SORRY FOR THE LANGUAGE!!!! Egypt and Obama: 5 Stunning Pictures Banned by the Mainstream Media!!!

End Of Days News

It appears that Egyptians are even more upset with Obama than America has been. The below pictures represent the stunning link between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egpyt. These pictures will never be aired in the US mainstream media. What do you think of them?

Read More: http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013/07/egypt-and-obama-5-stunning-pictures-banned-by-the-mainstream-media-2453270.html

Why Has The U.S. Media Fail To Break Even One Of Four Obama Scandals?

End Of Days News

Why Has The U.S. Media Fail To Break Even One Of Four Obama Scandals?

War News Updates Editor at War News Updates

*Mainstream Media Fail To Break Even One Of Four Obama Scandals -- Breitbart* Well, if it is Thursday, there must be a new Obama scandal. But one thing is for damn sure, whatever that scandal is, you can bet the American mainstream media will be playing catch up and not carrying the glory of breaking a story about a major White House scandal. Fact: Over the past few weeks, four major scandals have broken over the Obama administration, and it is a very sad (and frightening) truth that our pathetic, American, lapdog mainstream media is not responsible for breaking even a single o... more »

White House witch hunt of journalists spearheaded by CIA head John Brennan, says leaked email

End Of Days News

White House witch hunt of journalists spearheaded by CIA head John Brennan, says leaked email

NaturalNews Network at The Daily Sheeple

The lesson here? Don't upset our imperial president; he'll shred the Constitution to go after you.

Obama’s media shield law makes prosecuting journalists even easier

End Of Days News

Obama’s media shield law makes prosecuting journalists even easier

Contributing Author at The Daily Sheeple 

United States President Barack Obama is encouraging Congress to take up a media shield law that was abandoned at the start of his administration, but critics of the bill say it might make it even easier for journalists to be subpoenaed by the government.

Are you under the spell of media hypnosis? Take this simple test and find out

End Of Days News


(NaturalNews) Here's a valuable self-test to find out whether you've been hypnotized (and controlled) by the mainstream media and its engineered false reality. After you take this test, watch the stage hypnosis videos I've selected for you, below, and you'll be astonished to learn just how hypnotized most people really are.

Test Question #1) Were the fires that burned up Christopher Dorner set by the LAPD?

Minutes before fires broke out in the cabin where homicide suspect Chris Dorner was holed up, the LAPD ordered all media helicopters and video journalists to clear the area. The following conversation was then heard on police radios:

"We're gonna go forward with the plan with the burner."

"Like we talked about."

"Burners deployed, and we have a fire."

Repeated by dispatcher: "Burners deployed, and we have a fire."

"(unintelligible)...mission success."

"We have fire in the front. He might come out the back."

"Looks like it's starting to collapse."

"We're gonna start bringing fire in, about 200 yards out."

"Break 61 Lincon, 61 Charlie, you ready for fire?"

All this starts around the 1:00 mark in the following video:

Fire then breaks out, burning down the cabin along with Christopher Dorner, the homicide suspect.

The San Bernadino sheriff's department, which had authority on the scene, then declared that nobody set the fires and they have no idea how the fires happened. Those fires were spontaneous fires, they claim, which erupted on their own.

So here's the hypnosis test question: Do you believe the claim that law enforcement did not set the fires?

If so, you are hypnotized by the media into a state of extreme gullibility. Please keep score and continue...

Test Question #2: Why is the U.S. government buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo?

When Natural News and InfoWars first reported that the U.S. government was buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition to use domestically -- that's enough to wage at least a 7-year full-scale war with the American people -- we were first called "conspiracy theorists" and it was widely claimed that our allegations were false.

But now, since the media has been unable to suppress the truth about these huge ammo purchases by the U.S. government, the script it being flipped: Now we're told these purchases are all about saving taxpayers money by "buying in bulk."

