American liberals are blaming the organizer of the "draw Mohammed"

Lose free speech, lose America. American liberals are blaming the organizer of the "draw Mohammed" event in Texas for the violence, instead of the jihadists. This is another example of the moral inversion of liberals. The have no issue with artistic renderings of Jesus soaked in urine and want to protect that as "free speech" but want to eliminate any criticism of a religion that truly merits criticism of the utmost degree. The only answer for jihad is kill them all. Islamiac jihadists want to stop all our liberties, kill all Jews and destroy the West. There is no reasoning with them. We can only kill them. They represent a religion conceived in evil and at least 50% of Muslim adherents today support violent jihad. Obama is allowing massive migration of Muslims to the USA and has hired many in high level positions of the government. I salute Pam Geller for drawing out 2 more who were on our shores, and who are now dead.
Islam was evil in origin and 50% Muslims today support violent jihad, honor killings, shariah law
child abuse, sexual slavery, mass murder, anti gay, anti women
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.co.il/…/barbarity-in-mode…

John Hinderacker

This is one of many instances of the press blaming the victim, Ms. Geller, for the terrorist attack against her event. There was a time when one might have expected America’s news media to come down on the side of freedom of speech, but those days are, for the most part, gone. Andy McCarthy writes that criticisms of Geller miss the point:

[A]s I argue in Islam and Free Speech, it will not do to blame the messenger for the violence. The shooting last night was not caused by the free-speech event any more than the Charlie Hebdo murders were caused by derogatory caricatures, or the rioting after a Danish newspaper’s publication of anti-Islam cartoons was caused by the newspaper. The violence is caused by Islamic supremacist ideology and its law that incites Muslims to kill those they judge to have disparaged Islam. …

The threat to liberty in this instance is sharia blasphemy law. A bloc of Muslim-majority countries, with the assistance of the Obama administration (led by the U.S. State Department, particularly under Hillary Clinton), is trying to use international law to impose Islam’s repressive law to make it illegal to subject Islam to negative criticism. No sensible person favors obnoxious expression or gratuitous insult. But as I contend in the pamphlet, there is a big difference between saying “I object to this illustration of insensitivity and bad taste” and saying “I believe that what repulses me should be against the law.” …

It would be easy, in our preening gentility, to look down our noses at a Mohammed cartoon contest. But we’d better understand the scope of the threat the contest was meant to raise our attention to — a threat triggered by ideology, not cartoons. There is in our midst an Islamist movement that wants to suppress not only insults to Islam but all critical examination of Islam. That movement is delighted to leverage the atmosphere of intimidation created by violent jihadists, and it counts the current United States government among its allies.

The sad reality is that free speech has never been particularly popular. Now, as always, it is incumbent on those who would be free to stand up for the freedom of others.