Accuracy in Media

Should Fox News register with the State Department as a foreign agent–an agent of Saudi Arabia?

First off, is that a farfetched question? Not when a leading member of the ruling family of the Sharia-totalitarian “kingdom” of Saudi Arabia, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, has made himself the second-largest shareholder of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., Fox News’ parent company.

Just as Steven Emerson believes that American universities using Saudi mega-millions (many from Alwaleed) to set up Islamic studies departments should register as Saudi agents, I believe an American news channel part-owned and part-influenced by the Saudi prince should, too.

Alwaleed’s long march through U.S. institutions is a mainly post-9/11 progression greased by his purchase of about a 5.5 percent stake in News Corp. in 2005, and his purchases, I mean, gifts, of $20 million apiece to Georgetown and Harvard Universities, also in 2005.

There have been other eye-catching displays of Alwaleed’s largesse–$500,000 in 2002 to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas- and Muslim-Brotherhood-linked entity, and a whopping $27 million, also in 2002, to the families of Palestinian “martyrs,” aka suicide bombers. These, along with Alwaleed’s self-described “very close relationship” with Murdoch son and apparent heir-apparent James, a left-wing global-warmist with virulently anti-Israel views, should only deepen Americans’ concerns about Fox’s ties to “the prince.” Recently, Murdoch and Alwaleed have discussed expanding their business relationship through the Murdoch purchase of a substantial stake in Rotana, Alwaleed’s huge Arab media company.

Targeting The Media

Before entering his Murdoch association, Alwaleed gave a remarkably candid interview in 2002 about what Arab News described as his belief that “Arabs should focus more on penetrating U.S. public opinion as a means to influencing decision-making” rather than boycotting U.S. products, an idea of the moment.

The Arab News reported: “Arab countries can influence U.S. decision-making ‘if they unite through economic interests, not political,’ (Alwaleed) stressed. ‘We have to be logical and understand that the U.S. administration is subject to U.S. public opinion. We (Arabs) are not so active in this sphere (public opinion). And to bring the decision-maker on your side, you not only have to be active inside the U.S. Congress or the administration but also inside U.S. society.'”

And active inside U.S. society living rooms–even better. Alwaleed would seem to have hit on a Fox strategy some time after Rudy Giuliani refused to accept, on behalf of a 9/11-shattered New York City, his $10 million check-cum-lecture that essentially justified the al-Qaeda attacks as having been a response to U.S. foreign policy. This was “such an egregious, outrageous, unfair offense that I would have nothing to do with his money either,” Sean Hannity said at the time. “This is a bad guy,” Hannity said. “Rudy was right to decline the money.” Bill Sammon called Alwaleed’s check “blood money,” adding, “we’re better off without it.”

The “Bad Guy” And Fox

How terribly ironic that this same “bad guy” is now a News Corp. blood-money bags, a boss who must be handled with care as, for example, Fox host Neil Cavuto did in a deferential interview with Alwaleed in January. 

How does this influence Fox News coverage? It’s impossible to say. Alwaleed has bragged that it only took a phone call to ensure that Fox coverage of Muslim rioting in France not be described as “Muslim” rioting in France, a boast News Corp. has never denied. This week, security analyst Joseph Trento, in light of recent negotiations between Alwaleed and Murdoch, mused online whether his own recent interview on “Fox & Friends” didn’t appear in Fox’s online video cache because he had told host Steve Doocy that “Saudi Arabian money was still financing al-Qaeda.” The doubt itself is damaging.

Meanwhile, spokesmen for terrorism-linked and Alwaleed-endowed CAIR still appear on Fox shows, for example, while Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, likely Fox guests as conservative authors of the sleeper-hit book Muslim Mafia (an exposé of CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood), get zero airtime. The more important question becomes: How does Alwaleed’s stake in News Corp. affect what Fox News doesn’t cover?

If they don’t report, we can’t decide. This, for a Sharia prince, could be worth millions.





During President Obama’s State of the Union address, after he made a pitch for putting active and open homosexuals into the U.S. military, Defense Secretary Robert Gates could be observed rising to his feet and applauding the President. The members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were also in the audience, did not rise or clap. Later, Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, fell into line, saying that he supported the Obama policy. “I have served with homosexuals since 1968,” Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee. Those homosexuals were, of course, in the closet and conducted their activities privately, not openly.

An analysis from Elaine Donnelly’s Center for Military Readiness finds that implementation of a plan to allow active and open homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and even  “transgendered” people into the military “would result in the voluntary or involuntary loss of thousands of personnel–many in communities, grades, and skills that are not easily replaceable. This would cripple the All-Volunteer Force at a time when we are at war. Personnel remaining would have to face more deployments and potential combat situations with fewer, less-skilled people.” These are people with traditional values who do not want to be in close quarters with–and sanction the behavior of–individuals engaging in immoral and perverted activities. 

Male homosexuals have been prohibited from donating blood since 1977 because they are, “as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion,” according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

But Obama and Gates now want them in the U.S. military.

This wasn’t the first time that Gates, a hold-over from the George W. Bush Administration, had done Obama’s bidding. He is implementing Obama’s policy of killing production of the  most advanced air superiority fighter in the U.S. inventory, the F-22 Raptor, the only known 5th generation fighter in service in the world. The Obama/Gates policy limits total procurement to just 187 of the advanced aircraft. Congress went along with the decision after Obama threatened to veto the entire defense bill if it included F-22 funds. 

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) has argued that the termination of the program was a political decision, advised almost exclusively by Gates. He added, “The President’s position also runs counter to the long-standing program of record and ends F-22 production nearly 200 aircraft short of the Air Force requirement validated by over 30 air campaign studies. It takes American air superiority for granted and turns a blind eye to the mounting military capabilities of China and Russia, both of whom are developing Raptor-like fighters.”

Indeed, test flights for Russia’s in-development 5th generation fighter, referred to as the T-50, have just begun.

Fifth generation fighters are those introduced in 2005 onward, with the first being the F-22. Fifth generation design characteristics can vary, but generally include advanced avionics and stealth designs, such as radar absorbent materials and internal weapons bays, among others.

General John Corley, head of the Air Combat Command, had spoken out strongly against the plan to end production of the F-22. In a letter to Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss, he wrote, “In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22’s puts execution of our current military national strategy at high risk in the near- to mid-term.”

Some have argued that a reduced fleet of F-22’s is feasible, given the military’s other 5th generation fighter in development, the F-35 Lightning. But Major General Richard Lewis, executive officer for the F-22 program, stated in a 2006 article that “The problem with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in establishing air dominance is that you have to buy two or three to replace the F-22, because it only has half the weapons load, and it doesn’t have the speed. You can’t replace (the F-22) one-for-one with an F-35 or any other legacy fighter such as the F-15E.”

Perhaps nothing else better illustrates the capabilities of the F-22 than the statistics. In Operation Northern Edge, a joint training operation conducted in Alaska in 2006, not a single F-22 was shot down in simulated exercises. The plane went on to achieve a stunning 108-0 kill ratio.

Furthermore, the value of the F-22 in dealing with surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) cannot be undervalued. General Lewis noted that neither the F-15 nor the F-16 is capable of dealing with both SAM installations and other fighters at the same time. The F-22 does, however, have this capability.

Gingrey says, “While the President hustled his $1 trillion non-stimulus stimulus bill through Congress and has issued bailout after bailout–all to ‘save or create jobs’–$1 billion to adequately fund missile defense programs and $1.75 billion for additional F-22s was deemed too costly.” 

Now we are learning, as noted by Investor’s Business Daily, that the prospect of replacing the F-22 with the F-35 “is proving to be an expensive mistake” and that “We may wind up defenseless and broke.”

The paper noted that “Gates was questioned about the program at a Senate hearing on Tuesday [February 2]. He said he was unaware of a report by a special Pentagon assessment team in late 2008 that found development of the plane could be delayed by 2 1/2 years with $16.6 billion in cost overruns. Judging by his decisions, he is not unaware that the F-35 program, designed to fill the needs of all three services, is in trouble.”

The paper added: “Further program delays will drive up per-unit costs, the wings are literally falling off our F-15s and F-16s, and the administration has killed further production of the F-22 Raptor. With what will we fight?”

Covering for the defense secretary, the New York Times reported that Gates said at the hearing that he did not “recall” the report from 2008 Pentagon assessment report on delays in the F-35 program. Where are the media demands for accountability from Gates?

Senator Saxby Chambliss accused Gates of withholding bad news on the F-35 until after Congress had gone along with Obama’s desire to end production of the F-22. Chambliss asked Gates, with the F-35 in trouble, would he reconsider the F-22 decision. “No,” Gates said.

By the same token, Gates can be counted on to try to force “gays” into the military, despite evidence showing the policy would be a disaster from which we as a nation may not recover.





Ugandan Christian minister Martin Ssempa has issued a strong rebuttal to President Obama’s criticism of his country for considering passage of a law to discourage and punish certain homosexual practices. “Sodomy is neither the change we want nor can believe in,” says Ssempa, who runs the Family Policy and Human Rights Center in Uganda. Ssempa, a major player in the country’s successful anti-AIDS program, says that Obama has an “obsession with the spread of sodomy in Africa,” in contrast to the efforts of the George W. Bush Administration to help Uganda resist the dangerous sexual practices which facilitate the spread of the deadly disease. The Ugandan anti-AIDS program has emphasized abstinence and monogamy.

Partly because of the continuing need to avoid AIDS–and the practices which can spread it–Ssempa and many other Ugandan pastors have united to form a task force against homosexuality and support new legislation to curtail the negative health impact of the so-called “lifestyle.” The task force states that “Practices like homosexuality and bisexuality are associated with serious, yet preventable public-health risks. The risk of HIV transmission in male homosexuality is, for example, about 10 times that of heterosexual sex, simply due to use of parts of the body for inappropriate functions. Other diseases and medical complications are also associated with these practices. Secondly, by its nature, behavior spreads in the population through experimentation, modeling and social affirmation. Increase in homosexual and bisexual practice could thus rapidly reverse Uganda’s success against HIV/AIDS.”

But at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. on February 4, Obama, capitulating to pressure from the “gay rights” lobby which helped elect him, condemned the prospect of “odious laws in Uganda,” after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had made similar comments.

“We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are–whether it’s here in the United States or, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed, most recently in Uganda,” Obama said.

Clinton said that she had called President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda to express “our strongest concerns about a law being considered in the Parliament of Uganda.” But Clinton failed to disclose that he had told her that he had received reports that foreign homosexuals have been targeting Ugandan children for sexual abuse. Museveni has expressed puzzlement that Clinton and other representatives of Western nations have seemed so preoccupied with the subject of “gays.”

But because of the power of the well-funded homosexual lobby, the campaign has taken the form of a global effort to isolate Uganda and even cut off aid to the poor country because of its stand against homosexuality. Under this pressure, American pastors such as Rick Warren have denounced the anti-homosexual legislation. Ssempa and other Ugandan pastors, in turn, have accused Warren of succumbing to “hysteria” generated by the homosexual lobby and the pro-homosexual media. 

In his statement, Ssempa expressed concern that Obama failed to understand the nature of the legislation. “President Barack Obama makes two mistakes,” Ssempa said in his statement. “First, Uganda’s anti-homosexuality law only prescribes the capital punishment in cases where the victims are children or the handicapped. This is consistent with the existing laws for similar crimes by heterosexuals. We wonder if President Obama thinks that the heterosexual rape of a girl is a lesser crime than the homosexual rape of a handicapped boy.”

“Secondly,” Ssempa goes on, “homosexuals and lesbians are never targeted for who they are, rather what they do. It is the repugnant sexual acts which they do which constitutes a crime, a sin and a rebellion against the order of nature. Here in Africa, we believe homosexuals can CHANGE. It is very disappointing for Africans to hear Obama, who ran on the ticket of ‘change we can believe in,’ losing courage when we postulate in faith that homosexuals can truly change. We wish to tell him that sodomy is neither the change we want nor can believe in.”

AIM’s investigation of the controversy has determined that the Soros-funded Open Society Institute has been spearheading the funding of homosexual activism in Uganda and the rest of Africa. For example, his Open Society Initiative for East Africa co-sponsored a program on “sexual minority rights in Uganda,” which even included advocacy of legalized prostitution. The Open Society Institute also held a four-day workshop on legal strategies “to promote lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights in Africa.”

The Ugandan pro-family activist said that Obama’s comments “will not stop the passage of the anti-homosexuality bill, but rather it has shown us that of all the problems that Africa has, the priority is not HIV/AIDS or trade but sodomy.”

Ssempa drew a contrast with the administration of George W. Bush, which he said had helped Uganda resist the spread of AIDS. “African history will remember President George W. Bush for helping to stop the spread of the deadly HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis with his presidential emergency fund (PEPFAR),” he said. “On the other hand we are writing Obama’s history as one whose single focus is a divisive obsession with the spread of sodomy in Africa.”

Ugandans subsequently staged an anti-Obama demonstration, with some holding signs saying, “Obama Back Off.” and “Africans United Against Sodomy.”


Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


Comments are turned off for this article.