The kneejerk response from MSNBC's Chris Matthews was boilerplate liberal apologia for the jihad -- yes, Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller and her American Freedom Defense Initiative have the right to organize a Draw Muhammad contest, but doing so was deliberately provocative and "caused" two fanatical Islamists to open fire outside the event.
Both gunmen were killed by a police officer, who was armed, this because the event was held in Texas and not France.
Why would jihadists limit their demands to a ban on caricatures of the Prophet, Rush Limbaugh asked his radio listeners Monday (audio) --
Now, I want to go back to the shooting in Texas and before we get to the Pam Geller soundbites, I've a serious question here, folks, a very serious question -- you just heard Mark Potok, something, this hate organization called the Southern Poverty Law Center, make no mistake, that is a hate organization, and their hatred is for anything not Democrat. Their hatred is for anything Republican or conservative.
I wonder how the president's going to respond to the situation in Garland, Texas -- ISIS shooters show up because it is said they were provoked. Pam Geller and her group, oh yeah, they can have a convention on drawing cartoons of the Prophet, but they are responsible for what happens, so if somebody pulls a gun out and shoots at 'em it is their fault -- not the perps, not the shooters -- it's their fault, because Islam tells us you cannot draw pictures of the Prophet.
OK, fine. If Americans are to respect and obey the laws of Islam that prohibit the drawing of pictures of Muhammad, then why wouldn't Americans have to respect and obey Islam's laws and punishments regarding gays and women? I mean, if it's that important to them, who are we to disagree? If they say you can't draw pictures of the Prophet and we say, you're right, we can't, and anybody that does, why, they're going to get what's coming to them.
Now you move over to other aspects of militant Islam and we know what happens to homosexuals in Iran or any other Islamic country, we know what happens to women. Well, if we're going to respect and obey the laws about drawing cartoons of the Prophet, don't we have to respect what Islam says about homosexuality and women? I mean, where do we draw the line and say, no, no, we can ignore that? But this picture business -- nope, we gotta follow that to the letter of the law. We gotta follow that to the letter of Islam. We gotta follow that to the letter of Allah, but the gay and women thing, not so much.
And how about that extremely provocative tendency of American parents to send their sons and daughters to school for an education -- Islamists despise that.
MSNBC's endless advocacy for gay marriage -- surely this too is deeply offensive and highly provocative to radical Muslims. Perhaps the network should stop doing it, rather than wait for the inevitable jihadist rampage. After all, Matthews and his cable comrades presumably don't want to risk "causing" such a terrible thing, right?
Matthews's openly gay colleague Rachel Maddow has probably already bought champagne in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage. If the court rules in the affirmative, shouldn't Maddow refrain from uncorking the champagne live on the air -- just to be on the safe side?