What Did You Say?

Not only did the New York Times publish a nipple on the front page (a first)  next to a tattooed Jewish star, but the article is all about  the cancerous Jews. Front page stuff, don’t you know? All the Jews that are fit  to libel in print:

While poor countries struggle to provide even basic cancer care to  women, wealthier societies like Israel and the United States are  increasingly using sophisticated technologies to identify those at greatest  risk  in an effort to thwart the disease before it gets started.

Front page. It’s really vile – disgusting. A tattooed  (tattoos are a violation of Jewish law) Jewish star above a nipple as the image  for the “Jews’ genetic predisposition to cancer.” Jews = cancer. Jews were  tattooed and naked when they were killed in concentration camps. The Times must  be taking its talking points from Iran.

I would love to see the New York Times dare to run a front-page article on  cancerous Muslims, illustrated with a half-naked Muslima’s nipple on Ramadan.  Yeah, right. They like their building too much.

But this is par for the course for the Times. When the jihad terror group  Hamas several weeks ago appointed a woman as its spokesperson, its front to the  world, the real story was the New  York Times headline: “Conservative Hamas Appoints First Spokeswoman.”   Anyone can see past this ruse: pimping a woman to do your savage messaging.  Hamas was obviously moved by how eager Obama was to buy the Iranian “moderate”  Rouhani ruse. But the New York Times’ use of the word “conservative” to  describe  Hamas is what is most revealing.

Hamas is a designated terrorist group by the United States government. Hamas  is a devout Muslim group that exists solely to annihilate the Jewish people.  The  New York Times and other mainstream organizations refuse to speak to the  Islamic  motive behind Hamas’ savagery and its vicious acts of mass murder, but  they  freely call it “conservative” to smear and libel true  conservatives.

Conservative what, exactly? Muslims? No, they are devout and deeply religious  Muslims. The New York Times never ever speaks to that.

And in October, the Daily  Caller reported that “earlier this month, the New York Times announced that it had hired Egyptian novelist Alaa  Al-Aswany to write a monthly column for the paper. But according to Egypt  scholar Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East  Policy, Al-Aswany buys into the conspiratorial notion that a cabal of Jews  controls American leaders.”

Like Islamic supremacists across the world, the New York Times is throwing  off what little mask there is left to reveal its true agenda of hate.

Al-Aswany insists that he is simply anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic, but that  is dishonest. Anti-Zionism is merely a marketing tool for  annihilationists. Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

And in March 2012, a virulently anti-Catholic ad ran in the New York Times. That ad inspired  me to create the same ad but for one thing: a different religion. The craven  quislings at the New York Times rejected our ad.

Bob Christie, senior vice president of corporate communications for the New  York Times, called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but  considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, it would not be a good  time to run it, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. They  will be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.”

So I said to Mr. Christie, “Isn’t this the very point of the ad? If you  feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would  you  have run that ad?”

Mr. Christie said, “I’m not here to discuss the anti-Catholic ad.”

I said, “But I am, it’s the exact same ad.”

He said, “No, it’s not.”

I said, “I can’t believe you’re bowing to this Islamic barbarity and  thuggery. I can’t believe this is the narrative. You’re not accepting my ad.  You’re rejecting my ad. You can’t even say it.”

We used the same language as the anti-Catholic ad. The only difference was  that ours was true and what we describe is true. The anti-Catholic ad was  written by fallacious feminazis.

It was most disingenuous for the New York Times to refuse to run our  counter-jihad ad based on their “concern for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.”  Liars.  Who has done more to jeopardize our troops and American  citizens than the  pro-jihadist New York Times? They are notorious for  their treasonous reportage.

The New York Times leaked FISA and admitted that they released this information knowing  that it would damage national security. Porter  Goss told  the Senate at that time that the New York Times leaks had damaged our intelligence gathering capability, and in so  doing, our national security.

The New York Times exposed a “highly classified Pentagon order” authorizing Special  Operations forces to hunt al-Qaida leaders in mountains of Pakistan. The New  York Times exposed SWIFT (which put military and civilians at great risk of  jihad). SWIFT was a legal secret program that gave the government access to a  massive database of international financial transactions, using “broad  subpoenas  to collect the financial records from an international system.”

But it has no reservations about submitting to the bloody demands of Shariah  and spreading Jew-hatred on its front page. The New York  Times has surrendered to savagery

 About Pamela Geller

Pamela Geller is the founder, editor and  publisher of Atlas Shrugs.com  and President of the American  Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop  Islamization of America (SIOA). She is the author of The  Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America,  (foreword by Ambassador John Bolton), (Simon & Schuster). Stop  the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. She is  also a regular columnist for World Net Daily, the American Thinker, and other  publications.  Follow her on Facebook & Twitter

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/new-york-times-surrenders-shariah-savagery-promoting-jews-cancer/#P8KTlMAsBmfXOkmv.99