Arab Channel Uses Brits to Attack American Athletes

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Once labeled the voice of al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood channel known as Al Jazeera has been desperately trying to present itself as a respectable “news” operation with high journalistic standards. Incredibly, the Arab/Muslim terrorist connections didn’t hurt the channel’s ability to move into the U.S. media market. But now, its treatment of some well-respected American professional athletes may have damaged the foreign-funded propaganda organization beyond repair.

The Al Jazeera spin-off known as Al Jazeera America is accused in a lawsuit of using “false and unsubstantiated allegations” in order to damage the reputation of Washington Nationals baseball player Ryan Zimmerman, a major sports figure in the nation’s capital who raises money for charitable causes. Zimmerman and others are accused of using a performance-enhancing drug known as Human Growth Hormone (HGH).

The suit says the unsubstantiated allegations were “based on uncorroborated accusations by a third party that had been unequivocally recanted” prior to the airing of the charges. That third party, Charlie Sly, apparently worked at the Guyer Institute of Molecular Medicine in Indianapolis, the alleged source of the HGH shipments, as a low-level employee. But it’s not exactly clear when that was, and he now claims he made up the allegations.

The charges against Zimmerman and other professional athletes were included in a report titled, “The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers.” It aired on December 27, 2015.

Despite the channel’s foreign terrorist connections, a constituency for anti-American coverage has emerged in the United States. It has taken in not only Al Jazeera but Moscow’s propaganda outlet Russia Today (RT), which has a presence in tens of millions of homes through Comcast. Some are praising Al Jazeera America for trying to tear down a “white American hero,” a reference to Denver Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning, another target of the allegations. Al Jazeera claimed that HGH was provided to Manning through his wife, Ashley.

Doping scandals and lying about them do occur in sports. In one of the most famous cases, bicyclist Lance Armstrong denied and then finally admitted to doping throughout his career. But so far at least, Al Jazeera’s “journalists” are the ones in this instance who are looking like dopes. Not only have they lodged unconfirmed charges against Zimmerman, Manning and others, but they have dragged Manning’s wife into the mess.

Manning said he was sickened, disgusted, and angry about the charges. He said he got treatment at the institute but never received HGH. He said, “The allegation that I would do something like that is complete garbage and is totally made up. It never happened. Never. I really can’t believe somebody would put something like this on the air. Whoever said this is making stuff up.”

Alluding to the questionable nature of the allegations and lack of evidence for them, Manning said, “I’m not sure how someone can admit making something up about somebody, admit that he made it up, and yet it somehow is published in a story.” Calling the charges “defamation” and hurtful to his family, he said he wouldn’t lose any sleep over the “lies” and would concentrate on winning NFL football games.

Fighting back, one Manning supporter posted a comment on an Al Jazeera website that referred to “the lazy Arabs in Qatar,” the financial backers of the channel, being “the most overweight nation in the world.” Indeed, Qatar isreported to have “the highest per capita wealth in the world,” making it the obesity capital of the world, with over half the population overweight.

As the charges go back and forth, serious questions are raised about how the foreign-funded channel went about documenting its allegations and whether its reporters and sources can be trusted.

It’s possible that the allegations, no matter how questionable, could lead to more investigations of professional sports. But it may also be possible that the controversy over Al Jazeera America’s “reporting” will help prompt Congress to finally take a look at how this foreign-funded propaganda outlet literally bought its way into the U.S. media market.

In that regard, Al Jazeera can fight the suit and even pay millions in damages, as a result of the deep pockets of the Emir of Qatar, and still stay on the air indefinitely.

The case, however, sheds light on those in the media who take the channel seriously as a news outlet. Indeed, the Al Jazeera program was provided in advance to The Huffington Post, a sleazy, far-left news publication that published an article with an embedded link to the show on December 26. The Huffington Post regularly cooperates with Al Jazeera.

Following up on the dubious story, Al Jazeera America has now run a column, “Blame capitalism for doping in sports,” which repeats many of the unsubstantiated claims against American pro athletes. The author, Bhaskar Sunkara, is described as the founding editor of Jacobin, a Marxist website.

He conveniently ignores the fact that “capitalism” has been a draw for foreign athletes, including many who have fled Communist Cuba to get a chance to play in the major leagues.

If capitalism was the target, Al Jazeera has missed the mark, as the Zimmerman lawsuit rips the standards and practices of the channel to pieces. The suit says that the Al Jazeera personnel “knew full well that their ‘source’ had recanted his scandalous and untrue allegations against Mr. Zimmerman but, abdicating all journalistic responsibilities, Defendants nonetheless chose to publish their defamatory story in an attempt to stir scandal and increase Al Jazeera’s low ratings, no matter the cost to Mr. Zimmerman.”

In legal terms, the defendants are accused of knowing the charges were false, and having “a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of those statements.”

The suit says they:

  • knew that the motivations of their sole source were questionable;
  • lacked any details tending to establish the veracity of the source’s allegations;
  • failed to uncover any confirming facts as to these allegations, notwithstanding a purported six-month undercover operation related to same;
  • refused to further investigate the sole source of these allegations, or to identify said source, despite Mr. Zimmerman’s repeated requests prior to publication regarding same; and
  • knew prior to publication that the sole source of the allegations had recanted these allegations.

The allegation against Zimmerman not only damages the baseball player’s reputation, the suit says, but could damage his ability to raise money for humanitarian and charitable causes. “The financial impact of this harm on Mr. Zimmerman ultimately will be in the millions of dollars,” it says.

Ryan Howard of the Philadelphia Phillies has also sued the channel over its allegations against him. Howard said, “Their irresponsible reporting forced me to take this action to protect my name and to fight back against the spreading of these lies. I will have no further comment, as the filing itself contains all I need to say.”

The Zimmerman suit identifies Al Jazeera America as part of the Al Jazeera Media Network, “a Qatar-based news network that, upon information and belief is owned or funded by the government of Qatar.” Qatar is an oil and gas-rich Arab dictatorship which tolerates no freedom of the press at home.

In fact, of course, there is much more to the Al Jazeera network, as Accuracy in Media has been reporting for years. The channel is a mouthpiece for the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, and was a faithful voice of al-Qaeda for many years.

Explaining why the channel would go public with the false allegations, the suit notes that in 2013 the Al Jazeera Media Network spent $500 million to buy Current TV and start Al Jazeera America, but that it has been “plagued with low ratings” since its launch. In other words, the channel was desperate for ratings.

The transaction enriched former Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Al Gore, one of the owners of Current TV. Congress refused to investigate the circumstances surrounding the unusual sale.

After documenting resignations and chaos at the channel, the suit notes that an “Investigative Unit” was established whose purpose was described as follows: “Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit does not report the news, it makes the news.”

It appears that the channel made up the news based on a dubious and unverified source.

The suit names the assistant to Al Jazeera America reporter Deborah Davies as Liam James Collins, “a known fraudster and publicity-seeker.” Both Davies and Collins are citizens of Britain and are named as defendants. Davies went on Al Jazeera to defend the report.

Zimmerman’s lawyers are demanding not only monetary damages but the removal of “all false and defamatory statements” about the baseball player from Al Jazeera’s website and its YouTube site, and an injunction requiring the defendants “to publish a retraction of all false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff in the New York Times or a similar newspaper with nationwide distribution.”

The channel claims to operate under a “Code of Ethics,” a statement still on its website that includes adherence “to the journalistic values of honesty, courage, fairness, balance, independence, credibility and diversity, giving no priority to commercial or political over professional consideration.”

It appears, however, that the need for ratings and viewers took precedence over old-fashioned objective news reporting.

Perhaps the Sunni Emir of Qatar ought to pull the plug on Al Jazeera and use the funds to buy some military equipment for defense against Shiite Iran.


Foreign Interests Prepare to Can Conservative Broadcasters

By: Cliff Kincaid
America’s Survival

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is about the vote to let the Arabs, Russians and Chinese buy U.S. radio and TV licenses and force conservative broadcasters off the air. Jerry Kenney and Cliff Kincaid discuss the critical deadline coming up for public comment on this treasonous change in the law on foreign ownership of the U.S. media. The public must act now.


FCC Sells American Airwaves to Arabs, Russians, Chinese

By: Cliff Kincaid
America’s Survival

It’s the story our media doesn’t cover: foreign ownership and control of our Big Media. Remember when Al Gore made $100 million by selling current TV to the terrorist-supporting Middle Eastern dictatorship of Qatar? The result was another Al Jazeera spin-off in American homes via cable and satellite TV. Other owners of media properties are now looking at selling out to billionaire Arabs and Arab governments. The FCC is preparing to make it possible. Even the governments of Mexico and Russia could buy radio and TV stations through foreign cutout corporations. ASI TV producer and co-host Jerry Kenney talks about his column, Obama’s FCC Plans Sale of U.S. Media to Foreigners. Yes indeed, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to remove the barriers to broadcast station ownership by foreigners, a move that would enable American broadcasters to sell out to foreign interests, just like Gore did. The public must respond to what the FCC is planning to do by December 21.


Terrorism, not Climate Change, Kills People

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

On November 13, the same day as the terrorist attacks in Paris, USA Today ran a full-page ad from billionaire Tom Steyer’s group NextGen Climate highlighting the alleged global threat from climate change. As hundreds of people were being injured or killed in Paris, the ad featured these quotes about the “climate crisis:”

  • Hillary Clinton: “An existential threat”
  • Bernie Sanders: “The greatest threat facing the planet”
  • Martin O’Malley: “Critical threat to our economy”

In a new development, we have just learned from Judicial Watch that Hillary Clinton was characterized by her Muslim-connected aide, Huma Abedin, as being “very confused” about the world leaders she was supposed to be communicating with as secretary of state. The confusion may also be reflected in Mrs. Clinton’s bizarre utterance that so-called climate change is an “existential threat” that is somehow comparable to Russian nuclear weapons, which could reduce America to a burned-out cinder.

Mrs. Clinton is not alone, however. All of the Democrats running for president, plus former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, want to treat changes in the weather as something to be addressed through new treaties, international agreements and global tax schemes. This campaign has taken precedence over defeating international terrorism.

At the Democratic Party debate this past weekend, Sanders claimed that “Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism and if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see countries all over the world—this is what the CIA says—they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops and you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict…”

So from one disputed claim about people causing climate change, they have reached another disputed claim that climate change is causing people to commit terrorism.

On the same day as the Paris attacks, former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore was staging his 24-hour climate change telethon from the foot of the Eiffel Tower to focus attention on this month’s United Nations climate summit in Paris. The attacks forced him to pull the plug on the event after five hours.

In advance of his ill-fated climate change telethon, People magazine asked Gore which Democrat he was endorsing for president. “It’s still too early, in my opinion, to endorse a candidate or pick a candidate,” he said.

But why is his endorsement worth anything? Al Gore has become a very rich man, a one percenter. He and his partners sold Current TV (Gore personally netted an estimated $100 million of the $500 million sale price) to the terrorist-supporting Middle Eastern oil and gas dictatorship of Qatar.

A member of Apple, Inc.’s board of directors, Gore is today worth as much as $170 million. Even the New York Times has wondered if his climate change campaign is designed to make himself rich, while preserving his lifestyle as an elite member of the one percent.

His telethon carried the official title of “Live Earth: 24 Hours of Reality.” The reality of terrorism got in the way of the broadcast, featuring various rock stars and co-sponsored by Arianna Huffington’s television channel, HuffPost Live.

