DHS, FBI refuse to protect free speech advocate from terrorist death threats; Obama regime only concerned with conservatives, Christians

(NaturalNews) Pamela Geller's biggest problem is that she's too white, too conservative, and too pro-Israel. That would help explain why, after being threatened with death by Islamic State terrorists, she would be left abandoned by an Obama Administration that has made its bones targeting, degrading and ostracizing Americans just like her.

You may recall that Geller recently staged a free-speech event in Garland, Texas, called "Draw Muhammad," an event which elicited an armed response from two "soldiers of the Caliphate" of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

For that, she has been roundly criticized by leftists in politics and the media as insensitive, bigoted and hateful. She has also had her life threatened by the very same Islamist extremist organization (and others).

Despite that, however, she can't even get assistance from federal authorities who are supposed to take terrorism much more seriously -- even if they answer to President Obama.

"No protection for you"

As noted by The Weekly Standard online:

Pamela Geller, the woman targeted by terrorists in Texas over the weekend, says the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have yet to contact her after the thwarted attacked.

"This is a serious threat," said Fox News' Sean Hannity, in interviewing Geller. "Basically a Fatwa, a death threat, has now been issued. Your reaction to that? Have you had any contact with the FBI?"

"They have not contacted me, but of course we've now increased my team," she said. "I have a team now, private security, and NYPD counterterror has been in touch with me."

"Did you reach out to the FBI?"

"I did," Geller said.

And yet, "Homeland Security hasn't gotten ahold of you, the FBI hasn't gotten ahold of you?" Hannity asked, incredulous.

"No, and this is interesting because this is a terrorist threat," said Geller. "And the FBI, President Obama should provide security. There's no question about it. Because he created an environment that raised the stakes on this."

Some would say Geller deserves what she gets, but let's play some role-reversal here and see if that criticism -- and the ire being directed at her -- makes her worthy of being harmed.

Who's really intolerant here?

First and foremost, while some may have been offended by her tact, her central point was made -- clearly -- the nanosecond the two ISIS thugs got out of their car and started shooting: that Islam is not a religion of peace, that it is not tolerant (like American leftists) of other peoples' views, and that Islamist extremists justify violence as long as it is a means to their ends.

Never mind that the Islamic faith makes women subservient to men, even to the point that it justifies female genital mutilation, rape and murder of women and wives; that the Islamic faith does not tolerate homosexuality or transgender lifestyles, to the point of brutally murdering gays when they are discovered; that it does not tolerate other religions, and so on.

Secondly, Geller was well within her First Amendment rights to hold such a "contest," if that's what it really was (there was a $10,000 prize awarded to the winner), but you'd never know that judging by the "outrage" expressed by the Left.

For in America, our Constitution does not distinguish between the tasteful and distasteful speech, the politically correct and non-PC forms of expression, the politically correct and non-PC forms of association. The First Amendment recognizes these rights as inalienable, non-negotiable and non-quantifying. Americans have them, end of story. You don't have to like what you're hearing, seeing or watching someone else do, but you have to let them say it/feel it/belong to it. The First Amendment does not apply to society's "chosen"; it exists precisely for the most controversial and outspoken among us.

And there is this: What if we reversed the tables? What if Geller's event had been a contest to draw the most comical or offensive "Jesus"?

In fact, such events have already taken place. If you've never heard of the art exhibit "Piss Christ," it was the work of Andres Serrano, who urinated in a jar, dropped a small plastic crucifix into it, and took a picture of it. It was last on display at the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery in 2012. To add more insult to injury, especially for Christians, Serrano received $15,000 in grant money (taxpayer money) from the National Endowment for the Arts, to make his exhibit.

Leftists need to look in a mirror

Eventually, it was destroyed by Christian fundamentalists with hammers, but nobody was shot and killed and no one went after Serrano (though he did receive death threats, he said).

There are other examples of the mainstream Left hammering away at anything and anyone who is not deemed "acceptable" by these icons of tolerance: Jimmy Kimmel's insensitive tirade against anti-vaxxers, coming to the defense of terrorists following the Garland shootings, and labeling all Christian, conservative Americans passionate about the Second Amendment as potential domestic terrorists are but a few.

And let's not forget about the IRS's targeting of Tea Party and conservative political action groups prior to the 2012 election.

There is a bias and intolerance in America alright, but it's not coming from the people deemed by the PC warriors as "the problem." Some of them making such claims ought to look in a mirror.

Sources:

http://www.weeklystandard.com

http://www.cnn.com

http://www.ibtimes.com

http://www.npr.org

http://www.thedailybeast.com