Enemy Propaganda: Who’s Shilling for Al-Jazeera in the US?

by 1389 on August 20, 2011

in "Arab Spring", enemy propaganda, Islam, Islamic infiltration/invasion, Israel, mainstream media, stealth jihad, Stella (Stavroula) Jatras, the Clintons

Actually, it isn’t just John McCain, David Ramadan, and the Republicans who are boosting Al-Jazeera. The dirty fingers of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are in this too.

Blood-spattered Al-Jazeera logo

Accuracy in Media: Republicans Boost Al-Jazeera

Cliff Kincaid — August 9, 2011

Michael Calderone, the senior media reporter for The Huffington Post, has written an article which appears on the website of Arab American News that appears to “credit” Senator John McCain for helping get carriage for Al-Jazeera English (AJE) on Time Warner cable in New York.

He writes that “…U.S. political leaders have had far more praise for the network’s on-the-ground reporting around the globe. In March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called AJE ‘real news’ for its coverage of the Arab Spring protests. Two months later, both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) attended a dinner for the network and spoke glowingly about its impact on the revolutions sweeping the Middle East and North Africa.”

Meantime, an Al-Jazeera contributor, Republican David Ramadan, who supported McCain for president, is running for the newly created 87th House of Delegates seat in the Commonwealth of Virginia and seems poised to win. He has been interviewed by Al-Jazeera, which the Muslim Brotherhood describes as the “great Arab media organization,” and says that his mission includes “educating the Republican party on the Arab-American and Muslim community on what we need from candidates in order to support them.”

On August 10, former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese is scheduled to appear on Ramadan’s behalf at a Loudoun County, Virginia, restaurant.

The Huffington Post has done its part on behalf of Al-Jazeera, as noted by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA): “Another facet of the Huffington Post’s brand of journalism is its symbiotic relationship with Qatar’s state-financed news organization Al Jazeera. In early 2011, the Huffington Post ran a series of pieces supporting Al Jazeera’s efforts to convince major American cable companies to carry its newscasts.
[…]
Calderone is nevertheless correct in his assessment of how significant McCain’s praise of the channel has been. As we noted at the time, McCain’s praise of the terror channel “was a shocker because the day before, on Sunday, The Washington Post had finally gotten around to publishing a semi-critical article on the channel, noting its double-standards and open bias on the matter of revolutions in the Middle East. The Post even acknowledged that WikiLeaks had released a U.S. cable describing the channel as a foreign policy instrument of Qatar, the Middle Eastern dictatorship which financially sponsors it and selects its personnel.”

Picking up a New York Times story by Brian Stelter about Al-Jazeera getting carriage in New York, Keach Hagey of Politico wrote, “It’s a major step forward for the awareness-raising campaign that AJE has been on since its coverage of the Arab Spring propelled it to newfound relevance this year. But so far there is no sign that the obstacles keeping the channel from achieving its true goal in the U.S.—national cable carriage—are cracking at all.”

Neither Stelter nor Hagey gave any space to critics of Al-Jazeera, an indication of how this “awareness-raising campaign” has captured the exclusive attention of these reporters, indicating that they do not want to be accused of putting obstacles in the way of its well-financed push for carriage in major U.S. media markets.

One of the big obstacles has been the channel’s anti-American and anti-Israel bias.

Interestingly, many of the concerns that we have expressed about Al-Jazeera are confirmed in a 94-page master’s thesis, “Al-Jazeera as a Political Tool within the Contradictions of Qatar,” by an Arabic-speaking Japanese graduate, Munehiro Anzawa, available on the American University in Cairo website. It is dated May 2011.

This student is able to document many of the facts that seem to have been ignored by the media cheerleaders for the channel. First—and most obvious—the channel is Arab government-funded, which obviously colors its reporting.

The student writes that “It is important to reveal how Al Jazeera’s financing by one of the most repressive governments regarding freedom of expression affects the channel’s coverage, bias, and editorial independence. It is also interesting to note that Al Jazeera’s news reporting virtually ignores the internal affairs of its financial sponsor, Qatar, or the ruling Al Thani family.”

“More significantly,” says the master’s thesis, “Al Jazeera does not seem eager to report on the internal issues of Qatar and the dirty laundry of the ruling family.”
[…]
The academic study, however, neglects many other important points, including the fact that Al-Jazeera’s Afghan correspondent, Tayseer Alouni, went to prison in Spain for being an agent of al-Qaeda. This kind of relationship explains why Al-Jazeera has been so quick to air exclusive videos and messages from Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

The study notes that a turning point for Al-Jazeera in the U.S. came when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised the channel for offering “real news.” The study failed to note that her husband, disgraced former president Bill Clinton, has a financial relationship with the government of Qatar and several entities in the country. The regime is a financial sponsor, listed at between $1 and $5 million, of the William J. Clinton Foundation.

In mid-May it was revealed by Hagey at Politico that McCain had praised Al-Jazeera, becoming a shill for the terror channel. It appears that McCain was using the channel, or perhaps the channel was using him, in order to affect regime change in Libya. As a result, Islamists are poised to take control of the country.

We pointed out at the time, “McCain’s praise of Al-Jazeera was also curious because the channel, during the 2008 presidential campaign, had savaged the McCain-Palin ticket by running a piece depicting Republican voters as country bumpkins and racists. Casey Kaufmann, the Al-Jazeera reporter who did the story, contributed $500 to the Obama-for-president campaign, a violation of basic standards of journalism ethics.”

Additional research has turned up the fact that David Ramadan, a member of the Virginia delegation and Arab-American delegate to the Republican National Convention in 2008, told Al-Jazeera about his support for McCain in an article that appeared under the direct headline, “Why I support John McCain.” He wrote, “McCain is a reformer, McCain is pro-immigration, McCain is a centrist. McCain supports the US finishing the trouble that George Bush got the US into in Iraq.”

Ramadan is running for the newly created 87th House of Delegates seat in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Republican primary election takes place on August 23. His website boasts an endorsement from House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor, a Jewish conservative, and other prominent Republicans. Appointed by Governor Robert McDonnell to serve on the Board of Visitors of George Mason University (GMU), he says he is an example of living the American dream. He has lived in Virginia since 1989.

However, Ramadan’s bio also says that he is a “frequent commentator” on networks such as Al-Jazeera.

Pamela Geller, author of the new book, Stop the Islamization of America, suggests Ramadan is a Muslim Brotherhood candidate. Writing at Big Peace, Kent Clizbe, a former CIA counter-terrorism ops officer, says that Ramadan has mysterious foreign connections that deserve serious scrutiny.

Read it all.


{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Zenster August 21, 2011 at 3:29 pm

On August 10, former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese is scheduled to appear on Ramadan’s behalf at a Loudoun County, Virginia, restaurant.

What is it that supposedly firebrand Republicans nonetheless feel compelled to get into bed with Muslims? The Democratic Party’s abject kowtowing to Islam is bad enough already.

That both sides of America’s political aisle are facilitating the invasion of an enemy worse than Nazism and Communism combined is treachery on a scale that defies imagination.

Perhaps it is all for the better as career politicians of both stripes are responsible for dismantling America’s economic and Constitutional foundations. A Third Party needs to rise out of these ashes and lead America back to its former greatness. Something that neither the Democratic nor the Republican Parties are any longer qualified or morally capable of doing.

2 Hesperado August 21, 2011 at 7:39 pm

“Who is David Ramadan?”

Who is Kent Clizbe? for that matter. He’s a Muslim convert — who spends time worrying about Muslim extremists and helping us vet them.

What are we to make of people like “Kent” Clizbe? Why does he remain a Muslim? It does not compute.

Just because Clizbe writes articles warning us of the dangers of “extremist” Muslims (like David Ramadan may be), does not let him off the hook of my First, and Second, “laws” (see the article immediately above this one).

I.e., Kent Clizbe, just being Kent Clizbe the Muslim, is either a) lying to us as a stealth jihadist pretending to be the good guy going against David Ramadan et al.; or b) he is seriously delusional, psychopathically.

There is no third alternative — at least not for those who know what Islam is: and Kent Clizbe is a grown man, educated, and intelligent. He would have zero excuse. He would have to know what Islam is. And yet he chooses to be a Muslim. Does not compute.

Imagine Simon Wiesenthal, the eminent Jewish Nazi hunter, having on his staff, or using the services of, someone who has “joined the Nazi Party”. It would not only be preposterous, it would be downright insane and reckless of Wiesenthal — and he simply wouldn’t do it. And if that recent Nazi convert tried to protest that he joined the Nazi party because the woman he fell in love with is a Nazi, so therefore he joined the Nazi party in order to marry her — well, that would hardly make matters better. It would only make matters more surreal, and we’d be entering Alice-in-Wonderland along with Orwell’s 1984.

I frankly don’t like even using Muslims like Kent Clizbe — even if they are helping the anti-Islam movement. Surely, we can find a non-Muslim to probe other Muslims like David Ramadan (and from Clizbe’s account of his confrontation with Ramadan, it doesn’t look like he got anything out of him anyway).

The mere, sheer fact of Kent Clizbe being a Muslim — a Muslim who helps us “track down” “extremist” Muslims — tends to lend legitimacy to Islam itself; and/or it tends to obfuscate the problem of Islam by reinforcing the “diversity” meme of Islam: Gee, Islam is so “diverse”, sometimes it’s okay, sometimes it’s “extremist” — and sometimes Muslims are okay, and sometimes they are dangerous. So Heaven forbid we should take general, radical action against all Muslims. No, that would go down the “slippery slope” toward genocide! (GASP!)

No, the fact of Good Muslims like Clark Kent — I mean, Kent Clizbe — who fight for truth, justice and the American Way — mean that we must accept Muslims in our sociopolitical and cultural fabric, and only spend our time ferreting out the TMOEWATHIs (Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Trying to Hijack Islam) among them.

To that, I say “Nay!” And, as team member of this blog, I register my strenuous objection to ever using a Muslim, no matter how helpful he seems to be — if that help tends to lend an aura of legitimacy to anyone being a Muslim in our society, as Kent Clizbe continues to be.

3 Zenster August 21, 2011 at 8:23 pm

Hesperado: The mere, sheer fact of Kent Clizbe being a Muslim — a Muslim who helps us “track down” “extremist” Muslims — tends to lend legitimacy to Islam itself; and/or it tends to obfuscate the problem of Islam by reinforcing the “diversity” meme of Islam…

One may as well hunt for spilled gunpowder in an ammunition dump by torch light. Success is almost more dangerous than failure.

Just as being a Muslim is a binary situation, so is opposition to Islam. One can not be “a little bit Muslim”, just as one cannot be slightly “counterjihad”.

4 1389 August 21, 2011 at 8:47 pm

Hesperado,

You have made a valid point. I am indeed concerned about exactly the same thing, and I agree with you about Kent Clizbe.

The main article quoted above was written by Cliff Kincaid at AIM, who is not a Muslim. Cliff Kincaid links to, and mentions, Kent Clizbe as one of his sources. Perhaps your concerns should also be directed toward Cliff Kincaid at info@aim.org.

I have removed the other direct link to Clizbe’s own blog post; in any case, it did not offer any information that was not present in the article that Kincaid cited.

Kent Clizbe, though himself a Muslim, advertises himself as being a professional ‘vetter’ of candidates. I would assume that this includes candidates for slating for elections, or for appointment to governmental positions. Even if Clizbe is competent at digging up information, in my opinion, his being a Muslim disqualifies him from being a professional “vetter of candidates” in any non-Muslim country. Indeed, he is likely to find some other, less obviously offensive, Muslim candidate for office, and pronounce him “clean.”

On the other hand, facts are facts, even when a deeply untrustworthy person is spouting those facts (e.g., Clizbe, or indeed, even someone like Breivik). We must gather our evidence wherever it is available, and check it as best we can. I hope that we can find a way to agree that David (Imad) Ramadan is not a worthy candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates, without also accepting Kent Clizbe as the arbiter of who is, or is not, a worthy candidate.

Clizbe’s excuse is that he converted to Islam in order to keep peace with the family of his wife-to-be. For me, that excuse, or any other excuse for converting to Islam, simply doesn’t wash.

Here’s our problem, as I see it: Where can we find for ourselves a sufficient number of non-Muslim researchers who are ready, willing, and able to “vet” candidates or to do “opposition research” on ALL contenders in these elections, so as to weed out those who are Muslims themselves or who have Muslim connections?

There are a great many local and State elections in the US. I may have the ability to research one or two people here and there, but there is no way I could check through ALL of these elections to weed out the Muslims and the dhimmis. We are not running election campaigns ourselves, and thus we do not have any budget to pay for vetters or oppo researchers.

