Scrubbed Interview: Corsi Will File Criminal Charges Against White House – 5/22/11

May 25, 2011

Clear Channel radio station scrubs interview from audio archives
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Jerome Corsi has told a Cincinnati radio station that he is preparing to file criminal charges against the White House for producing a fraudulent birth certificate, as the controversial author of Where’s the Birth Certificate? closes in on the people within Obama’s inner circle he claims were behind the hoax.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Scrubbed Interview: Corsi Will File Criminal Ch…, posted with vodpod

“We believe the birth records released by Barack Obama on April 27th, the so called long form birth certificate, is fraudulent,” Corsi told radio host Bill Cunningham.
“I’m working on filing criminal charges on the White House, I think there will be criminal charges filed very soon for having fraudulently produced a birth certificate,” said Corsi, adding that he would seek an FBI investigation.
Corsi re-affirmed the fact that he was close to identifying the individual who played a key role in forging the birth certificate, as well as the source document which the White House used to create the composite fake.
According to The Birther Report, the Clear Channel radio station on which Corsi appeared, 700 WLW later scrubbed the interview from their audio archives, a claim that was also carried by World Net Daily. The You Tube video above was made by a listener.
Clear Channel was also behind the removal of a billboard that was part of a World Net Daily campaign to bring attention to the birther issue in November 2009.
As we reported yesterday, Corsi is closing in on the people within Obama’s inner circle who were responsible for creating the fraudulent document that was released by the White House in electronic format and contains a plethora of errors and clear evidence of manipulation.
“I’m pretty well on the trail of linking the characteristics of this document to someone who’s going to have a lot of explaining to do,” said Corsi, adding that he was “hot on the trail” of one individual who “may have had a hand in this,” and that his identity would be released this week.

In a new development, WND reports that Obama’s Social Security number was issued in Connecticut, a state in which he never lived.
“The first three digits of Obama’s SSN are 042. That code of 042 falls within the range of numbers for Connecticut, which according to the Social Security Administration has been 040 through 049,” states the report.
“There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” says Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”
Daniels said that Obama decided to hide his identity in the 80′s by taking a Social Security Number he couldn’t possibly have acquired without breaking the law.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/corsi-to-file-criminal-charges-against-white-house-over-obama-birth-certificate.html


Esquire Magazine – Lied to cover up Obama’s WATERGATE

May 22, 2011

Dr. Jerome Corsi should hold off on suing the magazine.

He should first tie the magazine in on the WHITE HOUSE scandal.

This will be this governments WATERGATE!

I honestly think that it’s not the Democrats that are doing this, but rather the entire government is corrupt.  The Republicans HAD to have acquiesced, at the least, or, more than likely, were in active participation of this LIE.

Esquire.com: Jerome Corsi’s Book Pulled From Shelves (Corsi says blatant lie)
Esquire.Com ^ | 5/18/2011 | Mark Warren 

Posted on Wed May 18 2011 10:53:45 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by jeffo

In a stunning development one day after the release of Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President, by Dr. Jerome Corsi, World Net Daily Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah has announced plans to recall and pulp the entire 200,000 first printing run of the book, as well as announcing an offer to refund the purchase price to anyone who has already bought either a hard copy or electronic download of the book.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/jerome-corsi-birther-book-5765410#ixzz1MidSEaUj

(Excerpt) Read more at esquire.com …

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2721580/posts

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Corsi Will Reveal Details On Media Person Who H…, posted with vodpod

I always try to copy everything in it’s entirety.  Things tend to disappear from the WEB.

The below is a complete lie.  The book is NOT pulled. 

BREAKING: Jerome Corsi’s Birther Book Pulled from Shelves!
May 18, 2011 at 10:50AM by Mark Warren
In a stunning development one day after the release of Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President, by Dr. Jerome Corsi, World Net Daily Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah has announced plans to recall and pulp the entire 200,000 first printing run of the book, as well as announcing an offer to refund the purchase price to anyone who has already bought either a hard copy or electronic download of the book.

In an exclusive interview, a reflective Farah, who wrote the book’s foreword and also published Corsi’s earlier best-selling work, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak out Against John Kerry and Capricorn One: NASA, JFK, and the Great “Moon Landing” Cover-Up, said that after much serious reflection, he could not go forward with the project. “I believe with all my heart that Barack Obama is destroying this country, and I will continue to stand against his administration at every turn, but in light of recent events, this book has become problematic, and contains what I now believe to be factual inaccuracies,” he said this morning. “I cannot in good conscience publish it and expect anyone to believe it.”

When asked if he had any plans to publish a corrected version of the book, he said cryptically, “There is no book.” Farah declined to comment on his discussions of the matter with Corsi.

A source at WND, who requested that his name be withheld, said that Farah was “rip-shit” when, on April 27, President Obama took the extraordinary step of personally releasing his “long-form” birth certificate, thus resolving the matter of Obama’s legitimacy for “anybody with a brain.”

“He called up Corsi and really tore him a new one,” says the source. “I mean, we’ll do anything to hurt Obama, and erase his memory, but we don’t want to look like fucking idiots, you know? Look, at the end of the day, bullshit is bullshit.”

Corsi, who graduated from Harvard and is a professional journalist, could not be reached for comment.

DEVELOPING…

UPDATE, 12:25 p.m., for those who didn’t figure it out yet, and the many on Twitter for whom it took a while: We committed satire this morning to point out the problems with selling and marketing a book that has had its core premise and reason to exist gutted by the news cycle, several weeks in advance of publication. Are its author and publisher chastened? Well, no. They double down, and accuse the President of the United States of perpetrating a fraud on the world by having released a forged birth certificate. Not because this claim is in any way based on reality, but to hold their terribly gullible audience captive to their lies, and to sell books. This is despicable, and deserves only ridicule. That’s why we committed satire in the matter of the Corsi book. Hell, even the president has a sense of humor about it all. Some more serious reporting from us on this whole “birther” phenomenon herehere, and here.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/jerome-corsi-birther-book-5765410#ixzz1N1ls8wz9


Trump lied – OBAMA’s new BC (Birth Certificate) is a blatant forgery

May 21, 2011

Dr. Corsi on the Alex Jones radio program:

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Corsi Will Reveal Details On Media Person Who H…, posted with vodpod

Here’s another interview with Dr. Corsi:

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Jerome Corsi Smacks Down Liberal Radio Host Ove…, posted with vodpod

New Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
April 28, 2011

Our investigation of the purported Obama birth certificate released by Hawaiian authorities today reveals the document is a shoddily contrived hoax. Infowars.com computer specialists dismissed the document as a fraud soon after examining it.

Check out the document released by WhiteHouse.gov for yourself.

New Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery  obamabreakout
Upon first inspection, the document appears to be a photocopy taken from state records and printed on official green paper. However, when the government released PDF is taken into the image editing program Adobe Illustrator, we discover a number of separate elements that reveal the document is not a single scan on paper, as one might surmise. Elements are place in layers or editing boxes over the scan and green textured paper, which is to say the least unusual.

When sections of the document are enlarged significantly, we discover glaring inconsistencies. For instance, it appears the date stamped on the document has been altered. Moreover, the document contains text, numbers, and lines with suspicious white borders indicating these items were pasted from the original scan and dropped over a background image of green paper.


VIDEO: Alex Jones gives proof that Obama’s purported birth certificate is fraud.

Let’s assume the state of Hawaii scanned the original document and placed it on the green textured background. This does not explain the broken out or separate elements. There is no logical reason for this to be done unless the government planned to modify the document and make it appear to be something other than it is.

There are two elements of interest, as shown in the image to the above – both entries for the date accepted by the local registry. This appears to have been modified in an image editing program.

The media was quick to dispel the fact the document was modified. “Our analysis of the latest controversy: The original birth certificate was probably in a ‘negative’ form, and someone at the White House took it upon themselves to doctor it up so the form can be readable,” writesJoe Brooks for Wireupdate.

Nathan Goulding, writing for the National Review, tells us anybody can open the White House released PDF in Illustrator and it will break out into layers. “I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home,” he writes.

Indeed, but this does not answer the question why in the Obama birth certificate PDF the layers or elements contain dates – which appear to be modified – and the signature of the state registrar. If the document was acquired from state records in whole, why was in necessary to add elements? Goulding and Brooks do not address this issue.

