News Ticker >
[ February 22, 2020 ]

Jihad-Rep Ilhan Omar Blames the Jews After Marriage to Her Brother is Confirmed

[ February 22, 2020 ]

Harvard Professor arrested by the FBI

[ February 22, 2020 ]

President Trump’s New Director of National Intelligence Ordered To “CLEAN HOUSE”

[ February 22, 2020 ]

Michael Bloomberg Confirms He Used Prison Labor To Make 2020 Campaign Calls

[ February 22, 2020 ]

Kansas City: Armed Forces trainee converts to Islam, plots jihad massacre at military base

[ February 22, 2020 ]

CNNazis: Don Lemon uses Holocaust poem to describe loyalties to Trump

[ February 22, 2020 ]

‘I Lived In Soviet Russia When Bernie Sanders Visited, And He’s A Communist Dupe’

[ February 22, 2020 ]

Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary accused of “racism” for saying terrorists are ‘generally Muslim men’

[ February 22, 2020 ]

Counter Terrorism DHS Whistle blower on Obama Admin Phil Haney Found Dead

[ February 22, 2020 ]

UK high school textbook links 9/11 Islamic attacks to the Jews

Geller/Spencer, American Thinker: Norway, Free Speech, and the Counterjihad

Please read the rebuttal that Robert Spencer and I wrote in response to the scurrilous Norway blood libel made against us by media shills and Islamic supremacists. We submitted our piece to publications that damned us and others — the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Post, National Review, the American Spectator, the London Spectator, the Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal. Nyet.  The notorious Guardian, the New York Times, and the Washington Post have published any number of articles smearing us, but would sooner strap on a homicide bomb than let us challenge their lies.

Allow me to extend my deep thanks to the one fine and decent editor who had the integrity to run it, Thomas Lifson of the singular American Thinker.

Norway, Free Speech, and the Counterjihad
Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

Ever since the heinous murders in Norway, we have been subjected to an unrelenting campaign of vilification.  It appears that the Norway mass murderer Anders Breivik cited us, along with John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Barack Obama and a host of others, in his lengthy cut-and-paste manifesto; despite that manifesto's ideological incoherence, his citations of our work have led to an international campaign to blame us for the massacre.  The New York Times, NBC, the BBC, CNN, the Washington Post, many European publications, and a host of others have claimed that we are responsible for creating a climate of "hate" in which a Breivik was inevitable. This is not only false, but such charges against us challenge fundamental principles of the freedom of speech.

We submitted this present article defending ourselves to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Post, National Review, the American Spectator, the London Spectator, the Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.  Most ignored the submission altogether; National Review and the New York Post were the only ones who bothered to inform us that they were turning down the piece.  The mainstream media was ready and eager to demonize us, but not so willing to give us a fair hearing and a chance to rebut their false charges.

In the first place, the claim that we are engaged in focusing hatred upon or engaged in demonizing any group is false.  In fact, it is more true of our opponents' attacks on our own work than it is of anything we have said or done.  We stand and have always stood against the evil of using violence for political and religious goals, and against all political and religious fanaticism.  We stand and have always stood against the use of violence to advance any political agenda.  We have stood consistently and still stand for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law.  Anyone who sincerely upholds and wishes to defend those principles, whatever his creed or background, we count as an ally.

Those who claim that we have incited hatred that leads to violence are using an argument that can be used against themselves.  Critics of American and NATO foreign policy should note that there have been numerous terror attacks committed by people who oppose that foreign policy.  Are such critics responsible for creating a climate of hatred that led such people to commit terror attacks?  In the 1960s, the Ku Klux Klan blamed Martin Luther King, Jr. for the Watts riots.  King was steadfastly nonviolent, but he agreed with the political perspectives of the rioters.  Was he then responsible for creating a climate of hatred that led to the riots?  Was his righteous cause delegimitized by the fact that some departed from his express wishes and resorted to violence?

What's more, the media outlets that have blamed us for the Norway murders are practicing a double standard.  Just days ago, a Muslim soldier in the U.S. Army, Pfc. Naser Abdo, was arrested with bomb materials.  He admitted to plotting another jihad terror mass murder spree at Fort Hood in Texas, in support of Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered thirteen Americans in a jihad attack there in November 2009.  There have been dozens of such plots thwarted in recent years, and tens of thousands of jihad attacks worldwide.  Yet there has been nothing remotely comparable to the intense and obsessive mainstream media coverage that we witnessed immediately after the Norway massacre.  There has been no media attempt to determine the motivation behind this explosive plot at Fort Hood or the other jihad attacks.  Why aren't Brian Williams, Anderson Cooper, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the BBC, and all the rest just as consumed as they were with the Norwegian killer's supposed motivations?  Why aren't they investigating the ideology that incited this Muslim soldier to prepare a jihad attack, especially in light of his stated intent last year to fight "Islamophobia" and promote Islam as a "peaceful religion"?

Ultimately, the arguments that have been used to blame us for the Norway attacks can be used against anyone of any ideological perspective, and strike at the very heart of the freedom of speech.  By their logic, no one should be critical of anything, for fear that some evil person will misunderstand that criticism and commit violence because of it.  The mainstream media itself can be seen as inciting violence in its sharp criticism of our perspective: the murders of Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn, as well as the multiple threats against Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and both of us, amply demonstrate that criticism of anti-jihadists can and does often lead to violence.  Should that criticism thus be muted?

Read the rest here.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute to our ground-breaking work here.

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Contribute Monthly - Choose One

Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email

Pin It on Pinterest