Yep, the government's purchase of 1.6 billion rounds of ammo is all about saving YOU money! Well gee, how nice of them! But don't forget that this is enough ammunition to shoot every person in America five times. If this is "bulk purchasing," it's the equivalent of you and I driving to Costco and buying 50,000 pounds of peanut butter and having it loaded onto railroad cars with the claim that we're "saving money on peanut butter!"

It's no longer a conspiracy theory that the government is buying all these bullets; it's now explained by the media as a "benefit" to the taxpayers.

Question: Do you believe these ammo purchases are being done solely to SAVE taxpayers money?

If so, you've been hypnotized yet again by the mainstream media into a state of total stupidity. By this logic, they could buy human incineration ovens in bulk and claim they're saving taxpayers money by purchasing in bulk.

What's clear is that the U.S. government is engaged in an arms race, stockpiling and hoarding masses of ammunition to prepare for war with the American people.

Test Question #3: Can guns be defensive weapons?

An anti-gun California police boss named Ken James just told reporters, on camera, that "A gun is not a defensive weapon." He goes on to explain, in his own twisted logic: "A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power. Police officers don't carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers."

In other words, he's claiming that cops carry guns to intimidate and show power, not to protect themselves defensively. He further implies, ridiculously, that guns are in no way a deterrent against violence -- that a violent assailant is just as likely to attack an unarmed person as an armed person wielding a gun in self defense.

Ken James, of course, just broadcast to the entire world that he has an IQ no higher than room temperature... on the Celsius scale! But the media plays it off as if his arguments somehow make sense: that ALL guns are offensive weapons and have no role in self defense.

So here's the question: Do you agree with Ken James that guns have no role as a defensive weapon, even for cops? That guns are only offensive weapons used to intimidate and show power?

If so, you've been hypnotized by the media once again into believing something that's off-the-wall stupid.

Final question: Building 7

Now here's the really big question on media hypnosis. Nearly everyone in the mainstream has been hypnotized into thinking that on 9/11/2001, building 7 of the World Trade Center was brought down after being hit by an airplane.

Except building 7 wasn't hit by any airplane at all. Only two buildings were hit by airplanes -- the twin towers. Building 7 was hit by nothing except some falling debris.

According to official reports -- which of course require you suspend all belief in the laws of physics -- building 7's internal support structures all snapped at precisely to same moment due to a couple of office fires burning inside the building, causing it to miraculously collapse demolition-style into its own footprint.

Although such a feat normally requires months of planning, engineering calculations and the careful placement of demolition charges on building support structures, we are told that none of this was needed in the case of building 7; that office fires melted concrete-and-steel structural columns simultaneously throughout the building. Never before in the recorded history of architecture has a fire ever brought down a concrete-and-steel building, but we're supposed to believe it somehow happened with building 7 in a perfect pattern of symmetrical collapse.

So here's the question: Do you believe the official story on building 7? If so, you've been wildly hypnotized by the media into believing an obvious fiction that wholly violates the laws of physics and materials science. Concrete doesn't burn, for starters, and getting a building like that to fall into its own footprint requires all the concrete and steel support columns to be severed almost simultaneously.

And yet, amazingly, most Americans believe whatever the media tells them. They are easily hypnotized into imagining they are seeing things that really aren't there. It's no different than a person under the influence of a stage hypnosis expert running around thinking they have a glass of water in their hands because they were told to believe so.

You are living in a hypnotized nation

Hypnosis is the process of reshaping the mind's interpretation of sensory data. Through hypnosis, a person could be holding a red toy fire truck in their hands but told the fire truck is actually green. When asked what color the fire truck is, they will answer, "Green!"

The success of hypnosis relies on the suggestibility hard-wired into a person's brain. Some people are far more suggestible than others. Those of us who are leaders in "alternative news" tend to be the least suggestible of all, while those who produce and consume mainstream media news are the most suggestible (and therefore gullible).

Successful hypnosis on a national scale requires a masterful hypnotist. That's Obama, one of the most brilliant hypnotists ever observed in the history of politics. Obama's skill is so good that he can tell you he's doing the exact opposite of what he's actually doing, and most people listening will believe every word he says. Obama is creating jobs. Obama is protecting your rights. And the fire truck is green.

If you are immune to hypnosis, then you share my frustrating in living in a nation of hypnotized people. I want to shout to people, "The fire truck is RED!" but of course this makes no sense to them, as they've been hypnotized into thinking it's green.
 

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039117_mass_hypnosis_mainstream_media_test.html#ixzz2LGkR1Gty

CBS Ran a segment "Let's give up on the Constitution"

End Of Days News

Click for Video

http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=91074&sitesection=breitbartprivate&VID=24277513

 

From Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman:

I've got a simple idea: Let's give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it's really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts -- had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.

To be clear, I don't think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.

 

 Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn't a natural-born citizen. So what? Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control.

 

 None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control. I understand, though, that's not everyone's view, and I'm eager to talk with people who disagree.

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago. Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one's commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.

This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.

Media Ignores GAO Report: Deficit Unsustainable

 

In light of Obama's speech yesterday, which completely ignored the debt and our faltering economy, this GAO report is even more worrisome.
It's obvious Obama has no intention to make spending reductions a second-term priority. In fact, one could reasonably argue Obama's speech was the announcing of his intent to further grow the size and influence of government.
Where, though, is the media? Not only is the media covering up the GAO warning, but as of now the media's covering it up as Obama recklessly pursues a path that flies in the face of the report's most urgent warnings: 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that federal spending will drive the national debt to “unsustainable” levels in the coming decades, fueled by ever-rising health care costs and federal entitlement spending.
“The growing fiscal imbalance is driven on the spending side by rising health care costs and the aging of the population,” the GAO said in its report, The Federal Government’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, Spring 2012 Update.
Furthermore, "[d]espite limits on discretionary spending that would bring discretionary spending to levels not seen in recent history, our simulations show total federal spending continuing to exceed revenues and feeding an unsustainable growth in debt," states the report. "The policy actions required to close the fiscal gap are significant, and changing the long-term outlook will likely require difficult decisions about both federal spending and revenue."

This collusion between Obama and a media's that's supposed to hold him accountable is not going to end well.
In tune and in unison, both are whistling past the graveyard.
It's all okay, though, because Obama said "gay" in his speech yesterday.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/01/22/media-Ignores-GAO-Report-Debt-Unsustainable 

What are they really doing? This is CNN mainstream will get you focused on one subject to have you miss what is really happening!

 Taking to the air on hunt for dirty bomb threats

 

Residents of Washington may be surprised by a helicopter flying low overhead this week, endlessly prowling the city to map its radiation signature.

The helicopter is crisscrossing the city, like a lawn mower covering a lawn, flying as low as just 150 feet off the ground. CNN spotted it northwest of downtown on Monday, flying low over the buildings, back and forth, east to west.

The purpose: to produce a baseline scan of the natural radiological readings in the capital. Once the map is done, any new anomalies - or suspicious radioactive activity - could be more easily detected.

If authorities ever need to find stolen radioactive material in the capital or a dirty bomb, they would want to be able to separate out any new spikes in the radioactivity readings.

"If sometime in the future you have a reason to be looking for something radiological, it's very necessary to have the original background so you don't chase a high-radiation area that's part of the background," said Joseph Krol of the National Nuclear Safety Administration, which is conducting the work.

"If there was some type of threat," he said, "we would do the aerial survey first." Then, officers with sensors would go on foot to the location where an anomaly was found. A team could be deployed anywhere in the country within two hours, he said.

"The way we operate," he said, "we assume every time we get a call, that this is the big one."

The scan of the District of Columbia will cover 70 square miles and take about two weeks to complete. But if authorities were urgently trying to find nuclear material, Krol said, "we would hope that scanning the entire city would not be necessary. You always have other indicators, like intelligence, that narrows down the search area."

A dirty bomb - a bomb with no atomic explosion, but spewing enough radioactive material to require evacuations and quarantines - is a method of attack that terrorists would be highly interested in, according to Randy Larsen with the Institute for Homeland Security.

"The good news is, it wouldn't kill a lot of people," he said. "But if you did it here in downtown Washington D.C., or Wall Street in New York City, and the people can't go back in that area for a long time, that's a pretty significant event."

But could a hidden dirty bomb be detected from a helicopter?

"Absolutely," said Larsen, but only after a detailed scan has been done. "This would tend to make something stick out like a sore thumb. Without it, it would be looking for a needle in a haystack."

Two pilots, a scientist, a technician and equipment for detecting gamma radiation are aboard the flights.

Everyday radiation can come from several common urban sources, including industrial sites, construction sites, hospitals that use radiological materials, and even the stone used in buildings and monuments.

The agency has already scanned the capital once before, as well as New York, Baltimore, and San Francisco.

Larsen said the New York scan turned up unexpected sources of radiation - industrial accidents that were never been reported. "They were surprised how many hot spots they found," he said.

The helicopter in Washington is making an exception for the National Zoo, giving it a wider berth to avoid scaring the animals. But Krol said the public should not be worried about the survey's potential impact on people.

"These scanners are passive," he said. "All they're doing is measuring the emanations coming from the ground."

 

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/07/radiation-scanning-helicopter-surveys-washington/

This is HORSE POOH! Who did the study? Media are such liars!

Study: People Who Are ‘Spiritual’ But Not ‘Religious’ ‘Are More Vulnerable to Mental Disorder’

 

Could spirituality without organized religion actually be bad for your mental health? A new study indicates that individuals who claim to be “spiritual,” but who lack an allegiance to a specific religion, may, in fact, be more likely to suffer from mental health problems.
The research shows that people who embrace spiritualism without religious constructs are at a potential mental-health disadvantage compared to those who are more traditionally religious (or even when compared to those who are atheists and agnostics). In addition to having greater mental health problems, these people are also more likely to take medication to deal with associated issues, the Telegraph reports.
The research, which was conducted by Professor Michael King from the University College London, among others, was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The shocking study came to the following conclusion: “There is increasing evidence that people who profess spiritual beliefs in the absence of a religious framework are more vulnerable to mental disorder.”

 

Of course, many would wonder what, exactly, this means. The Telegraph provides more information about the theological views of the subjects who were consulted for the study, offering up some clarity on the matter:

Of the participants, 35 per cent described themselves as “religious”, meaning they attended a church, mosque, synagogue or temple. Five in six of this group were Christian.
Almost half (46 per cent) described themselves as neither religious nor spiritual, while the 19 per cent remainder said they had spiritual beliefs but did not adhere to a particular religion. 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/study-people-who-are-spiritual-but-not-religious-are-more-vulnerable-to-mental-disorder/



They are gonna HYPE up any crime commited with a gun folks!



Three New York police officers shot and wounded

 

One was shot in the leg and groin and another in the back after confronting a suspicious man on a train on Thursday night, police said. A wounded officer shot and killed the gunman.

A third policeman was shot in the leg while attempting to stop a robbery.

All three were in stable condition in hospital. The shootings come as the city enjoys a long period of low crime.

In 2012, the city suffered 414 homicides, the fewest in recorded history, city officials said. Likewise, the number of shootings last year was the lowest in history, city officials said.

After Thursday's shootings Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for stricter gun control measures.

"In recent weeks, we've heard some people say that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he told reporters on Thursday night.

"But sometimes the good guys get shot - and sometimes, they are killed."
Saved by vest
At 19:30 local time (00:30 GMT), plain-clothed officers Lukasz Kozicki and Michael Levay were on a subway train in Brooklyn when they saw a man move between carriages, city officials said - a clear violation of subway rules.

When they confronted the man and asked for identification, he drew a handgun and opened fire, police said.

Officer Kozicki, 32, was struck three times - once in each of his thighs and once in the groin, officials said. Officer Levay, 27, was shot in the back but saved by his bulletproof vest.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly told reporters Officer Levay was able to return fire, killing the unnamed gunman. Both officers were in hospital in stable condition.

An hour earlier in New York's Bronx borough, Officer Juan Pichardo was off duty at his family's car dealership. Two men entered, one armed with a handgun, and announced a robbery.

Officer Pichardo struggled with the robber and was shot in the right thigh, Mr Kelly said.

Though wounded, Officer Pichardo and an employee of the dealership wrestled with the gunman and subdued him, Mr Kelly said.

The officer was in stable condition in hospital. The gunman and three accomplices were arrested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20912334

Meet Al Jazeera’s Holocaust-Denying Televangelist…Is This What We Can Expect on the New Current TV?

By now many have heard about Al Jazera’s recent acquisition of Current TV, Al Gore’s floundering television network that has, since its inception in 2005, displayed not only abysmal ratings but also blatant anti-Israel and anti-U.S. bias.
Ironically, TheBlaze sought to purchase Current, but was rebuffed by its executives who stated that they could not in good conscience sell out to a network whose point of view was not aligned with theirs. Thus, the only reasonable step for Gore and company was to seal a multi-million dollar deal with Al Jazeera, because, according to Current co-founder Joel Hyatt, the Qatar-based network “was founded with the same goals we had for Current.”
So what, exactly, are those shared goals and values? And what might a revamped Al Jazeera-led lineup at the new (and likely not so improved) Current TV look like?
A glimpse at Al Jazeera’s highest-rated program to date might give us an inkling into what lies ahead and it is cringe-inducing (though not surprising) to say the least.
Current: Meet Muslim Brotherhood spiritual sherpa and Al Jazeera’s top performing Islamic televangelist Youssef al-Qaradawi, best known for repeatedly twisting the Holocaust into a mold that suits his Islamic agenda and for declaring that his greatest hope is simply to live long enough to “shoot dead Allah’s enemies, the Jews.” The prolific imam has also issued hundreds of fatwas on everything from homosexuality to music to the role of female suicide bombers in their noble pursuit of jihad.
In light of Hyatt’s disturbing statement concerning his network’s shared goals with Al Jazeera, it is perhaps prudent to review the latter’s star talent, who has graced the homes of some 60 million viewers for the past 15 years with his weekly program ”Shariah and Life.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/meet-al-jazeeras-holocaust-denying-televangelist-is-this-what-we-can-expect-on-the-new-current-tv/

Time Warner Cable drops Current TV

 

 

Time Warner Cable pulled the plug on Current TV just hours after news of the cable channel's sale to Al Jazeera became official.

"This channel is no longer available on Time Warner Cable," read an on-screen message where Current TV used to be found.

Al Jazeera took a major step into the U.S. cable market Wednesday by acquiring beleaguered Current TV and announcing plans for a U.S.-based news network to be called Al Jazeera America.

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/time-warner-cable-drops-current-tv#ixzz2GyoYPSGX

FOX NEWS was bought by Arabs a while back, if you pay attention it never really attacks the the arab nations when wrong doing has happened....IS THIS THE DOORWAY TO SHARIA LAW? Pan-Arab Al-Jazeera buys Current TV from Al Gore

 

 

LOS ANGELES —

With its purchase of left-leaning Current TV, the Pan-Arab news channel Al-Jazeera has fulfilled a long-held quest to reach tens of millions of U.S. homes. But its new audience immediately got a little smaller.

The nation’s second-largest TV operator, Time Warner Cable Inc., dropped Current after the deal was confirmed Wednesday, a sign that the channel will have an uphill climb to expand its reach.

“Our agreement with Current has been terminated and we will no longer be carrying the service. We are removing the service as quickly as possible,” the company said in a statement.

Still, the acquisition of Current, the news network that cofounded by former Vice President Al Gore, boosts Al-Jazeera’s reach in the U.S. beyond a few large U.S. metropolitan areas including New York and Washington nearly ninefold to about 40 million homes.

Gore confirmed the sale Wednesday, saying in a statement that Al-Jazeera shares Current TV’s mission “to give voice to those who are not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the stories that no one else is telling.”

Al-Jazeera, owned by the government of Qatar, plans to gradually transform Current into a network called Al-Jazeera America by adding five to 10 new U.S. bureaus beyond the five it has now and hiring more journalists. More than half of the content will be U.S. news and the network will have its headquarters in New York, spokesman Stan Collender said.

Collender said there are no rules against foreign ownership of a cable channel — unlike the strict rules limiting foreign ownership of free-to-air TV stations. He said the move is based on demand, adding that 40 percent of viewing traffic on Al-Jazeera English’s website is from the U.S.

“This is a pure business decision based on recognized demand,” Collender said. “When people watch Al-Jazeera, they tend to like it a great deal.”

Previous to Al-Jazeera’s purchase, Current TV was in 60 million homes. It is carried by Comcast Corp., which owned less than a 10 percent stake in Current TV, as well as DirecTV. Neither company announced plans to drop the channel.

In 2010, Al-Jazeera English’s managing director, Tony Burman, blamed a “very aggressive hostility” from the Bush administration for reluctance among cable and satellite companies to show the network.

Even so, Al-Jazeera has garnered respect for its ability to build a serious news product in a short time. In a statement announcing the deal, it touted numerous U.S. journalism awards it received in 2012, including the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award Grand Prize and the Scripps Howard Award for Television/Cable In-Depth Reporting.

But there may be a culture clash at the network. Dave Marash, a former “Nightline” reporter who worked for Al-Jazeera in Washington, said he left the network in 2008 in part because he sensed an anti-American bias there.

Al-Jazeera English went on the air in November 2006. It moved quickly to establish a strong presence on the Internet, launching web streaming services and embracing new social media services such as Twitter in part to compensate for its lack of a presence on U.S. airwaves.

The English news network has a different news staff and a separate budget from the Arabic network, which launched in 1996. They and the company’s growing stable of other Al-Jazeera branded channels are overseen by Sheik Ahmed bin Jassim Al Thani, a member of Qatar’s royal family.

Sheik Ahmed took over last year following the abrupt resignation of the company’s longtime Palestinian head, Wadah Khanfar, who was widely credited with helping build Al-Jazeera into an influential global brand. In his departure note to staff, he said he was leaving behind “a mature organization” that “will continue to maintain its trailblazing path.”

Both the English and the Arabic channels actively covered the protests, violence and political upheaval that have become known as the Arab Spring.

Current, meanwhile, began as a groundbreaking effort to promote user-generated content. But it has settled into a more conventional format of political talk television with a liberal bent. Gore worked on-air as an analyst during its recent election night coverage.

Its leading personalities are former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Cenk Uygur, a former political commentator on MSNBC who hosts the show called “The Young Turks.” Current signed Keith Olbermann to be its top host in 2011 but his tenure lasted less than a year before it ended in bad blood on both sides.

Current has largely been outflanked by MSNBC in its effort be a liberal alternative to the leading cable news network, Fox News Channel.

Current hired former CNN Washington bureau chief David Bohrman in 2011 to be its president. Bohrman pushed the network to innovate technologically, with election night coverage that emphasized a conversation over social media.

Current TV, founded in 2005 by former vice president Gore and Joel Hyatt, is expected to post $114 million in revenue in 2013, according to research firm SNL Kagan. The firm pegged the network’s cash flow at nearly $24 million a year.

 

 

http://www.uticaod.com/news/x1896978522/Pan-Arab-Al-Jazeera-buys-Current-TV-from-Al-Gore