SAN FRANCISCO RUNS ANTI-SEMITIC OUTDOOR CAMPAIGN -- NO WORD ON AFDI/SIOA PRO-ISRAEL CAMPAIGN
San Francisco BART has been running an antisemitic outdoor campaign at a number of outdoor BART stations for well over a month now. I became aware of them last month when Seattle had agreed to run antisemitic ads on their buses, but had second thoughts when I submitted pro-Israel educational ads.
After Seattle changed its policy on account of my ads, I submitted our outdoor campaign to San Francisco back on December 29th.
Here is the report from the notorious Jew-hating site "The Electronic Intifada," the same Palestinian blogger that outed Barack Hussein Obama as an anti-semite back in March 2007 (and there is more here).
Check out the ad -- a play on the jihad is a religion of peace.
Boycott roundup: day of action against TIAA-Cref
Report, The Electronic Intifada, 10 December 2010
Paid advertisements going up around areas of the US calling for an end to US military aid to Israel. (Two Peoples One Future) |
Palestine solidarity activists are organizing a day of action today, 10 December, to encourage "people of conscience" to join the more than 18,000 who have already signed a US-wide petition urging financial holdings corporation TIAA-CREF to disinvest from construction vehicle manufacturer Caterpillar Incorporated.
According to campaign coordinating group Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), TIAA-CREF has invested more than $250 million in Caterpillar, which the group says is "complicit" in Israel's violations of US and international law ("December 10: TIAA-CREF day of action).
Yes, your basic nightmare.
This day of action is just part of JVP's ongoing campaign to target TIAA-CREF. In July, activists attended the shareholder meeting and presented an "overwhelming" amount of signatures they had gathered in support of TIAA-CREF's divestment from companies that profit from Israeli occupation policies.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian-led movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israeli human rights violations and apartheid policies continues to gather steam elsewhere around the world.
Here are my bus ads -- the AFDI Freeedom lovers and historical accuracy ads:
And this one:
Posted by Pamela Geller on Friday, January 07, 2011 at 04:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (20) ShareThis
Saturday, January 08, 2011
ATLAS ACTION: PEPSI'S 'FEED THE FLOCK' DEFROCKED
Last week, I dared Pepsi to take the jihad challenge. Or at least to treat Islam with the same disrespect and ridicule as they did in the Super Bowl ad mocking Catholism posted on their website. Funny? Not. Insulting to Catholics? Totally. In a free country, these demeaning cheap shots are to be expected, but I dare Pepsi to mock Islam.
Atlas readers voted, emailed, called along with many others to voice their disgust. Pepsi, with their tail between their legs, has removed the ad. Ad showing DORITOS chips as Eucharists yanked from Super Bowl...
USA Today is crowing about it now. But where were they before the ad was removed? MIA. As if the media gives a fig when anyone insults or mocks Christianity:
But the body and blood of Christ are no joke to Catholics who believe they are in Communion with their God when they accept the Eucharist and the wine during Mass.
Hence the uproar among some believers when they saw one of the 5,000+ entries in the annual competition for a slot in the Super Bowl ad line up.
Feed your Flock begins with a Catholic priest at his desk surrounded by bills for the parish, which clearly needs more income in the collection plate (why else show the stack of bills?).
Since it's his job to offer spiritual food to the flock, he takes it to another level (the pits, I'd say). The video shows the faithful lining up for Communion and getting Doritos (in two flavors, no less) instead of the Eucharist, the sacramental bread which Catholics believe is the body of Christ. And, you guessed it, the sacramental wine, considered to be the blood of Christ, is dished out as Pepsi MAX.
You don't have to be Catholic to find this irredeemably offensive. Hence, I'm not embedding the video. According to theMashable Business site,
The maker of the ad, a Philadelphia firm called Media Wave Productions, however, says that interpretation is way off base....
Dave Williams, president of MediaWave, says he pulled the ad from Pepsi's site and from YouTube. "We felt bad," he says. "Our intention was to win, not to offend."
Ya think? How could it have been anything but offensive to the one in four Americans who call themselves Catholic? What's surprising is that it made it up on the Pepsi site for consideration at all. Were there no standards for submission?
Needless to say, the Pepsico site listing the top 10 finalists does not include Feed your Flock and a representative of the company apologized for any offense.
Posted by Pamela Geller on Saturday, January 08, 2011 at 01:24 AM in Cultural Jihad, How the Left Destroys the Nation | Permalink | Comments (5) ShareThis
Friday, January 07, 2011
CASTLE OF LOVE ON AN OPEN THREAD
Atlas shruggers know I am particularly fond of original, pure jazz of old. But there are current artists who are magnificent, talented and fresh.
Esperanza Spalding is such an artist. An extraordinary talent. Here she performs Stevie Wonder's Overjoyed. Considering my deep affection for Stevie, it speaks volumes that I chose her cover. This is live at the White House. The O's sure know how to party when everyone is out of work and the deficit climbs to 14 trillion.
Posted by Pamela Geller on Friday, January 07, 2011 at 07:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) ShareThis
MAKING LEMONS OUT OF LEMONADE
"We still would have lost the election because we had 9.5% unemployment. Let's take it where that came from. The policies of George W. Bush and the Republican support for his initiatives, tax cuts are for the wealth, recklessness by some," Minority Leader Pelosi told CNN.
And so it begins. With a bang. The new Congress hadn't convened before the leftist propaganda machine went into high gear. It's breathtaking. This is what they do, the only thing they do well. Better than anyone.
The Tea Party just took control of the House for the 112th Congress.
The same conservatives left us with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tax cuts for the wealthy, the resulting massive debt and a crumbling economy that features more than 9% unemployment. Their appointees to the Supreme Court decided corporate lobbyists should be empowered even more. Today they are running the House. (The Nation)
The Republicans won and they hadn't even taken their oath before the 14-trillion-dollar deficit was foisted upon their mantle of responsibility. The very idea that Pelosi, a chief enemy operative, would be lauding her rout as fiscally responsible and conservative is a contemptuous insult to any rational, normal thinking human being.
The scurrilous ridicule of John Boehner's emotive moments is scandalous. As if working hard all your life and realizing your dream is somehow shameful or detestable. When a moocher or looter weeps crocodile tears, we must all hang our heads in shame. But when it is clearly a heartfelt act by a capitalist -- ready, aim, snipe.
