RUSH: We have the ISIS shooting in Garland, Texas, to deal with. Pam Geller is the leader of the group that was conducting this little convention, and she was fascinating on CNN this morning, being grilled, interrogated by the former Fox News infobabe Alisyn Camerota who has now moved over to CNN.
RUSH: “Two gunmen were killed Sunday after opening fire on a security officer outside a … contest for cartoon depictions of Prophet Muhammad in Texas and a bomb squad was called in to search their vehicle as a precaution, authorities said.” Now, I left out a word when I read that lead by the AP. They put the word “provocative” in there. Let me read it again. “Two gunmen were killed Sunday after opening fire on a security officer outside a provocative contest for cartoon depictions of Prophet Muhammad…”
Even this hatemonger that runs this specious organization called the Southern Poverty Law Center (which is somewhere in Alabama), this guy named Mark Potok… In fact, we just got a sound bite from this guy. Grab sound bite number 23. Listen to this. This is a classic example of a leftist, a leftist activist saying, “Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. You got the freedom to do what you want. You got the freedom to say what you say. BUT you had better beware that you are responsible for what happens to you,” or some such thing. Let’s listen.
POTOK: I couldn’t agree more. The First Amendment should be defended. Free speech is a good thing. It’s integral to democracy. But Pam Geller and her organization is a hate group today just as they were day before yesterday. I think that is important to remember. She really does specialize in this kind of events. It seems to me it’s rather similar to the Reverend Terry Jones burning Korans in Florida. These are provocations that are aimed at stirring the pot, and it doesn’t seem terribly surprising that, in fact, they get the response that, in a sense, they’re seeking.
RUSH: Yeah, they want to be shot at. Right. (impression) “They’re trying to provoke being shot at, see? They’re provocative. Freedom of speech? Heck yes! Use it all you want. But recall when you do that you are responsible for what happens to you.” Well, that doesn’t work in a lot of other things. I mean, in a rape case, try telling the woman, “Hey, you know, look at the way you were dressed.” Doesn’t fly, does it? Nor should it!
So here are people at a convention. Pam Geller… You’ll hear her in a moment. We have sound bites coming up. She simply doesn’t hate anybody. She just doesn’t want any part of Sharia law. She doesn’t want any part of Islamic extremism becoming mainstream in the United States. You know, I have a question, folks. It’s very simple question.
If Americans are to respect and obey the laws of Islam that say the drawing pictures of Mohammed is not permitted and should not be done — and you deserve what you get if you do — then why wouldn’t we have to respect or obey other things in Islam? What is it about drawing cartoons of “the prophet”? Why don’t we respect Islam’s punishment for gays and women, hmm? I mean, if they’re right, they’re right, aren’t they?
When do we follow and when do we not?
RUSH: Now, I want to go back to the shooting in Texas, and before we get to the Pam Geller sound bites, a serious question here, folks, a very serious question. You just heard Mark Potok from this hate organization called the Southern Poverty Law Center. Make no mistake, that is a hate organization. And their hatred is for anything not Democrat. Their hatred is for anything Republican or conservative.
I wonder how the president is gonna with respond to the situation Garland, Texas. ISIS shooters show up because it is said they were provoked. Pam Geller and her group, oh, yeah, they can have a convention on drawing cartons of the prophet, but they are responsible for what happens. So if somebody pulls a gun out and shoots at ’em, it is their fault, not the perps, not the shooters. It is their fault because Islam tells us you cannot draw pictures of the prophet.
Okay, fine. If Americans are to respect and obey the laws of Islam, that prohibit the drawing of pictures of Mohammed, then why wouldn’t Americans have to respect and obey Islam’s laws and punishments regarding gays and women? I mean, if it’s that important to them, who are we to disagree? If they say you can’t draw pictures of the prophet, we say you’re right, we can’t, and anybody that does, why, they’re gonna get what’s coming to them.
Now, you move over to other aspects of militant Islam, and we know what happens to homosexuals in Iran or any other Islamic country. We know what happens to women. Well, if we’re gonna respect and obey the laws about drawing cartoons of the prophet, don’t we have to respect what Islam says about homosexuality and women? Where do we draw the line? We say, “Nah-nah, we can ignore that.” But this picture business, nope, we gotta follow that to the letter of the law. We gotta follow that to the letter of Islam. We gotta follow that to the letter of Allah. But the gay and women thing, not so much.
Now, the president of the United States, I wonder if anybody will say that he might have some involvement in this incident in Texas, because was it not President Obama who said something about the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet? “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet.” That would be Pam Geller and her group. And slander the prophet is according to Islam, not me. Militant Islam says drawing pictures of the prophet Mohammed is slander, it’s criminal, and Obama himself said the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet, i.e., Pam Geller and her group.
The president said that at the UN, he said it any number of places. Does that not sort of green light people in ISIS who want to take up arms and go after people who they believe are slandering the prophet? Could the president say this: The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet by allowing same-sex marriage. You know militant Islam prohibits that. When militant Islam prohibits the drawing of pictures of the prophet, we snap to. When militant Islam does not permit gay marriage or in fact homosexuality, are we gonna snap to and respect that?
What do you think? Obviously not. So why one and not the other? How do the Democrats, how does Mark Potok of the hateful Southern Poverty Law Center get to pick and choose which parts of Islam are going to be respected and which parts are going to be ignored?
RUSH: Pamela Geller was on with Alisyn Camerota today on CNN. The question: “The point isn’t that you don’t have the right to do it,” have this convention of cartoon contests about the prophet Mohammed. “Of course you have the right to do it. It just seems that you don’t draw the distinction between extremism and violence and Islam as a whole.”
GELLER: You don’t draw the distinction between civilized men and savages, because you’re saying that if something I say offends someone, then they have the right to behave in a certain way; that it’s going to incite them. I think it’s ridiculous. I think the blasphemy laws under the Sharia is ridiculous. I think the people — the tens of thousands of people — that are slaughtered under this law is monstrous. And that’s what you and I should be addressing.
RUSH: It’s an excellent point. Just because I say something that offends someone, they have a right to come shoot at me? You think that they’re justified? It’s my fault for inciting them? So Camerota and Pam Geller continue on the same theme.
CAMEROTA: The problem comes when you paint with this broad brush and when you say “savages” in the same sentence as “Islam.” It makes it sound as though you’re calling Muslims savages, and when he said — When he makes these broad-brush, uh —
GELLER: Show me.
CAMEROTA: — broad-stroke statements —
GELLER: Alisyn, show me. Show me where I use “Muslim” and “savages” one time in my entire life. Show me now. You just made an accusation. Show me where I said that.
CAMEROTA: Well, you were just saying savages.
GELLER: I said you did not draw a distinction between civilized men and savages. Civilized men can disagree. Savages will kill you when they disagree.
RUSH: She’s exactly right. It’s a mistake for anybody to go up against this woman intellectually. She’s gonna have ’em tied in pretzel knots, particularly if they just deal in knee-jerk reactions like many half-informed journalists do.
RUSH: By the way, just so you know: ISIS-linked Twitter accounts claimed responsibility for Texas shooting even “moments before it happened,” and yet the media is still trying to blame Pam Geller for being provocative.
RUSH: According to the Daily Mail: “Former Terror Suspect Well Known to the FBI Is Named as One of Two Gunmen Shot Dead by Cops After Attack on [the] ‘Draw Muhammad’ Art Contest Near Dallas,” Garland, Texas. “The FBI has named one of the gunmen as Elton Simpson, who was convicted of lying to federal agents about traveling to Africa five years ago, but a judge ruled it could not be proved that he was going to join a terrorist group,” so it was thrown out. “Simpson’s Phoenix, Arizona, home has been surrounded and a bomb squad is carrying out a search.”
Simpson, by the way, was placed on probation five years ago for his terrorist activities. He and his roommate are the prime suspects in the attack. Simpson is the guy that sent the tweets before the attack claiming responsibility. That’s right. ISIS-linked attackers, this guy Elton Simpson, tweeted minutes before the attack that they were responsible for it. If this guy were half as smart as he thinks he is he would have sent out a tweet saying, “I’m only doing this because Pam Geller is making me do it!”
The media would have supported the guy, and then Alisyn Camerota and others could have gone to Pam Geller and said, “See? See? You made him do it! You had to do this contest on drawing their prophet Mohammed, and you knew that somebody was gonna come out and shoot you, and he did.” If this guy was… What an idiot! Don’t claim credit for it. Blame the people that could the convention, and then you’ll have the media in your hip pocket.
We have one more Pam Geller sound bite with CNN this morning, Alisyn Camerota, in which she has to explain what her conference was about. Question: “I don’t want to play a semantics game with you, but I do think that your critics have a point when they say that you paint with a broad-brush stroke, and it sounds like you are anti-Islam.”
GELLER: I am anti-jihad. I am anti-Sharia. You, by saying, I “paint with a broad brush,” are saying all Muslims support sharia. And, Allison, you sound very Islamophobic. My event was about freedom of speech. Period. Who would decide what’s good and what’s forbidden? These arbitrary voices? You? (chuckles) The Muslim Brotherhood? The fact that we have to spend upwards of $50,000 in security speaks to how dangerous and how in trouble freedom of speech is in this country. And then we have to get on these news shows and somehow we are — those that are targeted, those that were going to be slaughtered are — the ones who get attacked speaks to how morally inverted this conversation is!
RUSH: Do you see her point? She’s making the point that she’s not anti-Muslim. She’s anti-jihad. She’s anti-Sharia. Believe me, none of you want Sharia. Well, I mean, I don’t know. But you hear the term Sharia bandied about, and it’s something distant and it’s over here and you think it’s so un-American. “It’s specious to even worry about it here, and it’s nothing more than fearmongers and panicmongers trying to get everybody worked up about it.”
Well, I can give you a great example of what living under Sharia would be like. Remember Indiana, after they passed the Religious Freedom Protection Act? Remember what happened there? You had the news media joining with militant gay groups to go out and find bigots. They wanted to find bigots. They went door-to-door shopping for bigots and they found this naive little girl, part of a family that runs a pizzeria in some town in Indiana, 2,000 people, and they asked her a question:
“Would you cater a gay wedding with your pizza?”
“No, I wouldn’t. My religious beliefs do not support gay marriage.”
You saw what happened to her? The entire news media, accompanied by militant gay groups, descended on that family, tried to put it out of business. You’ve seen it with flower shops and cake shop, bakeries and photography studios. That’s essentially what Sharia is. “You will behave, you will conform, you will not say what we don’t want to hear. You will obey — and if you don’t, bammo! This is what gonna happen to you.”
That’s what Sharia is, except with the tenets of militant Islam thrown in. You’re not given any choice in the matter. “You must conform, you must convert, you are going to live the way we tell you.” There is no First Amendment. There is no freedom to assemble. It all has to be sanctioned and approved; it has to come under the guidelines of whatever the Sharia says is permissible or isn’t. You saw just a modified little version of it.
It’s really rooted in the fact that if you behave or speak in an unacceptable way, you are going to feel the full force and brunt of the people and organizations who do not permit you, will not permit you to do or say what you are doing. You’ll be shamed for whatever, and that’s a form of it. I would venture to say that while not technically Sharia, you can find examples of what it would be like already happening in this country.
Pam Geller is simply saying, “I don’t support Sharia. I’m opposed to Sharia, I’m opposed to jihad, and I’m demonstrating something. We live in a country with freedom of speech, and I’m organizing a little cartoon-drawn contest here. I have the First Amendment right to do this,” and she’s illustrating this to make a point. Look what happens to people who follow and obey the Constitution. They get blamed. Folks, call it whatever you want: Stalinism, statism, Sharia.
Sharia has a specific definition. It’s not just Stalinism. But the Regime comes and gets you. If you don’t comport, the Regime’s gonna come and get you. You’re gonna be blamed. And so she’s simply saying, “Look, I had to go out and spend 50 grand for security because we knew that some people were gonna come here and try to incite violence,” and what she’s saying to the media is, “It sounds like you condone them!
“You’re blaming me! I’m the peaceful person here. I’m not doing anything to anybody. We’re just speaking. We’re drawing. You sound like… Journalist, Ms. Journalist, you sound like you think all of this is my fault.” She’s merely saying, “It’s really, really dangerous when the people who come and try to blow things up or shoot people dead are the victims.” But in liberalism, this is how things have been twisted.
RUSH: Moving on to Jim in Los Angeles. Jim, I’m glad that you called. Welcome to the program, sir.
