Hat Tip: BB
By: Lloyd Marcus
Brother and sister patriots, I speak to you as family because I believe if we are to effectively push back in opposition to Obama and company’s all-out-assault on our freedoms, liberty and culture, we (who love America as founded) must stand together as family.
In a nut shell, Obama and Democrats/Progressives are out of control. On every issue from the environment to gun control they use the same tactic. Obama hits the airways and makes a totally mindless emotional pleas to low info voters. Arrogantly, Obama then expects to be given carte blanche to trample the Constitution at will.
Always having Obama, Democrats and progressives backs, the mainstream media faithfully provides cover for their blatant side stepping of the Constitution. The MSM brands Republicans and anyone who dares to stand up for common sense and the law as being racist, stupid and haters. It works every time. Republicans cave.
Sadly, only a few Republicans have the stones to stand up for common sense and the Constitution. Even the ever optimistic Rush Limbaugh said he is depressed over what is happening in our country.
While my hope for America is rooted in my faith and trust in God, I realize it is up to each of us to do our part. To restore our great nation, we must get rock solid conservatives in office– one candidate – one race at a time. This is why my Conservative Campaign Committee has produced TV and radio ads in support of “proven” and “tested” Conservative Michael Sullivan for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.
Sullivan’s opponents in the primary, Gomez and Winslow, are prime examples of Obama/Democrat sycophant Republicans who are willing to sell their souls for a seat at the table. Electing either of them would further the decline of America as we know it.
Candidate Gabriel Gomez wrote a letter to Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick asking for a job – interim appointment as U.S. Senator. In Gomez’s letter, he said he supports Obama’s agenda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JwoNP-THBPo
Candidate Dan Winslow said, “Pro-life candidates deserve to lose”. Folks, 4000 babies a day are aborted in America. Michael Sullivan is pro-life. http://www.redmassgroup.com/diary/16680/prolife-candidates-deserve-to-lose-says-republican-candidate-rep-dan-winslow
Winslow routinely financially supports Democrats: $500 to Democrat Robert Travaglini’s State Senate campaign – $300 to Democrats Steven Baddour and Joseph Wagner – $250 to Democrats Gerard Leone and John Rogers – $200 to Democrat Sonia Chang-Diaz – $500 to Democrat Martha Coakley. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtNo9WYSonQ
With behavior uncharacteristic of Republicans and more in keeping with the No-Tactic-Is-Too-Low Democrat Play Book, Gomez and Winslow conjured up a weak tag-team attempt to smear Conservative Campaign Committee as a hate group. Think about that folks. CCC is committed to getting Conservatives/Republicans elected around the country. And yet, “Republicans”, Gomez and Winslow are selfishly trying to destroy us – both willing to bend the truth and undermine future conservative/Republican candidates to win at ANY cost. Character matters folks, it always does.
Patriots, we at CCC did not pull Michael Sullivan’s name out of a hat. We researched the man and spoke with Massachusetts voters. Amazingly, the same words kept coming up in almost every conversation about Mike – “proven”, “tested” and “trustworthy”.
Beginning at Gillette as a stock clerk, Mike Sullivan worked his way up to U.S. Attorney prosecuting the infamous shoe-bomber.
A Massachusetts voter who has followed Mike Sullivan over the years said to me, “Mike has a way of always showing up and setting things right.”
Michael Sullivan is a great man – the kind of strong, no nonsense, character and principle driven conservative we need to send to Washington to assist in the process of restoring our nation back to the vision of our Founding Fathers.
Folks, the political tidal wave caused by replacing liberal Senator John Kerry with conservative Michael Sullivan in Massachusetts could cause a tsunami of change in the national political landscape. It will reveal to timid Republicans that a true conservative can win. Thus, this race is national!
Please tune in online to http://www.ConservativeCampaign.org/ and support our campaign to fill John Kerry’s vacated Senate seat with conservative Republican Michael Sullivan in the upcoming Special Election.
