentials of Charlie Hebdo,
the PEN gala came under fire from authors denouncing the French cartoonists
for provoking their disenfranchised and oppressed minority ISIS killers. And
when the ISIS killers came for the Hebdo cartoonists, unarmed police officers
ran for it.
A wounded French cop raised his hands and begged for his life, before the
terrorist finished him off with a shot to the head. It’s not the first time
that a disarmed West has been helpless in the face of Muslim terrorism.
During the Munich Olympics, German police provided security by handing out
candy and flowers. An informant had passed along word that an attack was
being planned, but nothing was done. The resulting massacre of Israeli
athletes by Muslim terrorists was partially covered up by the German
government which released three of the captured terrorists a month later and
whose foreign minister met with the planners of the massacre to “rebuild
trust”.
Just like Argentina and Iran, after the bombing of the Jewish community
center in Buenos Aires, a dirty deal was struck behind the scenes and the
terrorists got what they wanted.
When Israel independently targeted the terrorists, the German ambassador to
Lebanon blasted Israel for killing the most "rational and
responsible" members of the PLO.
The Israelis had killed the terrorists, he accused, because they did not want
peace.
But a bunch of good guys with guns had settled the issue of whether Israeli
athletes should be able to compete in the Olympics even though the UN
Security Council passed a resolution condemning the Israeli “act of
aggression” and the “loss of human life”; particularly that of terrorist boss
Abu Jihad.
The Israelis, not the Muslim terrorists or the collaborationist German government,
were the villains for forcing the terrorists to do what they did. If only
Israel had surrendered to the PLO, the attacks would not have happened. Once
Israel did surrender in the 90s and the attacks escalated, then it was
Israel’s fault for not surrendering enough. It’s never the fault of the
terrorists or their collaborators.
The accusations are all familiar. Bosch Fawstin, Charb, Pamela Geller, Theo
van Gogh, Mark Basseley Youssef, Salman Rushdie, Molly Norris and a hundred
others are at fault for provoking the terrorists.
There are lectures on “responsible speech”. The targets are accused of
“hiding” behind freedom of speech and of deliberately planning to be killed
for the publicity.
During WW2, Gandhi urged the Jews and the British to surrender to the Nazis.
“This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will
only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man. If you call it off
today, he will follow suit,” he whined to the Brits.
"I want you to fight Nazis without arms or... with non-violent arms. I
would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you
or humanity,” he suggested in another missive.
He also had some advice for the Jews. “If only the Jews of Germany had the
good sense to offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers' knives,” he
mused.
That is where the insane mantra of non-violence and appeasement, the
exploration of root causes and winning hearts finally leads, to mass graves
and victorious mass murderers.
And everyone who refuses to take their suicidal advice is blamed for
provoking the killers.
We
can either live in a paranoid politically correct world frantically trying
not to offend the Hitlers
and Mohammeds, and blaming their victims when they kill, or we can be free
men and women who have chosen to take the power to defend our rights into our
own hands. While a thousand organizations use the Holocaust as a platform for
speeches about tolerance, Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors is
conducting firearms training. While Big Media attacks a free press in the
name of the free press, a small group gathered in Garland and an off-duty cop
helped keep it free.
The unnamed traffic cop who stood up to two offended killers did not follow
Gandhi’s advice; he refused to lay down his arms or try to fight them with
non-violent arms. His heroism reminds us that freedom is not defended with empty
idealism easily perverted into appeasement of evil, but with the force of
arms.
Gandhi and his Western disciples were wrong. The soldiers who fought Hitler
did far more to save humanity than Gandhi ever did. A single traffic cop with
a gun has had more of a positive impact on freedom of speech in this country
than all the journalists of the free press fighting against freedom.
It takes a good guy with a gun to defend freedom of speech.
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger
and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment