Do you suppose they’re getting paid to say this? Fox News anchors and contributors both?
Fox News co-owner funded ‘Ground Zero mosque’ imam: report
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 endorsing James Murdoch to succeed his father and creating a content-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:
FARAH: There’s a flaw, a real compromise in Fox that you need to understand. And if you care about national security, you especially need to be attentive to it. And that is that Fox News parent company is News Corp has a significant ownership by a Saudi prince that many of you will be familiar with because right after 9/11 this prince very famously offered Rudolph Giuliani a big multi-million dollar check to rebuild and Giuliani told him to stick the check where the sun don’t shine because this guy was basically blaming America for what happened on 9/11. Well this guy owns a very significant percentage of the News Corp and has let the world know that he can get things taken off Fox News when he finds them objectionable and has in the past. And I really believe this is really dangerous for America.
Listen here:
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 politics:
– On continuing America’s dependence on fossil fuels, Saudia Arabian oil: “Saudi Arabia’s strategic alliance with the United States will continue and as a derivative of that, the link with the oil between oil and dollars is there. The bulk of our GDP, the bulk of budget comes from oil and oil is still a dollar based commodity.” As Media Matters has documented, Fox News is a reliable source of misinformation on clean energy, and has aggressively attacked efforts to move America away from a fossil fuel dependent economy.
– On opposing financial reforms, bank responsibility fee: “In a way I’m conflicted because I’m invested in Citigroup but at the more global picture, I’m a big supporter of the United States. I believe taxing the banks right now is not the right thing at all. It’s like you have a patient coming out of an ICU.” Alwaleed owns a $4.3 billion dollars stake in Citigroup, a massive bank that spent millions lobbying against financial reform last year.
With the Citizens United Supreme Court decision essentially freeing corporations to spend unlimited amounts in campaigns, theoretically Alwaleed can pressure the American corporations he owns stock in to spend millions — or even billions — of dollars attacking candidates he opposes. In addition to his powerful Fox News outlet, Alwaleed and other foreign investors have potentially unprecedented power to impact American elections.
Frankly, I think the Father knows something. I don’t think that was a gaffe at all. I’m still not convinced that Obama was born in America. I never have thought he was and that was long before the “birther” controversy ever started. And I don’t think for a minute that he is a Christian either. Muslims don’t have to tell the truth when speaking to an “infidel”. If it will further the cause of Islam, it is perfectly acceptable to tell a lie.
Agree, I think the priest had it right the first time. Surprising how fast the commentators jumped on him, yeah, they must be getting paid real well.
More telling than what the blonde said was the length of the pause before she said anything.
Either she was not paying attention while on a live news panel (conceivable, but not likely), or she actually thinks that the priest was CORRECT, but then jumped in and said something to challenge his statement … as required by her handlers.
My birth certificate (Texas, 1960) has the signature of the doctor who delivered me at the bottom of the paper. It’s a legal ‘notary’ type document in which a doctor swears he was on duty and delivered me into the world. The “certificate of live birth” we’ve seen does not have a doctor’s signature. It does not mention who the father is, which a legitimate birth certificate also does. It is an acknowledgment by the state of Hawaii that the family INFORMED THEM a baby was born. A document by request, as it were.
I recently read that, conveniently, all records regarding the passport travel of Obama’s mother prior to 1968 have been destroyed or lost or something. JUST THIS MONTH, I mean. They’ve just announced this. Presumably to stop a torrent of official requests for that info.
And of course, “birther stuff” aside, this is the only president for whom no schoolwork, no grades, from high school or college, no written papers, practically no evidence of any kind of academic EXISTENCE has made it into the public record. We are told he is the smartest president ever, but academia has gone to great lengths NOT to prove it.
I don’t care what the specific details of the information on the birth certificate are. I don’t care if he was born in Hawaii but the father was ‘unknown’. I don’t care if he was born in Hawaii but the father is Malcolm X. I don’t care if he was born in Kenya and they later lied to make him into a citizen for benefits or what have you. I don’t care WHAT THE INFO IS. I just want to see the official, long form 1961 Hawaii birth certificate with the doctor’s attestation and signature at bottom, saying that I, Dr. so and so, delivered this baby at this time on this date at this hospital, signed Doctor So and So.
I do not expect ever to see this document. It has been screened from the public. Even if Republicans take full control of Hawaii’s legislature and governor’s office, even if Republicans win the house and senate and the 2012 presidency… even if republicans declare martial law and declare democrats “enemies of the state”. I do not expect this document to ever become public. Too much time and effort has been invested into calling us stupid, effort by BOTH parties, and neither has the stomach to do their due diligence and discover that we were right.
Dave in Dallas,
Drinks are on me in DC…
A.
Heh.. I just looked at the COLB again, and it does say who the father is. It does NOT say what his nationality is.
but amusingly, it DOES say what his RACE is.
AFRICAN.
What kind of official document of birth is it that tells you what race the father is but not his nationality?
And there is no doctor’s signature, no mention of the hospital. It is, in short, NOT a birth certificate.
I also see, in various copies of the official long form BC from Hawaii in 1961, that the address of the father, his profession/occupation, and various other info about the family is on it. And none of them is a computer printed doc, of course. They are photostats of typed and signed documents.
We will never see it.
DONE! We will talk this week and attempt a plan. Our big buddy is on his way back to the east coast after an extended deployment in the great Northwest. 🙂
FoxNews, on the weekends, is even weaker than it is on the weekdays…thus, I think the “talent” on the weekends are less “professional” at minding their masters. Maybe they think no one is watching. (what percentage of control do the saudi’s have in FowNews, anyway? The “stunt-anchors” on the weekends seemed scared of them, to me.)
The long form birth certificate is as important to prove as the “Won” being our intellectual superior…. even Oprah hasn’t had the “Won’s” professors on her show to take credit for “fine-tuning” his genius…wouldn’t THAT have been a ratings win for her? Aren’t they(Obama and Oprah) friends??? Wouldn’t the professors have been straining at the bit to get recognition for the pResident’s intellect?
Too much is hidden about the “Won’s” past, and FoxNews is suspect in the veil of deceit, as THEIR masters may be the “Won’s” masters, as well.
You have articulated a suspicion many of us have held for some time. I no longer place any faith or credence in FNC’s “fair and balanced” news coverage.
I found a blogpost on the professors, and a few fellow students, about a half year ago… they were speaking anonymously, of course.. saying Obama was a lazy and self-righteous sort of student, likely not to show up for classes, doing ‘rote’ work, perfunctory writing, knowing he would get good grades and not the least bit interested in distinguishing himself.. he always seemed, they said, to believe each thing he was doing was just a step to the next thing, just punching the clock and acquiring the hours, without any real interest in what he was doing.
He is the past president of Harvard Law Review. Most people do not know that he was the first one to be ELECTED by fellow harvard law students, rather than selected by highest GPA as past presidents were. They lobbied, threateningly like many college kids back then, and the professors caved and changed the process so that Obama could have the high office. White guilt at work. Let the black man be the leader. And he is the first president of harvard law review never to publish a single article in the magazine, “The Harvard Law Review”. Nothing he has written is available to the public to read, even though that office is usually held by voluminous writers on legal topics.
He cruised through it, as through everything, without trying and without leaving a trail. And whatever trail he did leave has been obligingly covered up by academia.
Do you know he claims to have gone to columbia for three years but nobody has located a single student or professor who even remembers him being there? Those were the “Pakistan walkabout” years.
Dave,
Somehow I do not find this hard to believe. In Dr. Corsi’s book “The Obama Nation” his research led him to describe Obama’s father in almost the same terms with a few additional character flaws: “abusive bigamist and an egomaniac; a bureaucrat of modest achievement; charming, imperious, cruel and given to boasting about his brain and his wealth.
Also,
> “To avoid the concentration of economic power in the hands of the wealthy, > Obama Senior saw no limit to the amount of taxes that could be charged, > provided “the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to > the cost in taxation which they have to pay.” To make his point clear, > Obama Senior added, “Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the > government from taxing 100 percent of income so long as the people get > benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” >
> He favored taxing the rich, arguing, “I do not see why the government > cannot tax those who have more and siphon some of these revenues into > savings which can be utilized in investment for future development, thereby > reducing our reliance on foreign aid.” (p. 111 – “Obama Senior, the > Socialist Economist,” – The Obama Nation) >
Like father, like son…
***