Pelosi is outrageous. And more so because the mainstream media is selling this dung like a grifter sells the Brooklyn Bridge to new arrivals to America. And it will only get worse. Anthony the Weiner is the designated snake to spew the lies. His only skill set is to attack, deceive and ridicule the righteous. The hatred of the good for being the good. Weiner, BTW, is recently married to longtime Hillary Clinton shadowand "secret weapon" and "mystery woman," Huma Abedeen, daughter of an " Islamic scholar" in Saudi Arabia. Her mother is a professor in Saudi Arabia. The Weiner has big plans. But that for another day.
Everything is packaged in leftist propagandist semantics. The Obama tax hike that was routed by the new Republican House majority is relentlessly referred to as the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy." I challenge any Atlas readers to find reference to the proposed Obama tax hikein the NY Times where it is not called the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy." Anyone who is not union and/or not on the take in America is "wealthy." The top one percent of earners in America pay more taxes than over 90% of Americans. The top 1% pay in as much as the bottom 95%. And nearly half of Americans don't even pay federal tax, but why quibble? Facts are irrelevant in the land of the left.
Top 1% Pay More Income Tax Than Bottom 90%
The Tax Foundation has published Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data:
New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns.
And since when did hard work and success become the object of scorn? When did it become American thinking to demonize the successful and exalt the failure? Upside the leftism.
I hope the American people to hold true to their ideas and principles. There are very good indications that this is more than possibility, but reality.
Here are two of the most telling developments: Internet gains on television as the main news source for folks and a precipitous drop in cable news viewing in a key election year. Why would the cable news networks' overall audience (CNN, FOX, MSNBC et al) drop when it should, in fact, be growing? Add to the FOX loss of 163,000 daily viewers Beck's unprecedented numbers in the 5:00 pm slot, and it's worse than it appears. None of the cable networks that showed readership gains were cable news channels (save a small increase in BBCA). CNN lost 311,000 daily viewers, HLN 115,000, MSNBC 40,000.
Why? Because they won't cover the news. Their daily smorgasbord of news is laughable. They are terrified of the greatest single threat facing the West. When the leftwing cables cover it, they apologize and blame the victims. And FOX is not much better. People are sick of it.
The internet is slowly closing in on television as Americans’ main source of national and international news. Currently, 41% say they get most of their news about national and international news from the internet, which is little changed over the past two years but up 17 points since 2007. Television remains the most widely used source for national and international news – 66% of Americans say it is their main source of news – but that is down from 74% three years ago and 82% as recently as 2002.
Against the cable news trends:
MSNBC's Olbermann & Maddow Down in 2010, But Not as Down as CNN's Anderson Cooper
And this cable news is down year over year in an election year:
201o was definitely a year to forget for CNN as it suffered the worst average viewership losses of any cable network, both in primetime (8-11pm) and total day (24 hr.) time periods compared with 2009.If you’re looking for the list of cable network viewership gainers, look here.
Top PRIMETIME (8-11pm) average viewership losses 2009 to 2010:
Net 2010 Avg. Viewership (000) 2009 Avg. Viewership (000) Loss (000) 1 CNN 592 903 -311 2 Hallmark 858 1113 -255 3 VH1 514 742 -228 4 Fox News 2032 2195 -163 5 Spike 922 1065 -143 6 USA 3157 3276 -119 7 HLN 446 561 -115 8 FX 1271 1375 -104 9 Syfy 1202 1279 -77 10 ESPN 2 634 693 -59 11 SPD 228 280 -52 12 Soap Net 302 353 -51 13 TBC 1800 1847 -47 14 MSNBC 771 811 -40 15 Nat Geo 424 457 -33 16 Lifetime 1158 1188 -30 17 WGNA 339 368 -29 18 Versus 279 307 -28 19 GOLF 119 147 -28 20 GAC 61 82 -21 21 CMT 383 399 -16 22 A&E 1463 1478 -15 23 Comedy 979 994 -15 24 TVGN 200 215 -15 25 WE 278 292 -14 -
Top TOTAL DAY (24 hr.) average viewership losses 2009 to 2010:
Net 2010 Avg. Viewership (000) 2009 Avg. Viewership (000) Loss (000) 1 CNN 433 607 -174 2 Hallmark 481 628 -147 3 USA 1413 1523 -110 4 VH1 304 400 -96 5 Spike 589 673 -84 6 Lifetime 680 747 -67 7 Fox News 1133 1196 -63 8 TBS 924 961 -37 9 HLN 276 309 -33 10 FX 699 730 -31 11 Discovery 697 720 -23 12 Syfy 544 567 -23 13 SPD 138 160 -22 14 Versus 98 120 -22 15 GOLF 71 88 -17 16 CNBC 207 223 -16 17 Soap Net 168 184 -16 18 TVGN 95 111 -16 19 GAC 47 60 -13 20 Style 102 114 -12 21 Food Network 682 693 -11 22 CMT 219 230 -11 23 truTV 737 746 -9 24 Nat Geo 247 255 -8 25 VH1C 27 31 -4 -
All are individual broadcast “Most Current” measurement, which are Live+7 Day Ratings for most shows except the late December football games, for which they are Live + Same Day ratings.
Nielsen TV Ratings: ©2011 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.
This is our opportunity. Seize it. Become a mini media outlet. Send out news from sources you trust (like Atlas) to your lists. Build the new media franchise of a million man network. We say the Ground Zero mosque become the number one national news story and number international news story without the mainstream media. That was you.
Seize the day. The left is going to merciless the next two years. The battering will not stop, not even for a moment. This is all-out war. FIGHT.
Posted by Pamela Geller on Friday, January 07, 2011 at 02:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (15) ShareThis
LONDON BRACES FOR NEW ISLAMIC ATTACK
Obama say, "respect it!" Daisy the Khan say, "the era of extremism is ovuh." Geller say, "defeat the bastids."
All that outreach, all that accommodation, all that dhimmitude, and it comes to this. "Terror threat to London stations and airports," by Duncan Gardham in the Telegraph, January 6 (thanks to all who sent this in):
British Transport Police cancelled leave and called in extra officers after intelligence was received that terrorists could be planning attacks.A security source said there was no "imminent" threat and the overall threat level had not changed but there was activity from one of a "handful" of extremist cells that cause concern at any time, leading to an adjustment in policing levels.
It is understood that "intelligence chatter" suggested that transport hubs in London could be a target.
It was unclear last night whether the terrorists were discussing suicide bomb attacks, or Mumbai-style shootings, or a combination of methods....
Posted by Pamela Geller on Friday, January 07, 2011 at 11:37 AM in Eurabia: Dhimmitude | Permalink | Comments (5) ShareThis
PAMELA GELLER, AMERICAN THINKER: MAYOR BLOOMBERG: AN ABJECT FAILURE
And it's snowing the city today and it's sticking ..... oyish. Another opportunity to show New Yorkers what an inept, self-aggrandizing asshat Doomberg is.
BE THERE! PROTEST THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUE JANUARY 12TH
49-51 CHAMBERS STREET 12:45PM
Mayor Bloomberg: An Abject Failure Pamela Geller, American Thinker
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg continues to confound and betray the very constituency that elected this increasingly dangerous apologist and tool of the global jihad.You can take the measure of a mayor by how he handles difficulty...like, say, snow. In New York City, it's how we judge our mayor. Clean the streets, keep us moving. And based on that simple test, Michael Bloomberg is an abject failure. Union thugs held the city hostage and killed people(including a newborn) during the snowstorm, and the sidewalks are still teeming with mountains of garbage. And our taxes are obscene.While our Ground Zero mosque-obsessed mayor has been toiling to facilitate, expedite, and erect a victory mosque on the hallowed ground of Ground Zero, the city falls into chaos, disrepair, and bankruptcy.The New York snowstorm exhibited what a bloody failure this quisling is, bullied by organized labor and unions that did nothing the first 24 hours. What a difference a schmuck makes.This would never have happened under Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudolph Giuliani. Mayor Mosqueteer Gloomberg is weak and garners no respect, and we the people have to pay for his ineptitude.Even the lapdog New York Times admitted it, reporting that "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg acknowledged on Tuesday that the cleanup had been slower than expected and the impact worse than had been apparent when the snow stopped falling." And even "Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker who has often sided with the mayor, said the city's response to the blizzard was the worst in memory."Bloomberg is incapable of handling the most fundamental of tasks; he is like some madman on a mission to build Mecca on the Hudson. The Ayatollah of Bloomistan is working feverishly to erect the Ground Zero mosquestrosity. Bloomberg worked behind the scenes to get the Ground Zero mosque approved. Is he obsessed with submission?Speaker Quinn strongly supports the Ground Zero mosque and added her considerable weight to the 150-million-dollar mosquestrosity when the existing building on the site was being considered for landmark status (which would have put a kink into the imperialist ambitions of the radical Ground Zero imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan). Since the City Council had the last say in the landmarking process, Quinn's comments carried added weight, and landmark status was denied, paving the way for Mecca on the Hudson.But Walmart scares Quinn. She is holding hearings next week to keep Walmart out of New York City. Quinn's New York City Council had declared December 14 "Hate Walmart Day." These are the village idiots running this city. Mighty mosqueteer Christine Quinn said that it would be a bad thing to be "standing by and letting Walmart come without any oversight, without any scrutiny." So Walmart, America's biggest private employer, needs scrutiny, but a Ground Zero mega-mosque with radical ties and shady funding is not a problem.Meanwhile, to show his "moderation," the Ground Zero mega-mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is kicking off his U.S. mosquestrosity tour at the banquet of the Islamic Society of North America, which was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case.Bombs in aisle seven.Christine Quinn and Bloomberg's toolbox, aka. the New York City Council, are refusing to allow the jobs and lower prices that Walmart would bring into Manhattan.Whom do these officials represent? These are our elected officials. The left is systematically destroying this country. National security has become a joke.It is ironic that Bloomberg was elected because of the catastrophe of the war declared against the United States on 9/11. He is a Democrat who stole the mayoral election by switching parties so that he could get into the race and get elected. Giuliani, the great hero of 9/11, could not run again because of term limits. It was Giuliani (who is opposed to the mosque) who anointed Bloomberg as his successor. Yes, the field of candidates was that pathetic. And Bloomberg won, because of Giuliani and the jihadi attack on NY on September 11.
Posted by Pamela Geller on Friday, January 07, 2011 at 11:02 AM in Atlas Articles, Ground Zero Mega Mosque: Takbir!, NYC Mayoral Race | Permalink | Comments (5) ShareThis
ISLAMIC LAWFARE: $10,000,000 LAWSUIT -- GELLER FILES MOTION FOR PROTECTION ORDER
Here's the latest filing in the litigation jihad against me by Rifqa Bary's parents' attorney, Omar Tarazi. I cannot thank David Yerushalmi enough for the extraordinary work and time he is putting in to defend my freedom of speech from this Islamic supremacist lawsuit. Please donate to the legal defense by contributing to Atlas. Donate here. (go to Paypal.com and use writeatlas@aol.com) Or have donate to SANE. You can send their SANE checks to POB 6358, Chandler AZ 85246
It seems to me that Tarazi's entire purpose in filing this lawsuit is to engage in the discovery. He simply wishes to fish around in my private correspondence for anything damning he might find.
The brief in support of the motion points out that not one iota of the information sought has anything to do with anything said by me or written by me at Atlas. He simply wants to obtain information by which he may attack me on other fronts (politically and socially) and which have nothing to do with what I have said about him.
And it is obvious that any suggestion of "conspiracy" with Stemburger is unsubstantiated, and cannot be sustained. It is ridiculous on its face. I have long disagreed with Stemburger's legal strategy for Rifqa, and I published several pieces explaining my disapproval of his methods since December 2009.
It is laughable that he alleges a conspiracy between Stemberger and me. Based on what? Down the toilet it should go.
I hope that this motion prevails. And I hope my motion to dismiss prevails. It should. This is harassment and attrition. No one should have to go through this, in defense of freedom no less.
