For years, the New York Times has adhered to and enforced the strict code of Islamic law. Bowed and cowed, the Times will not violate the vicious and archaic blasphemy laws under the Shariah, as was proven yet again last week.
The Times will not criticize or mock Islam, no matter how high the death toll or how gruesome the jihad. But Christianity? For the Times, mocking Christianity is a regular feature.
This week, true to form, the New York Times ran a lavish, full-color image of a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI made out of condoms. And so my human rights organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, or AFDI, submitted our support free speech ad to run on Sunday, July 5, far from the main section, for a staggering cost of more than $40,000. Our ad featured Bosch Fawstin's cartoon of Muhammad exclaiming, "You can't draw me!" and the cartoonist answering, "That's why I draw you."
Our ad is not obscene or offensive in any objective sense. It is a statement about how free people are not going to submit to violent intimidation and allow bloodthirsty thugs to curtail our freedoms.
Predictably, for the Shariah-compliant New York Times, even that was too far over the line. The Times' John Shaw wrote me: "I have checked with our advertising acceptability department and this ad does not comply with our acceptability standards because it is offensive on religious grounds. We thank you again, but we will not be able to accept the ad."
But when "Piss Christ," a photograph depicting a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine, was created on a federal grant and exhibited at New York's Stux Gallery, the Times advocated and supported it.
Back in 2012, the New York Times ran a full-page ad calling for Christians to leave the Catholic Church. When AFDI submitted a mirror image of that same ad, making the exactly the same declaration concerning Islam, the ad was rejected out of hand. We used the same language as the anti-Catholic ad. The only difference was that ours was true, and what we described about the mistreatment of women and non-Muslims under Islamic law was true. The anti-Catholic ad, by contrast, was written by fallacious feminazis. Nonetheless, in a craven capitulation to Shariah blasphemy laws, the Times rejected my ad.
Bob Christie, senior vice president of corporate communications for the New York Times, called me to advise me that it would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as it did not want to inflame an already hot situation. Christie said that the Times would be reconsidering it for publication in "a few months."
During our conversation, I asked Christie, "If you feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would you have run that ad?" Christie responded, "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."
Christie then sent me a follow-up letter, claiming that the Times was going to "delay publication in light of recent events in Afghanistan, including the Quran burning and the alleged killings of Afghani [sic] civilians by a member of the U.S. military. It is our belief that fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the region in danger."
The publication "delay" is, of course, still going on.
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 has done more to jeopardize the safety of our troops than any mainstream media outlet, with the possible exception of Newsweek. Was the Times concerned that they were putting our troops' lives in danger when it ran front-page articles on Abu Ghraib every day for a month? Starting on May 1, 2004, the New York Times had a front-page article on Abu Ghraib every day for 32 days.
Who leaked the NSA wiretaps under FISA, jeopardizing not just troops but American citizens, or the highly classified Pentagon order authorizing special ops to hunt for al-Qaida in the 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." White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said in 2006, "The president is concerned that, once again, the New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is protecting the American people."
They didn't hesitate to do that, but suddenly cared about American troops when it came to my ad? And now, with the paper running the pope condom "art" but refusing to run my free-speech statement, its cowardice and hypocrisy is fully exposed. The Times stands exposed – as a gang of Shariah stooges.Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.