Last week the New York Times ran a full-page ad headed, "It's Time to Quit the Catholic Church." I decided to try an experiment, and submitted an ad soon afterward headed, "It's Time to Quit Islam." 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, just called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, 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."
Christie then sent me a follow-up letter, claiming that "we 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."
Advertisement - story continues below
It is 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' live in danger when they 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."
Despite the obvious hypocrisy of the Times, the mainstream media fell into line. It took a couple of days to get their arms around how to frame the Times' self-enforcing of Shariah, but the Huffington Post and the left lemmings soon began to follow the Times' line, claiming that running my ad would endanger lives.
Advertisement - story continues below
Really? What nerve. What is lower than using our brave men and women to cover for the Times' cowardice and anti-freedom editorial policies? That is so … left.
Meanwhile, the uber-left, Soros-funded Think Progress was in a tizzy. In their piece, they never mentioned the anti-Catholic ad or the Times' inconsistency. But they could not have missed them, as those are the central aspects of the story. So they know. This proves that Think Progress intentionally misleads its readership. Their story makes it sound as if Geller just wanted to run an anti-Islam ad out of racistislamophbicantimuslimbigotry.
Even Fox's take on the story was skewed. They called me an anti-Islam activist. I am a counter-jihadist. Why doesn't the media distinguish between the two? Their lack of distinction implies the two are interchangeable. How Islamophobic! Fox also refused to run a graphic of either ad, as "both were offensive." More abridgment of free speech in adherence to the Shariah. They did not address the motive, the fear, or the Shariah behind the New York Times' craven hypocrisy. Instead, they focused on the inconsistency of the Times accepting one ad and rejecting another, without clearly explaining why or giving the reasons for the inconsistency, which accords with Fox's increasing tendency not to address this subject matter at all.
Megyn Kelly referred to our ad as an anti-Islam ad. It was not. It was a rebuttal ad. Also, it bears noting that Trace Gallagher ran the Times' pathetic excuse unchallenged. In my interview with Fox, which they severely edited, I questioned the dishonesty of the Times' position. Why didn't Fox mention any of that? Why did Fox give the New York Times a free pass, while jumping to repeat the Islamic supremacists' "anti-Islam" label of me?
This, too, is Islamic law in America. The Times' refusal to run our ad, and the media falling into line with the Times, is adherence to the blasphemy laws under the Shariah. They have no reservation submitting to the bloody demands of Shariah. This is surrender to savagery.