CALLER: Good morning. How are you?
RUSH: Very well. Thanks much.
CALLER: I’m calling about the shooting in Texas.
RUSH: Yes, sir.
CALLER: Just as an introduction, I’m a Muslim myself, grew up in the Middle East. I’ve been here for about 26 years but lived through the whole civil war of Beirut, so I’m a bit familiar with these kind of people. But first I want to say that I’m a scholar of Islam, and I think the system that embodies the spirit of that religion the most is the founding principles of the US Constitution. The countries out there like Saudi Arabia and Iran and everybody else, they’re way out there. Everybody wants to portray them as the example of Islam and Sharia and jihad. By the way, I don’t think the radio shows have a good idea of what Sharia is or what jihad is, but these radical criminals are becoming like the poster children for this, but it’s not, they’re criminals.
RUSH: Wait, let me help out. I need to ask you something. Are you saying that the Islam of Saudi Arabia, the Islam of Iran, is not really Islam in terms of what Sharia is?
CALLER: No. Number one, there’s no kingdom in Islam, and Saudi Arabia is a kingdom. There is no compelling in Islam, and these guys still follow people with a stick on Friday if they don’t go to Friday prayers.
RUSH: Does Sharia permit freedom of speech? Does Sharia permit Christians to practice Christianity?
CALLER: Yeah, of course. Can I explain to you what Sharia is? Because I don’t think these radio shows understand Sharia.
RUSH: Well, no, I do, at least by people who are expert in it, I’m familiar with it, but tell me —
RUSH: Tell me what it is, in a minute or less, less time the better.
CALLER: Yeah. First of all, there’s no one book that’s called Sharia law that every Muslim refers to as the reference. Sharia is basically the interpretations that came after the prophet was dead, had died, that people had questions, and these formatted themselves into several schools of thought and they became shown as Sharia. Sharia is from the Arabic word “shara” which means “interpret the law.” Here we have the Supreme Court that we all agree, okay, that’s the ultimate explainer of the Constitution. In the Islamic world there is no such thing. There is no one book that everybody can say, “That’s Sharia law and what Saudi Arabia does is Sharia.” No, that’s wrong.
RUSH: That’s precisely the point. There isn’t a Supreme Court in Islam. There is no interpretation. You are or you aren’t; you do or you don’t, or else.
RUSH: Okay. So Jim said that Sharia interpretation varies between sects, such as between Sunni and Shi’ite. Well, is that why they kill each other off? Isn’t that why, because of the different interpretations of Islam? And if disagreements within Islam result in killings, I mean, isn’t Sharia what it is, then? That powerful, failure to comport with whatever we define it as results in maybe you dying.
But anyway, if Jim is right — he said the US Constitution represents Islam better than Sharia law — if he’s right, why do so many Muslims want to replace the Constitution with Sharia, if the Constitution already does a great job of Sharia? This is interesting. I mean, even so-called moderates say that their ultimate goal is to live under Sharia, not the US Constitution, not some other secular government. Sharia’s the objective. Make no mistake about that. Sharia is the objective. I mean, in England and to some extent Canada, even today many disputes, including those involving family law, are settled by Sharia courts and Sharia arbitrators. And once the ruling comes down, it is what it is.
But if it’s just a matter of interpretation, why are people killed for not following it? Not in just some places, but in every place where Sharia is the law of the land? Anyway, there is nothing in the world — this is the truth. There’s nothing in the world comparable to the United States Constitution. In fact, in the UK, “What about Britain, Rush? I mean, they have freedom of this and –” They don’t. They don’t have freedom of speech, for example, and they have different slander and libel laws. But they don’t have a Constitution in the UK.
The United States Constitution is unique in all of humanity, folks. There isn’t anything like it or better. And if there were, the United States would not be in the crosshairs of so many other places. They wouldn’t care. They wouldn’t be threatened by it. It’s a dangerous, dangerous thing. And when you have any number of people who refuse to stand up to it in an attempt to appease or be unnoticed, it’s not good. It’s gonna lead to advancement of this kind of thing. That’s true not with just Sharia or any other religion. That’s true of political ideology. That’s true of party politics. If you don’t stand up and oppose that which you disagree with, if you don’t push back on it, you’re eventually gonna be devoured by it. History is replete with example after example.