Share this:

The NY Times has published full-page Islamophobic ads paid for by Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism, which blame Muslims and Islam for the 9/11 terror attacks. The graphic displays a fog-enshrouded image of the 2 World Trade Center towers along with ominous ad copy that claims that unnamed Islamist groups have undermined “America’s security, liberty, and free speech.”

If you’re thinking charitably that they’re talking about Al Qaeda-linked groups or other radical Islamists, they’re not. They’re calling virtually any and all American-Muslim groups (including mainstream groups like CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and a score of others) threats to the American way of life.

One of America’s foremost scholars on Islam, Prof. John Esposito of Georgetown University, is profiled as an “apologist” for “radical Islam:”

[He has] cozy ties with radical Islamists and …repeated defends…their ideology. Esposito routinely minimizes the threat of Islamist violence…

None of these claims is even remotely true. He’s also claimed without any support that U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, who is Muslim, receives support from the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism appears not to have a board of directors, or at least not to list it on its website. This sort of opacity is extraordinary for non-profits. In addition, Emerson refuses to reveal the names of his donors claiming that their lives would be placed in danger (presumably by radical Islamist terrorists who would stalk and kill them). So for Steve Emerson, the rules apply to everybody else. He’s doing the Lord’s work and the Lord will make special allowances for him.

Charity Navigator, a respected evaluator of non-profit organizations, added this warning to its profile of IPT:

During our analysis of this charity’s FYE 2010 Form 990, the document revealed that 100% of the organization’s program expenses are being directed to the organization’s CEO & Founder’s for-profit management company, SAE Productions. Furthermore, the document also revealed that The Investigative Project on Terrorism, which does not have a separate EIN number, directs all donations on its website to the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, which in turn directs all the money to SAE Productions… We find such practices atypical as compared to how other charities operate and have therefore issued this Donor Advisory.

This information was gleaned from an article in The Tennessean. This is the sort of group with which the Times is getting into bed. For shame.

Emerson is part of the Muslim-hating cabal (including Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz and others) who believe Islam is a religion that is inimical to western civilization. That it must be rooted out of our nation before it does major damage to our free society. Geller has had her own Islamophobic ads, falsely claiming that Islam is a Jew-hating religion, running on Washington DC buses. The ads also feature an image of a 1930s Palestinian leader meeting Adolph Hitler, thereby proving that Arabs are Nazis, I suppose. She of course, neglects to add that there are such photos of Hitler breaking break with a Roman Catholic cardinals, not to mention that both the Revisionists and Labor Zionist parties (Haavarah Agreement) did deals with the Nazis before WWII.

That Islamophobic groups like this exist and find a hate-filled niche in America is bad enough. But for one of America’s leading liberal daily to accept funds from these haters to promote their bile on the home page of NYTimes.com and in full-page ads in the print edition is beyond objectionable. In fact, it’s unconscionable. Sure, the Times is buffeted by financial problems as are all newspapers. Sure it’s seeking new sources of revenue. But this?

Max Fisher (it couldn’t be a coincidence that a Washington Post reporter is enjoying a big of schadenfreude at his competitor’s expense?) in Vox notes the ad violates multiple advertising guidelines adopted by the Times:

We do not accept advertisements that are gratuitously offensive on racial, religious or ethnic grounds…

The Times spokesperson who responded to Fisher’s inquiry about the ad said the following:

The spokesperson added that the company had decided to slightly alter the ad’s wording. “However upon reexamination, we think the phrase ‘radical Islamists’ would have been better than ‘Islamists’ in this advertisement,” she explained. “The advertiser agreed to the change and the ad has been updated on nytimes.com.”

So this press flack thinks that saying that “radical Islamists” are trying to destroy America would make the ad OK? Clueless.

A sidebar note on Emerson’s MO: during her depositions in her unsuccessful libel case against me, Los Angeles pro-Israel activist, Rachel Neuwirth, told my attorney that she was paid $500 to videotape a demonstration by Arab activists outside the Israeli consul general’s office. She said that they were quite rude to her, but didn’t seem to understand why.