Front page of the Sunday Metro section
Justin Elliott over at Salon is whining and stomping his jackbooted feet at The NY Times reporters Anne Barnard and Alan Feuer for going "soft" on me here and not spreading the vicious, defamatory lies and smears that the left notoriously traffics in. It's what they do, it's all they do -- destroy people. And Justin Elliott's vile, Goebbels-inspired post is textbook left-wing smear. Evil.
My take on the Times piece is here.
My colleague and staunch defender of freedom, Robert Spencer, does a wonderful fisk of the fallacious, mouth-foaming Elliott hate piece. Justin Elliott expected the Times to serve up all the insane memes, inaccuracies and ugly lies as facts. So now the smear machine is in full throttle to wrong this right. I was not happy with the Times piece and their take on my work. But Elliott is insane. And easily debunked, thanks to Spencer.
Read Spencer's fisk. It's delish. Here's an excerpt, but read it all:
Justin Elliott of Salon is hopping mad about the New York Times' slyly contemptuous piece against Pamela Geller: he doesn't think it contained enough venom, and is eager to supply it himself. And after the time-hallowed fashion of Leftist "media critics," the "truth" he offers is just more lies. "New York Times runs softball profile of Pamela Geller," by Justin Elliott for Salon, October 11:The New York Times on Sunday published a big profile of Pamela Geller, the blogger and anti-Islam activist whose work we have documented, particularly her role creating the "ground zero mosque" controversy out of thin air.
Elliott here is doing what many in the mainstream media have tried to do: blame the entire controversy over the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero on Pamela Geller, then work to marginalize and discredit Pamela Geller, and viola! No more opposition to the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero. This tactic manifests their arrogance and disdain for the American people, 70% of whom oppose the mosque; Elliott and his ilk want you to believe that this opposition doesn't arise from genuine indignation at the calculated insult and declaration of Islamic supremacism that the mosque represents, but that it has been ginned up by manipulative "right wingers."
That in turn stems from their narcissistic inability to conceive of the possibility that an intelligent person could in good faith come to a conclusion different from theirs -- so they must ascribe any opposition to their point of view to a dishonest desire for gain or the effects of demagoguery. In this they resemble their Islamic supremacist allies, who likewise can't imagine the possibility that someone might oppose the jihad and Islamic supremacism out of the conviction that Sharia is harmful to human beings and societies, and not out of profiteering or a desire for power. In that, of course, the Islamic supremacists are simply following the lead of the Qur'an and Hadith, both of which consistently characterize unbelievers as knowing that Muhammad is Allah's prophet but rejecting him out of greed or a desire for power.The Times story exhibits some of the worst tendencies of objectivity journalism. The reporters, Anne Barnard and Alan Feuer, do a middling job laying out some of the outrageous, and racist, things that Geller has written (though they miss a lot too -- more on this below)....
The charge of "racism" is extremely tired, but the Left is so intellectually bankrupt that Leftist writers can't think of anything else to say. Anyone who bothers to consider the issues here will realize after about five seconds that resistance to Sharia's denial of the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, and institutionalized oppression of women and non-Muslims, is not remotely racist (Islamic supremacists come in all races) and has nothing to do with race at all. But Justin Elliott hasn't thought about these issues for five seconds -- he is just following along with the other lemmings.All of that is true -- Geller is neither a journalist nor a scholar nor a Washington insider. But none of that is as relevant as the fact that goes unmentioned by the Times: she is a conspiracy theorist, one with a long record of making demonstrably false statements. The best example, which is conspicuously missing from the Times piece, is the time Geller wrote a lengthy post laying out her theory that Barack Obama's real father is Malcolm X.
Note that for this Elliott links to Gawker, not to Atlas Shrugs. If this eminent media critic had bothered to do some fact-checking, he might have found this statement from Pamela Geller on the actual post in question: "The 'Atlas says that Barack Obama is Malcolm X's love child' charge has gone viral among leftards and lizards. The only problem with it is that it is false. I am not the author of this post, and I posted it because the writer did a spectacular job documenting Obama's many connections with the Far Left. The Malcolm X claim is one minor part of this story, and was of interest to me principally as part of the writer's documentation that Stanley Ann Dunham could not have been where the Obama camp says she was at various times. I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X's love child, and never did -- but there remain many, many unanswered questions about his early life and upbringing."
So let's recap: when famed media critic Justin Elliott says that "Geller wrote a lengthy post laying out her theory that Barack Obama's real father is Malcolm X," there are just two minor problems with the accuracy of his statement: Geller didn't write the post, and doesn't believe that Barack Obama's real father is Malcolm X. But give Elliott credit where credit is due! He did get one thing right: it is indeed a lengthy post.(Geller also believes Obama's birth documents are forged. She regularly speculates that he is Muslim.)
Regarding the birth documents, this is a two-year-old controversy -- Elliott would have you believe that Pamela Geller is regularly posting about this, when actually she hasn't said a word about it in over a year. When she did, she offered detailed forensic analysis that was never answered except by a chorus of ridicule.
And as for whether or not Obama is a Muslim, her analysis proceeds from his actions, not from empty speculation about his inner dispositions. If you wonder how anyone could have gotten the crazy idea that Obama is a Muslim, which I am not sure Pamela believes or considers an important question in any case, consider this list of Obama's actions, which she published last June: -- read the rest...
It gets better, if that's possible. Go here.