Gore and his partners sold Current TV to Qatar so another Al Jazeera spin-off could be piped into American homes. The Al Jazeera America channel was the result, and it is now publishing nonsense like the piece by Rami G. Khourientitled, “Military responses alone will not defeat ISIL.”

Khouri acknowledges that “Religion is critical for shaping the theological concept of the Islamic State and the wider Caliphate…” But, he says, “it may not be the most important reason why individuals go there to live, work and do battle.” He lists “eight reasons why people across Islamic societies join or support ISIL.”

But none of the “reasons” for the rise of the Islamic State, in his analysis, consists of the hate-filled passages from the Koran which guide their beliefs and actions.

Instead, we are told, in reason number four, that their motivations include “To live among like-minded people in a society defined by camaraderie, peace, justice and wholesome family life.” Reason number six is “To find meaning, direction and purpose to one’s personal life, or to escape family or personal problems, loneliness or alienation.”

We are supposed to believe this may be why terrorists opened fire on people in Paris. This is why the Islamic State beheads people or burns them alive?

It is easy to forget that the website publishing this material is financed by a Middle Eastern dictatorship that promotes Islamic terrorism. Like the notion of the “existential threat” allegedly posed by climate change, Al Jazeera America constitutes a diversion from what really threatens America, our way of life, and our people. Perhaps that was the intention all along.

As serious as this is, the problem of foreign propaganda in the U.S. media market could get far worse. Television producer Jerry Kenney notes that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is planning to remove the barriers to broadcast station ownership by foreigners, a move that would enable American broadcasters to sell out to foreign interests, just like Gore did. The FCC could allow the sale of local broadcast stations and other media properties to the Chinese, Russian and Mexican governments, or to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The public must respond to what the FCC is planning to do by December 21.


Pope Lays Out Global Marxist Agenda

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is ecstatic over the pope’s address to Congress. In a message to his supporters, titled, “Why we must listen to Pope Francis,” he was particularly pleased with the fact that in his address to Congress, “Pope Francis spoke of Dorothy Day, who was a tireless advocate for the impoverished and working people in America. I think it was extraordinary that he cited her as one of the most important people in recent American history.” Day was a Marxist apologist for socialism and communist regimes. We covered this territory in my column, “With Pope’s Help, U.N. Bypasses Congress on Global Socialism.”

With Republican congressional leaders under fire from conservatives for cowering in the face of a Democratic Party onslaught, all that they needed was to roll out the welcome mat for a Marxist pope who would put them further on the defensive. But that’s exactly what happened.

Phyllis Bennis of the Marxist Institute for Policy Studies was right: “Pope Francis’ address to Congress was almost certainly not what John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and other congressional leaders had in mind when they invited the pope to speak.” Speaking for many on the left, including the pro-abortion lobby,she said, “His clear call to end the death penalty was the only example he gave of protecting the sanctity of life: Even amid a raging congressional debate over Planned Parenthood, he never mentioned abortion.”

The list of left-wing causes in the pope’s address was extensive. Bennis noted “his calls to protect the rights of immigrants and refugees, end the death penalty, preserve the planet from the ravages of climate change, and defend the poor and dispossessed.” And then there was the attack on the policies of peace through strength, which keep us free. “Being at the service of dialogue and peace also means being truly determined to minimize and, in the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world,” the pope said. He then asked, “Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society?”

He should ask that of Vladimir Putin.

Most Americans understand the rationale for legal immigrants. But illegal aliens who commit crimes are something else. The pope seems not to recognize a difference.

The death penalty is a punishment reserved for heinous killers. But he doesn’t mention abortion, which has taken tens of millions of innocent lives. This seemed strange to conservative Catholics, who are starting to come to grips with the fact that this is a “progressive” pope, who is not hostile toward what anti-communist Pope John Paul II called the “culture of death” through population control and reduction.

Francis’s answer on the arms control issue was to challenge the United States alone and blame its spending on national defense on monetary motives. “Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood,” said the pope. “In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.”

That’s a slander of our brave fighting men and women, many of whom have given their lives or sacrificed their limbs to bring freedom to people around the word, especially Muslims in such places as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Against the global Jihad, what does the pope expect the U.S. to do? Disarm?

Praising “his uniquely progressive papal perspective,” far-left radio host Amy Goodman noted that “The pope has been frank in his criticism of much of the core of U.S. society: capitalism, consumerism, war and the failure to confront climate change.” This is a fraud, of course. They used to warn us against global cooling. It then became global warming and now climate change. The cause always changes until they find something to lure people into schemes for bigger government and higher taxes.

Recognizing the socialism of the pope, Al Jazeera posted an article, “Bernie Sanders, the pope and the moral imperative of systemic change,” by Gar Alperovitz, the co-chair with James Gustave Speth of The Next System Project. Speth, former administrator of the United Nations Development Program, put his name on its 1994 “Human Development Report,” which openly promoted global taxes for world government.

The “Next System” is another name for the replacement of global capitalism by global socialism.

Those endorsing this project, in addition to Alperovitz and Speth, include:

  • Jane Mansbridge, Harvard University
  • Gerald Hudson, Service Employees International Union
  • Annie Leonard, Greenpeace USA
  • Robert B. Reich, University of California at Berkeley
  • Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
  • Barbara Ehrenreich, Author
  • Jeffrey D. Sachs, Columbia University
  • Gerald Torres, Cornell University Law School
  • Larry Cohen, Communications Workers of America
  • Julie Matthaei, Cornerstone Cohousing
  • Leo Gerard, United Steelworkers
  • John James Conyers, Jr., 13th District, Michigan
  • Bill McKibben, 350.org
  • Saskia Sassen, Columbia University
  • Frances Fox Piven, City University of New York
  • Manuel Pastor, University of Southern California
  • Phillip Thompson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Oliver Stone, Academy Award-winning Filmmaker
  • Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK
  • Timothy E. Wirth, United Nations Foundation and Better World Fund
  • Sarita Gupta, Jobs With Justice
  • Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Van Jones, The Dream Corps & Rebuild The Dream
  • Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute
  • Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, California State University
  • Daniel Ellsberg, Author
  • Herman E. Daly, University of Maryland
  • Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate, Author, Former Presidential Candidate
  • Ai-jen Poo, National Domestic Workers Alliance
  • Anna Galland, MoveOn.org Civic Action
  • Danny Glover, Actor, Social Activist
  • Tom Morello, Musician, Activist
  • Jill Stein, 2012 Green Party Presidential Nominee
  • Nancy Fraser, New School for Social Research

“We have fundamental problems because of fundamental flaws in our economic and political system,” the New Project proclaims. “The crisis now unfolding in so many ways across our country amounts to a systemic crisis. Today’s political economic system is not programmed to secure the wellbeing of people, place and planet. Instead, its priorities are corporate profits, the growth of GDP, and the projection of national power.”

The group goes on, “Large-scale system change is needed but has until recently been constrained by a continuing lack of imagination concerning social, economic and political alternatives. There are alternatives that can lead to the systemic change we need.”

Yes there are. They are called socialism and communism. But they would rather call it “sustainable development,” in order to confuse people about how the American way of life is being targeted for extinction.


Revelations du Jour

Arlene from Israel

As the news keeps coming with regard to the horrors of the Iran deal – and the horrors of how Obama and Kerry are conducting themselves – I have no choice but to continue to write on the subject.

This issue remains number one in importance for Israel, and for the Western world.  It must be taken with dead seriousness, and yet the the unfolding of revelations has become something of a self-parody.  One is tempted to respond, “Nah, this cannot be happening…”  But it is.


During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, a mind-boggling issue was raised by Senator James Risch (R-Idaho) and then pursued by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The question at hand: Does Iran get to collect its own soil samples from the military site at Parchin for analysis by IAEA?  Senator Risch’s understanding was that the IAEA will be monitoring Iran’s soil collection by video.

As Fred Fleitz, “a former intelligence analyst experienced in the collection of environmental samples for investigations of weapons of mass destruction,” explained in National Review (emphasis added):

“The revelation that Iran will collect samples concerning its own nuclear-weapons-related activity makes the whole agreement look like a dangerous farce. This is not just an absurd process; it also goes against years of IAEA practice and established rules about the chain of custody for collected physical samples.”

From where I sit, there could have been only one acceptable response by Kerry to these queries on process: “Of course Iran will not collect its own samples.”  But instead Kerry let it be known that this issue was covered in a side agreement and was confidential.  Would confidentiality be necessary if it were a straight up process structured with integrity and an eye to keeping Iran accountable?



Kerry then followed up with a statement on Friday at the Council of Foreign Relations in NY that was a pathetic mix of attempted intimidation and postured self-pity (All emphasis following here added):

As to intimidation, he said: “[if Congress rejects the Iran agreement] our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated, and more blamed.”

MK Michael Oren (Kulanu) responded thus:

If American legislators reject the nuclear deal, they will do so exclusively on the basis of US interests. The threat of the secretary of state who, in the past, warned that Israel was in danger of becoming an apartheid state, cannot deter us from fulfilling our national duty to oppose this dangerous deal.”

While Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud) countered that:

Israel will make its views clear on the Iranian nuclear issue, which is relevant to its security and its existence, and no one has the authority to intimidate us.” What is more, Steinitz pointed out, objections are not coming exclusively from Israel: “Criticism of the agreement in the United States in general and Congress in particular is due to the serious flaws and loopholes displayed in the deal.”


I have a strong aversion at this point to having Kerry refer to Israelis as “our friends in Israel.”  I think not. His statement is a follow-up to an earlier one – that any military action by Israel would be an “enormous mistake.”


But this argument by Kerry as to why Congress had to vote to accept the accord perhaps wins the prize for offensive and ludicrous positions (emphasis added):

“…it would be embarrassing to him and a blow to US credibility on the world stage if Congress rejects the deal.

“It would be a ‘repudiation of President Obama’s initiative and a statement that when the executive department negotiates, it doesn’t mean anything anymore because we have 535 secretaries of state.’

’I mean please. I would be embarrassed to try to go out. What am I going to say to people after this as secretary of state.’”


Tears out your heart, does it not? The prospect that John Kerry might be embarrassed before the ayatollahs.

Credit: atlasinfo

For members of Congress not already angry, this statement should make them furious.  Kerry is negating the Congressional role mandated by the Constitution, and claiming unilateral prerogative to make earth-shaking agreements.  What would he say to people? That the US is a democracy, and has a due process by which he must abide. That it was understood when he got up from the negotiating table that agreements would not be final until after a Congressional review.

Kerry’s attitude here is a reflection of that of his boss.  Obama behaves in an autocratic fashion that is not consistent with the role of the president of a democracy.


“A top adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed Saturday that the Islamic Republic would deny International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors any access to the country’s military sites, contradicting remarks by US officials following the signing of a nuclear agreement with Tehran last week.

’The access of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency or from any other body to Iran’s military centers is forbidden,” Ali Akbar Velayati, Khamenei’s adviser for international affairs, said in an interview with Al-Jazeera satellite TV. Velayati further stressed that the directive will be enforced regardless of interpretations by the P5+1 world powers to the contrary.’”


Two points to make here: First, and most importantly, this signals the futility of striking an agreement with Iran – for Iran will not adhere by it in any event, as its leaders will do as they please.

And then, the refusal to allow inspectors into Iranian military centers rather confirms the charge that at Parchin Iran will be doing its own soil collection.


I want to share here a video of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).  The Senator was speaking at a rally against the Iran deal – and for the release of American hostages held by Iran – in front of the White House last week and was harassed by leftists calling themselves “Code Pink.”  The senator’s method of handling the hecklers is a pleasure to watch – a class act.  But I am sharing this because he responds rationally to their charges, and this is precisely what we need: rational answers when all sorts of off-the-mark charges are leveled against those battling the Iran accord.

There is, to provide one example, the charge that those for the accord, which offers a “diplomatic resolution,” are for “peace,” while those against it are “for war.”  The critical point that the Senator makes is that peace comes with strength, and that the accord makes war more likely.  (More on this below.)



What was left out of mainstream media coverage of this rally was background on who the Code Pink hecklers are.  Code Pink is an NGO led by women, which claims to be “pro-peace.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, center, talks to a Code Pink member after the antiwar group interrupted his speech during a demonstration in Washington against the proposed Iran nuclear deal because it doesn't address Americans held in Iran, July 23, 2015.

Credit: AP

According to Gateway Pundit:

“Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans was an early fundraiser and bundler for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Evans has met with several times over the years with President Obama and his most trusted White House adviser Valerie Jarrett. Code Pink has acted as a messenger between terrorists and Obama.

“Code Pink travels to Iran as guests of the regime. Code Pink leaders are regulars on the Iranian government’s PressTV propaganda outlet. Code Pink did Iran’s bidding in an effort to undermine the government of U.S. ally Bahrain in 2012.”


This is information that ought be shared.


Let me close with this outrageous exchange between a journalist and White House spokesman Josh Earnest, held right after that rally (shared by The Gateway Pundit, with my emphasis added):

Q Secondly, I wondered if you were aware that, just before the briefing, Senator Cruz was across the street at Lafayette Park. It was a protest against the nuclear deal. Among other things, he was very vocal about how, because of the sanctions being lifted eventually, that there would be so much money flowing into the country that the country would use the money to ‘kill Americans.’ Do you have any thoughts about that?

“MR. EARNEST: Well, Anita, I was aware that Senator Cruz was planning to hold a pro-war rally in front the White House today. I didn’t see actually how many people turned out for the rally, but it doesn’t sound like he said anything there that he hasn’t said anywhere else.

“Q Pro-war rally? Is that what you just called it?

“MR. EARNEST: I did.

“Q You have no other thoughts about it?

“MR. EARNEST: I think that pretty much says it all.”

Really low.  It is what happens when there is no good argument for a position one has embraced: Rely on insults and innuendoes. Senator Cruz’s rally was NOT “pro-war.”


David Greenfield, writing in FrontPage, described part of the exchange between Cruz and Code Pink – with regard to being “pro-war” – this way:

“One CODEPINK member responded to Cruz by saying that he does not like ‘war mongers’ and asking Cruz, ‘Why are you so aggressively violent?’

“’I recognize that the folks in CODEPINK like to hold up signs saying, “Peace with Iran.” You know who doesn’t reciprocate those views? Iran,’ Cruz said, to cheers.

“’In the midst of this negotiation, the Ayatollah Khamenei led thousands of Iranians in chanting death to America while they burned American flags and Israeli flag,’ Cruz continued to more applause. ‘Iran has stated its objective to murder as many Americans as possible. They are not seeking peace with us.’”



Posing for the Cameras While the Islamic Threat Grows

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Rep. Michael McCaul  (R-TX), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, says the danger is great that the thousands of Syrian refugees coming into the United States will include terrorists who want to kill Americans. So what is he doing about it? He told Sean Hannity of Fox News the other night that he has sent a letter!

He said, “I sent a letter to National Security Advisor Susan Rice asking her to explain why she’s doing this, and to try to stop this from happening. My job as chairman of Homeland Security is to protect the American people. I believe this will put Americans at risk.”

“Keep up the good work,” said Hannity.

It’s true. McCaul sent a letter to Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice. But what is she going to do about it? Rice was part of the Benghazi cover-up.

This is the same Congressman McCaul who didn’t even respond to our letter two years ago asking for an investigation of Al Jazeera’s expansion into the United States.

A letter is not a substitute for a bill to stop this dangerous wave of immigration into the United States. But this is what passes for “action” from the Republican running the House Committee on Homeland Security.

McCaul is very good at posing for the cameras and going on Fox News to talk about his hearings. But his record of doing anything to actually stop the Islamic threat is weak.

McCaul did introduce a bill, the “Secure Our Border First Act of 2015,” supposedly designed to curb illegal immigration. But Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), perhaps the top opponent of amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. Congress, said that McCaul’s border bill does not include the following reforms needed to achieve a sound immigration system:

  • It does not end catch-and-release.
  • It does not require mandatory detention and return.
  • It does not include worksite enforcement.
  • It does not close dangerous asylum and national security loopholes.
  • It does not cut off access to federal welfare.
  • It does not require completion of the border fence.
  • It delays and weakens the longstanding, unfulfilled statutory requirement for a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system.

We are now learning why McCaul is so reticent about doing anything of substance against the Islamic threat.

McCaul was recently exposed by Matthew Boyle of Breitbart News for having held a friendly meeting with an Islamic leader from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Texas. McCaul and CAIR Houston branch executive director Mustafa Carroll were photographed together. A photograph of the meeting includes a note written in silver sharpie from McCaul to Carroll: “To Mustafa and the Council on American Islamic Relations, the moderate Muslim is our most effective weapon.”

The February 11 hearing held by McCaul, “Countering Violent Islamist Extremism: The Urgent Threat of Foreign Fighters and Homegrown Terror,” was certainly worthwhile.

But the idea that a letter to Rice is somehow sufficient to deal with the threat is laughable.

Rice is one of the top Obama officials implicated in the Benghazi terror attack cover-up. And she is now supposed to do something to stop terrorists from coming into the U.S. disguised as refugees because McCaul has sent her a letter?

McCaul himself signed a letter to Obama, noting that Rice “propagated a falsehood that the [Benghazi] attacks were ‘spontaneous,’ the outcome of a protest ‘spun out of control,’ and the result of a YouTube video.”

The letter, signed by McCaul and others, said Rice “is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi matter. Her actions plausibly give U.S. allies (and rivals) abroad reason to question U.S. commitment and credibility when needed.”

The letter was designed to warn Obama against making Rice Secretary of State. Instead, he made her National Security Advisor.

The letter that was sent to McCaul two years ago, warning of Al Jazeera’s expansion into the U.S., cited Dr. Judea Pearl’s criticism of Al Jazeera as “the main propaganda machine” of the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. Equally significant, Dr. Pearl, the father of slain journalist Daniel Pearl, said that “Al Jazeera weaves the ideological structure and combustible angers from which Jihadi recruits eventually emerge.”

McCaul now claims to be concerned about the emergence of Islamic terrorists on American soil. Yet he refused to even respond to the letter about Al Jazeera.

Accuracy in Media learned and reported that Al Jazeera and its financial sponsor, the government of Qatar, had hired various K Street lobbyists to put pressure on McCaul and other Republicans to stop a probe into Al Jazeera’s operations on American soil.

Yet, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has said, in regard to Al Jazeera, “I think if an American medium is controlled by a political force from abroad, that’s a proper subject for inquiry.”

McCaul is emerging as very good at getting “face time” on the news to sound tough about the Islamic threat. But when the threat is mounting, sending letters just doesn’t seem to cut it.

A tougher border bill that would help keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States seems like an absolute necessity. But McCaul and the Republican-controlled Congress aren’t even pushing for that.

“My job as chairman of Homeland Security is to protect the American people,” he says. So why won’t he do his job?

A letter to Susan Rice won’t protect us. A tougher border bill would help. And so would hearings into Al Jazeera leading to the eviction of this Muslim Brotherhood channel from the United States.


Congress Fiddles While the World Burns

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

The Obama administration may be on the same side as the Muslim Brotherhood, but at least we know where they stand. Congress, by contrast, sounds tough and does nothing.

Consider the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), who has issued a “seven-point plan” to defeat Islamist terrorism that includes countering Islamist ideology. He gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute called, “An American Strategy for Victory in the War Against Islamist Terror.” Unfortunately, he had the opportunity to go on the offensive more than two years ago when he rebuffed requests to hold hearings into Al Jazeera’s expansion into the United States.

Once known as the mouthpiece for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Al Jazeera has earned the label “Jihad TV.”

There used to be a time when the U.S. was on-guard against foreign influence and propaganda. During World War II, we had a congressional panel known as the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), which exposed the Communists, the Nazis and their agents operating on American soil. A particular focus of HUAC was foreign propaganda activities.

Just two years ago, when the Chinese bought AMC movie theaters, they went for approval to a federal panel known as CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. The Chinese Dalian Wanda Group Co., known as Wanda, announced after the review that it had received all necessary regulatory approvals in the U.S. and China for the planned acquisition of AMC.

Wanda is described as China’s largest investor in cultural and entertainment activities. AMC operated 346 theaters with 5,034 screens, primarily in the United States and Canada.

One can argue that AMC should have been barred from such a purchase. The legitimate fear is that China is using its entertainment operations in the U.S. to propagandize the American people. Selwyn Duke, in an article on China’s increasing power and influence in Hollywood, has a list of films in which characters or plot lines have been changed to accommodate the Chinese regime and its censors.

By contrast, Al Jazeera completely bypassed the CFIUS process. McCaul’s committee should have held hearings into evidence that Al Jazeera is not a legitimate news operation but rather a conduit for propaganda from terrorist groups. McCaul had received a letter—signed by media critics, journalists, academics, and national security and Middle East experts—requesting hearings on Al Jazeera’s purchase of Al Gore’s Current TV. In a display of arrogance, he didn’t even bother to respond.

The issue is not Al Jazeera’s small audience. It’s the nature of that audience and the ability of the channel to reach terrorist-minded Muslims with anti-American messages.

Foreign channels do not have the right to provoke terrorism on American soil. If they are legitimate news operations, they may have the right to broadcast in the U.S. But they are also required under the law to register as foreign agents and label their broadcasts as foreign propaganda. Al Jazeera has not been forced to comply with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The law was originally passed to counter Nazi propaganda activities, but applies to all foreign entities that attempt to manipulate an American audience.

Now that awareness is growing about how terrorists are being inspired and recruited, McCaul is sounding concerned. He should be. He was AWOL in 2012 when Al Jazeera was dramatically expanding its operations in the U.S.

There are two dangers with Al Jazeera. One is the transmission of pro-terrorist propaganda. The other is that the channel could be serving as cover for agents of foreign terrorist groups to operate as “news” personnel while gathering intelligence and recruiting agents.

In his remarks explaining his new strategy, McCaul noted the case of “a would-be attacker who wanted to target the U.S. Capitol here in Washington D.C.” He added, “The barbarians, I believe, are at the gate…and it is time for this nation to confront them.”

We don’t know if the ISIS sympathizer, Christopher Cornell, was a fan of Al Jazeera. That’s something which should be examined. But it is interesting to look at Al Jazeera’s coverage of this case. The channel ran an “analysis” piece by Ehab Zahriyeh suggesting that the culprit wasn’t a jihadist, but instead had “social and emotional issues” and was a victim of entrapment by the FBI. By contrast, in the North Carolina case, where a truly deranged individual killed three Muslims over a parking space, Zahriyeh reported that the attack was evidence of “Islamophobia.”

Al Jazeera’s Zahriyeh had also reported that Houston’s Quba Islamic Institute “was set ablaze,” in another apparent “Islamophobic” act. It turned out the culprit was a homeless person with an extensive criminal history for charges like drug possession and prostitution. It appears that he started the fire to stay warm and it got out of control. Zahriyeh featured the comments of Ibrahim Hooper, communications director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front. CAIR can always be counted on to find evidence of “Islamophobia,” even when none exists.

So this is how Al Jazeera “reports” the news. It is designed to inflame, provoke and mislead.

It turns out that Zahriyeh worked previously at Press TV, an English-language Iranian government propaganda channel. He was at Columbia University in New York City to cover the opening of the Center for Palestine Studies, an outfit characterized by “hostility toward Israel.”

McCaul had a chance to investigate Al Jazeera more than two years ago and he balked. As we documented at the time, Al Jazeera and its sponsor, the government of Qatar, hired several lobbying firms to stop any probe of Al Gore’s deal with the Muslim Brotherhood channel.

Hence, McCaul’s new proposal to take the fight to the enemy by countering “domestic radicalization” and undermining “the insidious ideology at the core of Islamist terrorism” has to be taken with a grain of salt. No plans have been announced to probe Al Jazeera.

We have consistently argued that allowing Al Jazeera to operate in the United States, during a global war against Islamic terrorism, is akin to fighting the Nazis while allowing their spokesperson, Axis Sally, to run a broadcasting operation in the U.S. In this war, by contrast, McCaul and others treat Al Jazeera as a legitimate news organization deserving of First Amendment protections. They refuse to investigate its links to the Muslim Brotherhood and various terrorist groups.

Yet McCaul wants people to think he’s going to get the bottom of the global jihad problem. In his headline-grabbing speech, McCaul said, “Overseas terrorist groups aren’t yesterday’s extremists, moving messages between couriers and caves. They are tailoring their hateful ideology toward Western audiences on social media, recruiting homegrown fanatics, and fueling a ‘jihadi cool’ subculture. Already, their propaganda is leading to an uptick in homegrown terrorism. For example, there have been more than 90 homegrown terror plots or attacks in the United States since 9/11—and nearly three-fourths of them have taken place in the past five years. Many of the suspects were radicalized at least in part by online Islamist propaganda, including the Boston Marathon bombers.”

McCaul doesn’t mention Al Jazeera. Yet, the channel is available on DIRECTV, Comcast / XFINITY, Time Warner Cable, DISH, AT&T U-Verse, Verizon FiOS, and Bright House Networks.

McCaul declares that “…we must defend the Homeland against domestic radicalization,” adding, “We are entering an era of ‘do-it-yourself’ jihad, and terrorists are finding it easier to encourage individual attacks rather than sneak operatives into our country. But we are alarmingly unprepared to address the threat of homegrown terrorism.”

On the latter point, he’s correct. But he’s been part of the problem. He’s talking about himself and his committee.


Intifada USA? American Radicals Build Ties to “Palestinian” Revolutionaries

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

2015 could be the worst year for civil unrest in the United States, since the Vietnam War era.

Communists and their Islamic allies are looking to build on 2014’s Ferguson riots, to create major havoc in America this year.

Dream Defenders delegation, Nazareth, January 2015

Dream Defenders delegation, Nazareth, January 2015

In an ominous warning of trouble to come in the first few days of the New Year, a group of mainly Black and Latino American revolutionaries traveled to Israel/”Palestine” to build ties to Arab comrades:

Representatives at the forefront of the movements for Black lives and racial justice took a historic trip to Palestine in early January 2015, to connect with activists living under Israeli occupation.

Dream Defenders, Black Lives Matter, journalists, artists and organizers representing Ferguson, Black Lives Matter, Black Youth Project 100 (BYP100) and more have joined the Dream Defenders for a 10-day trip to the occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel.

The trip came after a year of highly-publicized repression in Ferguson, the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as well as solidarity between these places.

Ahmad Abuznaid, Dream Defenders’ legal and policy director and a co-organizer of the delegation, said that the goal of the trip was to make connections.

“The goals were primarily to allow for the group members to experience and see first-hand the occupation, ethnic cleansing and brutality Israel has levied against Palestinians, but also to build real relationships with those on the ground leading the fight for liberation,” wrote Abuznaid.

“In the spirit of Malcolm X, Angela Davis, Stokely Carmichael and many others, we thought the connections between the African American leadership of the movement in the U.S. and those on the ground in Palestine needed to be reestablished and fortified.”

During the trip, the delegation has met with “refugees, Afro-Palestinians, a family that was kicked out of their house by settlers in East Jerusalem, and organizations representing Palestinian political prisoners, Palestinian citizens of Israel, and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.”

Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said apartheid is what immediately struck her about what she saw on the ground.

“This is an apartheid state. We can’t deny that and if we do deny it we are a part of the Zionist violence. There are two different systems here in occupied Palestine. Two completely different systems. Folks are unable to go to parts of their own country. Folks are barred from their own country.”

“Community Organizer” Cherrell Brown said she saw many parallels between state violence against Palestinians and Black Americans.

“So many parallels exist between how the U.S. polices, incarcerates and perpetuates violence on the Black community and how the Zionist state that exists in Israel perpetuates the same on Palestinians,” Brown said.

“This is not to say there aren’t vast differences and nuances that need to always be named, but our oppressors are literally collaborating together, learning from one another – and as oppressed people we have to do the same,” she said.

“So many parallels exist between how the U.S. polices, incarcerates and perpetuates violence on the Black community and how the Zionist state that exists in Israel perpetuates the same on Palestinians,” Brown said.

Delegates expressed a “desire for Black and American action in support of Palestine.”

“I believe the Black Lives Matter movement can benefit greatly by learning about struggles outside of the U.S., but particularly the Palestinian struggle,” said Patrisse Cullors. “I want this trip to be an example for how Black folks and Arab communities can be in better solidarity with one another.”

Delegate Cherrell Brown made no bones about the underlying ideology of the movement.

“I want us to take back things we can do in the now, as Americans, to raise awareness and action around Palestinian liberation. I want us to reimagine what society could and will look like when we’ve dismantled this white-supremacist patriarchal and capitalist society. I want us to do it together. I want to bring back these conversations and stories in hopes that it will help add to this global struggle to get free.”

The most well known delegate was leading leftist journalist and commentator Marc Lamont Hill, a contributor to HuffPost Live, BET News, and CNN.

Hill was also very blunt about the “revolutionary” purpose of the trip.

From Legal Insurrection:

See the full video here:

I predict, that unless firm action is taken at State and Federal levels, we will see significant radical inspired unrest on America’s streets this year. As the police struggle to contain the trouble, there will be provocations and police will be forced to use force to restore order.

RT (Russia Today) and Al Jazeera will be on hand to film this “police brutality” and American police will be subject to the same inflammatory propaganda that the Israeli Defence Force has had to endure for decades.

The Islamo-Communist Axis means to create chaos and to severely demoralize both Israel and the United States through a campaign of vilification against US and Israeli Defence and Justice systems. They aim to “soften up” both countries by turning them into self-doubting “pariah” states.

This is way bigger than the also communist dominated Occupy Movement and far more dangerous to national security.

The full list of delegates included five Dream Defenders (Phillip Agnew, Ciara Taylor, Steven Pargett, Sherika Shaw, Ahmad Abuznaid), Tef Poe and Tara Thompson (Ferguson/Hands Up United), journalist Marc Lamont Hill, Cherrell Brown and Carmen Perez (Justice League NYC), Charlene Carruthers (Black Youth Project), poet and artist Aja Monet, Patrisse Cullors (Black Lives Matter) and Maytha Alhassen.

In your opinion readers, is it legitimate for the National Security Agency to be monitoring the communications of these people and others like them? What do you think?


The Real Haters and Their Targets

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

As incredible as it seems, an anchor for the terror channel Al Jazeera is hosting an upcoming “documentary” on “Hate In America.” It appears, based on a press release issued in advance, that the program will spend absolutely no time at all on the threats or hate directed against those who have been falsely labeled “Islamophobes” by such groups as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Council on American Islamic Relations.

In fact, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is one of the “partners” producing the documentary along with Al Jazeera anchor Tony Harris. It is scheduled to air on February 23rd on the Investigation Discovery channel. Another “partner” is NBC News’ production arm, Peacock Productions.

The release says the program “features the racially charged murder of a black father in Mississippi who died after being beaten and run over; the gruesome mass shooting of a Wisconsin Sikh congregation; and a brutal anti-gay attack on the streets of New York City.”

While there are certainly hateful incidents and crimes against blacks, homosexuals, and others, the idea that the SPLC should be put forward as a legitimate arbiter of what constitutes “hate” is laughable. It tends to be critical of people who write or act critically of radical Islam, the United Nations, President Obama or the homosexual lobby.

The hate that has been generated against critics of radical Islam can be seen in the murder of 12 cartoonists, journalists and two police officers in France.

President Obama on Wednesday called these terrorists “cowards.” But he had told the United Nations in 2012, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” The French writers were connected with a magazine that published cartoons making fun of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

One of the dead writers was specifically named as a target by an al-Qaeda magazine.

Blogger and activist Pamela Geller notes that in 2012, then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, rather than defending freedom of the press and speech, instead attacked the French magazine for publishing the cartoons, saying the images would be “deeply offensive to many.”

The SPLC targets its critics by name as well, labeling them “hate groups” and running photographs of officers and employees so they can more easily be identified. The group was implicated in the 2012 terrorist attack on the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Family Research Council (FRC), when homosexual militant Floyd Corkins entered its offices and shot a security guard. He had intended to shoot and kill many others.

An investigation found that Corkins identified his target on the website of the SPLC, which provides maps of locations of various alleged “hate groups,” as well as names of their leaders and officials. The FRC was listed as one such group.

The SPLC’s “Teaching tolerance” project ran an article praising unrepentant communist terrorist bomber Bill Ayers as a “civil rights organizer, radical anti-Vietnam War activist, teacher and author.” An “editor’s note” went so far as to say that Ayers had become “a highly respected figure in the field of multicultural education.”

In fact, Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn participated in bombing campaigns against people and police, and were open supporters of communist regimes in Hanoi and Havana. They use education as a weapon against “white supremacy” and capitalism.

In a column on the hate crimes racket, we noted that the media strategy behind SPLC’s use of the “hate” label to describe conservatives serves to demonize them and convey the impression that they should not be taken seriously and are outside the mainstream. In the case of the FRC and other Christian organizations, the SPLC’s main objection is to the group’s mission of documenting the harm that is caused by homosexual behavior and promiscuity to society, the family, and the individuals practicing it.

The fact that an anchor for Al Jazeera would be part of a program on “hate” is simply beyond belief. Al Jazeera is the channel of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group linked to various Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas. Its financial sponsor is the terrorist-supporting government of Qatar in the Middle East.

The SPLC lists its enemies by name, identifying their cities and towns, thus making it easier for violent lunatics and terrorists to find them. Such was the case with the FRC.

This writer was named on one SPLC list of “30 new activists heading up the radical right.” That, in turn, was picked up by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which included me on a list of “Islamophobic individuals.” All such claims are demonstrably false and designed to silence the exercise of one’s First Amendment rights. In more extreme cases, such as the FRC case, the SPLC’s attacks can make those named into targets and victims of violence or terrorism.

Nevertheless, the Investigation Discovery (ID) channel is giving the SPLC unwarranted positive national publicity. The channel describes itself as one of the nation’s fastest growing cable networks, delivering programming to nearly 85 million U.S. households.

Its claim about delivering the “highest-quality programming” to news consumers has now come into serious dispute, at a time when throwing around the term “hate” can have fateful consequences.

  • The channel can be contacted at (240) 662-3709.