If you wish to read the motion: Download Geller Motion for Prot Order_ECF Filed
Excerpts:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 37.2
Counsel for Defendant Geller hereby certify that they made a good faith effort to confer with Plaintiff Tarazi to resolve this matter, but the parties could not reach an agreement. Defendant Geller, through her counsel, also requested and participated in a telephonic conference between the parties with the Honorable Magistrate Judge King, seeking a stay of discovery pending this court’s determination of Defendant Geller’s motion to dismiss. Magistrate Judge King denied the telephonic request for a stay, but made clear that Defendant Geller may file this formal motion seeking the requested protective order.
This motion is supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Law and by the exhibits attached thereto.Plaintiff Omar Tarazi filed this federal lawsuit for defamation seeking $10,000,000 in unspecified damages. (See Am. Compl.) (Doc. No. 10). The lawsuit arises out of statements made by two defendants regarding Plaintiff’s involvement as an attorney for the parents in a multi-state custody battle over a 17-year old Muslim woman, Rifqa Bary, who ran away from her home in Ohio fearing for her life after converting to Christianity, seeking refuge in Florida with fellow Christians. Plaintiff named as defendants John Stemberger, an attorney who represented Bary in the Florida litigation, and Pamela Geller, a New York “blogger” who reported on allegations about Plaintiff made by Defendant Stemberger in court and publicly via various news media outlets. According to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant Geller’s allegedly defamatory statements were also based upon the previously published online reports of another Web log, “My Pet Jawa.” (See Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 7-10; 13).
Defendant Geller seeks a protective order to stay discovery directed to her on the grounds that the allegations that she defamed Plaintiff and that she conspired with Defendant Stemberger in doing so are meritless. Specifically, Defendant Geller asks this court to stay discovery served upon her pending this court’s decision on her motion to dismiss because Ohio Free Speech law explicitly and irrefutably protects her speech at issue in this case and because Plaintiff’s allegations of a conspiracy between Defendants Geller and Stemberger are naked assertions, devoid of any factual support, and meritless. This factual and legal context, against the backdrop of Defendant’s constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and the chilling effect of a meritless claim of defamation on that right, cries out for the relief sought, especially given the fact that Plaintiff’s lawsuit is in its early stages and a stay of discovery as to Defendant Geller for just the few months that will be required for this court to render its decision on the motion to dismiss will not disadvantage Plaintiff’s claims against either Defendant. II.PROCEDURAL POSTURE1
Plaintiff, a licensed Ohio attorney, filed his original complaint (Doc. No. 2) on September 2, 2010. The Complaint was so woefully inadequate that after reading the answers of both defendants, Plaintiff immediately filed an amended complaint (“Complaint”) on October 25, 2010—essentially a rewriting of the original from scratch (Doc. No. 10). While this second version is certainly longer, it is no less incoherent. Indeed, it includes, as a verified complaint, sworn statements by Plaintiff which demonstrate as a matter of law and beyond cavil that the alleged offending statements by Defendant Geller constitute constitutionally protected speech. In sum, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of First Amendment law, as well as the more protective speech law under the Ohio State Constitution.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s Complaint is a transparent effort to drag Defendant Geller into a dispute between adverse lawyers by concocting a conspiracy between Defendant Geller, who is a blogger from New York City, and Plaintiff’s legal adversary in Florida, Defendant Stemberger,2 without alleging anything more than the word “conspiracy.” Plaintiff’s ploy to craft a conspiracy between the two Defendants out of thin air (or, more aptly, no air) is manifestly frivolous.
On November 12, 2010, Defendant Geller filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Importantly, Defendant Geller’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion was based on her free speech rights guaranteed under the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions, with a special emphasis on Ohio’s Free Speech protections, which are broader than even our celebrated free speech protections guaranteed under the First Amendment. This greater protection under the Ohio Constitution is especially relevant in this case because when the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ohio Supreme Court confronted identical facts of public allegations of perjury arising from the same Ohio publication, the U.S. Supreme Court found as a matter of law under the First Amendment that the speech was not protected as opinion or hyperbole, but the Ohio Supreme Court, explicitly noting that Ohio Free Speech protection extends beyond the First Amendment, found the speech protected as opinion and hyperbole as a matter of state law. (See Def.’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 16-24) (providing a detailed discussion of the different approaches to free speech under Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co, 497 U.S. 1 (1990), and Scott v. News-Herald, 25 Ohio St. 3d 243 (1986)).
An additional argument was made by Defendant Geller for dismissal of the conspiracy allegations of the Complaint on the grounds the allegations patently failed the standard of plausibility required by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009).
The motion to dismiss was fully briefed upon the filing of Defendant Geller’s reply brief (Doc. No. 41) on December 30, 2010.
After the filing of the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff improperly filed with the court a slew of discovery requests directed to both Defendants and even upon a third-party neither named in the Complaint as a party nor referenced anywhere in the factual allegations. Plaintiff failed to properly serve those requests under the Rules.3 Specifically, Plaintiff improperly filed with the court a Notice of Deposition of Defendant Geller scheduled for January 12, 2011 (Doc. No. 35), and a Notice of Deposition of Defendant Stemberger scheduled for January 14, 2011 (Doc. No. 34). To this date, Plaintiff has failed to properly serve the Notice of Deposition on Defendant Geller.
Plaintiff also improperly filed with the court Requests for Production of Documents on both Defendants (Doc Nos. 36 [Geller] and 37 [Stemberger]) and once again failed to properly serve these discovery requests per the Rules (at least with respect to Defendant Geller).
Plaintiff also improperly filed with the court a Notice of Subpoena on a Bill Warner who purportedly resides in Sarasota, Florida (Doc. No. 38). Oddly, Mr. Warner is neither a named Defendant, nor is he even mentioned in the Complaint. Further, it is entirely unclear to counsel for Defendant Geller how filing a Notice of Subpoena in this court and “issued” by the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio is effectual or even legally valid when service is presumably on a non-party deponent in another District more than 100 miles away. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2).