Tune in for this 8-hour Telethon this Sunday, April 14th from 4:00 PM – 12:00 Midnight (Eastern) – 1:00 PM – 9:00 PM (Pacific)
You can contribute toward our goal now at https://secure.donationsafe.com/sullivantelethon
Michael Sullivan for U.S. Senate Massachusetts. We like and America needs Mike!
Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee
By: James Simpson
Accuracy in Media
As we once again face the specter of illegal alien amnesty, and the permanent Democratic majority it will guarantee, it is critical to understand how the Left plays. They are unethical to the core, but we are so frequently deluded by their tactical use of language and emotion, that we are unequipped to deal with them effectively. The result: they win. This cannot happen again, unless we are all willing to start calling Obama “President for Life,” and Democrats, the “Commissars.”
Changes in public perception happen gradually. This is a natural human survival strategy that mistrusts the unfamiliar. A campaign of public education has become necessary to help convince a wary public to accept new ideas or policies that might otherwise take too much time. But there is a difference between education and propaganda.
Our society relies for its security, stability and prosperity, indeed, its survival, on the rule of law. So the idea of giving special privileges to individuals whose very presence is prima facie evidence of lawbreaking, is instinctively rejected. It cannot be otherwise. To grant special privileges to criminals upends and subverts the rule of law on which we depend.
Our nation’s laws constitute a contract that every citizen implicitly agrees to respect. Those who violate it face sanctions of corresponding severity. If certain individuals can avoid sanction and gain special privilege through political power—despite their blatant violations—then the rule of law becomes meaningless, and is replaced by a society based on political power alone. That is called dictatorship. Yet this is what the illegal immigration lobby wants us to accept.
When individuals or organizations attempt to introduce ideas that are self-evidently destructive, like Nazism or communism, for example, a campaign based on propaganda is necessary. Unlike factual information, propaganda manipulates, using fear and instinct in combination with known psychological reactions. It is evident that the illegal alien lobby uses these methods.
Maryland’s illegal alien advocacy group CASA de Maryland inadvertently provides a good starting point for this discussion. CASA’s resource page references a study by the Equal Rights Center titled “10 Harmful Misconceptions About Immigration.” It is an artful weave of straw man arguments, half-truths and outright lies. Every single “misconception about immigration” is not really a misconception at all. But they are able to argue it as such by revising or re-setting definitions.
Definition of Immigrant
First we have Immigrants:
Any foreign-born individual, including naturalized U.S. citizens, documented immigrants, and undocumented immigrants.
Then we have “Undocumented” Immigrants:
Foreign-born individuals who (1) entered the country illegally, (2) overstayed their visas, or (3) work without authorization
Illegal aliens, in other words. But using their terminology, all of these categories come under the neutral heading “immigrant.” So now they can conflate the two categories without discriminating between legal and illegal immigrants and ascribe the positive characteristics of the one to negative characteristics of the other. Thus we have:
Foreign born scholars, scientists and engineers make this country more prosperous and more secure.
How many illegal aliens are “scholars, scientists and engineers?” Here’s another screecher:
One of every four engineering and technology companies started in the United States between 1995 and 2005 had immigrant founders.
Surely these were all illegals, too?
Overall, the fiscal impact of immigration on public-sector budgets is small and likely to be positive in the long run.
Once again, a large number of highly-trained legal immigrants are taking advantage of the high demand for jobs in technology. They do make a significant positive contribution, as legal immigrants always have.
But illegals are almost entirely low-skilled. The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector estimates that federal, state and local governments spend three dollars in welfare benefits for every dollar received from low-skilled immigrants. It will get even worse if amnesty is granted to these people because they will have access to even more benefits, but will likely not improve their earning capabilities commensurately.
Rector claims that retirement costs for illegals granted amnesty could run to $2.5 trillion. Providing amnesty for illegals would result in chain migration of as many as 100 million people, he argues. The vast majority of those would have the same profile as illegals currently here with the result of added budgetary, legal and cultural strains.
Regardless, according to the Associated Press and USA Today, among others, illegal aliens must now be referred to as “undocumented immigrants.” Calling them anything else can lead to charges of racism, or worse. Logic and truth are out the window.
Definition of Hispanic
…the word “Hispanic” is devoid of meaning and legitimacy. It does not denote a racial, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural group. It is an artificial term created to maximize political power for extremist elements within the Spanish-speaking minority.
This law, which was endorsed by several “Hispanic” organizations including the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and La Raza, contained two significant elements: (1) the subject: “Americans of Spanish origin or descent,” and (2) the legal status: “American citizens.” Both qualifiers were soon dropped in an effort to maximize political influence by maximizing numeric size.
In 1977, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) adopted the shorter title of “Hispanic”… Since then, “Hispanic” is defined as “A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.” The new definition sought to further inflate the numerical size of the “Hispanic” community.
According to Mark Lopez of the Pew Hispanic Center:
[A]bout two-thirds of Hispanic-Americans identify themselves not as belonging to the general Latino culture, but to their specific country of origin or their parents’ homeland.
“The notion of a pan-ethnic identity is actually an American concept,” said Lopez, an American citizen whose grandparents emigrated from Mexico. “If I go to El Salvador and I say I’m Hispanic, they’re going to think I’m from Spain, or they’re not going to know what that means. They don’t see a pan-ethnic identity. They see themselves as Salvadoran.”
Activists can’t even decide if they should use the world “Hispanic” or “Latino.” A study called “Latino or Hispanic Panic” said 75 percent of activists don’t like either term. Of those that do:
In Texas, a Pew Hispanic Center poll found that 45% of Latinos prefer the term Hispanic and 8% prefer Latino. Note this leaves 47% of Latinos in Texas who prefer neither term. In the other four most populous Latino states—California, New Jersey, Florida and New York—the Pew poll found that people are more likely to prefer “Latino.”
Finally, not every Hispanic is a Hispanic! At a Swarthmore College lecture titled, “Is Antonio Banderas Latino?,” Professor Rodolfo Francisco Acuña asserted that being “Latino” is a function of “life experience,” meaning that one had to experience racial or class discrimination to earn the title “Latino.” “No matter what people may think of Banderas as a person, he is European and not part of a class that has historically suffered discrimination.”
So, in other words, you are only a Hispanic/Latino if you are the “right kind;” one who will ascribe to the ideological goals of the Left. What does this mean for all those “economic migrants?”
CASA, however, sees it for the political advantage:
Casa of Maryland, which advocates for immigrant rights, views the Hispanic community as a single bloc “because together they have greater power as a community to address issues that are affecting one particular nationality or all,” advocacy specialist Helen Melton said in an email.
So does one of CASA’s biggest political supporters, Maryland Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez: “Everybody is feeling the need to come together because it’s only larger political forces that are going to be able to change the negative climate we’re facing.”
Next comes intimidation. CASA and the other open borders advocates subscribe to the all-too-familiar tactic of painting their opponents as racists. However, these groups have all demonstrated themselves to be distinctly racist in their adamant demands for illegals. They also frequently resort to intimidating hate speech. In their own words:
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) founder Mario Obledo said: “California is going to be a Hispanic state, and anyone who doesn’t like it should leave. They should go back to Europe.” “Eventually,” he said the following month, “we [Hispanics] will take over all the political institutions of California.”
Former NCLR [National Council of La Raza] President (1974-2004) Raul Yzaguirre called proponents of California proposition 187, which would have denied budget-busting social services to illegals, “racists” and “xenophobes.” Prop 187 won but was blocked by a judge. They got their way and California is now bankrupt.
When Minutemen volunteers declared they would monitor CASA’s day labor centers for illegals, CASA president Gustavo Torres said: “We are going to target them in a specific way. Then we are going to picket their houses, and the schools of their kids, and go to their work…”
Left’s Application of the Dialectic
The illegal alien lobby, like most well-trained leftist movements, follows a multi-tiered offensive strategy. This includes in-your-face agitation, public demonstrations, vilification of opponents, direct threats, aggressive legal tactics (i.e., suing and threats of suits) and massive, coordinated legislative assaults. These in turn all reflect their application of the Dialectic:
Thesis—For the illegal alien lobby, the “thesis” is the deliberately provocative proposition that illegals are only “undocumented,” or of a certain “perceived immigration status,” or, using Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s terminology, merely “New Americans.” As such, they should be granted all the privileges of citizenship and more.
