In October 2001, following the World Trade Center attacks, New York mayor Rudy Giuliani turned down a $10 million donation from Al-Waleed for disaster relief after the prince suggested the United States "must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack," and "re-examine its policies in the Middle East." Giuliani interpreted his statements as drawing "a moral equivalency between liberal democracies like the United States, like Israel, and terrorist states and those who condone terrorism."[7]
In 2002, Al-Waleed donated 18.5 million British pounds ($27 million) to Palestinians during a TV telethon following Israeli operations in the West Bank refugee camp in Jenin in response to a suicide bombing that killed 29 Israelis. The telethon was ordered by Saudi King Fahd to help relatives of Palestinian "martyrs", which the Saudi government defined as "Palestinians who are victimized by Israeli terror and violence," and insisting the money wouldn’t reach the families of suicide bombers. Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal stated that half of his pledge would help rebuild Palestinian infrastructure destroyed by Israeli forces, while the rest would be donated in the form of goods, including 100 vehicles and clothing.[8][9] However, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council said that "some money will go to the families of suicide bombers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal

My Bold

Then, there’s the nagging problem of billionaire Saudi Prince AlWaleed Bin Talal. He already owns upwards of 6% of News Corp (his original ownership was 5.46% of NewsCorp stock, but he has reportedly since acquired far more of an ownership stake). And he’s bragged that he used his part ownership to change FOX News Channel coverage to be more favorable to Muslim terrorists. During the ever regenerated Muslim riots in France, FOX News at first referred to them as what they were “Muslim riots.” But AlWaleed got mad and made a single phone call. Immediately the description was changed to “civil riots.”

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/1240/if-murdochnewscorp-acquire-wall-st-journal-will-saudi-prince-alwaleed-call-the-shots/

My bold

U.S. Department of Treasury’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)

CFIUS[12] reviews the national security implications of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies.[13] CFIUS is an interagency group composed of major Executive Branch departments, agencies and offices, including the Departments of Defense, State, Treasury, Commerce and Homeland Security, which reviews foreign investment submissions under the authority of the Exon-Florio Amendment to the Defense Production Act of 1950.[14] This act grants the President authority to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten the national security of the United States. The CFIUS process generally is initiated by a voluntary notice filed by the parties to an acquisition, merger or takeover.

The President can only exercise his authority under the Exon-Florio provision if he finds that: (a) credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security, and (b) the provisions of law, other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect national security. In addition, investigation under Exon-Florio is mandatory where: (a) the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf for a foreign government; and (b) the acquisition could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect national security in the United States.

http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/PracticeNote.1803.html

My Bold

The Economist has expressed doubts about the source of income of Prince Al Waleed and whether he is a front man for other Saudi investors. According to it, he has not earned enough income from his investments to pay for all that he has spent in the 1990s. The mystery goes back to that first stake in Citicorp. The prince has declared that this money came entirely from his personal funds. He says he started out in 1979 with a loan of just $30,000 from his father. He also mortgaged a house that his father had given him, raising approximately $400,000. And each month, as a grandson of Ibn Saud, he receives $15,000. "You could barely clothe a Saudi prince for such sums, let alone furnish him with a multi-billion-dollar empire. Nevertheless, by 1991 Prince Alwaleed had felt able to risk an investment of $797m in Citicorp", writes the magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal

Any doubts this Saudi Prince is a front for his country taking over our News Media?

Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson are former employees of Fox owned-and-operated station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. In 1997, they were fired from the station after refusing to knowingly include false information in their report concerning the Monsanto Company’s production of RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce more milk. They successfully sued under Florida’s whistle blower law and were awarded a US $425,000 settlement by jury decision. However, Fox appealed to an appellate court and won, after the court declared that the FCC policy against falsification that Fox violated was just a policy and not a “law, rule, or regulation”, and so the whistle blower law did not apply.
The court agreed with WTVT’s (Fox) argument “that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute.”[1]

http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox-can-lie-lawsuit/

My Bold

The court agreed with WTVT’s (Fox) argument “that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[...]

I think the court was wrong however any News Group that argues for the Right to Lie and has a Terror Funder changing stories well just but just how does this serve the FCC mission of public safety and homeland security?
Any bets this guy gave money to Ossama?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created, directed, and empowered by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154), and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current President. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security, and modernizing the FCC.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission

My Bold

.

The President can only exercise his authority under the Exon-Florio provision if he finds that: (a) credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security,

Mr President its time to make Saudi Prince AlWaleed Bin Talal sell his shares of Fox News.

the justices overturned a ban on letting companies and unions use their own funds to produce their own campaign ads. The decision also eliminated the so-called McCain-Feingold ban on issue-oriented ads within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june10/supremecourt_01-21.html

America can’t survive if Terrorists get to change news coverage for a News Company that goes to Court to protect its right to lie.
Just how does letting Fox lie because a terror funder wants them to fit into the FCC’s mission of public safety and homeland security?