Gore’s Al Jazeera Deal Now a Major Scandal

Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

While the lawsuit over the sale of Al Gore’s Current TV to Al Jazeera is making headlines, a close reading of the legal complaint provides additional evidence that a congressional investigation into the curious transaction is urgently needed and necessary.

The media executive who claims to have arranged the sale says the idea was to make the Terror TV channel “palatable to U.S. lawmakers,” a formulation that suggests foreign lobbying on Capitol Hill in order to protect the $500 million payoff to Gore and other owners and investors in Current TV.

The suit says that media executive John Terenzio also proposed smoothing things over with “pro-Israel factions, cable operators and, most importantly, the American public.”

The other controversial aspect of the deal, as noted by Fox News contributor Lisa Daftari, is that “Al Jazeera America” has announced plans for bureaus in eight cities, including Detroit, Michigan, and that “Detroit, Michigan is a large ex-pat community of Muslim-Americans where [Jihadist] sleeper cells have been detected.”

Detroit has been called the Arab capital of North America.

Because of the danger of inciting Arabs and Muslims into anti-American violence, Accuracy in Media has called on the House Homeland Security Committee, under the chairmanship of Texas Republican Michael McCaul, to investigate the sale and look at the evidence that the channel is a foreign terrorist entity that can be outlawed on U.S. soil. He has refused to do so.

The Al Gore lawsuit constitutes another reason why Congress has to investigate. If Al Gore had paid Terenzio for his services, as the suit alleges, it is likely that the nature of the deal and the private discussions that went into it would never have been made public. Now, however, all of this is on the public record and more damaging details, if Gore doesn’t settle the lawsuit, will almost certainly come out.

The revelations demonstrate how sensitive the deal was in the first place. Terenzio says one of his objectives was to develop “strategies to overcome Al Jazeera’s negative image and make Al Jazeera acceptable to American viewers.” Many members of the public associate Al Jazeera with the videos of Osama bin Laden, the architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. Al Jazeera aired those videos, as well as interviews with bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders, and is today still regarded as the voice of the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.

In short, the plan was for a massive propaganda campaign to play down the channel’s ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and its financing by the pro-Jihadist Arab government of Qatar.

Terenzio says he came up with “Al Jazeera America,” a name obviously designed to mask the foreign and Arab nature of the propaganda channel.

The revelations in the suit follow reports that the new channel has been feverishly hiring expensive K Street lobbying firms to stop Congress from investigating the deal, and is hiring dozens of American journalists.

Terenzio says in his lawsuit that he “created a sophisticated PowerPoint presentation” describing the deal and that the structure was “based in large measure on the strategies developed by Terenzio in adapting CCTV [China Central television] for American distribution.”

CCTV is the Communist-government funded Chinese state TV channel that has also penetrated the U.S. media market, although in a more limited manner than Al Jazeera.

It appears that Terenzio is an acknowledged expert at getting media access for foreign propaganda channels. His background is quite impressive, as reflected in his official biography. A graduate of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, he is described as “a visiting lecturer at the Syracuse University Newhouse School of Public Communications graduate program in Los Angeles, and at the Tsinghua University School of Journalism in Beijing.”

In the case of Current TV, his idea was to get Al Jazeera into 40-50 million homes through the acquisition of an existing cable channel, Current TV, an unprecedented development that Terenzio maintains he was not compensated for. It is because of this media coup and the failure of Al Gore and the other owners and investors to pay him for his services that Terenzio has launched his lawsuit demanding at least $5 million in damages.

While the suit proceeds in the courts, the legal questions about the deal provide another opportunity for Congress to exercise oversight and investigate the curious transaction. But the fact that prominent Democrats are involved makes it politically sensitive for Republicans who want to avoid confrontations.

The suit says Terenzio made his presentation to Richard Blum, husband of Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, and an investor in Current TV. The suit says that Blum and others involved in Current TV were “concerned about the prospect of losing their shirts” and wanted to find a buyer for their little-watched channel.

The suit says that it was believed that Al Gore would find a sale to Al Jazeera “politically unappealing” but that Blum promised to present it to him.

“Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Gore was adamant in his rejection of the proposal to sell his liberal environmentally friendly network to the oil rich Qataris who owned Al Jazeera,” it says.

Al Gore apparently changed his mind. Perhaps the $500 million price tag, with $100 million going to him personally, was a factor.

When the sale was announced, Terenzio says he was caught off-guard and that he had not been informed in advance about it, even though he devised the sale and conceived the name “Al Jazeera America.” He says Current TV “insiders” concede his role in the transaction.

Jerry Kenney, a critic of Al Jazeera, says, “I have requested a copy of that PowerPoint presentation from his lawyer. I would love to see his game plan of how to make propaganda from a country that denies free speech to its own citizens and possibly provides material support to terrorists, ‘palatable’ to Congress and the American public.”

Kenney says Congress should request a copy of this PowerPoint as well.

The new developments add impetus to the effort by Rep. Tim Murphy for answers as to what the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did or did not do regarding the deal.

Justin Bieber defends scuffle with paparazzi: ’I’m human’

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read on Today >>

Mila Kunis' Incredible Interview To Novice Reporter - Business Insider

Read on businessinsider >>

Sobre el impacto de Telesur en Cuba

Progreso Habana

Bob Woodward is a White House Appeaser

NewZeal
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

If the White House will push Bob Woodward around on such a mundane matter as Obama’s role in a budget stand-off, what else will they do? A look at Wikipedia’s page on Obama’s communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis might give us some indication. It is apparent that Obama supporters and Internet “trolls” have sanitized the page in order to eliminate any hint that Obama’s Marxist policies are being driven by the relationship he had for almost 10 years with a Communist Party operative under surveillance by the FBI.

In the current controversy involving Washington Post reporter Woodward and Obama White House official Gene Sperling, the email exchange publicized by Politico shows Woodward referring to “Gene” and being called “Bob” in return. This is a friendly exchange of views.

Alluding to how “Gene” had yelled at him and apologized, Woodward said, “You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should [be] more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening.”

Can you imagine famed Watergate reporter Woodward referring to Nixon Administration officials in such friendly terms?

This exchange has all the earmarks of a “journalist” who, rather than being threatened, is being fed a line by the Obama White House and wants more of it. Woodward comes across not as a tough reporter engaged in an adversarial relationship with the White House but rather a whiner who wants more access to Obama.

Sadly, it is all too typical of how the liberal media do Obama’s bidding. The treatment of Frank Marshall Davis is a case in point.

The 600-page FBI file on Frank Marshall Davis covers the years 1944-1963, meaning that he was under investigation or surveillance for at least 19 years. One document refers to Frank Marshall Davis having CPUSA affiliations dating back to 1931. Davis was included in the FBI’s security index, meaning that Davis could be arrested or detained in the event of a national emergency. The FBI material also documents Davis’s anti-white and pro-Soviet views, and the Communist infiltration of the Hawaii Democratic Party.

Wikipedia’s page on Davis ignores Obama’s relationship with Davis, except in a footnote on the bottom, and does not mention Davis’s CPUSA membership. It also ignores Paul Kengor’s authoritative 2012 book on Davis, The Communist.

Wikipedia says Davis’s “actions were tracked” by the FBI. But without the facts about Davis’s involvement in a subversive Soviet intelligence network on the island of Hawaii, a major strategic target of the Soviets, this makes it seem as though Davis was an innocent victim of government authorities.

Wikipedia refers to Davis as an “avid photographer” without noting that the FBI was suspicious of Davis taking photographs of the Hawaii coast, an activity that suggested espionage on Davis’s part.

One of the most disturbing FBI documents refers to information that Davis “was observed photographing large sections of the [Hawaii] coastline with a camera containing a telescopic lens.” The FBI information states:

“Informant stated that DAVIS spent much of his time in this activity. He said this was the third different occasion DAVIS had been observed photographing shorelines and beachfronts. Informant advised that it did not appear he was photographing any particular objects.”

AIM’s original piece on Davis, Obama’s Communist Mentor, was published on February 18, 2008, about nine months before Obama was elected for his first term. Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand-based writer and activist, had noted evidence that the mysterious “Frank” in Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, was Frank Marshall Davis, in a posting in March of 2007.

There was plenty of time for the major media to “vet” Obama. But they were not interested. And that includes Bob Woodward and his Washington Post colleagues. Now, all of a sudden, there is a controversy over Woodward reporting something that seems negative about Obama’s position on the sequester. This is so minor in the overall scheme of things that you wonder if it is all just a diversion from the big picture.

The big picture is that Obama operatives have been actively trying to suppress the truth about Obama’s relationship with Frank Marshall Davis and a Soviet-sponsored network in Hawaii since Jerome Corsi, in his 2008 book, The Obama Nation, cited some of the facts during the presidential campaign. As we noted at the time:

“Barack Obama’s 40-page so-called ‘rebuttal’ to Jerome Corsi’s book, The Obama Nation, acknowledges for the first time that the senator once had a personal relationship with identified Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member Frank Marshall Davis, a key high-level operative in a Soviet-sponsored network in Hawaii.
“But the 40-page report, advertised and sold to the media as a refutation of Corsi’s ‘lies,’ doesn’t identify Davis as a hard-core communist and it dishonestly edits an article about Davis to eliminate references to his admitted involvement in CPUSA activities and make the black revolutionary writer and ‘poet’ look like a civil rights activist.”

Corsi had largely drawn the facts about Davis from blogger Trevor Loudon and this columnist, who confirmed Davis’s identity and obtained the 600-page FBI file on Davis. All of this information was available in 2008.

Incredibly, Wikipedia continues the essential cover-up that began during the 2008 campaign. Here’s how the entry begins:

“Frank Marshall Davis (December 31, 1905 – July 26, 1987) was an American journalist, poet, and political and labor movement activist.”

In fact, he was also a Communist, pornographer, a pedophile, heavy drinker and dope smoker. Davis, who was black, was a racist who blamed white people and corporations for much of what was wrong in the U.S. and the world. His influence on Obama helps explain his policies as President.

While Wikipedia quotes Davis as saying that he worked with “all kinds of groups,” including some “labeled Communist, Socialist or merely liberal,” it makes no mention of the fact that he was actually a member of the Communist Party USA. The only other reference to Communist activities was a charge that Davis wrote for what appeared to be a Communist front publication.

While Wikipedia confirms that he “authored a hard core pornographic novel,” Sex Rebel: Black, its page on Davis, a self-described sex “specialist,” makes no mention of the fact that Davis, using a pseudonym, refers to having sex with children.

In an analysis of Sex Rebel: Black, Andrew Walden wrote:

“Children are a target of the sex ‘specialist.’ Davis explains: ‘Undoubtedly an individual’s sexual patterns can be traced back to early childhood experiences.’ (p 35) Davis later writes of a threesome between himself, his first wife and a thirteen year old Jamaican girl. (p 71-78) His account begins, ‘Spring: warmer weather, children playing on the sidewalk in front of our building. An unusual looking child stared solemnly at me each day as I approached the entrance, then turned away when she caught my eye. I knew she was a niece of dad’s former landlady, but that was all. Someday she’d be brightly beautiful; she now had it in miniature.’ The next seven pages are a detailed description of their sexual encounters.”

Footnote number 25 on the Wikipedia page on Davis refers to an August 22, 2008, Toby Harnden story from the London Telegraph, “Frank Marshall Davis, alleged Communist, was early influence on Barack Obama,” as the source of the information about the novel. Harden also wrote that Davis “had been suspected of being a member of the Communist Party in the 1950s,” though Davis’s membership was confirmed in his FBI file, which we had publicized in August of 2008.

Trevor Loudon says Wikipedia’s treatment of the Obama-Davis relationship demonstrates that “It is a waste of time adding something about a contemporary politician’s socialist ties or communist background… it will be deleted faster than you can type it. The left has armies of trolls, surfing the net, purging all information that reflects badly on their heroes.”

Loudon analyzes the Wikipedia page on Davis and comments:

“Zero about Davis’s long time membership of the Communist Party USA. Zero about the FBI’s 600 page file on the man. Zero about Davis’ mentorship of the young Barack Obama. The two most important features of Davis’ life get ZERO coverage in Wikipedia. Woefully inadequate and misleading to put it mildly! Dangerous even, because many people swear by Wikipedia.”