These layers are also revealed by the White House issued PDF’s hex file in freeware hex editor. Within its code are listed 8 image masks, which if changed from value “true” to “false” turn off and on to reveal the layers as demonstrated in the video and in Illustrator. Whether these represent compression artifacts or other digitizing processes, or whether these masks represent deliberate manipulation remains to be conclusively shown.

<< /Length 17 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 123 /Height 228 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 13 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 199 /Height 778 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 19 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 47 /Height 216 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 15 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 42 /Height 274 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 10 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 1454 /Height 1819
/ImageMask true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 25 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 132 /Height 142 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 23 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 243 /Height 217 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 21 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 34 /Height 70 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>


As Market-Ticker.org points out, it may prove to be significant that two of the boxes appear over both of the “date accepted” boxes, as well as the “Mother’s occupation box.” Was there a need to tamper with the dates on the document or other areas? The recent stamp date and issuing signature of the state registrar also contain an edited layer.

Questions have also been raised about the number at the top of the document issued by the Department of Health, number 61 10641, as one part of the number is in a separate layer when viewed in Illustrator, as demonstrated in the video above. This may prove to be significant. A long form birth certificate obtained by the Honolulu Star in 2009 from a female born one day after Obama and whose form was accepted three days after Obama’s document contains a Dept. of Health number that is lower, 61 10637. There are others subtle differences, such as the use of “Aug.” for the date rather than “August,” and the use of “Honolulu, Oahu” rather than “Honolulu, Hawaii” (seen also in the 1962 certificate below) which may or may not be significant.

More to the point, this certificate and others, like the one posted below it, have visible seals. No issuing seal can be seen on the document released today by Obama.

Negative of long form birth certificate for Aug. 5, 1961 birth in Honolulu, released in 1966 with seal and dated signatures.Published by Honolulu Star and World Net Daily in 2009.

New Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery  090728birthcert

Photo of physical copy of long form birth certificate for June 15, 1962 birth in Honolulu, also with visible seal.

New Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery  13

Infowars will continue to analyze this issue as more information comes in. It is significant that the Obama Administration was pressured into responding to this controversy, whatever the final analysis of this document. However, the administration still needs to release his other records which have been sealed at great expense. Is there an issue with his being naturalized in Indonesia? Why are his college records at Columbia and Occidental sealed, and what do they contain? Did Obama travel to Pakistan on a foreign passport? These questions and many others have not been properly answered.

Aaron Dykes contributed to this report.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-obama-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery.html


Larry Klayman discusses Ground Zero mosque lawsuit by Freedom Watch on CBN

January 16, 2011

 

 

 

Lawsuit Seeks to Halt Construction of Ground Zero Mosque

 

 

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for Larry Klayman discusses Ground Zero mosque laws…
Follow my videos on vodpod

<via ->http://bigpeace.com/elcid/2011/01/15/lawsuit-seeks-to-halt-construction-of-ground-zero-mosque/

 


 


Obama should not be President – A certificate of live birth from Hawaii is not proof of eligibility.

December 18, 2010

Obama’s Aunti is an illegal alien.

What make any Democrat think that HE would be above doing the SAME thing that his Aunti did?

As a matter of fact, I’m wondering if he didn’t come in to the US with his Aunti and THEN united with his Communist family.

Well, in any case, if it were anyone else, they could not get away with these lies.  Why is he sooo special?  How did his cousin get to such high office in Kenya?  The question is as curious as the one about the chicken and the egg.  Which came first?

And also there is the straight forward question as to the WHY?

Is Obama the ultimate weapon of propaganda? Or is he a straight up terrorist?

 

BORN IN THE USA?

Supremes facing eligibility challenge to Obama, again

Taitz’s case distributed for conference among justices on Jan. 7

 

 

 

Posted: December 18, 2010
12:35 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

 

It just doesn’t appear to be going away.

The idea that Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy to Oval Office, and do chores such as appointing Supreme Court justices, needs to be explored and documented is headed back to the highest court in the land.

According to the Supreme Court’s own website, there is scheduled to be a conference Jan. 7, 2011, on a case submitted by Orly Taitz.

