Skip to comments.MUST SEE VIDEO: FOX News’ Hypocrisy on Ground Zero Mosque Financier...
Posted on 08/25/2010 10:46:58 AM PDT by Mister Ghost
As you may know, FOX News second biggest shareholder, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talalan Islamic terrorism financieris also a big financier of the Ground Zero Mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Back in 2005, I was the first to report that the Prince bought 5.46% of FOX News parent company, News Corp. Since then, he increased his stake and ties with FOX News owner Rupert Murdoch, as Ive also noted on this site. As Ive also reported, Al-Waleed was a large donor to Palestinian homicide bomber telethons, hates America, etc. Thats why I call FOX News Channel, PAWNNthe Prince Al-Waleed News Network. And now youre being pawned (and pimped) by PAWNN...
Ive noted the hypocrisy of former Bush employee and major Islamo-enabler, Dan Senor, who F-d things up in Iraq in the first months that we went to war there, and who, before that, helped his boss, pan-Islamist Arab and CAIR supporter Spencer Abraham, send nearly $100 million in US tax money to Hezbollah, elevate CAIR on Capitol Hill, prevent the then-INS from tracking aliens on our shores, and attack Israel. All of these things are far more harmful to America vis-a-vis Islam than the two-blocks-from-Ground-Zero mosque Senor is now jumping on the bandwagon to oppose. And, with that, Senor is engaged in further hypocrisy, since he knows who owns FOX News, and he knows who the guy to whom he only refers as the guy (in the FOX News video, below) isPrince Al-Waleed, the man who finances Dan Senors paychecks as a FOX News contributor...
(Excerpt) Read more at debbieschlussel.com ...
John Stewart dominated Fox News here. Insinuating that someone is funding terror when they are your own second largest shareholder is very foolish.
It has nothing to do with the average person opposed to this mosque. I don’t want a mosque there regardless of who funds it. And why did Schlussel used to go on Fox News?
Almost every anchor on Fox News is against the building of this mosque near Ground Zero, even Shep Smith! They report that the builders have a legal right to build the mosque, which they do. But the anchors all say that it is morally wrong to build the mosque there, which it is.
Just because the Saudis’ own the second largest interest in Fox News doesn’t mean the anchors’ reporting favors radical Islam - it doesn’t and any attempt to suggest that it does is B.S.
Fox News is the only consistently fair news organization.
A 5% share-holder is just an investor.
She is a complete loon. Do a little googling on her and find out the real story.
She’s a Pamela Geller wanna-be except for the fact she’s a lunatic. Of course if she reads this she’ll then want to make my life hell too.
That’s not quite the point. The idea is that Fox disingenuously trumped up the funding source of the mosque, or if it didn’t, then Fox is a terrorist-funded organization in the same manner that the Mosque is.
They only want ratings. Whatever it takes. They do have bigger plans in mind though. News Corp bought a 9% stake in this guys’ media company as well and it could jump to 18%.
To Elites, this is just a fun game. Objective is not to build or stop a mosque. Objective is to keep people away from serious questions about their Government and the fraud and treason that is taking place.
Rupert Muroch belongs to Bilderberg and CFR, as do Michael Eisner and others.
They got both ends covered. One guy riles their side and other focuses on their side. Keep them hating/blaming/fighting/fearing/ each other.
They meanwhile set up NWO.
Owning an interest in a company isn’t the same thing as funding a mosque. The funding should be investigated - as should the imam’s taxpayer-funded trip to Muslim countries for “outreach.”
It’s also a great way to prep for next month’s Fox-news-trumpeted, Sarah-Palin-tweeted, lead based on iffy premises:
Obama is a Black Illegal Immigrant Muslim! And WE have the proof!
What a lot of people believe to be true already (just like the last three news-dominating stories) will finally make it to the MSM, based on deceptive reporting.
It doesn’t matter - the point will be that Obama stole our country. And we’re taking the country back!
The GOP will win both houses. Impeachment hearings will begin. Obama will lose on 2012.
And the rich guys will be sure they just keep getting richer, while the rest of us tear each other to pieces over crumbs.
You conclusively say it’s different, but you don’t say why. I think that’s because the entire “terrorist-funded” controversy is a rouse.
The Saudi prince has the legal right to buy interest in a publicly traded company, News Corp. As a major stockholder, he has a right to give substantial input in the company. Whether or not he’s a terrorist, he funded the company and provides substantial input into board elections, etc. He also has a right to buy private property in Manhattan and use it as he wants. Do I disagree with his proposed use in Manhattan? Hell yes. But if he’s a terrorist (and I sincerely believe that labeling him that was nothing more than trumped up wedge-issue BS), he’s a terrorist as co-owner of Fox and as a major donor to the mosque.
The chick is a big old ugly fat loon.
If you want to get the country back, try and make sure the NEXT guy who replaces Obama doesn’t belong to BILDEBERG/CFR/TRI-LATERAL-COMMISION/CENTRAL-BANKERs.
Otherwise you would only be replacing one puppet with another.
US patronage of ME oil far exceeds the investments in question.
Agree with your evaluation as BS. Seems like there are missing dots from Schussels connection.
I’d also remark that I think Fox has a very fine line to walk as there are so many pressures to cave to the pre-scripted message.
Here, in the PR of MD, Glenn Beck and a couple of others are blacked out for up to 15 minutes at a time, or phrases are not ‘bleeped’ but the digital signal goes wonky. Used to think it was a coincidence, but after seeing this occur for over a year, I’ve changed my mind.
“The funding should be investigated - as should the imams taxpayer-funded trip to Muslim countries for outreach.”
Worth repeating. Additionally, the network digging into the funding is none other than FOX, which would appear to blow a hole into Schussel’s theory.
Do I really need to explain the difference between investing in an enemy’s profitable company to increase one’s wealth and spending money on a controversial project intended to insult that enemy?
No one is disputing the legal right to build the mosque. However, there are laws against funding terrorism and laundering money for terrorist organizations. Remember the trial involving the Holy Land Foundation? We have a right to know if a terrorist organization is building that mosque, using it to fund terrorists and their operations, or laundering money for terrorists.
If you actually believe this guy is the enemy, you should be VERY, VERY skeptical of the information you receive from the network. It follows that it’s in his self-interest to alienate Muslims (by ginning up a controversy such as this) and strengthen anti-American sentiment to support his war on the US. As the second largest shareholder of a corporation, he wields significant power over the board and corporation—of course not controlling, but certainly significant nonetheless. And using this line of reasoning, help me explain away that picture of co-owner Rupert Murdoch smiling and shaking his hand. And for that matter, using consistent reasoning, help Murdoch investing in this guy’s Saudi media company. Is he supporting terrorism? They are business partners.
Of course, I’m not sure you really do believe that and this information only sheds light on a transparently ginned up controversy.
Regardless of how you feel about her, this is why the MSM is so dead set out to destroy Sarah Palin. She's not part of the elite, and they can't have that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.