Pro-Muslim Influence on Fox News Channel
By Diana West | March 3, 2010
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.
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.
OBAMA HATCHET MAN GATES GUTS U.S. MILITARY
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.
UGANDA REJECTS OBAMA’S “CHANGE”
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.”
DEAR FELLOW MEDIA WATCHDOG MARCH-A 2010
SARAH PALIN SAID ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY ON FEBRUARY 7 THAT SHE didn't support President Obama's policy of putting active and open homosexuals into the military "right now." There should have been some follow-up from host Chris Wallace on this mystifying statement. Palin is a military mom, with a son in the Armed Forces. She should know better than most what kind of negative effect this policy will have. Adding to the evidence presented in this AIM Report article on Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth says that implementation of such a policy would "devastate morale and unit cohesion in our Armed Forces" and "lead to a drop in enlistment and retention of good soldiers--and discourage religious men and women of high moral character from seeking military service." On another practical level, he points out it would violate the privacy concerns of normal (straight) service members. He asks, "will new 'Gays-Only' showers be constructed at all U.S. bases?" The policy, he adds, will ultimately subject millions of recruits to pro-homosexual "diversity" training that undermines Judeo-Christian teachings and values. Rep. Duncan Hunter of California is leading the opposition in the House to Obama's announcement in the State of the Union address that he wants open homosexuals in the military. He served in the Marine Corps in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Please send him a postcard about this.
PALIN SPOKE AT THE NATIONAL TEA PARTY CONVENTION IN NASHVILLE AND RECEIVED AN enthusiastic reception. She attacked the Obama Administration on economic and national security grounds, but said nothing about cultural and social issues. In this context, it is important to note that the election of new Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown is considered by some to have been a product, at least in part, of the Tea Party movement. But his record on conservative issues is mixed. Number one, he is not pro-life, although he did say that he supported parental consent and notification requirements and opposes partial birth abortion. Number two, he said that "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" but also affirmed that states should be free to legalize homosexual marriages. Number three, as noted by Carla Howell and Michael Cloud of the Center for Small Government in Massachusetts (http://www.centerforsmallgovernment.com), Brown had a record in his 11 years in the legislature of voting for higher government spending and higher taxes. Among other things, they point out that Brown had supported a Northeastern cap-and-trade law and had called for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in Massachusetts. When he ran for the U.S. Senate, he said that he had rejected that approach. I recount these facts not to support or oppose any candidate because we at AIM do not take positions on candidates or political parties. The point is to bring out information that many conservatives may not be aware of. We found that the information provided by the Center for Small Government in Massachusetts had not gotten much attention, even from the conservative media. It will be interesting to see what Brown, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army National Guard, says and does about the issue of homosexuals in the military. Please send him the enclosed postcard.
THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) STILL BANS MALE HOMOSEXUALS FROM donating blood because they are notorious disease carriers. This fact was pointed out by Bryan Fischer, the director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at American Family Association, in a column arguing that homosexual behavior should be outlawed because it is a public health threat. He also points out that most of those getting AIDS are male homosexuals. Yet President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates want the military to admit these people into the ranks, to live in close quarters and even bathe with normal heterosexual service personnel.
IT IS DISTRESSING TO REPORT THAT TWO REPUBLICANS, SENATOR TOM COBURN IN THE Senate, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in the House, signed on to congressional resolutions denouncing Uganda for considering passage of anti-homosexual legislation. Ros-Lehtinen is a long-time backer of the "gay" cause and has been honored by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans. The new homosexual Republican group, GOProud, has praised Coburn, a medical doctor, for sponsoring S. Res. 409, which calls on members of the parliament in Uganda to reject the proposed "Anti-Homosexuality Bill." Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud, said, "We were thrilled to have had the opportunity to work with Dr. Coburn back in December when he forcefully spoke out against the proposed Ugandan law, and we are pleased that he continues to lead on this issue." You may recall that GOProud is the group that was accepted by David Keene as a sponsor of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Please send Coburn the enclosed postcard. Also, call Coburn's office to register your protest. Please call 202-224-5754 and urge him to withdraw as a sponsor of S. Res. 409. What he should be doing is issuing a statement of support for Uganda and its battle against AIDS.
CHARLES TUHAISE OF THE UGANDA CHRISTIAN GROUP ACT (AGAPE COMMUNITY TRANS-formation) says the bill will be considered by two committees, which will hold hearings. The President of Uganda is given a role in reviewing the legislation. It is a complicated procedure that could take one or two months. Why is the U.S. Senate and House interfering in this country's legislative process? One reason is to curry favor with the homosexual lobby. Another is they are intimidated. New York Times columnist Frank Rich is calling opponents of Obama's gays in the military policy "bigots." It is easy to beat up on Uganda's Christians and please the likes of Frank Rich or Rachel Maddow.
DID YOU NOTICE THE STORIES ABOUT A CHRISTIAN CROSS BEING PLACED IN THE NEW outdoor worship area for pagans and other practitioners of Earth-based religions at the Air Force Academy in Colorado? Perhaps you are like many who didn't even know such a place existed. The Air Force Academy already had a designated area for Wiccans--practitioners of witchcraft. The placing of the cross was considered "desecration" by the pagans and an investigation quickly ensued. This is an example of how bizarre the environment in the Armed Forces has already become. Considering this, it may not seem too far-fetched for transgendered witches to be admitted openly into the military. After all, Harry Hay, the founder of the gay rights movement and a self-described "Radical Faerie," could have been considered a gay witch and was fascinated with the occult. It would be laughable were it not so serious.
THE LEAD ARTICLE BY DIANA WEST PROVIDES NEW INFORMATION ABOUT SOMETHING WE have been concerned about since 2005. We then issued a release saying, "It appears that the Saudi connection to News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, is deep and substantial. The evidence is growing that Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is using his influence in News Corporation to promote himself and the Arab/Muslim cause. Conservatives who have depended on Fox for fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues have to be extremely alarmed." We also noted that Fox parent company News Corporation had published an "authorized biography" of the prince. The Harper Collins book, titled simply Alwaleed, was written by Riz Khan, a former CNN journalist who joined Al-Jazeera International, the English-language arm of the Qatar-based channel that had documented links to al Qaeda. Make no mistake: we enjoy and appreciate Fox News. But the connection to the Saudi prince is very disturbing. You can depend on AIM to keep monitoring it.
. For Accuracy in Media,
Cliff Kincaid
August 25 at 6:36 am | #1 | Link
[...] thing like Media Matters) is to be believed, he's not merely a passive investor. http://www.aim.org/aim-report/pro-mu…-news-channel/ <04:11:24> *** You are now talking in channel: "TFP – Task Force Proteus" [...]