This particular case has had a long proceeding; it began as a challenge to the legality of the military orders under Obama, whose eligibility to hold the office of president never has been documented to date. While that officer, Capt. Connie Rhodes, ultimately followed her orders, the attorney was fined $20,000 in the case, and it continued its path through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and now is pending in Washington.

 

 

Whether it will fall by the wayside as have other cases on the same issue that have been submitted to the court remains to be seen. But even if this case falls, it doesn’t appear the issue itself will fade.

Read the full report on Obama’s eligibility yourself.

Consider:

Retired Cmdr. Charles Kerchner, whose legal challenge to Obama’s eligibility recently was turned back by the Supreme Court on a vote that included two members of the bench appointed by Obama and therefore holding an apparent conflict of interest, said the problems will just get bigger the longer the issue remains unresolved.

 

The Obama eligibility matter should have been fully and thoroughly addressed and openly investigated by the investigative reporters in the major media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries to get all of Obama’s documents released to the public as part of the vetting process. It wasn’t done,” he said.

“Congress should have addressed when asked by 100s of thousands of constituent letters and petitions sent to them and when constitutionally it was required to [do] so under the 20th Amendment. It didn’t,” he continued. “Everyone in our system of government chose ignoring the problem and appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else.


Orly Tait

“Now it is far worse. The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law,” he said.

That decision not to address the uncertainty of Obama’s background now, “will only delay the inevitable and fester and grow and in the end be a far worse situation to deal with when the real nature of the tyrant reeals himself in a much bolder way and attempts to take away all our protections to our unalienable rights and liberty,” he said.

Taitz, who was among those who brought concerns to the Supreme Court at the time of the election on an emergency basis – all of which were refused by the Supremes, told WND that she’s convinced ultimately the Supreme Court will review Obama.

“I don’t believe they can continue avoiding this issue,” she said. “They have to show integrity, have to show that the Constitution of the United States matters.”

 

 

She said also the case has been getting “ripe,” or coalescing into a specific dispute. There now are disagreements among court rulings, she said. She cited a California court ruling that there could be a door for the courts to determine the issue but only after Congress has acted, even though another judge ruled the matter should have been brought to the courts before the election.

Further, one judge has ruled that the military should resolve the question over Obama’s eligibility to be commander in chief while the result from the recent Lakin court martial was that Judge Denise Lind refused even to allow his defense arguments, evidence and witnesses in her courtroom, essentially withholding related due process and discovery procedures.

Taitz said one of the largest issues that remains a roadblock to the case being resolved is that Obama’s two appointees to the Supreme Court apparently are participating in cases in which they have an interest.

“In my opinion they [Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor, both appointed to the bench by Obama] should recuse themselves,” she said. “However until now they have refused to recuse themselves in such cases.”

Taitz said the conflict is clear: they were appointed by a president who may not have had the authority to appoint them, therefore their own positions would be in jeopardy.

Kerchner brought forward the same concerns.

“The two justices appointed by Obama who in my opinion had a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to to the court) in the outcome of this petition and case did not recuse themselves even though they should have!” he wrote.

“Their recusal was called for in our petition on page 36 with the relevant U.S. Code cited. The two justices and the court ignored that. … I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS was that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayor and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against certiorari, and to require 4 votes instead of 3.”

Taitz v. MacDonald, the case now pending before the Supremes, originally was brought on behalf of Rhodes, an Army flight surgeon questioning the validity of deployment orders issued under Obama’s signature. The case argues that Obama has not proven that he is a “natural-born citizen” of the United States, which Article 2 of the Constitution requires any president to be.

A “natural born citizen” was considered at the time the Constitution was adopted as an individual whose parents are both American citizens. Obama’s father was a British subject when Obama was born in 1961.

 

But Taitz vs. MacDonald goes beyond Obama’s legitimacy to raise the possibility of Social Securityfraud.

“Legitimacy is a theoretical question,” Taitz told WND earlier. “This case also presents evidence of criminal actions by Obama, showing he needs to be both removed from office and prosecuted.”

Taitz said the case provides evidence generated by professional investigators showing that theSocial Security number currently used by Obama is fraudulent.

“It cannot have been legally obtained,” said Taitz.

Her brief asserts that Obama’s Social Security number was first issued to a Connecticut resident born in 1890.