By contrast, the page on Davis maintained by KeyWiki, a site established by Loudon, goes into substantial detail about the Communist and other activities of Davis. It also examines his relationship to Vernon Jarrett, who was later to become the father-in-law to Valerie Jarrett, now a senior advisor to President Obama.

While Bob Woodward’s spat with the White House makes for interesting reading and gets headlines, the famed Watergate reporter has barely scratched the surface of what Obama and his people will do to suppress the truth about the nature of this administration and its policies.

On one level, it seems too late, since Woodward was asleep on these matters as Obama won the presidency and re-election. But at least he could now begin to set the record straight.

The Davis-Obama relationship was a Watergate-type story which, if told by Woodward and his colleagues in the “mainstream media,” could have spared America from the domestic and foreign policy catastrophes that now grip the United States.

Woodward should not be praised for standing up to the Obama White House’s alleged “threats.” Rather, he should be asked what he was doing for the last several years as Obama and his allies ruthlessly suppressed the truth about his Marxist background and agenda for America and the world.

-------------------------

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

Al Qaeda Magazine Explains Why It’s Easy to Assassinate Bush, Clinton, Sarkozy and Tony Blair

theblaze
Tiffany Gabbay

The latest issue of al Qaeda’s English-language online magazine, “Inspire,” has just been released and it is brimming with 60-pages of the jihad-inciting content one would expect from an Islamist group that perpetrates mass-terror on the world stage.

In this particular edition, the magazine’s “Open Source Jihad” (OSJ) section features a Q&A for aspiring jihadists seeking to assassinate U.S. and European leaders. In response, an al Qaeda “consultant” informs that presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton and former European prime ministers Tony Blair and Nicolas Sarkozy, among others, are actually easy targets.

The al-Qaeda operative explains elected officials’ “weak points” and vulnerabilities, qualifying that, essentially, it is easier to kill those who have already stepped down from public office as they are especially susceptible to attack.

“For lower profile figures,” a side-bar on the page reads, “assassination…is an important method as you don’t have the worry of hiding your weapon.”

“Brother Muslim, utilize your time well and prepare your self physically. You are the soldier the Muslim ummah [community] waits for.”

MEMRI, which provides details about the content contained in Inspire, noted that the section is entitled, “I Want To Carry Out A Big Jihad Operation To Support The Religion. Guide Me.”

Inspire also called on experienced doctors to “create a lethal poison” such as Anthrax, with which to tamp-out Islam’s enemies. A screenshot of the page is provided by MEMRI and featured below.

The query, allegedly from an “experienced doctor” seeking advice on how he, too, can wage jihad, is told to “create a lethal poison (gaseous), manufacture anthrax, and give the mujahideen medical advice in their blogs – or you can contact us directly.”

Meanwhile, in yet another question-and-answer session, a journalist is informed that his is a “useful profession to the mujahideen,” as journalists’ knowledge of current affairs, coupled with their “access to many areas as a media personnel,” can provide al Qaeda with useful intelligence about its foes. The writer was also told that journalists are well-positioned to carry out jihadist-attacks themselves, based on their access to important people and places.

Issue “X” of Inspire also includes excerpts of an exclusive interview with American-born al-Qaeda operative Adam Gadahn, a letter by yet another American jihadi, Samir Khan, who in 2011 was killed in Yemen in a U.S. drone strike.

To make matters even stranger, Blaze contributor and CBN terrorism analyst Erick Stakelbeck discovered that one of his CBN reports from May 2012 was, eerily, quoted in this edition of Inspire.

“The terror group features my comments, along with those of other journalists, on page 9 of the new issue,” Stakelbeck wrote on his blog, Stakelbeck on Terror.

Clearly, this indicates without doubt that Islamic militants abroad are keeping a watchful eye on journalists and have their finger on the pulse of how Western society views Islam.

“This shows, once again, that al Qaeda is very plugged in to how they are perceived in the West,” Stakelbeck told TheBlaze in an email.

“They love the attention—even when it comes from their enemies–and are very P.R.-savvy. They also want to remain relevant in the American psyche, 11 years after 9/11.”

O'Reilly: Is the President threatening reporters?

President Obama's problem with the press

The Media’s Love Affair With Castro Collaborators

cubaconfidential

By Chris Simmons

The Fourth Estate’s torrid tryst with sympathizers of the Cuban Revolution continues this week with the Huffington Post again running a feature by longtime Raulista and “former” Cuban Intelligence Officer, Arturo Lopez-Levy: Cuba Under Raul Castro: Economic Reform as Priority?

Not to be outdone, the Associated Press Cuba's new heir apparent has work cut out for him and Pacific Standard Our Guide Proves Prescient in Outlining Post-Castro Cuba both ran articles starring “award-winning” journalist Ann Louise Bardach, who has admitted that a Cuban spy attempted to recruit her during a visit to its Interests Section in Washington. News flash: when a journalist and self-professed “Cuba Expert” is targeted for recruitment by the Directorate of Intelligence (DI), it’s safe to say that said journalist’s opinions and publications are already very pro-Castro.

Editor’s Note: At no time did any of the news outlets advise their readers of their sources’ “previous” associations with Cuban Intelligence.

The Media branding of Yoani Sanchez kicks into high gear–So keep your eye on The Ball, folks

babalublog

cheezburger.com

By Humberto Fontova

In brief: The Ball is the "embargo." The Terrorism listing is linked. Both constrict the Stalinist regime's jugular. With Hugo Chavez fading, the future of the financial flow through its jugular is getting the Stalinist regime antsy. So a regime/media offensive is underway to start procuring this vital flow from the north.

"For Cuba, being able to influence U.S. policy and elite opinion-makers is equally important--possibly even more important-- than recruiting spies with access to U.S. intelligence information." (Norman Bailey Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2007.)

To most people anywhere over .0000009 millimeters outside Miami-Dade borders the "Cuba Embargo" is a triviality they occasionally glimpse while sifting through much more important news. "Archaic," "Counterproductive" "Hurts U.S. businesses," "Hurts hardworking U.S. farmers," "Hurts Cuban people," etc., is what they probably retain from their skimming of the headlines and the highlighted quotes from Cuba "Experts."

Now Middle America will be bombarded with the fact that--whaddaya know!--even a gen-you-wine Cuban Dissident concurs with the "expert" views they always read and hear in the news!

And when I say "Middle America" it applies almost literally. This headline appeared today in The Kansas City Star (and in many of the other 30 syndicated McClatchy papers:)

"Yoani Sanchez may be a dissident in Cuba, but she agrees U.S. embargo must go."

Obviously if he was introduced as somebody who slips in and out of Cuba at will and takes under the table payments from Castro's biggest partners in crime the impact of Phil Peters' "expertise" would diminish. If Arturo Lopez-Callejas were introduced as a former Castro Intelligence official, and nephew in-law of the Stalinist dictator, same thing. So we hear from the MSM that the first is "a former Bush administration State Dept. official" and the later a "scholar in Denver."

"Well Hot Damn!" reacts the typical distracted reader or viewer. "Deze guys sure don't sound like Commie-lovers to me!"

Same with Yoani Sanchez. First the "swing voters" on the embargo must be convinced that she's a gen-you-wine and visceral opponent of Castroism. Only then does her anti-embargoism make a serious mark.

Please note: The woman's personal motivation is not the issue here--it may well be as pure as the driven snow. Our concern is with the motivation of her facilitators--and especially with the results of her Good-Will (against the embargo) tour.

(I apologize for appearing to insult the intelligence of regular Babalu readers with these digressions, but we have many new friends from outside Miami-Dade coming aboard who need some basic background on Cuba news, and we're delighted and honored to welcome them.)

She's only been out of Cuba for two days, and we've seen some of the headlines. By the time she hits New York and Washington D.C.--can you imagine the media barrage?! And be assured no media mention will omit the "embargo." Just watch....and keep your eye on The Ball, folks.

Obama and the Leftist Infiltration of Israeli Media

NoisyRoom
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

In case anyone had any doubt, the Leftists have been busy little Marxists in Israel — that includes Obama. NGO Monitor just released its latest report on foreign government funding of radical political Israeli NGOs which are working in earnest to undermine Israel’s international standing and subvert Israeli society. Most people assume that the financiers of anti-Jew propaganda are Europeans. Well, they now are brothers in arms with the US government. American taxpayers are actively funding (without their knowledge) political campaigns against Israel and her citizens. It is a subversive technique to force Israel to go back to the 1967 borders and grant a Palestinian state. More to the point, the money is going towards the destruction of Israel and for the first time that I know of, the US is backing it monetarily and behind the scenes.

Obama actively meddled in Israel’s recent elections. Now, the US is funneling funds to at least three radical Leftist Israeli NGOs. And with this funding, the Progressive/Marxists are seizing full control of Israel’s media. It would seem that Israel is losing to the enemies within, just as America is. It’s another stealth coup in the making.

Let’s look at the three NGOs who stand out the most:

Keshev: Keshev has a long history of hatred towards Israel and funding anti-Jewish events. They are a radical Leftist media watchdog group. Behind the group are some of the most high-profile radicalized journalists and writers in Israel. They received $492,452 in direct aid from the US government. This group is pro-Hamas and pro-Jihadist — they are for the eradication of Israel from the face of the Earth and support those who support Iran. This group promotes Israeli Apartheid week.

From Discover the Networks:

One featured project from the 2005-6 grantees, entitled “Words Can Kill,” is jointly implemented by Israeli NGO Keshev and Palestinian NGO Miftah. According to the EC, these NGOs promote a “discourse free of incitement, prejudice and dehumanization of the other in Israel and Palestine.” In sharp contrast, Miftah’s website is a forum for demonization of Israel and “disseminate[s] the Palestinian narrative and discourse globally.” For instance, during the fighting in Gaza, Miftah referred to Israeli “atrocities” and “massacres.” An opinion piece published on January 8, 2009 declared, “Israel has opened the gates of hell to the Palestinians,” and denounced defense of Israeli actions as “scandalous fabrications.” In these and countless other examples, Miftah makes a mockery of the stated goals of a “culture of moderation, tolerance, and understanding.” PfP-funding for Miftah raises serious doubts about proper oversight and auditing procedures by the European Commission.

In this case, you are definitely known by the company you keep.

Those who fund Keshev are an interesting group to be sure:

• United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
• The European Union
• The Ford Foundation
• Friedrich Ebert Stiftung
• The United States Institute of Peace
• The German Foreign Office
• Canadian International Development Agency
• The Region of Tuscany
• The Abraham Fund Initiatives
• Foundation for Middle East Peace
• The New Israel Fund
• Anna Lindh Foundation

Catholic Relief Services/B’Tselem: Via Catholic Relief Services, the US has given $220,304 to B’Tselem. An anti-Israel pressure and propaganda group that is known for aiding the Palestinians by supplying them video cameras to film snuff films that depict Israelis as monsters who are persecuting Palestinians for no reason but hate. Lying propaganda and the facilitation thereof is their specialty. There have been many instances of these false videos reported using faux events to slander Israelis.

B’Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories was established in February 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members. They claim to endeavor to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public and help create a human rights culture in Israel. What they really do is undermine Israel and support their enemies as well as terrorism.

Their funders are also enlightening:

• British Foreign and Commonwealth Office
• CRS – Catholic Relief Services (CRS)
• Christian Aid (Ireland)
• DanChurchAid (Denmark)
• Diakonia (Sweden)
• EED (Germany)
• European Commission
• Foundation Pro Victims
• Georg Waecther Memorial Foundation
• Laszlo N Tauber Family Foundation
• Moriah Fund
• Naomi & Nehemiah Cohen Foundation
• NGO Development Center (NDC)
• Royal Norwegian Embassy
• Samuel Sebba Charitable Trust
• Stichting Niks Voor Nicks
• Stichting ICCO
• Social Justice Fund
• Trocaire
• UNDP
• World Vision

B’Tselem has opened an office in the US:

Recognizing the central role of the United States both in terms of its historic alliance with Israel and its efforts to facilitate a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, B’Tselem has established an American presence to inform the political and public discourse in this country and to ensure that human rights are a centerpiece of both the bilateral relationship as well as diplomatic efforts.

It would seem that Jew hatred spans the globe and finds itself at home in the US these days. B’Tselem gets 95% of its funding from foreign governmental assistance. Their stated goal is to wage a media campaign in Israel to engender fear of international reprisal among Israel’s leaders to stop them from working against Palestine.

Foundation for Middle East Peace: The US donated $15,474 to the Foundation for Middle East Peace which immediately funneled those funds to the far left internet outlet Social TV. Anti-Israel propaganda abounds amid political bias and the twisting of geopolitical issues. It’s disgusting. Obviously, the US is aiding these radical NGOs to wage ‘political warfare’ in Israel to sway public opinion and hasten Israel’s demise.

The Foundation for Middle East Peace is led by Ambassador Philip C. Wilcox, Jr. who is their President. He is a retired Foreign Service Officer and former U.S. Consul General to Jerusalem. Geoffrey Aronson is the Director of Research and Publications and is the Editor of the Foundation’s bimonthly Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories. A journalist and historian who has published widely on international affairs and a former visiting fellow at Georgetown University, he is the author of “Israel, Palestinians and the Intifada: Creating Facts on the West Bank” and “From Sideshow to Centerstage: U.S. Policy Towards Egypt.” Need I say more.

Somewhere cozy in all this is our State Department and I suspect (scratch that – I’m certain of it), George Soros. Soros is already wielding far too much influence in the US and is overseeing its downfall. You can bet he is busily churning up chaos is Israel — he must salivate over the thought of its destruction. Soros actually funds the Obama movement here in the US and uses Obama as a personal puppet – staffing the White House with his cronies and shaping policy.

From The Soros Files:

If you’re wondering who’s funding the network of left-wing, non-government organizations in Israel, which aim to topple Netanyahu’s government and turn Israel into an Arab majority state, it turns out to be the same man who’s funding the Occupy Wall Street mobs: George Soros. Tel Aviv has had to contend with the same left-wing protests, tents and all, obviously all coordinated by one central global puppeteer.
That is why the Israeli Knesset passed the NGO Funding Transparency Bill by 40 to 34 in February. It was a hard-fought battle. But despite its neutered state, the bill survived and was enacted. It is a declaration of war by the conservative Likud Party against the shadow NGO empire being used by George Soros to shape the future of Israel. Its liberal opponents called it a “threat to democracy”…
Soros’ global reach is what is contributing to world-wide economic and political disequilibrium. His attempt to overthrow the Netanyahu government is a particularly odious campaign. He has aroused intense hatred among many supporters of Israel…
It is obvious that Barack Obama’s attitude toward Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu has been shaped by his puppetmaster. He takes his instructions from the Shadow Party, that network of private organizations that now controls the policies of the Democratic Party, which is pursuing goals that are never openly discussed in public. These goals embody a fundamental hostility to American institutions and even to American sovereignty as a nation.

With friends like the US, who needs enemies? Israel is being turned inside out and absolutely inundated by Leftist infiltration. Just as the US needs to wake up and fast to the enemies within, so does Israel. Their very existence depends on it. Barack Obama is not only poison to America, he is a suicide pill for Israel.

“America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” – Claire Wolfe

A nod to Cuba, but not to Castro

Boston Globe/ Eduardo J. Santaella

I do not doubt that the Feb. 9 editorial on Cuba and Fidel Castro is well intended (“Cuba’s reforms pave way for new US policy, too”). But it only covers one side of the picture. The editorial seems to forget Castro is a criminal who has imposed an iron rule in Cuba for more than 50 years. Many thousands of innocent people have been imprisoned or killed, and the economy of this beautiful island has been destroyed.

Further, Castro has constantly attempted to export his communist revolution to other countries, such as Venezuela. Castro’s first attempts were thwarted, but recently, under Hugo Chavez, Venezuela is short of becoming a Cuban colony. Through Chavez, Castro also has his hands in Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, and is developing dangerous ties with Argentina’s Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. 

This should worry the United States, but apparently there are still people who support the opening of relations with Castro. I say yes to Cuba, but no to Castro.

Bias Bash: The stunning secret the media missed

Cuba-EEUU: The NYT's Elitist Bias Against Menendez

capitolhillcubans

The New York Times'editorial board claims it wants U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) to relinquish his post as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee due to the unsubstantiated ethics allegations being launched against him.

However, The New York Times' problem with Senator Menendez has nothing to do with unsubstantiated ethics allegations, it has to do with its elitist opposition to Menendez's foreign policy views.

Case and point -- the first sentence of the editorial:

"Senator Robert Menendez was never a distinguished choice for chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the position he ascended to this month by virtue of seniority."

For The New York Times, Senator Menendez has never been "distinguished" enough because he doesn't stem from Manhattan's elitist foreign policy community.

You know, from the cocktail party circuit that has endlessly feted the Castros, Arafats and Assads of this world.

Instead, Senator Menendez -- the son of a carpenter and a seamstress that valued their freedom in the U.S. -- has historically challenged the world's most brutal dictators, whether from the left or the right.

He's a tireless champion of human rights defenders and courageous pro-democracy activists -- from Iran to Cuba.

Moreover, he doesn't believe in unilateral concessions to America's foes.

This is a man who has guided three major foreign policy bills on Iran in the last 13 months.

This stands in stark contrast to The New York Times, whose editorial board staunchly advocates for engagement with Iran's mullahs and normalized relations with Cuba's Castro brothers.

Thus, it clearly wants Senator Menendez out of its way.

House Conservative Leader Gives Al Jazeera Deal a Pass

NewZeal
By: Cliff Kincaid

Accuracy in Media

Rep. Steve Scalise, a Republican from Louisiana who is the new chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), believes Al Jazeera has a First Amendment right to expand its broadcasts in the United States and that a congressional investigation of Al Gore’s deal with the channel is not warranted.

Scalise, a self-described “staunch conservative,” is the new chairman of the RSC, which is the “caucus of House conservatives.” His action makes it increasingly unlikely that the House will exercise any oversight of Al Gore’s controversial sale of his Current TV channel to the mouthpiece of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The buyer is the Middle Eastern regime of Qatar, which owns Al Jazeera. The Qatar regime advertises itself as “America’s Strongest Partner in the Gulf” but has supported terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Osama bin Laden aide and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is currently in U.S. custody in Guantanamo Bay for acts of terrorism, lived and worked in Qatar but was allowed to leave for Pakistan as U.S. authorities were trying to apprehend him, according to the report of the 9/11 commission.

In Pakistan, Mohammed planned 9/11 and decapitated Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped while investigating the al-Qaeda networks in the Middle East.

Sarah E. Makin, Director of Conservative Coalitions and State Outreach at the House Republican Study Committee, told this journalist on Tuesday afternoon that she received an explanation of Scalise’s position on the Al Jazeera deal after consulting with aides to the congressman.

Conservatives had been asking Scalise to support an investigation on the grounds that a foreign-funded channel based in the Middle East, with a reputation for airing terrorist propaganda, should be examined for its ties to terrorist groups.

Foreigners are entitled to First Amendment protections in the United States, except when they run afoul of existing laws and engage in criminal or terrorist activities.

By offering the First Amendment excuse in favor of the deal, Scalise is ignoring the evidence that Al Jazeera is not a legitimate news operation but rather a conduit for propaganda from terrorist groups, with whom it has intimate and ongoing relations.

In the United States, it is against the law to provide material support to terrorists, with “material support” defined as including expert advice or assistance and communications equipment.

In World War II, Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally broadcast their anti-American diatribes from overseas and were apprehended by U.S. authorities after the war and sent to prison for treason. In the more shocking Al Jazeera case, the U.S. is officially still at war with global terrorism, but Al Gore is giving the channel a base of operations on American soil with access to 40-50 million homes.

Although it will be called “Al Jazeera America,” the channel will still be totally controlled and funded by the government of Qatar, which doesn’t permit freedom of the press in its own country.

Existing federal law requires that foreign propaganda broadcasts in the U.S. be labeled as such, a provision of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) that the Obama Administration has decided to ignore.

Independent television producer Jerry Kenney has filed complaints over the non-enforcement of the FARA law, as well as violations of Federal Communications Commission rules that have given Al Jazeera access to taxpayer-funded public television stations.

Despite these outstanding legal questions, Scalise, the top conservative leader in the House, doesn’t even want an investigation of the deal. “Who got to him?” is the question being asked by conservatives.

It is a known fact that Big Oil interests in the U.S.-Qatar Business Council are very powerful on Capitol Hill, and that the regime and/or Al Jazeera have used expensive public relations firms to lobby Congress and the federal government, and manipulate the press. These firms include Barbour Griffith Rogers, Fenton Communications, and Qorvis Communications.

Another law being ignored in the Al Jazeera case is CFIUS, named for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. When the Chinese bought AMC movie theaters last year, they went through CFIUS. Al Jazeera has decided, apparently with the acquiescence of the Obama Administration, that it can ignore the law.

In 2006, members of Congress from both political parties, including then-Senator Barack Obama, objected to a company based in the Arab state of Dubai operating U.S. ports. Public criticism forced the company to drop the deal.

Al Jazeera’s ties to al Qaeda are highlighted in the new film, “Zero Dark Thirty,” where the plot involves the CIA locating Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in part by examining his courier’s proximity to an Al Jazeera office, where terrorist tapes were dropped off for worldwide distribution.

After 9/11, the terrorist attacks on America that claimed almost 3,000 American lives, Al Jazeera correspondent Tayseer Alouni conducted an interview with bin Laden in which he denied being involved in terrorism. Alouni was later convicted of being a courier for bin Laden and al Qaeda.

In his book, Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-first Century, Philip Bobbitt described how, in the 2004 case of the kidnapping and murder of Margaret Hassan, a humanitarian aid worker in Iraq whose captivity was taped by an Islamist group, Al Jazeera “appears to have carefully screened and edited the tapes to protect the deteriorating image of the Iraqi insurgency.” He wrote that Al Jazeera “moved from being passive collaborators in achieving the political objectives of torture to acting as editorial advisors for the terrorists.”

More recently, Al Jazeera ran a story about the “gentle” al Qaeda terrorists in Mali who kidnapped and killed three Americans.

Another major concern about Al Jazeera’s presence in the U.S. is the danger of inciting home grown terrorism.

Dr. Judea Pearl, father of the slain journalist Daniel Pearl, has been committed to increasing understanding with the Arab/Muslim world, but he recognizes that Al Jazeera does not contribute to real dialogue. He supports an investigation of Al Gore’s deal with Al Jazeera.

His statement supporting an investigation was included in a letter to Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and reads as follows:

“A decade of watching over its programs has left me no doubt: Al Jazeera is the main propaganda machine of the Muslim Brotherhood. Posing as a benign alternative communication medium, Al Jazeera choreographs a world stage in which the West is a perennial villain, Hamas is the ultimate role model, and entire societies are dehumanized to a lower form of life, stripped of any mark of dignity or empathy. While refraining from explicit incitement to violence, Al Jazeera weaves the ideological structure and combustible angers from which Jihadi recruits eventually emerge.”

McCaul received this letter, signed by media critics, journalists, academics, and national security and Middle East experts, on January 9. He has yet to respond.

The Scalise response to calls for an investigation may shed light on McCaul’s striking failure to act against the Al Jazeera deal. It appears to some observers that Republican leaders in the House have made a conscious decision to let the deal go through without a peep of protest.

Another House member who has decided to do nothing is Rep. Paul Broun, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee preparing to run for the U.S. Senate from Georgia as a strong conservative.

Friends of Broun have asked him to take a stand against Al Jazeera but he has told them that his staff doesn’t want him to.

Critics of the deal say that if Congress won’t do its job and prevent the emergence of this homeland security threat, the American people will pressure the cable and satellite providers and the advertisers.

The cable and satellite providers of Current TV/Al Jazeera America currently include Comcast, DirecTV, Dish Network, Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-verse.

• If you wish to protest his wrong-headed position in favor of a “hands off” approach to the Al Gore deal with Al Jazeera, Scalise and the House Republican Study Committee can be contacted at (202) 226-9717.

Al Jazeera and the Global Jihad in America

New Zeal

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

By refusing to investigate the Al Gore/Al Jazeera deal, it would appear that Capitol Hill “conservatives” like Republican Reps. Michael McCaul, Steve Scalise, and Paul Broun are adopting the view that we have nothing to fear from the global jihad and its instruments of propaganda being positioned on U.S. soil.

This view finds support from Scott McConnell, writing in Patrick J. Buchanan’s magazine, The American Conservative, who says there should be no “national loyalty oath” for a new cable channel in America and that the transaction is “welcome news.”

Al Jazeera is the voice of the Muslim Brotherhood and the various terrorist groups it has spawned, including al Qaeda and Hamas.

In all seriousness, McConnell calls the sale of Al Gore’s Current TV to the Al Jazeera channel a “public service.”

In an endorsement of the deal, McConnell writes that the channel, which he admits is “Qatar government-funded,” can be “quite good.” However, he admits, “I don’t watch it often.”

He fails to point out the elementary fact that there is no freedom of the press or speech in Qatar.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of uninformed commentary that we have seen all too often in regard to the Al Jazeera deal. It is significant that a self-described “conservative” would adopt this view and that a magazine called “The American Conservative” would publish such nonsense.

During the Cold War, Patrick Buchanan, who served as President Reagan’s White House communications director, was an anti-communist who combatted and helped expose Soviet disinformation and propaganda activities. But in the face of the global jihad, such defenses are apparently being dropped. Indeed, Buchanan has himself been featured in a sympathetic light on Al Jazeera, discussing why he opposes U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.

This is, of course, a legitimate conservative point of view, even if going on Al Jazeera is not the proper place to make such an argument. But McConnell’s idea that Al Jazeera somehow has a right to enter the U.S. media market without scrutiny is not supported by the evidence.

There is no “national loyalty oath” for a cable channel. But there are various laws that are supposed to apply to this transaction which are being ignored. These include the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Federal Communications Commission rules, and the review process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S.

But the basic hurdle that the channel cannot overcome, based on the evidence of its collaboration with al Qaeda, is that it provides material support to terrorism and, therefore, cannot legally operate on American soil. The Hezbollah TV station Al Manar was outlawed in the U.S. on this basis.

If there is some doubt as to Al Jazeera’s relationship with al Qaeda, then Congressional hearings can set the record straight.

Even if the deal was legitimate and had received the necessary approval, there is every reason in the world for true conservatives to oppose the channel’s entry into the U.S. on the grounds that it spews propaganda which can misinform, mislead, and inspire violence.

There is nothing much we can do about foreign propaganda that is based overseas. But allowing our enemies to operate on the U.S. mainland is a prescription for The Suicide of the West, which is the name of a book by James Burnham I read growing up and which I know is familiar to Pat Buchanan.

For some reason, however, there are some conservatives today who don’t regard the global jihad to be as menacing as Soviet communism.

For those in denial, take some time to look at the case of Lars Hedegaard, the Danish journalist, who was almost killed on Tuesday by a jihadist. I met him at Pamela Geller’s 9/11 conference in New York City last year. He had been prosecuted in Denmark for thought crimes against Islam, in a court battle that went on for two years and eventually saw an acquittal on charges of racism and “hate speech.”

As I pointed out in an article about the event, what is happening in Europe is coming to the United States, as the Obama Administration openly sides with global Islam against our God-given First Amendment right of free speech.

That First Amendment does not give Al Jazeera the “right” to operate on U.S. soil, especially when the evidence implicates the channel in violence and terrorism against Americans.

We cannot lose our rights on the pretext that our sworn enemies deserve them more than we do.

McConnell writes enthusiastically about how, “two years ago, when much of the world was riveted by Al Jazeera’s coverage of the Egyptian revolution,” without noting the purpose of the coverage and what has transpired since then.

In her article, “Al Jazeera: Non-Arabs Should Not Be Fooled,” Najat Fawzy AlSaied writes 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.”

She adds, “Early in the ‘Arab Spring,’ in Egypt and other countries, Al Jazeera promoted the Muslim fundamentalists. Regarding Syria, Al Jazeera publicizes the demands for power by jihadists.”

However, McConnell seems blind to what is happening right before his eyes in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East and the role that Al Jazeera is playing in it.

Those being fooled today include people like Scott McConnell. During the Cold War they were called dupes.

Anderson Cooper Confronted at CNN on Sandy Hook: ‘You Were in Front of a Green Screen and You Are a Liar’

theinnoplex

By Shepard Ambellas
theintelhub.com
February 3, 2013

After it was reported by two credible alternative news websites such as theintelhub.com and infowars.com Anderson cooper was caught staging an interview at a Sandy Hook funeral by way of green screen technology.

Now in a turning point Anderson Cooper was confronted by a US Citizen in response to the green screen reports.

Please watch the following video:

Sarah Palin and Fox: When Reform Takes Precedence over Reputation

thespeechatime

By Whitney Pitcher

"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform. Those who are really in earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathy with despised and persecuted ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences." - Susan B. Anthony

Governor Palin's decision not to renew her contract at Fox News has received a lot of discussion from the punditry  as expected. Some have pretentiously referred to her as a fad. Others wrote her political obituary (just as they did when she stepped aside from the governorship), casting everything in past tense as if she just plans ride off into the aurora bourealis on a snow machine. Of course, Governor Palin isn't the political equivalent of pogs or Shirley MaClaine, who has had more lives than most cats. Rumors of her political death are greatly exaggerated, which is just how she wants it. As Governor Palin said to Breitbart News on Saturday, " we delight in those who underestimate us".

Throughout her career, Governor Palin, just like Susan B. Anthony, has cared far more about reform than reputation. When she was on the city council, she took a stand by voting against a regulation for garbage pickup because it would have unethically steered business to the garbage company owned by other council member. Who was that council member? Nick Carney--the very person who encouraged Palin to run for city council. Reform was more important to her than social standing.

As an oil and gas regulator in the Murkowski administration, she stood up to Randy Ruedrich, a fellow member of the Alaska  Oil and Gas Commission and the head of the Alaska Republican Party, when he did party business on state time and was engaged in other unethical behavior. Palin did all she could do with in her power to expose the corruption, but Governor Murkowski did not act. The only thing Palin felt she could do in good conscience was resign. She gave up a six figure job and risked her political future.Again, reform was more important to her than social standing.

Later, as Governor and following her time as the GOP vice presidential candidate, she was hit with a barrage of frivolous ethics complaints. Defending these complaints cost her family hundreds of thousands of dollars, her state upwards of two million dollars, and her staff eighty percent of their time. Governor Palin thought that remaining governor stood in the way of reform for Alaska, as the money and time suck of ethics complaints stymied progress. Governor Palin resigned, with the full understanding that it may negatively affect her political future.

Following her resignation, she spread her message of reform using multiple methods. She became a commentator at FoxNews, endorsed and campaigned for reform minded candidates,spoke at Tea Party rallies and used social media outlets to voice her ideas and thoughts on issues ranging from energy independence to foreign policy to government ethics. She used somewhat unconventional outlets, like TLC's Sarah Palin's Alaska and appearances Conan O'Brien, to reach new groups and affect the culture beyond the traditional media used  in politics. For much of this, she was mocked. Governor Palin takes to the her Facebook page far more often than the pages of the Wall Street Journal, although she does that on occasion too. However, using such a platform was poo pooed as unserious. In reality, it was a revolutionary way for politics to enter the social media, as people were exposed to energy policy right along side new pictures of their grand children and news of their favorite music artist's tours. Her travelogue show exposed new people to Alaska's vast resources and the application of a strong work ethic. Again, reforming the method of marketing conservatism in culture and new media was more important to her than her social standing within a party holding steadfast to a world where white papers are seen as the means to influencing the populace.

Governor Palin spoke unabashedly as a commentator at FoxNews. However, as an outlet primarily seen as the "Republican" channel, commenting at Fox became "preaching to the choir". Governor Palin's message of reform is taking on the "big government enablers" on our side and using opportunities to broaden "the message of the beauty of freedom and the imperative of defending our republic and restoring this most exceptional nation." Interestingly and possibly purposefully, news of Governor Palin's departure from Fox and her next steps came as the same time as the National Review held a summit to discuss the future of conservatism--i.e. the very preaching to the choir that she indicated that conservatives need to move away from. For all this, the mainstream media, many of whom try to cast FoxNews as inconsequential, are now trying to portray Governor Palin as irrelevant without Fox. Yet, if one is truly irrelevant, they usually do not require hundreds of news stories deeming them so. She is so "irrelevant" that a publicly funded university did a study to determine how much money she was paid per word at Fox. There still hasn't been a study to determine how much money the federal government spends/borrows per word that President Obama reads off of a teleprompter.

Governor Palin's next step of reform is to too expand her previous steps of taking on the party establishment and continuing to broaden the message of conservatism. Reform is in her nature--whether is policy reform inside elected office or conservative messaging reform and supporting reform minded candidates outside of office. As she said in channeling Revolutionary war hero John Paul Jones, she has not yet begun to fight.

'60 Minutes' Obama, Clinton interview heavy on laughs, light on substance

foxnews

AP/CBS

By Dan Gainor 

If CBS ever needs a softball team, they should sign Steve Kroft. The veteran newsman filled nearly three fourths of his big interview with President Obama and outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with easy questions (11 out of 15). So much so that laughter was more commonplace that any challenging questions.

For media watchers, the much-ballyhooed half-hour was a waste of good interviewing time. Kroft only threw four mildly tough questions at the power duo and two of those were still fairly easy health questions aimed at Clinton. Only the last two questions tackled Libya, Syria and conservative criticisms that there has been “an abdication of the United States on the world stage.”

Kroft then let Obama dodge questions of his failure in Syria and let stand Obama’s bizarre assertion that the revolution in Egypt has turned out well. “When it comes to Egypt, had it not been for the leadership we showed, you might have seen a different outcome there,” said Obama. 

For media watchers, the much-ballyhooed half-hour was a waste of good interviewing time. Kroft only threw four mildly tough questions at the power duo and two of those were still fairly easy health questions aimed at Clinton.

Had Kroft not wasted the entire first two thirds of his interview on slow pitch, he might have thrown a fastball about the ongoing violence there now, the Muslim Brotherhood’s power grab, threats to Israel and bigoted comments from Obama’s buddy Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. (Just hours before the pre-recorded broadcast, Morsi declared a state of emergency in three provinces as 50 people had been killed in rioting.)

It was the questions that weren’t asked that left viewers wondering if Kroft reads international news. What about tensions between China and its neighbors and U.S. allies Japan, Taiwan and South Korea? Or the increased tensions over the Falklands? Or that pesky little would-be nuclear state of Iran? Or how about U.S. involvement in Mali or terrorism in Algieria? Maybe even our relations with our nearest neighbors Canada, which is waiting on word about pipeline approval, and Mexico which is wondering about fast and furious?

CBS had certainly built up to the event with pre-show promotion that included the network’s Bob Schieffer remarking how unusual it was for president’s to share the stage with anyone. In that vein, Kroft began by reminding viewers that of the Obama-Clinton “rivalry that is one of the richest in American history.” Someone needs to get Kroft a better history book. Even Obama admitted that the pair agreed on policy.

Kroft’s questions weren’t just softballs. More than half resulted in laughter from Obama or Clinton and sometimes both. A couple were so bad that even Kroft laughed as well. 

The most embarrassing one was a public relations person’s dream as Kroft reflected how he had been with both candidates back in 2008. “That was a very tough, bitter race and I’m going to spare you really some of the things that you said about each other during the campaign,” to which even he laughed.

He laughed again when he asked about Obama’s support for Clinton. “What’s the, I have to ask you, what’s the date of expiration on this endorsement?” Both Clinton and Obama’s responses were equally sickening. Clinton threw out an “Oh, Steve…” and Obama commented, “You guys in the press are incorrigible.”

This wasn’t the first embarrassing Kroft interview of Obama. Back before the election, “60 Minutes” ran another interview but left out key elements where Kroft asked Obama if the Libya attack had been by terrorists. Obama dodged and CBS dodged even more, releasing that full interview with less than 24 hours before Election Day.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/28/60-minutes-obama-clinton-interview-heavy-on-laughs-light-on-substance/#ixzz2JHy9fdvC

O'Reilly: Is Hillary Clinton the new Obama in the eyes of the media?