Saturday, September 22, 2012

From Atlas Shrugs: CNN cuts off interview with Pamela Geller when facts come out about CAIR.

The following headline and transcript was copied from Jihad Watch. The left-wing news media does not want the public to hear any concise, fact-based arguments that contradict their propaganda. Here is a perfect example.

Pamela Geller on CNN: Segment abruptly cut when she started speaking about Hamas-linked CAIR

Last night, CNN's Erin Burnett cut my interview short when I began to discuss Hamas-CAIR and its co-conspirator status in the largest terrorist funding trial in our nation's history. I secretly recorded the whole interview and posted it along with the video today. It went viral. 

In response, CNN has released the whole video on YouTube. Good. But it's certainly not the same thing as airing it.
What an interesting place to end the interview -- just a coincidence, I'm sure! But it actually didn't end there. Pamela Geller has the story:
Here is the video of my interview with Erin Burnett on CNN earlier. The video cuts off at the end of the description of the ADL. Here is a transcript of the portion that CNN didn't run. I secretly recorded my interview and included the audio of the missing portion in the video as well. The interview was 14 minutes long, but CNN cuts it off at discussion of Hamas-CAIR, 9 minutes in. Much thanks to Big Fur Hat for dropping the secretly recorded audio of the entire interview into the video above.
This is what CNN's Erin Burnett censored:
PG: And CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood group --

EB: That is the organization, right, Council on American-Islamic Relations, they said these are hate ads and part of a larger problem.

PG: CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist funding trial in our nation’s history. They were named as Muslim Brotherhood. They’re a Hamas group in America. Hamas is – the first paragraph of their charter calls for the annihilation of Israel. Is CAIR ever gonna support me and support freedom? Of course not. They’re not -- to me, they’re not a legitimate group. To me they’re a subversive group whose stated goal, according to an internal captured document in the Holy Land trial, was to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within. So that is a compliment. Seriously.

EB: OK, let me ask you about this issue about savages again, because I think that is part of the problem here. At least -- when people look at that ad -- it is a word chosen – will you admit this? – to make people recoil and pay attention.

PG: No.

EB: To poke up. To perk up and say, Look at this.

PG: No, it’s an accurate word. The definition of savage works, because any war on innocent civilians is savagery. Would you call those that beheaded a colleague, Daniel Pearl, savages?

EB: I would call them murderers.

PG: You wouldn’t call them savages? I would. I would call them savages. I would call Nazis, that slaughtered millions and millions of Jews and gypsies and homosexuals, I would call them savages. So I think now it’s not arbitrary: I think when you go to a dictionary and you look up what savage means, and that’s the definition –

EB: Uncivilized and barbarous.

PG: That’s right.

EB: So lemme ask you something else. When people see your name, you are a controversial person, which I know that you say that you’re not, but you are. I’m gonna say that I think that that is the case.

PG: You’re allowed, you’re allowed.

EB: All right. You have done other things as well. Obviously, as I mentioned, you were against the Ground Zero Mosque.

PG: I was against the Ground Zero Mosque.

EB: You have questioned the authenticity of President Barack Obama being born in the United States.

PG: No, that’s not true. That is absolutely not true. I ran a digital forensic examination calling into questions alterations that were made to the Certification of Live Birth. I don’t know what’s on the long form. I don’t know what’s on the vault copy. But I did say – and I didn’t say it, an actual digital forensic examination specialist said, there were alterations made to the original COLB. All I said was, What’s on the original vault copy that he doesn’t want us to know? That was all I said. Now, they change it, and they morph it – listen, I’ve written hundreds of articles. Two books. I update Atlas Shrugs, my blog, every day. You don’t have to guess as to my position. There’s no ambiguity to my position. You can read me.

EB: You said the president was a Muslim.

PG: I never said that. I never said he was a Muslim. I said, whether he is or he isn’t, what would he be doing differently? And--

EB: But isn’t that – but see, that, this -- these are the rhetorical games that one can play. Saying that let’s look into a digital forensic of an American citizen’s birth certificate is calling into question whether they were born here. Saying whether you are or aren’t a Muslim when you’ve been very passionate about your Christian faith is raising the question of someone, whether someone is or isn’t a Muslim, as if somehow being a Muslim is perceived as being negative.

PG: But you’re accusing me of something I never said. Let’s discuss what I said. I’m happy to discuss everything that I said. The same thing with Barack Obama. I don’t know what’s on the vault copy. Every other president has released the vault except him. It makes you question. Now you’re gonna say, “Pamela, you’re not allowed to question.” This is America. I can question. And frankly, I still think it’s a question. I do, I think it’s a question. And I do think that Obama is Islamophilic – yes, that’s what I said. I didn’t say he was a Muslim. There’s no way to know what’s in the man’s heart. And frankly, by their fruits ye shall know them, so we know him. I don’t know what’s in his heart, and I don’t care.

EB: The Center for American Progress calls you an “Islamophobia grass roots organizer.”

PG: Yeah. And American Center for Progress is an uber left-wing, Soros-funded, subversive organization. I mean, these are not legitimate organizations if you’re a rational, thinking person that loves individual rights, that believes in individual rights over statism, that believes in individual rights over collectivism. I’m sorry, but these are not legitimate organizations.

EB: Who you gonna vote for?

PG: Really? I’m voting for President Romney. So here we go: Geller Endorses Romney, there’s your headline!


No comments:

Post a Comment

No foreign language comments allowed. English only. If you cannot access the comments window send me an email at