Antithesis—The “Antithesis” is our collective outrage at such an overtly fraudulent notion. It is the natural and anticipated backlash—in Lenin’s words, the “forces of reaction” which set us up for more outrages, as the Marxists respond even more forcefully to our “injustice,” our “racism.” Such “reaction” is only to be expected of “Imperialists.”
Synthesis— “Synthesis” is the marriage of compromises wherein “cooler heads prevail.” This standard Marxist tactic relies on the natural human tendency to compromise in the face of conflict.
Under normal circumstances, this might be described as a simple way to model the give-and-take of the usual negotiation process, but there is nothing usual about it when dealing with Marxists. The compromise always comes from our side, because the Marxists start from the preposterous position that people who deliberately, flagrantly violate our laws should not be singled out for any kind of consideration other than jail or extradition. Exceptions are already provided in law for those refugees or asylum seekers who come to America under genuine duress, but even these programs have been horribly abused by the open-borders lobby.
Yet even in the case of radical ideas like amnesty or in-state tuition for illegals, over time, common ground between the opponents is found, as the radicals repeatedly pound away at elected officials with the same proposals while their street operation gets ever more strident, threatening and demanding. Meanwhile, those less scrupulous politicians who see gain in supporting such groups are emboldened, especially if the media put a compassionate spin on the group in question. Eventually, politicians give in, finding some pretext like requiring military service, or paying fines or back taxes.
Using this method, the Marxists usually get more than they bargained for, despite the fact that their demands have no legitimacy whatever. Furthermore, it never stops. Once one “right” has been established, new ones are dreamed up until there is nothing left to give. Recall the quote from MALDEF’s Obledo: “Eventually we will take over all the political institutions of California.” He means it. When dealing with Marxists, the “moderates” compromise away our rights, our livelihoods and our country to people and agendas that are inherently destructive to our society.
This is a fight we cannot afford to lose. As Congress goes with amnesty, so goes the nation.
James Simpson is a former Office of Management and Budget (White House budget office) economist and budget analyst. He is currently a businessman and freelance writer. Best known for his exposé on the Cloward Piven Strategy of manufactured crisis, his writings have been published in American Thinker, The New Media Journal, Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, Whistleblower, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. His blog is Truth and Consequences. Email James.
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
David Corn, the liberal writer and MSNBC analyst who based a story about Republican Senator Mitch McConnell on a secret and possibly illegal tape recording, is scheduled to accept an award named for Soviet agent of influence I.F. Stone.
The identification of Stone as a Soviet agent is not in serious dispute, except among his most loyal and sycophantic followers.
Equally scandalous, Corn is being presented the award by Jeff Cohen, who has started a petition through his radical organization, RootsAction, to give accused traitor Bradley Manning the Nobel Peace Prize. The RootsAction group is considered by some to be far to the left of Obama and the Democratic Party. Its honoring of Bradley Manning is an example of its extremist approach.
As new developments in the McConnell story seem to indicate a political espionage operation against the Senate Republican leader, the prospect of being linked to those behind a campaign on behalf of Bradley Manning—on trial for espionage against the U.S.—could become a public relations nightmare for Corn.
That is, if the media cover the scandal.
Corn, the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones, not only used a secret recording to attack Sen. McConnell, but based a story about Mitt Romney’s 47 percent comments on another surreptitious recording.
Corn’s sources and methods, now a subject of growing concern, will come under even more scrutiny if he follows through on what is heavily advertised on the Ithaca College website and accepts an award named for a Soviet agent who had secret contacts with Soviet intelligence.
Cohen, a professor at Ithaca College in New York and founder of its Park Center for Independent Media, told AIM, “We are proud to honor Mother Jones and David Corn for shedding light on dark money and dark politics—just as The New York Times was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in public service decades ago for making the ‘Top Secret’ Pentagon Papers available to the public.”
But a liberal super PAC in Kentucky called Progress Kentucky, a recipient of the same kind of “dark money” Cohen complains about, has been linked to the making of the Sen. McConnell tape, and one official of the group has already resigned in view of the mounting controversy over Corn and his “scoop.” The tape included comments of a personal nature about actress Ashley Judd, who has talked about running against Sen. McConnell.
McConnell has asked the FBI to investigate how his office was secretly bugged and the material turned over to Corn and Mother Jones, a magazine named for a socialist.
Cohen’s involvement in honoring Bradley Manning threatens to turn Corn’s judgment and conduct into an even bigger controversy and potential scandal.
As Corn prepares to accept Cohen’s accolades on April 17, Manning’s treason trial at Ft. Meade has witnessed a dramatic ruling that could lead to the introduction of evidence casting serious doubts on the former Army analyst’s claims that his intentions in leaking material to WikiLeaks were simply to expose the conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In the most sensational development so far, the judge in the case has ruled that evidence can be introduced showing that al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden had secret information in his possession that had been leaked by Manning to the WikiLeaks organization. The evidence may prove that Manning aided the enemy, the most sensational charge leveled against the former Army intelligence analyst, a charge which could land him in prison for the rest of his life.
The Washington Post reported that “Prosecutors, who have alleged that Manning’s actions damaged national security, say digital media found at bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan show that the terrorist leader received access to some of the WikiLeaks material through an associate.”
In addition to the emerging controversy over the I.F. Stone award, Mother Jones is trying to deny that it had any role “in the making of the tape” of Sen. McConnell and his aides, and insists that “it is our understanding that the tape was not the product of any kind of bugging operation.”
But the magazine did not explain how it knew any of this, or what its “understanding” was based on.
It appears the magazine is stonewalling an inquiry into the apparently illegal bugging and it is not at all clear if Corn will cooperate with the FBI probe.
Ithaca College says that, in addition to Corn, accepting the award on behalf of Mother Jones will be publisher Steve Katz and reporter Kate Sheppard, a 2006 graduate of Ithaca College, where she double-majored in journalism and politics.
If Corn and the other Mother Jones journalists go through with accepting the I.F. Stone award, they would not be alone among the liberal media in paying homage to the Communist agent. The “Tributes” page on the website created in Stone’s honor carries testimonials from such news organizations as ABC News, The Washington Post, NBC News, CBS News, and the Los Angeles Times.
The tribute at the top of the I.F. Stone page is from Jeff Cohen.
Ithaca’s Park Center for Independent Media claims the Izzy Award “is named after maverick journalist I.F. Stone, who launched I.F. Stone’s Weekly in 1953 and exposed government deception, McCarthyism, and racial bigotry.”
But “maverick” Stone’s beef with “McCarthyism,” a negative term associated with the anti-communist Senator Joseph McCarthy, was for a very specific reason. Stone was himself a member of the Communist Party who was subsequently identified as a Soviet agent.
Not surprisingly, an organization founded by Cohen, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), insists the charges against Stone are “trumped-up.”
But we noted that the identification is based on information in the Venona World War II-era Soviet spy cables that a Soviet intelligence officer named Vladimir Pravdin had recruited Stone. Accuracy in Media received Stone’s FBI file, which said that an informant in the Communist Party had actually named him as a member.
In addition, evidence of Stone’s work as a Soviet agent was uncovered by Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes and Alexander Valliliev, and reported in the May 2009 issue of Commentary magazine (and also in their book, Spies, published by Yale University Press).
Another important source of information on Stone’s working and active relationship with Soviet intelligence is Max Holland’s “I.F. Stone: Encounters with Soviet Intelligence,” published in the Journal of Cold War Studies 11, no. 3, in the Summer of 2009.
Holland’s treatment of the matter should be of interest to David Corn since Holland is contributing editor of The Nation, a major left-wing publication. Corn was its Washington editor until 2007.
It remains to be seen, in view of the growing controversy, if Corn will follow through on plans to accept the I.F. Stone award. AIM was unable to contact him through the Mothers Jones office.
