Has anyone ever seen or heard Alex Seitz-Wald of Salon rail against, pummel, and smear the devout jihadists who slaughter in the name of Islam? Has anyone ever heard him apply even the most remote standard of humanity to those committing holy war in the cause of Islam? Ever heard him denounce the sharia that brutally subjugates women and non-Muslims? Me neither.
And yet from his airless chamber, he fashions himself morally superior. Do these self-important clowns ever catch a cold hard glimpse of themselves in a mirror? We ought to stage an intervention for these hapless, ego-mad scribblers.
Today, Alex Seitz-Wald takes issue with Robert Spencer and me for defending ourselves against the onslaught of libel, misrepresentation of our ideas, smears and lies. It is wickedly funny. This spineless, gutless wonder whines about how mean we are.
It’s hard to imagine that I have scared my critics into silence — you mean there would be more daily attacks on my character, cred and body of work? But there are only 24 hours in the day.
Seitz-Wald claims that we “want the First Amendment to work only in their favor.” Uh, wrong. I only want the First Amendment to work. Period. I want to be able to run my ads without having to file six-figure First Amendment lawsuits. I want to speak and not get canceled. I want a scintilla of truth to be reported about the work I do. Just for starters, we are anti-jihad, not anti-Muslim. No matter how many tens of thousands of posts, columns and books I write to the contrary or how many Muslim girls we help get to safe houses — these tools propagandize and carry water for the most notorious Islamic supremacists. Seitz-Wald shills for the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth and he is pulling moral superiority. What he lacks in spine and guts he compensates for in cojones.
Calling on the media to be accurate is an insult to their craft. And when I defend myself and pointedly expose their agenda, that whole ship of fools starts bawlin’. Whaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Catholic diocese boots anti-Muslim speaker Alex Seitz-Wald, salon
A diocese in Massachusetts disinvites Robert SpencerThe response from Spencer and Geller was predictable: Blame the media. Writing at FrontPage, Spencer claimed that he was “informed” that the Boston Globe’s reporter, Lisa Wangsness, “instigated the entire controversy” and that she “asked [Muslim groups] to call the diocese and demand the cancellation.” Spencer published his entire, lengthy email exchange with Wangsness, including her phone number and email address, along with a correspondence with Wangsness’ editor. They declined to comment in an email to Salon.
Geller picked up the same line of attack, writing, today, “I am surprised that Lisa Wangsness didn’t shout allahu akbar at her attack and victory over the free exchange of ideas.”
This is typical for a group of people who want the First Amendment to work only in their favor. They cry foul any time anyone writes something critical of their work, condemning the supposed infringement on their freedom of speech, yet they turn around and try to bully critical voices in far more aggressive ways than any action directed at them.
Any journalists or public advocates who cross them are bound to have their emails published and a string of ad hominem attacks thrown their way in a manner than can only be intended to intimidate. This effectively silences many critics, who may feel it’s not worth incurring the hate to write about Geller or Spencer. Of this reporter, for instance, Geller once said it was “only a matter of time before he is getting measured for a suicide vest.” She called a Jewish group in Chicago that spoke out against her anti-Muslim bus and subway ads “Judenrat,” as in Jews who collaborated with Nazis.
That’s fine and they have the right to call anyone whatever they want, just as the diocese is free to rescind its invitation to Spencer and the Muslim groups are free to criticize it and the Globe is free to write about it, but you can’t have it both ways. It seems Spencer and Geller are not interested in “the free exchange of ideas,” as Geller said, but rather licence to express themselves with impunity and without criticism.
From Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/