On the first night of Chanukah, the New York Times indulged in its grotesque penchant for its special brand of subtle, sophisticated Jew-hatred, on the front page – of course.
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.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.