“This is evidence of fraud,” Taitz said.

More legal documents related to Taitz v. MacDonald can be found on Taitz’ website.

According to Taitz, the likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule on the merits of Taitz v. MacDonald is increased because she personally has legal standing to bring the case. Taitz was fined $20,000 by Judge Clay D. Land in connection with the case, and she’s appealing the fine, which she contends violated her civil rights.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined even to hear arguments. Among the cases turned down without a hearing at the high court have been petitions by Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Taitz.

Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

One other prominent case in which a judge threatened sanctions against an attorney involved attorney John Hemenway. He brought a challenge on behalf of retired military officer Gregory S. Hollister.

The Hollister case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertson, who notably ruled during the 2008 election campaign that the federal legal dispute had been “twittered” and, therefore, resolved.

Robertson sarcastically wrote: “The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his commander in chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel’s satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.

“The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court,” Robertson wrote.

 

Then the judge suggested sanctions against Hemenway for bringing the case. Hemenway responded that the process then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing to see documentation regarding the judge’s statements – not supported by any evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly “vetted.”

Hemenway warned at the time, “If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.

“The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery,” Hemenway said.

The court ultimately backed off its threat of sanctions.

This case also remains in the court system heading for the Supreme Court.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=240913

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


FOX is in bed with Saudi Arabia and is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp

February 18, 2010

Should FOX NEWS register with the State Department as a foreign agent of Saudi Arabia?

A reasonable question 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.

Diana West writes Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s charm-blitzed through NY, juxtaposing Fox News’ Neil Cavuto’s sweetheart interview with “the prince” and Charlie Rose’s far more revealing conversation — essentially, it’s (everything’s) all Israel’s fault, and “my” 1.5 billion Muslims are all like the underpants’ bomber’s father.

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal

I kept thinking about Alwaleed — his stake in News Corp., his stakes in Georgetown and Harvard — and realized that as a leading scion of the so-called House of Saud (q: how many countries are named for their rulers?), a totalitarian theocracy whose foundational documents — the Koran, the Sunnah, the Hadiths — place it in direct ideological conflict with the US Constitution, he operates not just as a billionaire businessman, but also, inevitably, by virtue of who he is, as an agent of Saudi influence.

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.

FOX’s O’Reilly interviewing Terrorist Front Group CAIR spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper

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.

The Arab News reported: “Arab countries can influence U.S. decision-making ‘if they unite through economic interests, not political,’ (Alwaleed) stressed. 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-Qaida attacks as having been a response to U.S. foreign policy.

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 expose 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.

Conservative activists rebel against FOX News: ‘Saudi ownership is really dangerous for America.”

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a 7 percent stake in News Corp — the parent company of Fox News — making him the largest shareholder outside the family of News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch.Alwaleed has grown close with the Murdoch enterprise, recently endorsingJames Murdoch to succeed his father and creating acontent-sharing agreement with Fox News for his own media conglomerate, Rotana.

Last weekend, at the right-wing Constitutional Coalition’s annual conference in St. Louis, Joseph Farah, publisher of the far right WorldNetDaily, blasted Fox News for its relationship with Alwaleed. Farah noted correctly that Alwaleed had boasted in the past about forcing Fox News to change its content relating to its coverage of riots in Paris, and warned that such foreign ownership of American media is “really dangerous.” ThinkProgress was at the speech and observed attendees of the conference murmuring and shaking their heads in disapproval:

ThinkProgess spoke to right-wing author Brigitte Gabriel, another speaker at the conference, who said that Alwaleed was recently interviewed by Fox News’ Neil Cavuto. Gabriel angrily denounced the interview as a “darling high school reunion”: “All of the sudden, Neil Cavuto is interviewing him like a buddy-buddy because he is the boss.” Indeed, in the “rare” interview Alwaleed gave last month, he reaffirmed his “alliance” with the Murdoch family and told Cavuto why he has a personal stake in influencing American politic.

In addition to his powerful Fox News outlet, Alwaleed and other foreign investors have potentially unprecedented power to impact American elections.

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/should-fox-news-register-with-the-state-department-as-a-foreign-agent-of-saudi-arabia/


%d bloggers like this: