Cenk Uygur's Conundrum

It seems the former MSNBC host is in a 'heads I win, tails you lose' situation.

Will Al Jazeera keep Muslim Apostate after Current TV sale?

Audio: Today's Podcast

On Today's show...

The Rand Paul filibuster - why does CAIR, Van Jones, Cenk Uygur, and Code Pink support it??

Interview with Cliff Kincaid about explosive new development in Current TV sale to Al Jazeera.

And...

Dianne Feinstein must think she lives on the Planet of the Apes.



To download shows, go to the archives page.

Why are CAIR, Code Pink, Van Jones and Cenk Uygur all supporting Rand Paul?

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) made big headlines this week in a showdown with the Obama administration over the latter's refusal to unequivocally state that it would not use armed drones to kill Americans on American soil who posed no imminent threat to the country. Paul was relegated to eating candy bars during his twelve-plus hour filibuster while establishment types like Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were dining with Barack Obama.

The conservative base ate it up. Finally, the new guard was doing what the old guard never seemed interested in doing; Paul was taking Obama on while standing on principle and the establishment didn't like it one bit. McCain referred to the Senator from Kentucky as well as Senator Ted Cruz as 'wacko birds'.

However, in addition to winning over conservatives and libertarians, Paul has garnered the support of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front in America; Turkish Current TV (Al Jazeera) host Cenk Uygur; former Obama Green Jobs czar Van Jones, who is a fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) - a George Soros entity; and Code Pink, a far left group who was behind the 2010 Gaza flotilla.

CAIR's Executive Director - Nihad Awad - said the following in a press release:

"We welcome Senator Paul's efforts to press for a firm answer as to whether drones may legally be used to kill American citizens on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, the initial administration response to that question left room for doubt. We acknowledge today's statement by Attorney General Holder and hope that it represents a clear and unequivocal rejection of that obviously unconstitutional authority."

Uygur, long recognized as a far left commentator who left MSNBC to work at Current TV, said the following in reference to Paul's filibuster:

“I don’t care what his (Paul's) opinions on other things are — you can call him anything you like, but here he happens to be a constitutional hero.”

Uygur's employer - Current TV - was recently sold to Al Jazeera, another arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

How about Van Jones? Here is a guy who worked very closely with the inner circles inside the Obama administration when he was the Green Jobs czar. Jones resigned in 2009 amidst a string of scandalous revelations about his past, which included his signature appearing on a 9/11 Truth document. When he left the administration, he became a senior fellow at CAP, an entity TIME Magazine referred to as the Obama administration's "idea factory".

Here is what Jones had to say about the Rand Paul filibuster:

"Well let me just say, I might shock a lot of people as somebody, you know I love this president and I respect this president, Rand Paul was a hero yesterday, and what I've been hearing is a lot of shame from liberals and progressives who felt like geez, we should be up there sticking up for civil liberties and we should be the ones asking those tough questions."

As for Soros, he supported the 'Arab Spring' and has some very distinct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood himself. This would at least theoretically explain why both Jones and CAIR are on the same page here.

Then, of course, there is Code Pink's Medea Benjamin, who said of Paul:

"...compared to the Democratic senators who have, with few exceptions, remained either silent or support of President Obama's killer drones, Rand made a heroic stand. In gratitude, progressives should "Stand with Rand."

In 2010, Benjamin worked with Obama friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn - through the Free Gaza Movement - to coordinate the Gaza flotilla that attempted to break the Israeli blockade. This was a pro-Hamas movement as well; Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood.

There are two traits we've come to associate with left-wing groups. One is that when they want to collectively push a narrative, there's a cross-polination of shared words embedded in that narrative that supposedly independent groups all use. Note that in the examples above, Jones, Uygur, and Benjamin all refer to Paul as being a 'hero'. The second trait is that leftists - especially those in positions of prominence - don't break ranks. When Van Jones outwardly expresses a view that is in support of someone who is in direct opposition to Obama on a particular issue, it's both noteworthy and curious.

Conservatives are always talking about how they can't trust leftists. Now, all of sudden, because the leftists are agreeing with a conservative / libertarian Senator's stand against the Republican establishment, we're to take them at their word? Why isn't it possible that these leftists see an opportunity to further divide the Republican Party?

Remember, one of Saul Alinsky's rules states, in part:

Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose.

This is not meant to say that Paul is wrong and the likes of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are right. In actuality, on balance, Paul is more right than they are.

McCain and Graham are an interestingly bizarre pair. Both have supported - and continue to support - arming Muslim Brotherhood rebels to fight dictators. McCain called such Libyan rebels his 'heroes' while backing NATO's efforts to oust Gadhafi. Both Senators have continued to back support for the Syrian rebels as well.

So, McCain and Graham seek to empower the Muslim Brotherhood abroad but want more latitude to attach them domestically. Conversely, Paul rightfully wants to stop funding the likes of Egypt's Mohammed Morsi and the Syrian rebels while at the same time, he gains the support of Nihad Awad, the head of a Muslim Brotherhood group in America.

In an interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly, Paul said the following about McCain and Graham:

They think the whole world is a battlefield, including America, and that the 'laws' of war should apply. The laws of war don't involve due process.

In reality, the whole world IS A BATTLEFIELD in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood, which consists of CAIR, Hamas, and Al Qaeda. The problem for the likes of Paul, McCain, and Graham is that they do not understand that America is also a political battlefield in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood groups here.

Again, this goes back to one very simple reality; The United States did not sufficiently identify its enemy after 9/11 (all Muslim Brotherhood groups in America and Saudi Arabia by extension). As a result and as a nation, we are confused about how best to confront that enemy almost twelve years later.

Until then, internecine battles like this one will continue.

Al Jazeera's Doublespeak

A common refrain we here from those who defend Al Jazeera's purchase of Current TV is that over the last decade, it is an entity that has decided it wants to become a legitimate news organization and that Al Jazeera English is nothing like Al Jazeera Arabic. Is that not the recipe for doublespeak, where Islamists say one thing in English but something else completely different in Arabic?

Have we learned nothing from Yasser Arafat and Feisal Abdul Rauf?

In applying this test to Al Jazeera, consider two examples taken from Al Jazeera Arabic. One is Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Yusuf Al Qaradawi. The other is the cousin of Barack Hussein Obama, Musa Ismail Obama.

Yusuf Al Qaradawi
Perhaps the most prominent Muslim Brotherhood cleric, Qaradawi had been jailed in Egypt three times for his ties to the radical Islamic group. He ultimately fled to Qatar in 1961 and has been based there ever since. Something else that is based in Qatar is Al Jazeera, which is owned by the government there. As if that isn't disconcerting enough, Qaradawi has his own show on the network. Ironically, Qaradawi is banned from the United States, though the network that airs his program, which is seen by millions of people, will now have a base in New York, 9/11's ground zero.

For those who might be willing to believe that Al Jazeera had already completed its transformation into a legitimate news outlet by 2009, here is Qaradawi on Al Jazeera from that year (h/t Daily Caller):



That's right, Qaradawi has expressed praise for Hitler. He's consistently done so on Al Jazeera, which has given him his own show. How about this excerpt from one of his speeches that aired on the network that aired his show and is owned by the government which continues to provide him a platform:

"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers."

In 2002, Al Jazeera aired an interview with David Duke and featured him as a credible western speaker who made the claim that the Mossad knew about 9/11 in advance and warned the Jews. If one is to believe that Al Jazeera changed its stripes since then, how does one explain Qaradawi's rhetoric as recently as 2009 being featured prominently on the network?

This would be akin to Al Gore selling his network to an entity that gives the KKK's grand kleagle his own show as part of its offering.

Musa Ismail Obama
In 2011, Barack Obama's cousin Musa was interviewed - in Arabic - on Al Jazeera. During that interview, Musa delivered several bombshells. One of them involved the Mama Sarah Children Foundation, which was named after Barack's step-Grandmother. Ostensibly, the intention of the foundation was to provide for underprivileged children.

However, in his interview with Al Jazeera, Musa explained that contributions, much of which comes from the United States, is used to send Kenyan students to Saudi Arabian schools to be educated in Wahhabism.

Check out this excerpt from Walid's piece on the Obamas' Wahhabist Fundraising Empire:

As a result of the flood of students into the Wahhabi Sharia universities in Saudi Arabia, the interviewer then asks regarding the excess: “So you are opening an avenue in other universities?” Musa then explains he had to send the excess to nearby Doha in Qatar, where he visited and arranged everything. When Al-Jazeera asked, “Do all these scholarships involve studying Arabic and Sharia?” Musa explained, “Some of those do not involve Sharia, like medicine or engineering.” Al-Jazeera then asks, “…but the majority involves what?” Musa answers: “Uuuhhh…. The majority of course is Sharia schools,” adding, “because my connection to the institutions is with Sharia schools.”

This necessarily means that an entity owned by the government of Qatar interviewed someone who claimed that Qatar was home to students who were being educated in the most virulent strain of Islam - Wahhabism - under the false pretense that the money contributed to the foundation responsible for sending those students to Qatar, was being used for humanitarian purposes.

Is it not a fair question to ask how many contributors had no intention to contribute to giving students a Wahhabist education? If they didn't know, they were defrauded. If fraud took place, Al Jazeera looked the other way, at best. Did Catholic Relief Services (CRS) know who it was partnering with when it did so with the Mama Sara Foundation?

Isn't all of this a glaring symptom of doublespeak? Didn't Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf do this when he spoke peace and tolerance to English audiences but said the following to Arabic audiences when advising them how to treat westerners:

“Deal with them as one courts a pretty girl he wants to date; stop thinking like a typical Muslim. Then you can engage.”

The truth is that Al Jazeera America (the proposed name for what used to be Current TV) is an extension of Al Jazeera, which is an extension of the Qatari government, which owns the Arabic network. Essentially, this makes Qatar ground zero for Al Jazeera.

In reality, the possibility that Al Jazeera hasn't changed at all since its days in the months and early years after 9/11/01 is very real.

CURRENT Jihad TV?

**UPDATE** Well, it looks like Mr. Gore, though he did his level best, was unable to close the deal before the end of the year. According to the Washington Examiner, Gore is out nearly $9 Million by missing the deadline.

Current TV, Al Gore's brainchild, has been fledgling and flailing for quite some time. Luckily for him, not only was Gore able to sell his ownership stake for $100 Million but he was able to do so just before the Bush tax cuts expired on December 31st. Perhaps unluckily for all of us, the buyer has quite the checkered past and questionable allegiances.

Via New York Times:

Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news giant, has long tried to convince Americans that it is a legitimate news organization, not a parrot of Middle Eastern propaganda or something more sinister.

It just bought itself 40 million more chances to make its case.

Al Jazeera on Wednesday announced a deal to take over Current TV, the low-rated cable channel that was founded by Al Gore, a former vice president, and his business partners seven years ago. Al Jazeera plans to shut Current and start an English-language channel, which will be available in more than 40 million homes, with newscasts emanating from both New York and Doha, Qatar.

For Al Jazeera, which is financed by the government of Qatar, the acquisition is a coming of age moment. A decade ago, Al Jazeera’s flagship Arabic-language channel was reviled by American politicians for showing videotapes from Al Qaeda members and sympathizers. Now the news operation is buying an American channel, having convinced Mr. Gore and the other owners of Current that it has the journalistic muscle and the money to compete head-to-head with CNN and other news channels in the United States.

Al Jazeera has worked quite diligently at softening its brand for western consumption but to what extent is this the result of a legitimate, journalistic awakening?

Make no mistake; Jihad in the United States is far more delicate than say, Jihad in Egypt today. But this is something that has evolved and been massaged.

For example, on the day of 9/11/01, while on a Los Angeles radio program, founder and director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) - Salam Al Marayati - said the following:

"If we're going to look at suspects, we should look at the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies."

Not only does Al Marayati not speak like that today but he has learned that a completely different message is more effective. By seeking outreach to bleeding heart leftists, useful idiots, and Chrislamists, Islamists can better play the Islamophobia card. The MPAC founder recently visited the far left All Saints Episcopal Church in California, which hosted his group's annual convention.

Similarly, in 2002, Al Jazeera aired an interview with renowned KKK Clansman David Duke, without informing viewers of Duke's credentials as an American Nazi Party leader and KKK member. In that interview, Duke echoed comments that virtually mirrored those of Al Marayati on 9/11:

Late last fall, for instance, you had Ku Klux Klanner David Duke—Dr. David Duke, as he was described—appearing on the Al Jazeera talk show Without Borders, authoritatively explaining that the Mossad knew of plans to destroy the World Trade Center and had warned Israelis to get out before the planes hit.

In much the same way that Al Marayati has softened his tone, so too will Al Jazeera likely do when it takes Al Gore's network and airs its newscasts not far from Ground Zero.

Gore himself capitalized on the anti-American / anti-Israel / Pro-Muslim meme relative to 9/11 during a visit to Saudi Arabia in 2006. He said that after 9/11, Arabs had been...

"...indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

Al Jazeera and Al Gore don't just share a first name; they have both said and done things that should cause grave concern.

This latest deal may just be another one.