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
A former Al Jazeera producer who describes himself as Palestinian told the National Conference for Media Reform in Denver, “My job as someone in the media is to humanize my people, my heritage…”
Ahmed Shihab-Eldin now hosts a show for HuffPost Live, an on-line television service associated with the far-left website. He told the audience, “I left Al Jazeera because as much as I enjoyed my show and what I was doing, Al Jazeera wasn’t on in America…”
HuffPost Live is sponsored by Cadillac, a “founding partner” of the online streaming TV station. As a result of Obama’s bailout, American taxpayers own 26% of the car company.
As we previously reported, HuffPost Live has also hired Alyona Minkovski, the Moscow-born Russian-American “journalist” who had been working for the Kremlin propaganda channel Russia Today (RT).
Shihab-Eldin’s comments came during a panel that was characterized by the conference sponsor, the George Soros-funded Free Press, as part of the fight for “social justice” and “media equality.”
Al Jazeera is the voice of the Muslim Brotherhood and the various terrorist groups it has spawned, including al Qaeda and Hamas. In her article, “Al Jazeera: Non-Arabs Should Not Be Fooled,” Najat Fawzy AlSaied wrote that “The Emir of Qatar, an absolute ruler, and Al Jazeera, have not covered the ‘Arab Spring’ to advance democracy, but to support the Muslim Brotherhood, which is aligned with the Qatari regime. Al Jazeera has as its chief goal Muslim Brotherhood domination.”
Al Jazeera has announced the creation of Al Jazeera America, and the hiring of CNN’s Ali Velshi, after paying Al Gore and his associates $500 million for the rights to Current TV’s contracts with cable services, which reach 40-50 million homes. But the deal continues to be the subject of controversy.
Last January Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to investigate the deal. But his office says there has been no response and it is not clear what, if anything, Murphy intends to do as a result of this official stonewalling.
At the National Conference for Media Reform, after his formal presentation, former FCC commissioner Michael Copps told me in an interview that the Al Gore-Al Jazeera deal should be examined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because of its possible impact on the U.S. media market.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has called for a congressional “inquiry” into the sale.
Former Al Jazeera producer Shihab-Eldin spoke on a panel titled, “Manufacturing Terror: The Media’s Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim Problem,” based on the claim that the media tend to depict Arabs and Muslims as terrorists.
The National Conference for Media Reform did not feature any panels or discussions on how free speech is threatened by Islamists who murder or physically attack those perceived to be critical of Islam.
The moderator of the panel, Suzanne Manneh, writer and national media coordinator at New America Media, did attack Pamela Geller, a leading critic of radical Islam, alleging she was somehow part of a movement characterized by “Islamophobia,” or the irrational fear of Muslims. But when I questioned her about this charge, she said in a brief interview that she was only quoting from media accounts and turned away. “I’m not going to discuss this, sir,” she said.
Her “New America Media” is described as “a nationwide association of over 3,000 ethnic media organizations representing the development of a more inclusive journalism.” It was founded by Pacific News Service, itself an offshoot of the far-left Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies.
Another panelist, Adel Iskandar, described as an author and media scholar at Georgetown University, refused to be interviewed about a book on Al-Jazeera that he co-wrote. He said it was in the process of being re-written. Iskandar’s 2001 book, Al-Jazeera: The Story of the Network That is Rattling Governments and Redefining Modern Journalism, is described as the first book published about the network but it doesn’t explore the Muslim Brotherhood’s relationship with the channel. The book does mention the channel’s official backing and funding from the government of Qatar.
Like Shihab-Eldin, Adel Iskandar is a contributor to the Huffington Post, whose anti-American and anti-Israel tilt has increasingly attracted the attention of media watchdogs.
The Huff-Watch website documents what it calls the Huffington Post’s “pathological, malicious incitement of hate against the U.S. military, Israel and Jews, the Tea Party and conservative individuals and organizations.”
Another website, the Huffington Post Monitor blog, purports to expose how the Huffington Post has become a home to a group of “commentators expressing anti-Israel hate speech and anti-Semitism.”
- Please call Rep. Tim Murphy’s office (202-225-2301) and ask him to follow through on an investigation into Al Jazeera.
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].
Hat Tip: BB