Pro-Russian WikiLeaks Founder Praises Rand Paul Republicans

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Former Moscow-funded television host and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange may have hurt Rand Paul’s chances to win the presidency by stating that he is a “big admirer” of the Republican senator from Kentucky.

“In relation to Rand Paul: well, I’m a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the U.S. Congress on a number of issues,” Assange said during an online forum. “They have been the strongest supporters with the fight against the U.S. attack on WikiLeaks and on me in the U.S. Congress.”

Senator Paul’s foreign policy views and support for NSA leaker Edward Snowden have already been strongly criticized by such Republican figures as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Rep. Peter King (NY).

On Fox News Sunday, King said that Paul and others who seized on a Washington Post story about alleged “violations” of NSA rules were guilty of “a grab bag of misinformation and distortion.” King explained, “Take Rand Paul’s own numbers. He says there’s billions of phone calls being collected—it’s not even true, but let’s assume he’s being right for once. You juxtapose that with 2,800 violations, which were self-reported by the NSA, not violating anybody’s rights—you’re talking about 1,900 being foreigners, and when they came to the U.S., their foreign mobile phone wasn’t immediately transferred over the way they were supposed to be.”

King added, “Whatever mistakes were made were inadvertent, and if you have a 99.99% batting average, that’s better than most media people do, most politicians do.”

The figures were taken from an NSA audit stolen by Snowden and turned over to Post reporter Barton Gellman for a story plastered across the top of the front page of the paper on August 15. He waited until the seventh paragraph of the story to note that “most [of the violations] were unintended.”

Snowden, who has been granted political asylum in Russia, donated to the 2012 presidential campaign of the senator’s father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). WikiLeaks staffer Sarah Harrison currently functions as an adviser to Snowden.

Assange’s praise of Rand Paul made big headlines on the Russia Today (RT) propaganda channel. Assange’s pro-Rand Paul statements were also featured by the Voice of Russia radio.

Assange also praised Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report for being “a news media innovator” and “breaking a lot of the censorship.”

Assange supporters fear that he is the target of a sealed indictment for espionage in the U.S., stemming from his receipt and publication of classified information from former Army analyst Bradley Manning. Manning has been found guilty of espionage for the disclosures and has apologized for the damage they did to the security of the United States.

Assange is living under the protection of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, fearful of being extradited to Sweden to face sex-crime charges, and then being sent to the U.S. after that.

Assange’s comments in support of Rand Paul came during a forum to promote his run for the Australian Senate as a candidate of the WikiLeaks political party he founded. They led to such headlines as “Julian Assange calls Rand Paul the ‘only hope’ for US politics” in the Daily Caller, a conservative on-line news source.

Assange made these particular comments in response to questions from Josiah Ryan of Campus Reform, a conservative organization sponsored by the Leadership Institute, which is headed by Morton Blackwell. The exchange is featured on the home page of the group.

Ryan, a 2007 graduate of Hillsdale College and the director of communications for the Leadership Institute’s Campus Leadership Program, referred during his questioning to Assange as being the head of an “open government” movement.

In an email exchange with AIM, he said that while Assange and his organization WikiLeaks “have flaws that that are impossible to ignore,” it’s undeniable that “his actions have lead [sic] to more open global governance on a breathtaking scale.”

But anti-communist analyst Trevor Loudon has commented that “While claiming to be even-handed, interested in exposing corruption and government secrecy, without fear nor favor, wherever it is found, the WikiLeaks phenomenon has mostly benefited anti-American causes and governments—which is why it has been so staunchly defended by the left.”

It appears that Ryan and some other conservatives do not understand how figures like Assange, Snowden, and Manning have played into the hands of Moscow and Islamic terrorist groups by disclosing classified information, some of it related to counter-terrorism. One of the charges against Manning was that his disclosures to WikiLeaks were used by al Qaeda for attacks on Americans, based on testimony that Osama bin Laden had asked his terrorist associate to obtain some of the leaked material.

In terms of Russia, Assange once promised disclosures about corruption under the Putin regime, but they never materialized. In fact, the Russian intelligence agency, the FSB, a successor to the Soviet KGB, had warned WikiLeaks not to release anything embarrassing to Russia.

In Russia, journalists who try to expose the Putin regime regularly get killed. A dissident KGB officer, Alexander Litvinenko, was reportedly murdered in London on orders of Putin.

When he launched his television show on behalf of Moscow, Assange said the best channels in the world were Russia Today—a creation of Putin himself—and Al Jazeera, the voice of the Muslim Brotherhood banned in Egypt for inciting terrorism.

As a host on Russia Today, he interviewed such figures as Hamas terrorist leader Hassan Nassrallah and Marxist academic Noam Chomsky.

But Assange clearly has supporters in the U.S. on the right side of the political spectrum. During the forum he went on to praise “an interesting phenomenon in the United States,” in the form of the “Libertarian Republican,” who promotes “non-violence” in foreign affairs and other areas.

He explained, “…the Libertarian aspect of the Republican Party is presently the only useful political voice, really, in the U.S. Congress. It will be the driver that shifts the United States around. It’s not going to come from the Democrats. It’s not going to come from Ralph Nader. It’s not going to come from the co-opted parts of the Republican Party. The only hope, as far as electoral politics are concerned in the United States, presently, is the Libertarian section of the Republican Party.”

Assange’s comments were undoubtedly a reference not only to Senator Rand Paul, but also to Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), who has teamed up with far-left Democratic Rep. John Conyers to try to gut the terrorist surveillance powers of the National Security Agency (NSA).

Amash has said that he considers NSA leaker Edward Snowden a whistleblower.

While singing the praises of Snowden, Assange also insists that the Russian intelligence services have not interrogated the former NSA and CIA employee, a claim featured by a Russian media organ, RIANovosti.

Despite the Russian connections of both Assange and Snowden, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos reports in a magazine called The American Conservative that the NSA leaker has “started to become a conservative hero.” She quotes political consultant Craig Shirley as saying, “Support for Snowden is actually consistent with the tradition of American conservatism.”

Shirley is also quoted as saying, “I think Snowden might end up being the John Brown of the 21st century—reviled and unpopular, but unleashing a debate that led to the rebirth of freedom.” John Brown was a leader of the movement to abolish slavery.

Shirley, president and CEO of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs, confirmed to AIM that these quotes are accurate.

The Vlahos bio notes that she has appeared on the Al Jazeera and Russia Today channels, the far-left outlets Pacifica Radio and Democracy Now!, and writes regularly for FoxNews.com. She claims an “appeal across the political spectrum” and her Twitter page features a “Big Brother is Watching” graphic image at the top.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].


Al Jazeera Targets America

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Anti-Al Jazeera posters have recently appeared in Egypt saying, “A bullet kills a man, a lying camera kills a nation.” This attitude led to the new government closing the channel, after 22 staffers quit in disgust over its pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias.

Al Jazeera is the voice of the Muslim Brotherhood, the group now laying siege to Egypt and burning Christian churches there.

On Sunday, CNN’s media criticism show “Reliable Sources” featured a discussion of the launch of Al Jazeera America. While Egyptian Christian churches burn because of what the channel has done there, Al Jazeera America was given a warm welcome not only by the American media, but also by the Congress of the United States. This show was no exception.

A good guest would have been Raymond Ibrahim, author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007). He told AIM, “One thing I can tell: concerning events in Egypt, Al Jazeera has willfully been manipulating truth to the favor of the Brotherhood—even sometimes portraying the very large masses of anti-Morsi protesters as pro-Morsi protesters, and lots of other distortions that violate any code of journalistic [ethics].”

Instead, CNN’s “Reliable Sources” guest host Joanne Lipman invited Michael Calderone of The Huffington Post and Edward Felsenthal of Time.com to discuss the channel. They never once mentioned the words “Muslim Brotherhood.”

Another taboo topic: Al Jazeera’s lobbyists have worked their will on Capitol Hill, pressuring Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, not to open hearings into the channel. The emir of Qatar is throwing millions of oil dollars around on Capitol Hill and in the Washington, D.C. area on behalf of his new toy. This is a non-story for most of the U.S. media.

We have come to expect politicians selling out, but the media should tell the truth about the payoffs that have greased the skids for Al Jazeera America.

John Siegenthaler, David Shuster, Soledad O’Brien, Antonio Mora, Joie Chen, Michael Viqueira and Ali Velshi are among the media personalities accepting money from the channel once known as the voice of Osama bin Laden. They are being touted by publications such as Politico as media trailblazers bringing much-needed news and information to a hungry American audience.

One of the most blatant examples of media manipulation, in order to mask the channel’s terrorist roots, is adding “America” to its name in order to confuse viewers. It is still funded by the Jihadist-supporting dictatorial regime of Qatar, which sheltered bin Laden lieutenant and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before he went to Pakistan and cut journalist Daniel Pearl’s head off.

The Sunday show was an opportunity for “Reliable Sources” to provide much-needed scrutiny of the new channel. Instead, it offered a superficial and uninformed analysis that was almost laughable.

The show was bad enough with Howard Kurtz as moderator, but this new program demonstrated that, if possible, it’s even worse without him. Lipman, the guest host, is a former deputy managing editor of The Wall Street Journal.

One guest, Michael Calderone, represents The Huffington Post, which reprints material from Al Jazeera, such as the notorious “The Gentle Face of al Qaeda” piece about the terrorists in Mali. The publication even hired a former Al Jazeera employee, Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, who says it is his job to “humanize” the Palestinians.

Calderone commented, “…even though the Qatar government says they don’t own Al Jazeera, a lot of people see Al Jazeera Arabic or Al Jazeera—even Al Jazeera English, probably more the Arabic network or the 24-hour network in Egypt as, you know, following along the point of view of the government in Qatar.”

No kidding. The State Department itself says Qatar runs the channel, in addition to financing it. So the idea that the regime “says they don’t own Al Jazeera” is simply a lie. It would be nice if he had pointed that out.

Lipman skirted close to one of the taboo topics, wondering “…is there any example of Al Jazeera somewhere else in the world where they are producing this kind of unbiased news? I know many other places in the world they have been accused of bias. And, in fact, in Egypt, they were just shut down by security forces because they were perceived as being too close to the Morsi regime.”

This was a perfect opening to discuss Al Jazeera’s domination by the Muslim Brotherhood, but nobody went into it.

Felsenthal wondered if the emir of Qatar, the big boss of the channel, “will eventually get tired of supporting a thousand employees if the ratings don’t support it.” He went on to say that he thought “they seem to be aiming big and broad—in a sense almost disowning their roots.”

So what are their roots? The Muslim Brotherhood.

The attempt to “disown” their roots was also tried in the case of Al Jazeera English. Dave Marash had assured me the new channel would be independent of the regime paying the bills. He later quit in disgust over its bias.

Marash was one of the Western faces picked to make that version of the channel appear to be something it is not. The same process is underway with Al Jazeera America. Americans, not Arabs or Muslims, will be delivering most of the news on the new channel.

Since the Marash fiasco, the English version of the channel was widely condemned for ignoring the sexual assault on CBS News correspondent Lara Logan during the revolution that brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

The cover-up demonstrated that the channel never changes in its substance and core; it reflects the views of the Muslim Brotherhood and its sponsoring regime in Qatar.

The coverage suggests that many in the American media want to be fooled; perhaps they are auditioning for more high-paying jobs at the channel.

Whatever the case, it is a new low point for American journalism.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].


Second Amendment Infringments: The Cost of Lies and Lives

By: Gerald Loeffers

Hi everyone! This article is going to be ripping into all forms of Second Amendment violations, no matter the person or the party; using history, insight and facts. All the while, damning critics who are the enemy of the Second Amendment… no matter their excuses, their lies and their outright disinformation. Be forewarned. I don’t care if a certain person is your favorite… if he is worth ripping into, I will do it no matter who he works for.


When the Bill of Rights was written, the rights contained within were not new ideas or made up concepts. These were and always will be self-evident truths and rights that man has always had. The Founders wanted these natural long standing rights to be recorded for all to read and to practice. In fact, a man named Cicero, wrote about the natural rights of man hundreds of years before the Founders did. This man was one of the referenced histories the Founders read and studied in order to write the Constitution and of course THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE was one of these natural rights. It did not matter if the tool was a sword or an AR-15. In many kingdoms, history is replete with charters stating that in order to defend the land, all men either noble or farmer, should be armed and ready. There is a story in the Bible of Jesus telling his apostles to arm up for the road and to buy weapons or sell something to buy a weapon. During the early part of the Japanese empire’s plans to attack America, one plan had a full out invasion in it and this plan was submitted to an admiral. He rejected it stating: “An aggressive invasion of America would fail. I fear we would be fighting rifles behind every blade of grass.”


Let’s look at the people and the politicians, and even mass media, that want to promote suspending the Constitution (mainly the Second Amendment) in order to make themselves feel better and gain power over people no matter the cost.


Let’s look at the last 2 centuries of worldwide disarmament and tally the cost, shall we?

The American South in the 1870s — the southern Democratic party after being stung by the loss of the Civil War and the mandate of freeing all the slaves, feared the slaves now being able to read and write and make up their own minds and a resultant voting backlash from these free Americans. They decided to form the first American based terrorist group – the Klu Klux Klan and as an added insult to injury, also passed the first race based weapon control laws in the country in order to make a whole group of people unable to defend themselves against the Klan and others like them.

The Soviet Union, 1917 to 1937 — both Lenin and Stalin, being men of massive power, worried about the common man rebelling against their rule. They were able to disarm millions of people and with that in hand were able to rape, starve, imprison people in labor camps and kill… over 40 million people. You know… evil people like teachers, doctors and mothers.

Germany, 1939 — one of Hitler’s first mandates was to disarm the general population as fast as possible. He passed this law under the guise of public safety and protection and was able to rapidly gun grab all he could, especially from those evil, blood debt, money grubbing Jews. Within 7 years, he was able to murder a total of 16 million people and even his own friends were not safe from his murdering hand.

China in the late 1950s — Chairman Mao was another guy who didn’t like his own population, so a countrywide disarmament law went into immediate effect and then the forced starvation, mass killings and labor camp deaths soon escalated. Over 20 million Chinese died during his reign and rumor has it that old Mao was a class ‘A’ child molester.

Africa in the 1990s — this was a time of tribal blood feuds and the local government there had wide ranging gun control laws and weapons laws that disarmed thousands of villagers far and wide and left them to the whims of opposing tribes and Muslim radicals. A lot of these opposition forces didn’t have the money for arms anyway, but wound up using $5 a pop machetes to perform their mass slaughters.

America in 1995 — Bill Clinton signed into law the assault weapons ban that banned absolutely no assault weapons because they were already banned in 1986. The lie was that this law was to reduce violent crime. Years later, all studies indicate this law did nothing to the crime stats and only violated the Constitution.






The Constitution is not a fair or foul weather friend, nor is it a living document. But a constant reminder that neither state governments or federal government cannot and shall not do anything to the people without its guidance and study. You’re not allowed to simply not use the Constitution just because of a little foul weather or due to people problems. You’re supposed to follow it period – without being shaky.

Katrina was a bad hurricane. It showed what a limited resource government could and couldn’t do and what it shouldn’t do under any circumstances. This was a glimpse into what the U.N. wants to do with all American gun owners – go door to door and take away by force or murder if need be, everyone’s right to self defense at all levels.

In South Carolina during a minor class one hurricane, the governor decided to make it illegal to grab your own weapon and transport it. The excuse of bad weather was used and it was stated that it was okay to suspend the Second Amendment for the moment. In fact, during an O’RIELLY FACTOR interview, STEWART RHODES of OATHKEEPERS was entrenched in a big fight over this when O’Reilly stated that it was a national emergency and justified. But Rhodes stated and rightly so, that it doesn’t matter the reason… you can’t turn off the Constitution because of bad weather. Bill O’Reilly (who’s right from time to time) has always been on the wrong side of the Second Amendment and gun control and thinks he is being reasonable.

New York Mayor, ‘big gulp’ Bloomberg and his phony and vague Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which has suffered the loss of two of its mayor members due to illegal gun possession charges, has passed the most ridiculous gun laws in the country besides California. Within a week, one person had died because of the magazine law, then there was the big OOOPS because even the NYPD was covered under this new umbrella law and some cops were being arrested. Even soldiers were being arrested sight unseen. It’s no new news that Bloomberg plans a large scale gun grab within the next few months.


The 2009 Fort Hood work place violence shooting (i.e. terrorism attack) was an example of the death pay-outs due to gun free zones and the lunacy of radical Islam in America. This guy had planned this and knew the gun laws of the base and wasn’t scared of them. In the end, a brave female law enforcement officer got close enough to engage this murderer and put him out of killing commission. But there was tremendous loss of life.

The 2012 Colorado movie theater shooting was a place that had a gun free zone sign on the front door. How well did that work? This pinhead with his student loan money and a wacko idea, did a lot of damage in a little amount of time. If a couple of CCW permit holders were there in the seats, he would have been stopped and body bagged.

The 2013 Sandy Hook massacre and the panic gun buying of 2013 was the saddest tragedy during that time. If they had armed teachers instead of self esteem experts, this mess would have been stopped cold. But, let not a crises go to political waste… Everyone from Adolf Obama to Diane Frankenstein were using it to its fullest Nazi use. From an updated recycled assault weapons ban, to magazine limits… they tried going all out, but fortunately they failed. Fear not, they will try again with the backing of the U.N. down the road. In Israel, all teachers are armed period. How many school shootings have they had? Goose egg — NONE, because it works.


The next time you hear a politician and a Police Chief or a media talking head whining about gun control and how there isn’t enough of it, or guns are the cause of all violent crime, or magazines are too high capacity, or that AR-15s are unneeded, or that you own too many guns… just point to the Second Amendment and say too bad.