Tag: pamela geller
This Week In Crazy: The Wrath Of Trump

This Week In Crazy: The Wrath Of Trump

Every time we think Trump has hit rock bottom, the tycoon breaks out the jackhammer and keeps going. The only thing more alarming than The Donald? His supporters.

Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the loony, bigoted, and hateful behavior of the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five:

5. Ann Coulter

People on all sides of the aisle — including other GOP presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz; Dick Cheney (!); House Speaker Paul Ryan; a cornucopia of pundits, celebrities, business moguls, heads of state, disillusioned erst-Trump fans; and even the White House — have announced how appalled they are at Trump’s remarks that he would ban all Muslims from entering the United States.

Of course, consummate troll Ann Coulter has The Donald’s back. Calling his inflammatory remarks her “best birthday gift” in her syndicated column Wednesday, Coulter affirmed that Trump’s proposal was neither racist nor unconstitutional, and that Republicans condemning Trump were merely “eunuchs.”

In the blog post, she shows off her typical flair for sensible, tempered responses to current events:

Given the devastation caused by only two Muslims in San Bernardino, eight Muslims in Paris, two at the Boston Marathon, one at a Chattanooga military recruitment center, one at Fort Hood, 19 on 9/11, etc. etc. — it’s really irrelevant whether “most” Muslim immigrants are peaceful little lambs. It doesn’t take a lot of them to create havoc.

How else have the 1.5 million Muslims admitted since 9/11 made our country better? Their massive welfare use? Overburdening our schools and hospitals? The machete attacks? The clitorectomies? The honor killings? The occasional terrorist attack?

Of course, American Muslims don’t exactly have a monopoly on terrorist attacks or even machete attacks. But Coulter’s implacable hatred of all immigrants knows neither bounds nor logic. Anyway, happy birthday to her.

Via Right Wing Watch

Next: Pamela Geller

4. Pamela Geller

Pamela Geller, the provocateur who launched the “Draw Muhammad” contest that inspired two gunmen to assassinate her, was saved in that instance by police who shot the gunmen dead. Now, she’s returning the favor with some choice words of appreciation and thanks for the nation’s chief law enforcement officer: “Come and get me, biatch!”

Defending Trump’s intention to ban all Muslims, Geller gave a radio interview with Joyce Kaufman, in which she lamented the “Jon Stewart-ization of the world, of America,” which has turned colleges into “hotbeds of inculcation, of anarchy, of hatred of freedom, of hatred of Jews, of hatred of America, of everything we are.” (I must have missed that episode of The Daily Show.)

This, she says, recalls the way the Nazis seized control. (First they came for the race-baiting Islamophobic bigots…)

But she reserved her most potent venom for Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

From Right Wing Watch:

The two also discussed comments by Attorney General Loretta Lynch that the Justice Department would “take action” when it sees “violent rhetoric,” which she later clarified by noting that “we prosecute deeds not words.”

Geller, of course, saw this as a threat that Lynch would arrest her if someone commits a violent act after reading her Atlas Shrugs blog. “I have one thing to say,” she said, “Come and get me, biatch.”

“If the Obama administration wants to go to war against freedom, wants to arrest me for my unalienable rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, I’m going to put on my little black dress, Joyce, my string of pearls and my thigh-highs and I’m going to head on down to the jail,” she added.

For what it’s worth, when Geller pulled her Muslim-baiting stunt back in May, a pre-candidate Trump, operating on a somewhat more grounded stratum of sanity, tweeted at the time that the “U.S. has enough problems without publicity seekers going out and openly mocking religion in order to provoke attacks and death. BE SMART.”

In the intervening months, it appears Trump sunk to her level — and then some.

ViaMediateandRight Wing Watch

Next: Rush Limbaugh

3. Rush Limbaugh

If you condemn Donald Trump for his comments (as nearly everyone has), you’re no better than the terrorists.

This is the gospel from Conservative America’s demented, opiate-addicted id, Rush Limbaugh, whose logic apparently reduces to: You’re either with Trump or you’re for ISIS. Because if you disagree with The Donald, you’re on the “same side” as America’s enemies.

From Mediaite:

Limbaugh was apparently going off a statement one Hamas leader provided to Breitbart. Ismail Radwan reportedly told them, in response to Trump’s proposal, “We do not estimate that the current U.S. administration, any administration, will implement these racist suggestions. This is a pathetic attempt to attribute terror exclusively to Muslims.”

Limbaugh said, “That puts the Republican party, the Democrat party, and everybody else in the establishment, and Obama on the same side Hamas is on! And over here all by himself is Donald Trump, speaking out against it all.”

Expounding on Facebook, Limbaugh wrote: “Hamas is a terrorist group. Do you know that Hamas came out in opposition to Trump’s statement? That puts the Republican Party, the Democrat Party, and everybody else in the establishment and Obama on the same side Hamas is on.”

Transitive property, fools. QE-frickin’-D. Visit Mediaite for audio of Limbaugh’s ravings.

Next: Fox & Friends

2. Fox & Friends

The fatuous folks at Fox & Friends — the ne plus ultra in well-dressed prestige trolling — in their ongoing project to excavate new lows for themselves are addressing the scourge of gun violence in schools, by encouraging children to fight back against armed gunmen, should they ever find themselves in the middle of a school shooting (which, after all, is just the price we pay for freedom).

Their Tuesday morning segment on the subject — chyron’d “Caught In The Chaos: How To Teach Your Kids To Fight Back” — de-emphasized the widely recommended self-preservation tactics of escaping and hiding, and devoted the majority of their feature to “two krav maga instructors and three children who demonstrated martial arts techniques that could be used to disarm an active shooter,” according to Media Matters.

Co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck introduced the segment saying, “In an active shooter situation five seconds can mean the difference between life and death. But there are some things that you can do, and your children can do, to make a difference” before asking the instructor to “display for us and exemplify what would happen in an armed shooter situation.” The instructor then used a stapler as a prop while his co-instructor demonstrated how to disarm a gunman from behind.

Attempting to evacuate or hide only came up in passing when Hasselbeck asked the instructor what to do if you find yourself in an active shooter situation with alongside another potential victim. The instructor, said, “Once we’re hiding, let’s say we couldn’t run away, and we hide and then we’ve realized that we might be discovered, we have to basically communicate with each other and say, ‘Listen, this is what is going to happen, if I grab the gun, you guys are going to tackle the person.'” The comment didn’t clearly explain that these steps should be taken first — whether if you are alone or with someone else — and the segment then moved on to another demonstration of disarming a gunman.

Media Matters notes that the “Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has specific guidelines on how to act when one’s life is threatened in a shooting situation,” and that one should “take action against an active shooter only ‘as a last resort’ and when your life is in imminent danger.”

Besides, in a truly free society, children would be allowed to pack heat in the classrooms. Oh, wait.

ViaMedia Matters

Next: Donald Trump

1. Donald Trump

We know the play well.

First, Trump says something reprehensible, something reeking of illogic and hostility, perhaps something that threatens to upend domestic tranquility through incitements to racial violence at home, or perhaps some rant that could explode our international standing through ill-considered and uncouth threats that betray a dangerous, glaring ignorance of geopolitics and the finer points of diplomacy. The details hardly matter (as Trump would agree).

Next: luminaries, statesmen, movers, and shakers from within his own newly adopted party condemn the remarks; the punditocracy foresees the imminent downfall of The Donald. Surely, nobody could say such outrageous things about Hispanics, women, POWs, Muslims, or — for God’s sake — Iowans; nobody could lie through their teeth so loudly and so frequently and still secure the nomination.

And then, of course, he rises in the polls. So it was this week, when Trump articulated his “Ban all the Muslims” doctrine (conveniently after a new poll showed him getting beaten in Iowatake that, Cruz!)

So what’s left to say about the autocratic, irresponsibly obtuse Orange-Julius-in-a-thousand-dollar-suit leading the GOP race, except that his poll numbers have, yes, gone up again. As we knew they would.

Whether he exits before the convention, loses 2016 for the Republicans, or mounts his own third-party folly, Trump will have irrevocably left his stain on American politics and discourse — and we are the worse for it.

Illustration: Chris Piascik via Flickr

Check out previous editions of This Week In Crazy here. Think we missed something? Let us know in the comments!

Get This Week In Crazy delivered to your inbox every Friday, by signing up for our daily email newsletter.

This Week In Crazy: Beyond The GOP Debate

This Week In Crazy: Beyond The GOP Debate

The twin GOP debates on Wednesday night were a five-hour opera of posturing nuttiness — but far from the only conservative inanity on display this week. Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the loony, bigoted, and hateful behavior of the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five:

5. Roy Moore

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was Kim Davis before it was cool to be Kim Davis. (Please note that it is still not cool to be Kim Davis.)

In the months before the Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, the conservative Moore announced loudly and proudly that he would not honor any such decision, likening it to — of course — the judicial immorality of Dred Scott (which is kind of the go-to bogeyman for these obstinate government officials when they want to discredit the rule of law).

Moore, whose record is checkered with defending segregationist language in Alabama’s constitution and flouting a judge’s order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from courthouse grounds, is back in the media spotlight, speaking at the Eagle Forum in St. Louis, Missouri last week, where, according to Right Wing Watch, he “dedicated his entire speech to attacking the Obergefell decision and, like Davis’ lawyers, compared the clerk to victims of the Holocaust.”

After reading Martin Niemöller’s poem “First They Came For The Socialists…,” Moore decided to write his own version in honor of Davis: “Ladies in gentlemen, we can say the same thing today. They came for the bakers, I didn’t bake cakes. They came for the florists, but I didn’t deal with flowers. They came for the little clerk down in Kentucky by the name of Kim Davis, but I’m not a clerk, I have nothing do with issuing licenses. Then they came for me, and nobody was left.”

“This will touch every person in this room, every child in this room eventually,” he said of Obergefell. “This opinion is not like other opinions that have been issued.”

He’s right: This opinion is not like Dred Scott.

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/223991897″ params=”color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

Via Right Wing Watch

Next: John Price and Rick Wiles

4. John Price and Rick Wiles

Something odd happened in the last couple of years. As gay and lesbian couples won the right to marry throughout the U.S., conservatives began viewing Russia, our onetime and perhaps future Cold War foe, as a shining city on a hill. The reason: Putin’s Russia is virulently anti-gay and recently banned pornography websites. And this is how our once “godless” enemy became a bastion of divine justice and safe haven for Christians in the hearts and minds of deluded American right wingers.

Indiana Republican pol and author of The End of America, John Price, went on Rick Wiles’ TruNews radio program last week to tell all American Christians of conscience that it’s high time to pack up their bags and set sail for “godly” Russia.

He called the U.S. the “mother of abominations” because we export our culture of abortion, pornography, and same-sex marriage. “All of these things have the unfortunate result of destroying our country culturally,” he said.

“It’s been funny over the last five or six years,” Price continued, “to watch Putin and other elements of the Russian bureaucracy move to the right on some of these cultural issues at the same that the United States has gone—”

“We’ve become godless!” Wiles interjected.

“Totally, totally, that’s right.”

“We have become the godless communist nation and Russia is moving towards God. This is so bizarre to watch this taking place.”

We agree on that, at least.

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/223977000″ params=”color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

Via Right Wing Watch

Next: Ted Cruz 

3. Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz is so very proud of himself for snagging an endorsement from a white supremacist nut.

Here’s how he did it. Remember when 20 first graders were shot to death in their classrooms? Wasn’t it just awful the way some uppity legislators thought maybe, just maybe, this was the signal that something about the country’s gun laws was terribly off?

“When Harry Reid and Barack Obama came after the right to keep and bear arms of millions of Americans,” Cruz recalled at Wednesday night’s debate, “I was proud to lead the fight in the United States Senate to protect our right to keep and bear arms and for that reason, I was honored to be endorsed by Gun Owners of America [GOA] as the strongest supporter of the Second Amendment on the stage today.”

Indeed, the GOA did endorse the Texas senator, in a rabid statement released on Sept 8 that praised Cruz’s “willingness to fight for our Second Amendment rights,” took aim (figuratively, for now) at “illegal aliens […] the majority of [whom] are anti-gunners who have ignored and flouted our laws,” and lamented what the group described as “the anti-gun Obamacare law, which will facilitate the disarmament of millions of gun owners once the law is fully implemented.”

So happens that the GOA is one of the most insane, outspoken gun-rights groups out there. It’s founder, Larry Pratt, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “stands at the intersection of guns and Jesus, lobbying for absolutely unrestricted distribution of firearms while advocating a theocratic society based upon Old Testament civil and religious laws.” He has likened gun control efforts to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, and “believes that white Christians must arm themselves for self-protection in the inevitable social implosions and riots that are soon to come.”

Well done, senator. This is an endorsement that is well deserved.

ViaMedia Matters

Next: Ann Coulter

2. Ann Coulter

You know, for a while during the debate on Wednesday, it looked like some Republicans were running to be leader of a different country.

Bush said the U.S. needed to “send a signal […] that we have Israel’s back.” Fiorina vowed to make her first presidential phone call to “my good friend Bibi Netanyahu.” Huckabee promised — in the same breath — to make the U.S. and Israel each a safer place. Rubio swore he’d fly Air Force One “first and foremost to our allies: in Israel.” Cruz insisted that he would relocate the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

There’s probably a legitimate criticism to be mined from the GOP’s showboating and the outsized influence of Israel in our foreign policy. Ann Coulter, as it turned out, is not the person to mine it.

“How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” she tweeted mid-debate, reacting to the relentless invocation of Israel.

As the caustic, hateful pundit stated over and over again in response to the tidal backlash her tweet unleashed, the object of her ire was not Jews, but the Republican Party’s shameless pandering to Israel at the expense of other issues. She was being “pro-Semitic,” she said. “Where is all the GOP pandering on Israel getting us? U.S. becoming Mexico very bad for Israel.”

The vectors of hostility and xenophobia are awfully scattered and tangled, making it difficult to discern what exactly is the target of Coulter’s generally loathsome behavior. But before we take her “pro-Semitic” claim too seriously, recall the following anecdote about Coulter, excerpted from David Brock’s memoir Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative:

And though she had dated Jewish neocon John Podhoretz, a virulent anti-Semitism that I indulged her in for far too long punctuated Ann’s private conversations. That she wanted to leave her New York law firm “to get away from all these Jews” was one of her gentler remarks.

Next: Pamela Geller

1. Pamela Geller

When police arrested a 14-year-old student in Irving, Texas for bringing to class a homemade clock, it made for an ugly picture: slight, bespectacled Ahmed Mohamed, wearing a NASA t-shirt and handcuffs, being taken into custody in his school, because panicky teachers mistook his harmless creation for a bomb.

People leapt to his defense on social media via the hashtag #IStandWithAhmed, and Mohamed received shoutouts of support from the president—who invited him to the White House—Mark Zuckerberg, and MIT, and even snagged a TV interview with Chris Hayes.

The whole affair kicked off a national debate about the consequences of racial profiling, the fine line between discrimination and vigilance, and whether or not we as a country should be afraid of circuit boards.

Of course, there was one person who saw it differently: Pamela Geller, the vile Islamophobic troll and head of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as an active anti-Muslim group.

You may recall Geller as the agitator who merrily launched a “Draw Mohammad” event with the express intention of baiting Muslims: “Are we going to surrender to these monsters?” she said at the time.

On her blog, Geller offered her unique perspective on the events in Texas:

When questioned about the device was [sic], the student, Ahmed Mohamed, wouldn’t answer. Now terror-tied Islamic groups like Hamas-CAIR, their media lapdogs and even President Obama are waging jihad against the school.

Geller’s choice of the word “jihad” is specious to say the least, and her claim that Mohamed wouldn’t answer police questions is utterly false: The student repeatedly explained that he had made a digital clock, whose alarm just happened to ring at an inopportune time. Geller continued:

This whole thing smells like a set-up. With ISIS in America, and young moderate Muslims are fleeing to Syria to join the terror group, the Irving school’s response was rational and reasonable. [emphasis Geller’s]

[…] The teachers were just trying to protect the school and the school children. Islamic supremacists will have their heads.

Could this simply have been a case of law enforcement acting rashly and inappropriately? No, Geller asserts, it’s a “set-up,” inextricably linked with extremist violence the world over.

And why can’t the American people see that? Probably because the president’s a Muslim.

But the Texas teen was never charged. And it seems he’s pretty innocent, yes? No! Come on, his nameisMohamed.”

What are you getting at, Pamela? ISIS. ISIS. ISIS. ISIS. ISIS.

Ah, good point.

Illustration above: DonkeyHotey via Flickr 

Check out previous editions of This Week In Crazy here. Think we missed something? Let us know in the comments!

Get This Week In Crazy delivered to your inbox every Friday, by signing up for our daily email newsletter.

When Cheap Laughs Cost Too Much

When Cheap Laughs Cost Too Much

Some people unfortunately think that the best way to respond to the intolerance of Muslim fanatics is to insult all Muslims.

That’s the twisted thinking behind professional Muslim baiter Pamela Geller’s ill-advised contest in Garland, Texas. Her organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, offered a $10,000 prize to a cartoonist deemed to have drawn the best mocking picture of Islam’s Prophet Mohammad.

Most Muslims quite sensibly ignored the stunt. But when you bait enough people, somebody will rise to the provocation. Two heavily armed and armored Muslim men from Phoenix arrived to shoot up the contest, authorities say, but were blocked by the Garland police force. A traffic cop fatally shot both — and Geller succeeded in making her own organization sound no less reckless than the fanatics she baited.

Oh, sure, there are some people who buy into Geller’s insistence that she is only defending free speech. But that does not excuse her from criticism for expressing reckless speech.

As you probably know, Geller’s contest is just one of the more bizarre reactions to the murderous January assault on the Paris offices of the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo by two French Islamic extremists who were offended by the magazine’s depiction of Muhammad.

For the record, Charlie Hebdo cartoonists Jean-Baptiste Thoret and Gerard Biard declared there was “no comparison” between the “equal-opportunity offense” in their criticism of all religions and the Islamaphobic slant of Geller’s stunt.

Yet Charlie Hebdo also has been sharply criticized by many who affirm their right to print what they print but sharply dislike some of what they’re printing.

For example, after the writers’ organization PEN announced that it was giving an award to Charlie Hebdo, six writers who had earlier agreed to be “table hosts” at the gala backed out. While deploring censorship and violence, a letter signed by dissenting PEN members said in part, “(In) an unequal society, equal-opportunity offense does not have an equal effect.”

The letter echoed a criticism of Charlie Hebdo‘s humor in a speech by “Doonesbury” creator Garry Trudeau at journalism’s prestigious George Polk Awards: “Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful. Great French satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny — it’s just mean.”

Trudeau probes a central question in this debate: What is satire for? It is meant to be humorous, but it isn’t always. It should aim to “punch up, not down,” as the old saying goes, but sometimes even a seemingly disempowered minority group can exercise oppressive, lethal power when it runs amok with murderous fanaticism.

With this debate bubbling through the media community, I was not surprised to hear it pop up in a question to Kevin “Kal” Kallaugher, editorial cartoonist at The Economist and the Baltimore Sun. As he accepted the 2015 Herblock Prize for editorial cartooning at the Library of Congress in Washington, he was asked, “Would he enter the Texas contest?”

No, Kal said, and he would not encourage any of his fellow cartoonists to do it, either. “It seemed to me to be a bit of a stunt.” Whatever the contest was trying to prove about freedom of expression, he said, it ended up “bordering on hate speech.”

As a board member of the Herb Block Foundation, which sponsors the prize, I have been in numerous discussions like this centering on an almost mystical question: “What would Herb do?”

Block, perhaps better known by his pen name Herblock, was a four-time Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist for the Washington Post. Even as a student, I idolized the Chicago-born artist for his ability to reduce the powerful and pompous through the fine art of ridicule. His cartoons branded red-baiting Sen. Joe McCarthy with the term “McCarthyism.” He wore his place on President Richard M. Nixon’s infamous “enemies list” like a badge of honor.

Yet, as much as he championed speech and press freedoms, his work is worth our admiration because, among other distinctions, he’d rather sacrifice humor in a cartoon than paint his adversaries with too broad of a brush. Sometimes a cheap laugh isn’t worth the price.

Leonard Pitts, Jr. is off today.

(Email Clarence Page at cpage@tribune.com.) 

Photo: Fede Falces via Flickr

The Freedom To Provoke

The Freedom To Provoke

It’s still a radical document, the U.S. Constitution, no part of it more so than the First Amendment. Almost everybody’s for freedom of speech, particularly for themselves and people who agree with them. However, the part about no establishment of religion vexes True Believers of every persuasion. How can government possibly remain neutral in matters of faith?

But what really confuses people is an episode like the recent failed terrorist attack in Garland, Texas. Does our commitment to freedom of expression require that we condemn Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, the two self-proclaimed ISIS jihadists who got themselves shot to death during an abortive attempt to massacre participants in a well-publicized contest to draw ugly cartoon caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad?

Absolutely it does. Those two murderous dimwits got exactly what they came looking for. Although nobody’s saying so, something tells me the police officer who took them down wasn’t just the average traffic cop. That fellow would have been all over TV by now. This guy has remained anonymous. Amateurs are ill advised to get into gun battles with professionals.

But are we therefore also required to admire Pamela Geller, co-founder and president of Stop Islamization of America, the organization that sponsored the cartoon contest? No, we are not. The right to free speech does not include the right not to be criticized.

I’m glad nobody shot her. However, Geller’s actions were deliberately and characteristically provocative, coarse and contemptuous of others’ beliefs; in short, the very definition of bigotry. In the final analysis, those actions are also damaging to this country’s ability to prevail in its long twilight struggle with radical Islamic terrorism.

The amazing thing is how observers find this hard to see. Writing in his Washington Post media column, the normally sensible Erik Wemple takes issue with Geller’s critics. “And who’s being treated as the public enemy on cable?” he asks incredulously. “The woman who organized a cartoon contest.”

I’m pretty sure Wemple would take a different view of a Stormfront competition to caricature the ugliest hook-nosed rabbi.

But hold that thought.

“To her enduring credit,” Wemple adds “Fox News’ Megyn Kelly has been screaming all week about the folly of the ‘too-provocative’ crowd.”

Indeed she has. Interestingly enough, the lovely Ms. Kelly’s antagonists include Fox News luminaries Bill O’Reilly and Donald Trump, along with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, CNN’s Jake Tapper, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush and others Wemple characterizes as “folded into a crouch of cowardice and rationalization.”

Megyn Kelly’s thunderous rebuttal to O’Reilly was couched in melodramatic terms Geller herself would find appropriate: “You know what else the jihadis don’t like? They hate Jews. Should we get rid of all Jews? That’s the path we’re going to go down catering to the jihadis. There’s no satisfying them.”

Holy false dichotomies, Batman! So the choices are deliberately offend the religious sensibilities of millions of peaceable Muslims or get rid of Jews?

This kind of black-and-white thinking is pretty much the stock in trade of propagandists like Geller intent upon persuading Americans that not only ISIS and al Qaeda extremists but Islam itself and Arabs in particular are terrorist enemies of the United States. All Arabs, everywhere.

The problem, argues former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, is that the worldwide battle with Islamic fundamentalism

can’t be won without Muslim allies — loyal U.S. citizens who report suspicious activities; allies and proxies who fight against violent Islamism; hundreds of millions of people around the world who repudiate Salafism by the peacefulness and tolerance of their daily lives.

When Americans engage in high-profile, attention-seeking acts of blasphemy, they are not joining U.S. military and intelligence forces at the front line; they are complicating and undermining their work.

President Obama has said much the same thing.

Things might also be different if Pamela Geller didn’t have such an extensive track record. “On her website,” reports the Jewish Daily Forward “Geller has denounced President Obama as ‘a third worlder and a coward’ who ‘will do nothing but beat up on our friends to appease his Islamic overlords’ and as ‘a muhammadan’ who “wants jihad to win.

The Anti-Defamation League has criticized Geller for “consistently vilifying the Islamic faith under the guise of fighting radical Islam.” The British government refused to let her enter that country in 2011. She has characterized other Jews who criticize her as worse than “21st-century kapos,” a reference to Jews who served as guards in Nazi death camps.

Astonishingly, after extreme-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik murdered 70 people at a Norwegian Labour Party summer youth camp in 2011, he credited Geller with inspiring him. She then assailed the Scandinavian left for harboring anti-Israel sentiments, posting a camp photo on her Atlas Shrugs website captioned: “Note the faces which are more Middle Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian.”

Non-Aryan Untermenschen, Hitler would have called them.

Screenshot: Pamela Geller debates Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary on Sean Hannity’s show, May 6, 2015.