5 Hesperado August 21, 2011 at 10:59 pm

1389,

“The main article quoted above was written by Cliff Kincaid at AIM, who is not a Muslim. Cliff Kincaid links to, and mentions, Kent Clizbe as one of his sources. Perhaps your concerns should also be directed toward Cliff Kincaid at info@aim.org.”

Thanks, I will try to do this. Of course, Cliff Kincaid could be one of those people (like Daniel Pipes or Jamie Glazov) who believes there exist many good and helpful Muslims out there.

“I have removed the other direct link to Clizbe’s own blog post; in any case, it did not offer any information that was not present in the article that Kincaid cited.”

Thanks again; I appreciate it.

“Indeed, he [Clizbe] is likely to find some other, less obviously offensive, Muslim candidate for office, and pronounce him “clean.” ”

Excellent point.

“On the other hand, facts are facts, even when a deeply untrustworthy person is spouting those facts (e.g., Clizbe, or indeed, even someone like Breivik). We must gather our evidence wherever it is available, and check it as best we can. I hope that we can find a way to agree that David (Imad) Ramadan is not a worthy candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates, without also accepting Kent Clizbe as the arbiter of who is, or is not, a worthy candidate.”

The problem is that if a Muslim is the source of information, we have to check it twice (or thrice). And once we independently verify that info, the Muslim source becomes redundant anyway. I’d say, if a Muslim like Clizbe supplies the info, we verify it, then only credit the verification. If we must mention Clizbe (or any other Muslim source), we should add that he’s a Muslim and that he is ipso facto a traitor. “We got this information about the location of the Gestapo headquarters in Poland from an enemy source — a Nazi S.S. soldier who claims to be a moderate Nazi”…

“Clizbe’s excuse is that he converted to Islam in order to keep peace with the family of his wife-to-be. For me, that excuse, or any other excuse for converting to Islam, simply doesn’t wash.”

It’s outrageously outlandish. Simply substitute “Nazi Party” for Islam, and the whole marriage and his whole excuse collapses like a house of cards. And what makes this even more ludicrous — Islam is a thousand times WORSE than the Nazi Party.

“Here’s our problem, as I see it: Where can we find for ourselves a sufficient number of non-Muslim researchers who are ready, willing, and able to “vet” candidates or to do “opposition research” on ALL contenders in these elections, so as to weed out those who are Muslims themselves or who have Muslim connections?”

Well, my advice would be to condemn Clizbe while using his information — in the very same article. If he doesn’t like it, then screw him (I’d say, let him articulate a cogent argument defending why he remains a Muslim; but I gave up on that quite a while ago).

But 1389, these are just my opinions; I don’t mean to be trying to tell you how to run your operation or your style. You run a great blog, and I appreciate you letting me voice my opinion here.

6 1389 August 21, 2011 at 11:32 pm

Hesperado,

I appreciate your opinions and your participation here. 1389 Blog is not about me, it’s about the counterjihad, and that’s much too big a topic for me to tackle alone.

I’m still trying to comprehend situation wherein a person feels sexually/romantically attracted to someone who holds a truly sick and reprehensible ideology or world view, be it Islam, Nazism, Communism, satanism, nihilism, or whatever else. (Of course, as you pointed out, Kent Clizbe was most likely so steeped in PC MC indoctrination that he was incapable of recognizing that there is anything inherently wrong with Islam.)

Before becoming emotionally or physically involved with an adherent of a morally intolerable ideology, a normal person with a sound emotional and spiritual foundation would either reject the attraction as sick and dangerous and not worth pursuing, or would work to convert the other person to a healthier belief system before proceeding any further. Succumbing to the other person’s negative belief system would never be an option at all.

It seems to me that Clizbe must not have had much of a spiritual foundation to begin with, or he wouldn’t have converted.

7 Hesperado August 21, 2011 at 11:39 pm

Btw, Clizbe in his article on David Ramadan mentions a Republican Congressman from California named “Darrell Issa” ( ! ), who is supposed to be a good guy.

I just contacted Rep. Issa on his webpage and asked him point-blank if he is a Muslim.

“Dear Representative Darrell Issa:

My question is simple. Are you a Muslim?

(The reason I ask is that “Issa” is the Arabic word for “Jesus”, an important theme in Islam.)

Thanks for your time and attention,

Nick Hesperado”

We’ll see if he responds.

8 Hesperado August 21, 2011 at 11:43 pm

I see that Debbie Schlussel three years ago wrote a piece containing a lot of damning claims against Rep. Issa — including a claim that flatly contradicts what Kent Clizbe says about Issa (namely, that he is supposedly anti-Hezbollah).

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/3627/jihad-darrell-hezbos-fave-gop-congressman-911-simply-a-plane-crash/

9 1389 August 21, 2011 at 11:58 pm

Hesperado,

I’m waiting to see whether you get a response. I’d better stock up on some popcorn!

Debbie Schlussel may be right about Issa. The only problem is that, while she cited specific interviewers, articles, and so forth in her columns, she didn’t put in the hyperlinks. It would be difficult, at best, to locate and retrieve all of the background information she was citing so that we could weigh the evidence ourselves.

10 Hesperado August 22, 2011 at 12:21 am

Yes 1389, Schlussel is sometimes a bit short on actual (or sufficient) evidence.

11 Zenster August 22, 2011 at 2:41 pm

1389: I’m still trying to comprehend situation wherein a person feels sexually/romantically attracted to someone who holds a truly sick and reprehensible ideology or world view, be it Islam, Nazism, Communism, satanism, nihilism, or whatever else.

This remains one of the more glaring and, yet, intractable aspects of Islam (plus, to a similar extent, the other anti-life groups you mention). More than anyone, women and Muslim women especially, are flat out victims of Islam from the get-go and at all points downstream.

Nonetheless, out of cultural inertia, death threats (disguised as so-called “honor killings”) along with the usual boatload of Islamic coercion, women continue to embrace and even [gasp!], convert to Islam.

In light of Islam’s predilection for FGM (Female Genital Mutilation), one would think there should be a massive exodus of females from Islam and all countries that practice this horrific sexual disfigurement.

This is not the case and it points towards a massive case of “Stockholm Syndrome” or just plain outright dementia. I welcome any other possible diagnoses that remotely explain this voluntary captivity.

Currently, I am also working on an essay that exposes how Liberals are actually misogynistic when they condone FGM as a an issue involving “cultural identity” (as does ultra-feminist Germain Greer).

If there is one thing that damns the Left as an accomplice of Islamic jihad, it is the mass disinclination of Liberals to unequivocally condemn Islam’s institutionalized misogyny and policy of Abject Gender Apartheid. This includes FGM and, when combined together, should form a monumental deal-breaker, the like of which ought to be serving as a Liberal “litmus test” instead of the stealth jihad complicity it currently is.

Women, especially Western women, who defend Islam should be subjected to court-ordered psychiatric testing for mental competency. I would almost include in this same category women who subscribe to (c)rap music, but that’s just me.

12 1389 August 22, 2011 at 5:57 pm

Zenster,

Team member Gramfan wrote an article on this awhile back: Is feminism deaf to the women in Islam?

Phyllis Chesler is another good source on the topic of women and Islam. She’s been on our blogroll for a long time.

In my opinion, “feminism” as such has always been much more about promoting the far-left agenda than it’s been about improving the lives of women. I don’t consider myself a feminist, and I don’t have a particularly high opinion of most of the women who do call themselves feminists.

Just for starters, men and women are very much bound up with each other’s survival, and the survival of future generations. I am a happily married woman. I like and respect men. I care about other human beings. I don’t like to see people making each other suffer. Anything that fosters unselfish love, loyalty, and cooperation between the sexes, is good. Anything (including Islam) that brings about hostility, suspicion, shame, and ill will between men and women, is NOT good. To me, that’s only common sense.

With regard to women who convert to Islam, you are right – it is a sign of something radically wrong between the ears. I must admit that the nature of their disordered thinking is beyond my understanding. Maybe they want to rebel against their parents. Or maybe they fear complexity and they want the simplest (and most tyrannical) religion imaginable, which is what Islam is. (Even so, the universe is a complex place, and “religion for dummies” seems pointless, especially when the resulting ideology has no place for love, joy, and forgiveness.) Or maybe they are deeply ashamed of themselves, for whatever reason, and want to be punished. Or maybe they want somebody else to control them because they do not want to take responsibility for controlling themselves. Or maybe they are deeply angry people and they truly want a “religion” that is an expression of hatred. Or maybe they are just plain self-destructive. Men and women who convert to Islam and then perpetrate suicidal attacks in the name of jihad are the most obvious manifestation of that mindset. 🙁

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: