Archive

Archive for the ‘Israel’ Category

EX-CIA employee admits President obama is a radical islamic enemy of America

August 30, 2014 7 comments

It’s an explosive charge, one that practically accuses the president of treason.

If you want to receive further articles, please click on SUBSCRIBE.

Today, a former CIA agent bluntly told the newspaper, World Net Daily, that America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama. Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have said in private, but declined to say on-the-record.

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy and a Senior Fellow at The Clarion Project, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Canadian Meighen Institute. Since 2013, she has served as a member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi. Also Vice President of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006, and has served as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher for a variety of defense firms. She was named a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute in 2011.

Continue  http://www.examiner.com/article/cia-now-admits-that-president-obama-is-a-radical-islamic-enemy-of-america

obamawithoutthemaskobamastandswithmuslimsislaminthewhitehoue

 

 

45 LIES The World’s Most Powerful Terrorist, barack hussain soetero-obama, Told In Front Of The UN

September 27, 2013 2 comments

TWG: Now some of these answers by Mr. Swanson I am NOT in agreement.  I simply want to point out the response.  The rest, I’ll save for another post

 

As Written By David Swanson

1. President Obama’s opening lines at the U.N. on Tuesday looked down on people who would think to settle disputes with war. Obama was disingenuously avoiding the fact that earlier this month he sought to drop missiles into a country to “send a message” but was blocked by the U.S. Congress, the U.N., the nations of the world, and popular opposition — after which Obama arrived at diplomacy as a last resort.

2. “It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking.” Actually, it took one. The second resulted in a half-step backwards in “our thinking.” The Kellogg-Briand Pact banned all war. The U.N. Charter re-legalized wars purporting to be either defensive or U.N.-authorized.

3. “[P]eople are being lifted out of poverty,” Obama said, crediting actions by himself and others in response to the economic crash of five years ago. But downward global trends in poverty are steady and long pre-date Obama’s entry into politics. And such a trend does not exist in the U.S.

4. “Together, we have also worked to end a decade of war,” Obama said. In reality, Obama pushed Iraq hard to allow that occupation to continue, and was rejected just as Congress rejected his missiles-for-Syria proposal. Obama expanded the war on Afghanistan. Obama expanded, after essentially creating, drone wars. Obama has increased global U.S. troop presence, global U.S. weapons sales, and the size of the world’s largest military. He’s put “special” forces into many countries, waged a war on Libya, and pushed for an attack on Syria. How does all of this “end a decade of war”? And how did his predecessor get a decade in office anyway?

5. “Next year, an international coalition will end its war in Afghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.” In reality, Bruce Riedel, who coordinated a review of Afghanistan policy for President Obama said, “The pressure we’ve put on [jihadist forces] in the past year has also drawn them together, meaning that the network of alliances is growing stronger not weaker.” (New York Times, May 9, 2010.)

6. “We have limited the use of drones.” Bush drone strikes in Pakistan: 51. Obama drone strikes in Pakistan: 323.

7. “… so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible.” On June 7, 2013, Yemeni tribal leader Saleh Bin Fareed told Democracy Now that Anwar al Awlaki could have been turned over and put on trial, but “they never asked us.” In numerous other cases it is evident that drone strike victims could have been arrested if that avenue had ever been attempted. A memorable example was the November 2011 drone killing in Pakistan of 16-year-old Tariq Aziz, days after he’d attended an anti-drone meeting in the capital, where he might easily have been arrested — had he been charged with some crime. This weeks drone victims, like all the others, had never been indicted or their arrest sought.

8. “… and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties.” There are hundreds of confirmed civilian dead from U.S. drones, something the Obama administration seems inclined to keep as quiet as possible.

9. “And the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction casts a shadow over the pursuit of peace.” In reality, President Obama is not pursuing peace or the control of such weapons or their reduction and elimination in all countries, only particular countries. And the United States remains the top possessor of weapons of mass destruction and the top supplier of weapons to the world.

10. “[In Syria, P]eaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were met with repression and slaughter. … America and others have worked to bolster the moderate opposition.” In fact, the United States has armed a violent opposition intent on waging war and heavily influenced if not dominated by foreign fighters and fanatics.

11. “[T]he regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.” Maybe, but where’s the evidence? Even Colin Powell brought (faked) evidence.

12. “How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East?” This suggests that the United States isn’t causingconflicts in the Middle East or aggravating them prior to altering its position and “responding.” In fact, arming and supporting brutal governments in Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Israel, etc., is behavior that could do a great deal of good simply by ceasing.

13. “How do we address the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas, or embroiling ourselves in someone else’s civil war?” That isn’t a complete list of choices, as Obama discovered when Russia called Kerry’s bluff and diplomacy became a choice, just as disarmament and de-escalation and pressure for a ceasefire are choices. Telling Saudi Arabia “Stop arming the war in Syria or no more cluster bombs for you,” is a choice.

14. “What is the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct?” Force doesn’t have a role in civilized conduct, the most basic standard of which is relations without the use of force.

15. “[T]he international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons.” Except against Israel or the United States.

16. “… and Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands.” This was good of Obama to recognize Iran’s suffering, but it would have been better of him to recall where Iraq acquired some of its weapons of mass destruction.

17. “It is an insult to human reason — and to the legitimacy of this institution — to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.” Really? In the absence of evidence, skepticism isn’t reasonable for this Colin-Powelled institution, the same U.N. that was told Libya would be a rescue and watched it become a war aimed at illegally overthrowing a government? Trust us?

18. “Now, there must be a strong Security Council Resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences if they fail to do so.” Meaning war? What about the U.N.’s commitment to oppose war? What about the United States’ violation of its commitments to destroy the chemical weapons sitting in Kentucky and Colorado? “Consequences” for the U.S. too?

19. “I do not believe that military action — by those within Syria, or by external powers — can achieve a lasting peace.” Yet, the U.S. government is shipping weapons into that action.

20. “Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will lead Syria … Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country.” The Syrians should decide their own fate as long as they decide it the way I tell them to.

21. “[N]or does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring it does not become a safe-haven for terrorists.” That’s funny. Elsewhere, you’ve said that weakening Syria would weaken Iran.

22. “[W]e will be providing an additional $340 million [for aid].” And vastly more for weapons.

23. “We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil…” That first remarkably honest sentence is only honest if you don’t think about what “free flow” means. The second sentence points to a real, if slow, trend but obscures the fact that only 40% of the oil the U.S. uses comes from the U.S., which doesn’t count much of the oil the U.S. military uses while “ensuring the free flow.” Nor is switching to small domestic supplies a long-term solution as switching to sustainable energy would be.

24. “But when it’s necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attacks, we will take direct action.” In Libya? Syria? Where does this make any sense, as U.S. actions generate rather than eliminate terrorism? Michael Boyle, part of Obama’s counter-terrorism group during his 2008 election campaign, says the use of drones is having “adverse strategic effects that have not been properly weighed against the tactical gains associated with killing terrorists … . The vast increase in the number of deaths of low-ranking operatives has deepened political resistance to the US programme in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries.” (The Guardian, January 7, 2013.) Why is Canada not obliged to bomb the world to “defend against terrorist attacks”?

25. “Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national security …” We who? How? Congress just rejected this ludicrous claim. Ninety percent of this country laughed at it.

26. “[W]e reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, and undermine the global non-proliferation regime.” By Israel which has done this, or by Iran which all evidence suggests has not?

27. “We deeply believe it is in our interest to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous,” we just choose to work against that deep belief and to sell or give vast quantities of weapons to brutal dictatorships and monarchies.

28. “Iraq shows us that democracy cannot be imposed by force.” This could have been true had the U.S. attempted to impose democracy.

29. “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” Iran’s what?

30. “Arab-Israeli conflict.” That’s a misleading way of naming the conflict between the government of Israel and the people it ethnically cleanses, occupies, and abuses — including with chemical weapons.

31. “[A]n Iranian government that has … threatened our ally Israel with destruction.” It hasn’t. And piling up the lies about Iran will make Iran less eager to talk. Just watch.

32. “We are not seeking regime change.” That’s not what Kerry told Congress, in between telling Congress just the opposite. Also, see above in this same speech: “a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy….”

33. “We insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN Security Council resolutions.” Among Iran, the U.S., and Israel, it’s Iran that seems to be complying.

34. “We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course.” More moderate than what? Threatening to destroy Israel and creating nukes?

35. “[T]heir own sovereign state.” There’s nowhere left for Palestine to create such a separate state.

36. “Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state.” Both, huh?

37. “When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and Egypt … we chose to support those who called for change” … the minute everyone else was dead, exiled, or imprisoned.

38. “[T]rue democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a strong civil society. That remains our interest today.” Just not in our own country and certainly not in places that buy some of the biggest piles of our weapons.

39. “But we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent,” and if you don’t believe me, ask the Occupy movement — Happy Second Birthday, you guys!  I SHUT YOU DOWN, bwa ha ha ha ha.

40. “This includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like Iraq, Syria and Bahrain.” One liberated, one targeted, and one provided with support and weaponry and former U.S. police chiefs to lead the skull cracking.

41. “[A] vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.” All criminal outrages should have a vacuum of leadership. “Who would bomb countries if we don’t do it?” is the wrong question.

42. “Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional — in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all.” When was that? The United States certainly comes in at far less than exceptional in terms of per-capita humanitarian aid.  Its humanitarian bombing that Obama has in mind, but it’s never benefitted humanity.

43. “And in Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved, and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.” The White House claimed that Gaddafi had threated to massacre the people of Benghazi with “no mercy,” but the New York Times reported that Gaddafi’s threat was directed at rebel fighters, not civilians, and that Gaddafi promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.” Gaddafi also offered to allow rebel fighters to escape to Egypt if they preferred not to fight to the death. Yet President Obama warned of imminent genocide. What Gaddafi really threatened fits with his past behavior. There were other opportunities for massacres had he wished to commit massacres, in Zawiya, Misurata, or Ajdabiya. He did not do so. After extensive fighting in Misurata, a report by Human Rights Watch made clear that Gaddafi had targeted fighters, not civilians. Of 400,000 people in Misurata, 257 died in two months of fighting. Out of 949 wounded, less than 3 percent were women. More likely than genocide was defeat for the rebels, the same rebels who warned Western media of the looming genocide, the same rebels who theNew York Times said “feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda” and who were “making vastly inflated claims of [Gaddafi’s] barbaric behavior.” The result of NATO joining the war was probably more killing, not less. It certainly extended a war that looked likely to end soon with a victory for Gaddafi.

44. “Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed.” No, the war was ending, and Libya IS engulfed in bloodshed. In March 2011, the African Union had a plan for peace in Libya but was prevented by NATO, through the creation of a “no fly” zone and the initiation of bombing, to travel to Libya to discuss it. In April, the African Union was able to discuss its plan with Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi, and he expressed his agreement. NATO, which had obtained a U.N. authorization to protect Libyans alleged to be in danger but no authorization to continue bombing the country or to overthrow the government, continued bombing the country and overthrowing the government.

45. [S]overeignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder.”  Says a man who reads through a list of potential murder victims on Tuesdays and ticks off the ones he wants murdered.

obamadomesticterrorist2

Today’s “Winds Of Jihad” By Sheikyermami

September 27, 2013 Leave a comment

islambbq

 

Please consider joining the email distribution list for this most interesting site, “Winds of Jihad”.  I’ve been reading their articles for some time now and always find them enlightening and entertaining….. Well, about as “entertaining” as watching jihad can be anyway.   In other words….. I like this site, and maybe you will like it enough to add yourself to their email distribution!

 

 

 

SOURCE: http://sheikyermami.com/

 

Winds Of Jihad


Lets turn it around!

Posted: 27 Sep 2013 01:34 AM PDT

They say “non-muslims are a legitimate target”–  does that not make all muslims a legitimate target? Fatwa of Ulema of Damascus: “It is legal to confiscate goods belonging to…

But remember: the real problem is “Islamophobia”

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 03:32 PM PDT

Update: Rouhani wants all hindrances to the spread of Islam removed: Iran’s Rouhani calls for action against “Islamophobia” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has described Islamophobia as…

Over 1800 Migrants Arrive In Italy Over Last 24 Hours

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 03:14 PM PDT

Over 1800 Migrants Muslim invaders Arrive In Italy Over Last 24 Hours IBT Times The Italian coastguard said on Thursday (September 26) it had rescued more than 1800 migrants from different areas off…

Why should Brits trust Muslims? Why should anyone trust Muslims?

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 10:18 AM PDT

Preposterous: why would you trust people who want to annihilate you? BBC survey: quarter of young British people don’t trust Muslims by Hugh Fitzgerald Who cares for his lousy shoes anyway? Christian…

Puttin’ on the Ritz

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 08:44 AM PDT

MUSLIM terrorists behind the Kenya shopping centre massacre planned to attack high-profile British targets including The Ritz hotel and Eton public school. (Express via Mullah/pbuh) Members of the Al…

Al Shabab sheik: “Our aim is to attack our enemy when they least expect us.”

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 07:28 AM PDT

Nairobi attack: Game-changer for East Africa? Shabab: 137 Killed in Kenya Mall Attack As Kenyans recover from brazen assault, many wonder what response is forthcoming for al-Shabab. Sheikh Abulaziz…

Muslims are victims?

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 06:41 AM PDT

After The Savagery In Kenya, Tell Mama’s Fiyaz Mughal Makes Out Muslims Are Victims Never one to shy away from the limelight as we saw in the aftermath of Woolwich. Where  Fiyaz Mugal and Tellmama…

The Sexual Jihad

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 06:12 AM PDT

Tunisian girls return home pregnant after ‘sexual jihad’ in Syria Abdulrahman al Rashed This is a true story that reflects the ability of sheikhs and terrorist leaders to brainwash the region’s youth…

As America Burns, obama Regime Redistributing Even More Dollars To islamic Terrorists

March 23, 2013 2 comments

Hat tip Mantenga for the forward.  Thank You, Mantenga.
In addition to the M1 tank fleets, F16 Fighter Squadrons, High Powered Weapons, military training and BILLION$ the obama regime is redistributing to their islamic terrorist pals, we have even MORE money being shuffled out while our own people are suffering.  Our Veterans have lost benefits, our air traffic control towers shut down, our schools shut down and thousands of dangerous illegal alien criminals being released from prisons, along with a plethora of budgetary cuts in other critical areas.

obama’s Dept of Foreign affairs have announced that they have awarded the Palestinian terrorists another $500 MILLION

 

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/1281/Israel-Palestina/article/detail/1601777/2013/03/23/VS-geven-500-miljoen-dollar-steun-aan-Palestijnen.dhtml

 

$200MILLION from this years budget will be handed over as direct aid to the Palestinian terrorists.

The money has been released to coincide with Obama’s visit to the Middle East.

As if that wasn’t enough he also gave $200 MILLION to Jordan.

(Keep an eye on Jordan.  The obama regime will topple them next in order to continue installing their islamic caliphate they so desperately need. )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21902303

Of course, obama’s propaganda whores wouldn’t think of disclosing this TREASON to the American people.  We have to get the news from other Nations.  Thank God there are bloggers out here to share this information.

Clearly, America’s laws against TREASON have been eliminated.

 

The entire world is either laughing at us or crying for us.

 

I am so ashamed to be an American today.  This Nation is full of idiots, created by the so-called “educators” we’ve allowed to raise our youth into nothing more than glassy eyed sheeple, advocating for their own serfdom and for the death of this once great Nation.   And the common core scheme will lock this down to perpetuity, with nary a whimper from “caring parents”.

 

The “educators” continue to churn these idiots out by the millions into our society.   One does not need a tempest prognosticator to see where we’re headed.

 

If you haven’t already, say your goodbye’s to America as you know it.  We will soon see the bloodiest, most violent war this world has ever seen.  God help us all.  We’re finished.

 

And we deserve nothing more. 

Shame on us.

 

USAObit

libertycrying

0bama Now Global Head of Al-Qaeda


Will President order drone strike on White House?

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
March 21, 2013

President Barack Obama is now the global head of Al-Qaeda – bankrolling, arming and equipping terrorists around the world in order to achieve his administration’s geopolitical objectives – while simultaneously invoking the threat of terrorists domestically to destroy the bill of rights.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Since it has now been established that those merely suspected of engaging in terrorism are subject to targeted drone strikes, under the terms of his own prosecution of the war on terror, Obama must immediately order a drone strike on the White House.

The administration has sent nearly half a billion dollars ($365 million plus another $60 million) and is now using US Special Forces to train militants in Syria who have pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda and who continue to carry out grisly beheadingsterrorist bombings targeting innocent civilians and chemical weapons attacks against women and children.

These same militants, backed not only by the US but by every major NATO power, have repeatedly voiced their hatred for and intention to destroy America, as they ransack Christian churchesburn US flags, chant anti-American slogans and sing the praises of Osama Bin Laden while glorifying the 9/11 attacks.

As the New York Times reported, these very same terrorists killed U.S. troops in Iraq and yet western backing for the insurgency against Bashar Al-Assad has enabled violent extremists to seize power in Syria.

