"I'll have a cup of regular coffee -- and hold the caffeine."

In a recent Jihad Watch notice about a Muslim in Boston, Daoud Wright, found guilty of a plot to behead Pam Geller, Robert Spencer writes:

Why did Daoud Wright want to behead Pamela Geller? For the Sharia crime of drawing Muhammad. And in response, instead of standing for the freedom of speech, Western political analysts, including “conservatives” such as Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham, condemned Pamela Geller for “provoking” Muslims. Those people have no idea what’s at stake, or how seriously the freedom of speech is being challenged today.

Conspicuously absent from that paragraph is the name of Donald Trump -- surely as important, if not an even more significant "conservative" to stand on the wrong side of the Garland attack (not only because Trump went on to become President of the United States, but also because he has been one of the few of an already minuscule number of conservatives to show signs -- albeit ambiguously deviating lately -- of being on the right side of the problem of Islam).

Spencer's omission is even odder, considering how back in January he made no bones about Trump's error:

I am no fan of Trump. After he denounced our free-speech event in Garland, Texas, last May, which was attacked by Islamic jihadists, it is not at all clear that Donald Trump understands the jihad imperative or the war against free speech, or is at all equipped to counter them. When violent jihadis commit murder to prevent people from drawing Muhammad, to desist voluntarily from drawing Muhammad is to reward violent intimidation, and encourage more. When Trump said, “They can’t do something else? They have to be in the middle of Texas doing something on Muhammad and insulting everybody?,” he was revealing that he did not grasp that essential point, and was willing to acquiesce to Sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech.