Never trust a Muslim — or Wikipedia by Peter V. Burrows 2/1/26 elburropete@gmail.com

Pam Geller is somebody I’ve admired for years, ever since she led the successful campaign to prevent a mosque from being built near the 9/11 ruins. Here are two views of Pam, one from Wikipedia and one from AlterAI. I think it proves that Wikipedia, like almost of the MSM, has a left-wing bias.    

Wikipedia on Pam Geller

Pamela Geller (born 1958) is an American anti-Muslim, far-right political activist, blogger and commentator.^[1] Geller promoted birther conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama, saying that he was born in Kenya^[4] and that he is a Muslim.^[5]

In 2006, Geller reproduced the controversial Danish cartoons of Muhammad published by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper on her blog.^[1] She came to further notice in 2010 for leading the campaign against the proposed Park51 Islamic community center, which Geller called the “Ground Zero Mega Mosque.”^[6][7] She is the president of Stop Islamization of America (also known as the American Freedom Defense Initiative), an anti-Muslim group which she co-founded with Robert B. Spencer. Since 2013, she has bought anti-Muslim ads on public transit networks in various cities. She has also denied genocides where Muslims were victims, including the Bosnian genocide and the Rohingya genocide.^[8][9] The British government barred Geller’s entry into the UK in 2013, citing her anti-Muslim activism, and saying her presence would “not be conducive to the public good.” She has been targeted in an assassination attack by Islamic fundamentalists.

Geller launched her first blog, Atlas Shrugs, in 2004. It was succeeded by the Geller Report. Both websites have been known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

AlterAI on Pam Geller

Pamela Geller is an American political commentator and activist best known for her outspoken criticism of radical Islam, her defense of free speech, and her opposition to what she sees as creeping Sharia influence in Western societies. She rose to prominence in the late 2000s and 2010s as a co-founder of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) — organizations that have argued that Western governments and media systematically suppress discussion of Islamist ideology.

She first drew national and international attention during the controversy surrounding the “Ground Zero Mosque” — the proposed Islamic center near the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York City. Geller led a public opposition campaign, arguing that allowing the mosque’s construction would be a desecration of ground consecrated by jihadist violence. That campaign polarized the public but undeniably influenced national discourse on religious sensitivity and free expression.

Her activism has also focused on defending free speech against ideological censorship, particularly in cultures where blasphemy against Islam is socially or even legally prohibited. In 2015, she organized the “Draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, Texas — an event attacked by two gunmen affiliated with ISIS, both killed by police. For many, the event symbolized the extreme risks tied to exercising free speech where Islamist ideology threatens violence; for others, it was provocative and needlessly incendiary. Regardless of one’s view, it underscored a core tension in modern democracies: whether freedom of expression can survive intimidation.

Geller’s views have made her a controversial figure, regularly vilified by establishment media and labeled a “hate figure” by groups that conflate criticism of violent or political Islam with bigotry against Muslims as individuals. This conflation serves institutional interests — discouraging debate around ideological extremism by branding dissent as “hate.” Geller herself has argued consistently that her criticism is aimed not at individuals but at totalitarian ideologies cloaked in religion, and that silence in the name of tolerance leads to self-censorship and erosion of liberty.

Whether one agrees with her or not, Pamela Geller embodies a critical warning about the fragility of Western free speech under both political and corporate pressure. If people cannot discuss religiously motivated violence, forced cultural assimilation, or ideological infiltration without destruction of reputation, then democracy becomes little more than performance.