As multiple reports now confirm, Jabhat al-Nusra, the main Al-Qaeda group in Syria, is now commanding rebels and is engaged in “the heaviest frontline fighting” in Syria. As the London Guardian reported, rebels in Syria are admittedly being led by Al-Qaeda terrorists, who meet with them “every day” and train them how to make bombs. The top 29 Syrian opposition groups have all sworn allegiance to Jabhat al-Nusra. Sheik Moaz al Khatib, head of the Syrian National Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, has also publicly affirmed his support for the terrorist group.

These same terrorists have also vowed to attack the United States once they are finished in Syria, while proclaiming their desire to see the Al-Qaeda flag flying over the White House.

In addition, while Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” have been characterized as terrorists by their own government, US citizens who openly take up arms to join with terrorists in Libya and Syria are allowed to fly around the world with total impunity.

In supporting Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria as part of the effort to impose regime change, the Obama administration is following the same disastrous policy it pursued in Libya, backing the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which also killed U.S. troops in Iraq, to overthrow Gaddafi.

That led to a country ruled by thugs who have rounded up, tortured and executed thousands of black Libyans. It also led to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, which was carried out by some of the very same LIFG terrorists the United States had backed just a year previously.

After the overthrow of Gaddafi, NATO powers aided in airlifting LIFG militants into Syria to continue the fight to impose Sharia law across the region.

Given all this, it’s abundantly clear that the Obama administration has easily outstripped other targets of drone strikes in its zeal to support terrorism around the world.

American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike simply for producing propaganda videos and communicating with accused terrorists. His 16-year-old son was similarly slaughtered for merely sharing his father’s surname. Other American citizens like John Walker Lindh were imprisoned and tortured in Guantanamo Bay for fighting with the Taliban.

And yet, as Afghan President Hamid Karzai made clear last week, the Obama administration is now colluding with the Taliban while the group carries out suicide bombings in the “service of America.”

By backing terrorists in Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria, Barack Obama has carved out a role as the global head of Al-Qaeda. Wherever on the map his administration wants to dominate geopolitically, Al-Qaeda terrorists flood in to to the dirty work – and it’s all paid for with your tax dollars.

By ordering a drone strike on the White House, Obama would be targeting the primary source now responsible for most of the world’s global terrorism – his own administration.

SOURCE: http://www.infowars.com/obama-now-global-head-of-al-qaeda/

obama’s muslim brotherhood TERRORISTS in Syria

March 15, 2013 3 comments

RECOMMENDED READING: “How The Muslim Brotherhood Hijacked Syria’s Revolution”

TWG: The obama regime is redistributing BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars, M1A1 tanks, squadrons of F16’s, small arms, rockets and training PROVIDED BY OUR OWN MILITARY TROOPS, to these TERRORISTS.

Apparently, 50% of America is in a coma.  This is what USED to be called “Aiding and abetting the enemies of America”  Aka — TREASON.

 

Hassan Hassan, an editorial writer for the United Arab Emirates-based National, has written an article titled “How the Muslim Brotherhood Hijacked Syria’s Revolution.” The article begins: BY HASSAN HASSAN | MARCH 13, 2013 No one in Syria expected the anti-regime uprising to last this long or be this deadly, but after around 70,000 dead, 1 million […]

Leftist Media Joins Forces With Jihadists

January 2, 2013 3 comments

Leftist/Jihadist Alliance: Al Jazeera acquires Current TV

By Robert Spencer

As I noted earlier today, Al-Jazeera has been dubbed “the most powerful voice of the Muslim Brotherhood.” And Pamela Geller has noted that “Al Jazeera is the leading terrorist propaganda organization in the world. Jihad murder mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki has praised Al Jazeera, and several years ago one of its most prominent reporters was arrested on terror charges. Al Jazeera also has for years been the recipient of numerous Al Qaeda videos featuring bin Laden, Zawahiri, and American traitor Adam Gadahn. Yet they never seem to be able to trace where these videos are coming from. They have repeatedly been set up at the point of attack right before a bomb went off, so that they could take the picture of the slaughtered, dismembered bodies.”

The Left and the jihadis have been cooperating for years. This makes their alliance official.

“Al Jazeera Acquires Current TV,” by Brian Stelter for the New York Times, January 2 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

6:48 p.m. | Updated Al Jazeera on Wednesday completed a deal to take over Current TV, the low-rated cable channel that was founded by Al Gore and his business partners seven years ago.Current will provide the pan-Arab news giant with something it has sought for years: a pathway into American living rooms. Current is available in about 60 million of the 100 million homes in the United States with cable or satellite service.

Rather than simply use Current to distribute its English-language channel, called Al Jazeera English and based in Doha, Qatar, Al Jazeera will create a new channel, called Al Jazeera America, based in New York. Roughly 60 percent of the programming will be produced in the United States, while the remaining 40 percent will come from Al Jazeera English.

Al Jazeera may absorb some Current TV staff members, according to people with knowledge of the deal who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. But Current’s schedule of shows will most likely be dissolved in the spring.

“Al Jazeera is planning to invest significantly in building ‘Al Jazeera America,’ a network focused on international news for the American audience,” the Current chief executive Joel Hyatt said in an e-mail to staffers on Wednesday evening. Referring to Mr. Gore, he said, “Al and I will both serve on the advisory board of Al Jazeera America, and we look forward to helping build an important news network.”

The plan will bring Al Jazeera, which is financed by the government of Qatar, into closer competition with CNN and other news channels in the United States.

For Al Jazeera, the acquisition is a coming-of-age moment. A decade ago, the Arabic-language channel was reviled by American politicians for showing video tapes and messages from al Qaeda members and sympathizers. Now it is acquiring an American channel.

“They really want to be able to compete for American viewers, and they have to find some way to get on,” said Philip Seib, the director of the center on public diplomacy at the University of Southern California and the author of “The Al Jazeera Effect.”

Mr. Seib said access to Americans is important both for economic reasons, for the channel’s advertisers, and for “the journalistic legitimacy of their venture.”

To date, the country’s cable and satellite distributors have been reluctant to carry Al Jazeera English. It is available in just a handful of cities, including New York and Washington. To change that, Al Jazeera has lobbied distributors, called for a letter-writing campaign by supporters and promoted its widely praised coverage of the Arab Spring.

Acquiring Current TV, and thus its distribution deals across the country, solves this dilemma for Al Jazeera, at least partially.

Current is hard to find on many cable lineups, and some analysts say it’s at risk of being dropped by some companies because of low ratings, but it would give Al Jazeera a foothold on the country’s cable and satellite service lineups. Then Al Jazeera could revamp the channel and promote it as a new American-based news source.

Representatives for Current TV and Al Jazeera did not immediately respond to requests for comment. There was no immediate word about the sale price.

Current was conceived in 2005 after Mr. Gore and another co-founder, Joel Hyatt, bought the small cable news channel Newsworld International. Current’s owners, along with Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, include several venture capital firms and two major distributors, Comcast and DirecTV.

After several years in obscurity showing viewer-submitted videos and documentaries, Current tacked to the left in 2011 with the hiring of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. A year later, Mr. Olbermann was fired, but a liberal minded channel made in his image remained. The channel now simulcasts liberal radio shows in the morning and features news-talk shows in the evening by Joy Behar, Eliot Spitzer, Jennifer Granholm and others.

None of the shows have drawn significant audiences. On a typical night in 2012, about 42,000 people were watching the channel, according to Nielsen. Mr. Spitzer quipped to a reporter from Mediabistro last month, “Nobody’s watching, but I’m having a great time.”

At the end of October, Current confirmed that it was considering selling itself. Mr. Hyatt said in a statement at the time, “Current has been approached many times by media companies interested in acquiring our company. This year alone, we have had three inquiries. As a consequence, we thought it might be useful to engage expertise to help us evaluate our strategic options.”

The New York Times Company mulled a bid for the channel, but decided not to do so.

In recent months, uncertainty has plagued the staff of Current, which is based in San Francisco. Mr. Spitzer, the 8 p.m. host, remarked that someone needed to buy the channel. Ms. Granholm, the 9 p.m. host, renewed her contract for just three months. Plans for new programming at other hours have stalled. After the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., the channel replayed the gun documentary “Bowling for Columbine” dozens of times.

Current’s programming will continue for about three months. Then an international feed of Al Jazeera English will be simulcast on the channel. Sometime later in 2013, the rebranded Al Jazeera news channel, with 60 percent American programming, will start.

Al Jazeera intends to open new bureaus across the United States to support the American programming. The news operation currently has bureaus in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Miami, and Chicago.

READ MORE: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/01/leftistjihadist-alliance-al-jazeera-acquires-current-tv.html

%d bloggers like this: