32 2 mins 6 yrs

It seems as though the attempt to gun down Americans who were simply stating that they preferred that the First Amendment be upheld,  was brought to an abrupt end by one brave sixty-year-old Policeman, who advanced on the threat, killing one terrorist, wounded the second; then, as the wounded clown attempted to reach for a backpack, shot him twice more for being ‘really, really, stupid’!

But there are deeper questions here, which is when and will we see this brave American saluted by President Obama on the steps of the White House; or will this failed attempt to bring the deadly salute to a deadly religion not be the same say, as the salute to a deserter’s parents, or will it be downplayed to a ‘Domestic disturbance’ which somehow doesn’t qualify for a visit by senior Cabinet members such as the Attorney General, who probably would be visiting just to make sure that the two gunmen hadn’t been deprived of their civil rights and liberties without due cause.

And before anyone asks, I really do not believe that Pamela Gellar is a ‘Bigoted Blogger’!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

32 thoughts on “Make my Day!

  1. Such a great result.

    Maybe we should all have weekly draw Mu/Mo -ham head contests (replete with armed guards) to bring out the fifth columnists amongst us so they can likewise all be decently shot. Easier to prod them to come to us than having to root them out.

  2. they came to attack our first amendment and were introduced to our second

    as for your question you will never see Obama acknowledge what happened. A) it shows how badly he has handled the threat internally, B) free speech is not something his side does not believes in, C) the cops were heroes and that is also something his side does not believes in.

  3. This had nothing to do with ” second amendment ”

    Every nation in the world as far as I know has some armed security guards, and here, those guards, who happened to be fully trained police, took care of business with extreme competence.

  4. How does this have anything to do with ” second amendment ”

    This is just baby talk.

    The bad guys weren’t wacked by local citizens packing heat in their underwear, they were put at room temperature by police.

  5. I am thankful that the officer in question was able to stop the attack in the same way I am thankful when firemen put out a fire caused by arsonists.

  6. mahons

    Do you think that people should avoid drawing Mo in order not to give offense?

    Should such contests be criticized?

    Do you agree with the position of the NYT and other major publications / TV stations in refusing to show images of Mo even as part of reportage of events like this?

  7. mahons

    Are / were ” Life of Brian ” . ” Book of Mormon ” and ” Piss Christ ” arson also.

    If Mormons and Catholics don’t respond to sacrilege by murder or riot are these examples of ” artistic ” mockery of religion acceptable in a way that Mo drawing contests are not?

    If a very funny and clever play were built around Mo drawing would you like it better than the Garland Tx event?

  8. the more you speak Mahons the less I respect you.

    Now you want to hear bigotry, hate, and why this woman and her husband are both an embarrassment and a smear on the black community in America?

    Listen to this speech from the 11 min on mark, while your listening remember a couple of things one this is the first lady of the United States, two she is part of a minority that makes up 11% of the country so they didn’t get elected twice with just black people voting for them. This is classless.

  9. Phantom – people can draw whatever they please as far as I am concerned. This particular event was done to provoke an even worse reaction, and a worse reaction is what took place.
    The “contest” deserves criticism.
    Media has to decide what is newsworthy and appropriate. I think they often make judent calls in such circumdtances.

  10. The Life of Brian and the Book of Mormon had a redeeming value, if you will pardon the term, that the Garland cartoons did not, namely they are funny. The Garland contest was primarilyn intended to provoke a reaction and hopefully a violent one, only very simple people could claim otherwise.

  11. Christian and Mormon reaction is rather beside the point. As for whether a clever play could be created about the contest I will await it’s appearance and let you know.

  12. I don’t necessarily care what the media said or didn’t say here.

    Which was worse

    Piss Christ or this contest?

    Because I heard very few criticisms of the viler sacrilege from the usual suspects, from the late 1980s until this afternoon.. I recall the only ones criticizing that tended to be folks like Donahue of the Catholic League, who the libs despise.

    We are in a world where the opinion makers think that drawing a picture of some guy is a hateful thing while Piss Christ is great art, something greater than any of the works of Raphael or Botticelli one which only anti First Amendment rednecks would ever condemn.

    Long live Piss Christ.

    Catholic League

  13. I think the Piss Christ exhibit was morally repulsive and artistically devoid of any merit whatsoever. To me it was as equally offensive as the Garland exhibit. Where it differed from the Garland exhibit is that it’s vile artist and supporters knew the reaction would almost certainly be nonviolent. The Garland crowd

  14. //Because I heard very few criticisms of the viler sacrilege//

    Phantom, don’t be ridiculous. How could the Piss Christ be a “viler sacrilege”?

    Unlike this latest Mohammad drawing, it was not done out of hatred, not done to insult people. In fact, it’s rather obvious that the PC artist was attacking neither Christ nor Christianity, but only the commercialisation of the religion. No more than Dylan was anti-Christian when he complained that “We make everything from toy guns that spark to flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark”.

    The Geller bash was motivated by pure hatred of Islam and some need to hit back at the religion.

  15. If there was a funny play about the Life of Mohammad on Broadway what would be the chances that the theater / actors would be the subject of a violent attack?

    100% or on the other hand 100%?

  16. Phantom you are, one hopes, deliberately confusing the issue. One can condemn the violent reaction of Muslim extremists AND be critical of anti-Muslim extremists.

  17. Oh I’m quite lucid on this one.

    It’s OK to lampoon some religions – especially the Catholic one. The Monty Python guys are still congratulating themselves over brilliance of the ” Holy Hand Grenade “ idea.

    Is it OK to lampoon Islam in the same way, and if not why not?

    I think that we all know the ” why not “

  18. It is as ok to lampoon anything, but it is not ok to do so simply to provoke a violent reaction.

  19. I can live with that.

    But the problem is that you will always provoke a violent reaction when you make fun of the baddest gang on the planet ( hat tip to Alison for that line )


  20. Mahons, on May 12th, 2015 at 12:18 AM Said:

    It is as ok to lampoon anything, but it is not ok to do so simply to provoke a violent reaction.

    I know Mahons you don’t care about my opinion. As time has gone on I care less and less about yours, so I really don’t expect you to respond, nor do I think I really care. I do want to point this out to others, to those who really don’t understand our society. People like you who are just to ignorant to grasp the very founding Keystone of who we are.

    Provoking an action by expressing views is THE keystone of American Society. That is the most important freedom ie: keystone of what our society is about, Liberty, and the Freedom to say what we believe no matter who it offends or who it supports is EVERYTHING.

    Speech that is unpopular, offensive, even dangerous is the very speech that our First Amendment was created for, defending speech that offends the passive is easy. It is the defense of speech that we disagree with or find offensive is the DUTY of every American. Any American that states or defends anything contrary to that has no concept of what America means or our History.

    I don’t agree with some of things Ms Gellar says. Anyone who tries however to blame her for these acts of violence is a fool or mentally deficient you take the choice of which category you belong.

    The two Animals that met with the proper reaction to their reaction to her event are the ONLY ones that are wrong here.

  21. The cause of violence is violent people.

    Here, violent unless they get their way.

  22. Troll- you have firmly established yourself as an oafish crybaby of such glaring ignorance that I am now convinced that you actually are a performance artist pretending to be an oafish crybaby of glaring ignorance. No one could be that consistently foolish in real life.

    If you are cable of reading and comprehending then you would see I have never above suggested that the Gellar crowd doesn’t have a right to say whatever they please.

  23. Phantom – The two attackers do not have my support. I am quite content that they were shot. Surely Troll isn’t intellectually contagious?

  24. I am only saying that this Gellar is not in any way –the cause–of what happened that day in Texas.

  25. you’re Mahons I’m an oaf and your an ambulance chasing shyster.

    I have tried over the years to engage with you above all others on a fair and honest intellectual level. You have never responded in kind.

    There is and has always been a level of performance art in my presentation, that has not stopped me from dropping it on occasion in trying to engage you as a person I respect with training in the Law and training in how to present a convincing argument for your point of view.

    What I have always received in kind has been ignoring of the conversation, false accusations of my lying, or just plain rudeness.

    Your behavior over the years has shown nothing except to reaffirm why the majority of people view lawyers as scum.

  26. you’re right Mahons I’m an oaf and your an ambulance chasing shyster.

  27. Tell me Mahons avoiding conversations with someone who actually expects something out of you more than repetition of spin what is it?

    Do you lack the ability to present your case with substantive reasoning to actually convince others to your point of view, or are you really that ignorant that you feel you don’t have to?

    Personally I think your just afraid that when I poke holes in your reasoning you’ll be embarrassed.

Comments are closed.