After Defendant Geller’s counsel emailed Plaintiff several times to inform him that it is improper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules to file discovery with the court (when there is no pending relevant discovery motion) and that service of discovery requests are not accomplished through the court’s ECF system (given that the very filing with the court is improper4), Plaintiff finally mailed to Defendant Geller’s local Ohio counsel a Request for Production of Documents, identical in substance to the one filed with the court,5 and a new discovery request (not previously filed with the court), requesting written answers to interrogatories. The service certificate for both discovery requests state that they were mailed on December 14, 2010 (a true and correct copy of these discovery requests are attached hereto respectively as Exhibit A [Request for Production of Documents] and Exhibit B [Interrogatories]).6
Thus, the extant discovery requests propounded by Plaintiff to Defendant Geller are a Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories, both of which are due by January 18, 2011.7
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. This Is an Appropriate Case for the Court to Exercise Its Discretion and Stay All Discovery Directed to Defendant Geller Pending Resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
The best articulation from this court of the law applicable to a motion for protective order staying discovery pending a dispositive motion appears in Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 2:06-cv-00831, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106182, at *7-*9 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 5, 2010):[...]
In bringing this motion for protective order, Defendant Geller is especially cognizant of one important consideration at work here: the mere pendency of the motion to dismiss is not a basis for a protective order. Defendant Geller is not asserting otherwise, explicitly or implicitly. Rather, Defendant Geller’s motion for a protective order is based on the specific calculus of factors articulated by this court as set forth above. We now turn to that calculus.
B. The Facts of this Case in the Context of Defendant Geller’s Motion to Dismiss Establish the Propriety of Granting the Requested Protective Order.
For purposes of this motion, and keeping in mind the court’s broad grant of discretion, the analysis of the courts in this district suggests the following kinds of queries:
1. Does the motion to dismiss raise viable arguments that the lawsuit is meritless?
2. Is the motion to dismiss based upon a claim that the lawsuit is barred either by virtue of some statute (i.e., statute of limitations or immunity from suit) or, even more importantly, that the prosecution of the lawsuit itself is a patent violation of a constitutional liberty?
3. Given a balancing of the interests, is a protective order on behalf of Defendant Geller for just the few months necessary for the court to rule on the motion to dismiss prejudicial to Plaintiff’s interest to prosecute his claims?
4. Is there evidence in the record to suggest that Plaintiff’s discovery amounts to a fishing expedition? And finally,
5. Is discovery likely to add to or assist the court in deciding the dispositive motion before it?
We will treat each in turn.
1. Does the motion to dismiss raise viable arguments that the lawsuit is meritless?
Defendant Geller’s motion to dismiss proffers an irrefutable argument that both the general defamation claim as to Defendant Geller and the specific conspiracy allegation are
demonstrably meritless. Indeed, this is best evidenced by Plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss, in which Plaintiff was unwilling and unable to distinguish the contextual facts of Scott v. News-Herald, 25 Ohio St. 3d 243 (1986), a case which provides, as Defendant Geller argued in her supporting brief, an a fortiori basis for dismissal in this case. (See Def.’s Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 1-3).
Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim, which amounts to a single sentence in a single allegation that merely asserts a conspiracy, fares no better. (See Am. Compl. at ¶ 31). Once again, when we turn to Plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss on this point, his answer was to suggest the absurdity that a conspiracy is “plausibly” supported by the fact that one Defendant reports in her blog what the other Defendant stated in court and on the public airways previously. (See Def.’s Reply.Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 9-10). That of course would render every news story and blog entry which cites to some earlier reporting of that event a conspiracy with the original public statement.
Given not only the persuasiveness of the arguments set out in the motion to dismiss, but also the palpably deficient responses to the motion by Plaintiff, Defendant Geller respectfully suggests that this case is the quintessential exception to the normal default rule that “run-of-the- mill” dispositive motions are not sufficient grounds for a protective order staying discovery. See Miller v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 2:09-cv-0674, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63374 (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2010) (granting motion for stay of discovery pending motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint was not likely to survive).
2. Is the motion to dismiss based upon a claim that the lawsuit is barred either by virtue of some statute or, even more important, that the prosecution of the lawsuit itself is a patent violation of a constitutional liberty?
The court in Shaw v. Total Image Specialists, made the point that a protective order staying discovery pending a dispositive motion would be appropriate when “the motion raises an
issue such as immunity from suit, which would be substantially vitiated absent a stay.” Shaw, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2976, at *2-*4. In other words, when there is a statutory or common law immunity from suit, courts should not allow discovery to move forward, especially if the claim of immunity is a strong one. By permitting discovery in such cases, the court is essentially allowing the plaintiff to vex the defendant, who should not have been sued in the first instance as a matter law even if the facts about the tortious deed were correct.
To the extent that the policy seeks to protect the claim of immunity, how much more so is there an overriding public and private interest to protect free speech from the chilling effect of a defamation action. This court in Roth put it this way: “Additionally, the Court is required to take into account any societal interests which are implicated by either proceeding or postponing discovery.” Roth, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83160, at *3. Indeed, the entire free speech/defamation jurisprudence is built on the fact that if we allow state law to impose the rigors of defamation litigation and the concomitant potential for liability in matters of political speech, this most protected and cherished right will have been demeaned and threatened. Thus, the Supreme Court fashioned a whole host of restrictions on state defamation law via the Fourteenth Amendment, such as requiring the extraordinary showing of an “actual malice” standard of care. See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). And, in Ohio, the state supreme court has gone consciously further by protecting opinion and hyperbole beyond the First Amendment’s otherwise gracious protections. See Scott, 25 Ohio St. 3d at 243.
In this case, Defendant Geller’s free speech is under assault with every failure by an Ohio attorney acting as a pro se plaintiff to follow the rules of court, with every motion, and most especially, with every burdensome discovery demand. What will be the effect on Defendant Geller’s protected speech and indeed the protected speech of others if putative plaintiffs know
they can file pro se defamation claims which patently invade the protective ring imposed by Scott or still other similar decisions, yet proceed with vexatious discovery while the court decides a facially persuasive dispositive motion? In those states such as Ohio lacking an anti- SLAPP statute providing for recovery of attorney’s fees, there is absolutely no downside risk to such constitutionally offensive lawsuits and they will be used as a kind of “lawfare” to counter and chill free speech. However, the irreparable harm that this vexatious litigation is having on Defendant’s free speech rights can be mitigated, at least in part, by the granting of the requested protective order.
Indeed, what Plaintiff could and should have done in this case to counter what he considered bad or offensive speech was to engage in his own speech, or to enlist others to do so. As we know so well in this free society where the people’s public speech is the cornerstone of representative self-governance, “the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927). In the final analysis, this lawsuit is an effort by Plaintiff to enforce silence through the power and authority of the courts. Plaintiff has access to the same Internet as Defendant Geller. Indeed, notwithstanding all of Plaintiff’s baseless claims about the injurious impact of Google, an impact no one in public life escapes for long, a quick search of “Omar Tarazi” on Google shows that his speech, not Defendant Geller’s, controls the narrative if the narrative is measured, as Plaintiff argues, by the Google search results. In light of these most important public and private interests touching upon the most fundamental liberty in our political society, a request for a protective order staying a few months of discovery can hardly be considered unreasonable or inappropriate.
3. Given a balancing of the interests, is a protective order on behalf of Defendant Geller for just the few months necessary for the court to rule on the motion to dismiss prejudicial to Plaintiff’s interest to prosecute his claims?
In the context of the discussion above, the balancing of the interests in this case is heavily
weighted in favor of a prudent protection of Defendant Geller’s free speech. See Wagner v. Circle W Mastiffs, Nos. 2:08-cv-431, 2:09-cv-0172, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123126 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 22, 2009) (holding that the balance of the interests weighed in favor of granting the motion for stay of discovery); Carter v. Wilkinson, No. 2:05-cv-0380, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4168, *36- *37 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 8, 2009) (holding that the balance of the interests weighed in favor of granting the motion for stay of discovery). The lawsuit is still quite young, unlike Abercrombie & Fitch Co., a case that had meandered for four years before the stay of discovery came before the court. The only possible argument available to Plaintiff in this regard is that the court’s scheduling order, which provides for a January 31, 2011, deadline for “[m]otions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings” (Doc. No. 33 at 1), might prevent him from moving to amend if ultimately he defeats the motion to dismiss and uncovers some evidence of a conspiracy that includes yet other unknown actors.
The answer to this, however, is not to abandon the guidance provided by judicial prudence when it comes to constitutionally protected free speech. Rather, the court could simply modify the scheduling order to provide for this rather improbable outcome. With that facile amendment to a scheduling order that was itself not based on some objective and fixed rule about motions for leave to amend, see, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), it is simply inconceivable how postponing Plaintiff’s discovery of Defendant Geller for a few months at this early stage in the litigation could possibly prejudice his rights. Indeed, Plaintiff would remain free to conduct discovery of Defendant Stemberger, who has not filed any dispositive motion, and any third parties Plaintiff felt controlled additional information that might further his claims.
4. Is there evidence in the record to suggest that Plaintiff’s discovery amounts to a fishing expedition?
This query is really seeking some objective indicia of Plaintiff’s bad faith. In other words, is the lawsuit really a form of “lawfare” to use the expense and burdens of litigation generally and discovery in particular to warn Defendant Geller and others like her that while the Ohio Constitution might protect their speech, Plaintiff and others like him will be able to exploit the fact that our federal and state courts are overburdened with litigation and move slowly, allowing plaintiffs free reign to impose their political and legal costs on defendants and society with no downside at stake? Or, is discovery being used to fish for facts the Complaint has only alleged at the skeletal margins, lacking any rational plausibility? A cursory examination of Plaintiff’s current discovery requests suggests strongly that the answers to both questions are in the affirmative.For example, Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”) No. 2 seeks any and all documents between Defendant Geller and Robert Spencer relating to the Rifqa Bary case. (See RFD at No. 2 at Ex. A). But how is this relevant to any of the allegations in the Complaint? Robert Spencer is not a named party, nor is there a single allegation suggesting he engaged in any wrongful conduct. In fact, there is no allegation to even suggest he might be privy to any information relating to any of the allegations of the Complaint. Yet, Plaintiff knows that Robert Spencer runs a hugely popular Web log called “Jihad Watch” that is very critical of what is referred to as “political Islam,” or the movement to establish Islamic law as the basis for political societies in which Muslim live. This discovery request is a warning shot to Spencer; it is not legitimate discovery for matters remotely relevant to this litigation.
Other examples abound. In RPD No. 11, Plaintiff seeks “[t]he list of any donors that have donated to support the Atlas Shrugs blog or the [American] Freedom Defense Initiative [“AFDI”] . . . .” (RFD at No. 11 at Ex. A). What is the connection of AFDI to this lawsuit other than the fact that Defendant Geller is its executive director? AFDI is not accused of any
wrongdoing. But, Plaintiff knows that AFDI is aggressively pursuing an advertising campaign on mass transit buses and subways in cities across the country to provide shelter and counseling to young Muslim women threatened by honor killings. By improperly attempting to force AFDI to disclose its private, confidential sources of funding via a discovery request served upon Defendant Geller as an individual, Plaintiff is sending another warning shot across multiple bows: If you fund any of Defendant Geller’s work, I will gain access to your personal and confidential contributions and information. To prevent this, Defendant Geller would need to engage in yet more piecemeal and expensive discovery motion practice.
And still another example: Plaintiff seeks correspondence between Defendant Geller and Bill Warner, the Sarasota, Florida man Plaintiff seeks to subpoena. (RPD at No. 14 at Ex. A). Yet again, what is the connection to this lawsuit? Warner is not even mentioned in passing. The answer lies in the fact that Warner appears to be a kind of psychotic blogger who claims to be a private investigator and who has accused Defendant Geller of being part of some kind of mafia- hit squad. His blog is essentially the incoherent ramblings of a mind lost within itself. Apparently, Plaintiff thinks Warner is some kind of treasure trove of “grassy knoll” conspiracies and 9-11 “Truther” facts relating to Defendant Geller. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s imaginative search for the secrets of the ramblings of a diseased mind, this federal litigation is bounded and controlled by more than his imagination. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to discovery have been promulgated for a reason. Discovery cannot be used as a club to create facts that don’t exist anywhere in the real world, and most importantly, are nowhere to be found anywhere near the most far-reaching implications of the allegations of the Complaint.
5. Is discovery likely to add to or assist the court in deciding the dispositive motion before it?
We need not pause long here. Nothing in Plaintiff’s discovery actually propounded and
nothing he might propound in the future is going to address the Scott-Vail Ohio Free Speech issues. The analysis provided by the Ohio Supreme Court resides in the four corners of the defamatory document and the “objective” context of the publication. There is nothing Plaintiff might add to what we already know; and, indeed, none of his discovery requests propounded to date even remotely address the Scott-Vail analysis.
Moreover, while it is true that a discovery-sanctioned fishing expedition into Plaintiff’s theory of a conspiracy might in some theoretical context lead to relevant information, the question that ought to be asked is whether the mere utterance of the word “conspiracy” in a single allegation of a complaint devoid of any other facts even suggestive of a conspiracy provide Plaintiff with a court-sanctioned license to search for facts that even the Complaint recognizes do not exist today.8 If the answer is anything but “no,” the standard brought to bear by the Supreme Court in Twombly-Iqbal is rather toothless in preventing the use of vexatious litigation to achieve ulterior and improper purposes.
CONCLUSION
Given the calculus suggested by the relevant case law and especially given the balancing of the private and societal interests involved in this case, Defendant Geller respectfully requests that the court grant her motion for a protective order to stay discovery pending the decision on her motion to dismiss.
8 Not to mention, if the alleged defamatory statements are in fact not defamatory as a matter of law, the conspiracy claim fails as well. There is as of yet no “conspiracy-to-engage-in-free- speech” cause of action under the laws in any state. Consequently, because this claim is parasitic to the substantive defamation claim, the court should grant the requested protective order as to all discovery.
Previous: Lawfare Status: $10,000,000 Islamic Supremacist Lawsuit against Pamela Geller Moves Forward
Posted by Pamela Geller on Friday, January 07, 2011 at 01:31 AM in Atlas vs. Legal Jihad, Litigation Jihad | Permalink | Comments (8) ShareThis
Thursday, January 06, 2011
MUST WATCH VIDEO: "LET'S TALK ABOUT DAWAH -- THAT ATTACKS THEIR SYSTEM, AND WE REPLACE IT WITH ISLAM"
Listen to this British Muslim leader speak of "dawa." They are telling us what they intend to do. (vid hat tip Mark H.)
This is the face of Islam in the West, and Islamic supremacists and their leftist apologists don't even bat an eyelash. Speaking of dawah, let us not forget Ground Zero mosque radical Imam Rauf's book title: Call to Prayer from WTC Rubble: Dawa in the Heart of post 9/11 America is 'Sharia Compliant'
Rauf: Call to Prayer from WTC Rubble: Dawa in the Heart of post 9/11 America is 'Sharia Compliant'
Atlas Shrugs ^In a 2004 lecture on his book What's Right With Islam, Feisal Abdul Rauf discusses how Sharia law is very similar to the founding principles of America. The book title in America was What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America, but in Malaysia and the Muslim world the title was A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of post 9/11 America.
Consider that for a moment. From the "rubble" -- one could hardly call the human remains of 3,000 slaughtered people "rubble." It is void of humanity or remorse. Worse still, from the pile of human remains, "Islamic Dawah in post 911 America." Da‘wah means literally "issuing a summons" or "making an invitation," being the active participle of a verb meaning variously "to summon, to invite."
So here again, not only is Rauf's honesty in question, but his motives. The title of his book, his desire of sharia compliance makes plain his motive. His book title in Arabic and the deception of the English title is Islamic propaganda worthy of Goebbels.
Posted by Pamela Geller on Thursday, January 06, 2011 at 08:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (21) ShareThis
WRITE A LETTER FOR NOOR
UPDATE: More contact info on the Akmaleki honor killer prosecution. The case will be handled through the county (Maricopa), not the state and the attorney prosecuting is:
Laura Reckart
301 W. Jefferson, 8th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
So cc the prosecutor, Laura Reckart, in your letter to Judge Roland (thanks to CanaryInTheCoalMine)
=======================================================
No plea deals for honor killers. We need to move to enact legislation to make "honor killing" a capital crime. Until then, the least we can do for the victims is to demand no plea deals.
No sanction for gender apartheid and femicide. We must stand against the continuing diminished status of women rampant in Muslim societies.
You helped plant a grove in remembrance of Aqsa Parvez, the teen in Canada murdered by her father and brother. She was buried without a headstone until we raised the money and made it happen.
Noor Almaleki did not die in vain. And the West will not fail this young Muslim girl. Read the whole thing here.
Is the prosecution afraid they may insult Islam if they bring this honor killing case to trial? Faleh Hassan Almaleki should have been given the death penalty, but he cried "racism" when it was being considered. His lawyer said at the time:
"An open process provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs," Little wrote, referring to County Attorney Andrew Thomas' Christian faith.
A Muslim father runs over and kills his daughter with his car because she wasn't Muslim enough, but justice cannot be served because that would be "Christian" "islamophobia." We can't seek the death penalty "for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs," but he can kill his daughter for his religious and political (sharia) beliefs.
No plea.
Atlas reader Spirit of 1776 called judge Roland Steinle's office. They prefer that we write them a letter stating our concerns. All parties will be notified of our letters. Both judge and the prosecutor said they are getting calls. Good. Now write a letter. And if you can, print thisgruesome gallery and send it.
Case # CR 2009-007938-001 Defendant: Faleh H. Almaleki
Judge Roland Steinle 602-506-7893
State Prosecutor/Court Atty. 602-506-3411
Judge Roland Steinle
201 W. Jefferson CCB
Suite 4C
Phoenix, Az 85003
Here is mine:
Judge Roland Steinle
Maricopa County Superior Court,
201 W Jefferson St # 4
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Dear Judge Steinle,
I am writing to urge you not to allow a plea deal for Faleh Hassan Almaleki.
In November 2009, the Arizona Republic reported that, according to state prosecutor Stephanie Low, Faleh Almaleki admitted that he ran over his daughter Noor Almaleki on purpose: "By his own admission, this was an intentional act and the reason was that his daughter had brought shame on him and his family. This was an attempt at an honor killing." Noor subsequently died from her injuries.
If he admitted to intentional murder, it would be an unconscionable miscarriage of justice not to sentence him to the full required legal penalty for his act, and instead to allow him to cut a deal for a lesser punishment. In light of public defender Billy Little's appalling statement that the sentence in this case should give "no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs," a plea bargain for Faleh Almaleki will give the opposite appearance: that an American court is tolerating brutal and premeditated murder out of political, religious and cultural considerations. It will show other Muslim girls who are threatened by honor killing that American courts will offer them no refuge.
Noor Almaleki is not the only Muslim woman in the United States who has been murdered in an honor killing. To allow Faleh Almaleki to plea bargain will send the signal that the Muslim community in the U.S. need undertake no reform, but rather can continue with these heinous religious and cultural practices with impunity.
I urge you to stand instead for the American principle of justice for all, and to sentence Faleh Almaleki to the most severe possible legal penalty for his crime.
Sincerely,
Pamela GellerFreedom lover, Human Rights Activist
UPDATE: The Judge is Roland, not Ronald.
Posted by Pamela Geller on Thursday, January 06, 2011 at 05:10 PM in Honor Killings: Islam Misogyny | Permalink | Comments (26) ShareThis
A GRAVE SIN
Why don't the Jews work on expelling annihilationists and genocidal jihadists from Jewish land? Not Jews from the Jewish homeland. This is stomach turning.
For shame.
We are diverse! Israelis and Jews from America, Russia, France, Britain, Argentina, Chile, South Africa, India, Burma, Mexico, and elsewhere!
We are Sepharadi, Ashkenazi, Yemenite, and more...
We are old and young, farmers, urban professionals, artists, craftspeople, Doctors, Lawyers, Nurses...
[...]
We are a small town (pop. 1,250) in the Judean Hills just 17 minutes drive from Jerusalem. Take a moment to visit our photo album! If you become entranced with the bustle and beauty of our community, click here to schedule a real visit
Antiquity
The village was the birthplace of Ira, the son of Ikkesh, one of King David's warriors. Tekoa is renowned for being the birthplace of the Old Testament Amos (prophet).(Book of Amos 1:1) The bible states that the city was founded by Ephrathites from Bethlehem in the north and Calebites from Hebron in the south. It was a fortified city and served as an administrative center.
Modern era Tekoa was established in 1975 as a Nahal outpost. In 1977 it was handed over to civilian residents.The settlement is located on the top of a hill among ruins of the site of Jewish Tekoa, 5 miles south of Bethlehem at the foot of Herodion ("Herod's Palace").
Tekoa is located 2,177 feet (670 meters) above sea level on a ridge surrounded on three sides by a deep canyon, Nahal Tekoa, that runs east to the Dead Sea.
Tekoa is populated by a mix of religious Zionists and secular Israelis. Many new immigrants from the former Soviet Union also live in Tekoa.
UPDATE: Part of Obama's demand to ethnically cleanse Israel of her Jews. Thanks to Torey Dawn:
"JERUSALEM -- Israeli security forces have destroyed another home in a West Bank Jewish community, implementing the government's destruction orders that were served during the building freeze that ended in September.
In the early hours of Dec. 15, about 100 special police officers [Yasam] and security forces, including border police, entered the eastern Gush Etzion settlement of Tekos in the Judean desert and destroyed the home of Yigal and Maya Carlebach and their newborn son.
"Since the beginning of the freeze, civil administration [the IDF] officials came to our neighborhood and distributed destruction orders to every [Jewish] home that had been built within the last two years," Matanya Stein, a Tekoa Daled resident said. "About 400 meters from here there is an Arab house which has destruction orders pending on it for years."
Stein also said that Tekoa Daled, the furthermost neighborhood in Tekoa, was built entirely on either State land or land that the State had not yet officially claimed but Palestinians laid no claim to it."
Posted by Pamela Geller on Thursday, January 06, 2011 at 03:50 PM in Israel Internal Affairs | Permalink | Comments (22) ShareThis
MUSLIM ASSASSIN OF GOVERNOR CRITICAL OF BLASPHEMY LAWS SHOWERED WITH ROSE PETALS
The pious assassin of the pakistan governor who was shot dead in cold blood because he criticized Islamic blasphemy laws (the sharia) was showered with rose petals.
[Jihad murder victim, Governor] Taseer had recently spoken out in defense of a Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy and calling for the law to be struck down, drawing ire from Islamist parties. Recently on Twitter, Mr. Taseer had been calling for people to demonstrate on the street against the blasphemy laws, which date to the dictatorship of former military Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s.
Consistent with Islam's 1,400 year history, the moderate, reasoned voices are eliminated. Always. And still. The reformers are the true "radicals." Moderates have no theological leg to stand on in Islam. Period.
Obama say, Respect it!
The following email and post shows how openly this Canadian Muslim group is hailing the assassin of the Pakistani Governor as a "Ghazi" (Holy Warrior of Islam). (hat tip Ravi)
Ghazi Mumtaz Qadri, Killer of Taseer Showered with Rose Petals, Lauded Before Court The Muslim.ca
Ghazi Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, centre, the accused killer of Punjab province Gov. Salman Taseer, arrives at court in Islamabad on Wednesday.
LAWYERS showered the suspected killer of a prominent Pakistani governor with rose petals when he arrived Wednesday for his first court appearance.
Ghazi Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, 26, was remanded in custody in Islamabad court a day after he allegedly sprayed automatic gunfire at Salman Taseer while he was on duty as a bodyguard for the Punjab province governor.
The lawyers who tossed handfuls of rose petals over him were not involved in the case. Several government officials and Police personnel also joined and greeted Mumtaz Qadri.
Majority of Ulema (Islamic scholars) and Islamic groups praised the assassination of the outspoken opponent of laws that order death for those who insult Islam. A rowdy crowd slapped the accused on the back and kissed his cheek as he was escorted inside.
As Qadri left the court, a crowd of about 200 sympathizers chanted "death is acceptable for Muhammad's slave." The suspect stood at the back door of an armoured police van with a flower necklace given to him by an admirer and repeatedly yelled "God is great."
More than 500 Ulema and scholars from the group Jamat Ahle Sunnat said no one should pray or express regret for the killing of the governor. The group representing Pakistan's majority Barelvi sect, which follows a brand of Islam considered moderate, also issued a veiled threat to other opponents of the blasphemy laws.
"The supporter is as equally guilty as one who committed blasphemy," the group warned in a statement, adding politicians, the media and others should learn "a lesson from the exemplary death."
Posted by Pamela Geller on Thursday, January 06, 2011 at 01:38 PM in Pakistan: One Bullet Away from Jihad Nuke, The Truth About Islam | Permalink | Comments (14) ShareThis