The Saudi Influence On Fox News

From Radical Islam.

Saudis Influencing Fox News


In the following interview, RadicalIslam.org National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro speaks to Diana West, a nationally syndicated conservative American columnist and author, about the impact of the partial ownership of Fox news by Saudi Prince Alwaleed.

Ryan Mauro: You have devoted a lot of your time towards covering Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal. Can you tell us about him and why he warrants this attention?

Diana West: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is usually described as a billionaire Saudi businessman, but he is also a senior member of the Saudi monarchy. He is the nephew of the Saudi dictator, King Abdullah, and the first cousin of the Saudi interior minister, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. He is also the largest stakeholder in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. outside the Murdoch family.

We may not realize it, but most of us first heard about Prince Alwaleed bin Talal in the immediate aftermath 9/11. That was when a "Saudi prince" -- it was Alwaleed -- became infamous for having donated $10 million to the Twin Towers Fund only to have then-mayor Rudy Giuliani return the check.

Why did Giuliani return the check? It became clear the prince wasn't making a donation but rather a political statement. After presenting the money, the prince issued a press release blaming the 9/11 attacks on American support for Israel -- while, as Alwaleed's statement read, "our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of the Israelis.”

As the San Francisco Chronicle reported at the time, Giuliani hadn't seen see this press release when he initially accepted the Saudi check among others from government and private industry leaders. In a separate letter Guliani did read, Alwaleed had expressed only condolences for "the loss of life that the city of New York has suffered," while condemning "all forms of terrorism." The Saudi prince wrote: "In doing so I am reiterating Saudi Arabia's strong stance against these tragic and horrendous acts."

That was fine. It was the press release attached to the letter that was not fine. This statement, also in Alwaleed's name, sought to blame U.S. policy on "the Palestinian cause" for the attack. It said:

"However, at times like this one, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack. I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause.

"Our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek."

The Chronicle report continued:

The mayor, who had been told of the press release just moments before his daily briefing but after receiving the check, was visibly annoyed. "I entirely reject that statement," he said. "That's totally contrary to what I said at the United Nations," he added, referring to his address there last Monday.

"There is no moral equivalent for this act," the mayor said. "There is no justification for it. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification for it when they slaughtered 4,000 or 5,000 innocent people. And to suggest that there's a justification for it only invites this happening in the future. It is highly irresponsible and very, very dangerous."

The mayor added that he might consult with the State Department before deciding what to do with the check; an hour later, his press office released a statement attributed to the mayor that the check would not be accepted.

A spokesman for the prince, Amjed Shacker, who was reached on his cell phone as he prepared to board a plane for Saudi Arabia, said he knew of no such rejection and indeed seemed perplexed to learn of it.

Giuliani's very public rebuff was very popular, including among star personalities at Fox News. At the time, it is important to note, Alwaleed did not own any voting stock in News Corp. Here's what some of them said (I hate to cite Media Matters but so be it):

Sean Hannity: Al-Waleed's statement was "such an egregious, outrageous, unfair offense that I would have nothing to do with his money either." On the October 22, 2001, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes (accessed via Nexis), Sean Hannity said, "[T]his is a man that blames the United States and their policies for the attack that took place on September 11th. That is such an egregious, outrageous, unfair offense that I would have nothing to do with his money either, and I applaud what Mayor Giuliani did. It showed a lot of guts and character."

Hannity: "This is a bad guy. Rudy was right to decline the money." On the December 13, 2005, edition of Hannity & Colmes (accessed via Nexis), while discussing a grant Al-Waleed gave Georgetown and Harvard universities, Hannity said: "This is a bad guy. Rudy was right to decline the money. Why would these universities take money from him?"

Mara Liasson: "[I]t was an outrageous statement and the mayor did the right thing and refused the money." Discussing Giuliani's decision to return the money on the October 11, 2001, edition of Fox News' Special Report (accessed via Nexis), Fox News contributor Mara Liasson said Al-Waleed's statement was "completely false," "outrageous" and that "the mayor did the right thing and refused the money."

Bill Sammon: "[I]t's blood money, and we're better off without it." During the same discussion with Liasson, Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon said of the money, "[W]hen you think about it, upon reflection, you think,

Story continues at link above

Where Is The Outrage/

By Findalis


Hat Tip to Texas Fred

I read this at the above site and am passing this along to give it a wide birth.  Judge Andrew P. Napolitano has been a voice of common sense on FOX News.  I do hope that you will read this and pass it to others.

Since this particular piece didn’t get that much coverage, I hope the good Judge and FOX News will have no objections to this being used, in full, with full accreditation back to FOX News and Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. This is a piece that needs to be seen by ALL Americans.

Where is the outrage?

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published June 07, 2012

For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government’s use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if — had drones existed at the time — King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect that Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as one who is urging the use of violence against the government.

Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.

Don’t believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the “recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel inside the United States and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them “to collect information about U.S. persons.”

It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or “military commander” for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. And, any “incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the U.S.?

The quoted phrases above are extracted from a now-public 30-page memorandum issued by President Obama’s Secretary of the Air Force on April 23, 2012. The purpose of the memorandum is stated as “balancing … obtaining intelligence information … and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution…” Note the primacy of intelligence gathering over freedom protection, and note the peculiar use of the word “balancing.”

When liberty and safety clash, do we really expect the government to balance those values? Of course not. The government cannot be trusted to restrain itself in the face of individual choices to pursue happiness. That’s why we have a Constitution and a life-tenured judiciary: to protect the minority from the liberty-stealing impulses of the majority. And that’s why the Air Force memo has its priorities reversed — intelligence gathering first, protecting freedom second — and the mechanism of reconciling the two — balancing them — constitutionally incorrect.

Everyone who works for the government swears to uphold the Constitution. It was written to define and restrain the government. According to the Declaration of Independence, the government’s powers come from the consent of the governed. The government in America was not created by a powerful king reluctantly granting liberty to his subjects. It was created by free people willingly granting limited power to their government — and retaining that which they did not delegate.

The Declaration also defines our liberties as coming from our Creator, as integral to our humanity and as inseparable from us, unless we give them up by violating someone else’s liberties. Hence the Jeffersonian and constitutional beef with the word “balancing” when it comes to government power versus individual liberty.

The Judeo-Christian and constitutionally mandated relationship between government power and individual liberty is not balance. It is bias — a bias in favor of liberty. All presumptions should favor the natural rights of individuals, not the delegated and seized powers of the government. Individual liberty, not government power, is the default position because persons are immortal and created in God’s image, and governments are temporary and based on force.

Hence my outrage at the coming use of drones — some as small as golf balls — to watch us, to listen to us and to record us. Did you consent to the government having that power? Did you consent to the American military spying on Americans in America? I don’t know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are complaining.

If we remain silent when our popularly elected government violates the laws it has sworn to uphold and steals the freedoms we elected it to protect, we will have only ourselves to blame when Big Brother is everywhere. Somehow, I doubt my father’s generation fought the Nazis in World War II only to permit a totalitarian government to flourish here. Is President Obama prepared to defend this? Is Gov. Romney prepared to challenge it? Are you prepared for its consequences?

Source

Barack Hussein Obama can offer NO viable defense for this invasion of privacy. Mitt Romney, if he has ANY courage in him, will not only challenge it, he will vow to strike it down once he is elected POTUS.

Are *WE* prepared for the consequences?

I think a more fair question would be; is the regime of Barack Hussein Obama prepared to suffer the consequences that indeed they must if this travesty is allowed to come to fruition?

It has been reminded to us time and time again that our freedoms will be taken from us not all at once, but slowly.  All so slowly that we will not even notice their loss.  By the time we notice the loss of our freedoms it will be too late.

Take heed America!  It is time to Wake Up!

Obama Vs. Fox News

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle



Today Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, Leader of the Free World and Champion of Free Speech declared War on Fox News Channel.

Using his Kapos, he has attempted a Blitzkrieg upon the Network.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."

"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."

While the other News Networks Propaganda Mills are rallying around the President, his Healthcare proposals, and denigrating the protesters on 9/12 as a bunch of kooks and racists, Fox News has been hitting hard on Obama's czars, his foreign policy, his economic policy, his Healthcare proposal, and the general lies and deceits Barack Hussein Obama has brought to Washington.

Looking at the lead stories from the other networks it is no wonder that Obama wants Fox News to start looking like them. Instead of examining the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Healthcare, and the situation in Iran, viewers at CNN and other media outlets (to call them news channels would be erroneous) subject their viewers to Sexy Michael Buble jokes, bed-wetting, and Balloon Boy. Not exactly the hard-hitting stories. More like fluff for the masses.

Or the example of distinguished journalism by such reporters ink slingers like Rick Sanchez.

Mr. Sanchez once wrote:

Sanchez generated controversy on Twitter when he wrote in his account, "do u know how much money i’d make if i’d sold out as hispanic and worked at fox news, r u kidding, one problem, looking in mirror."

In response, Fox News anchor Julie Banderas wrote on Twitter, "As a wise Latina woman, I have no comment other than to say...if I were Rick Sanchez, I wouldn't look in the mirror, period."

A Fox News spokesman also responded with, "Everyone knows that Rick is an industry joke, he shows that he's a hack everyday. And he doesn't have to worry about working at FOX because we only hire talent who have the ability to generate ratings."

Rick Sanchez, Politically Correct Hack, pushes the pro-Obama agenda, flunked his course in objectivity at college, is openly anti-Semitic (he supports La Voz de Aztlan openly including their full anti-Semitic rhetoric), and is vying for the Joseph Goebbels award for Excellence in Journalism. Is it any wonder that a Conservative like Lou Dobbs (the only Conservative on the staff) is leaving CNN (Hostile work environment?).

The last President who declared war on the media was Richard Nixon. He declared war on the Washington Post and New York Times. Look what happened to him. A fair warning to any President with skeletons in his closet.

President Obama thinks the heat is on now, just wait a bit. Think of what the heat will be like if and when Fox News start to investigate his private finances (Deep Throat did tell Woodward and Burnstein to "Follow the money.").

Nixon's approval ratings were very high when the Washington Post started to investigate Watergate. Obama doesn't have that luxury any more. Even Saturday Night Live and Late Night Comics are taking potshots at him:

SNL Obama Do Nothing Skit 10 3 09



View at YouTube.

The honeymoon is over President Obama. You better grow a thick coat, the satire and criticism is just going to get worse.