Tag Archives: fox news channel

Will You Please Buy Glenn Beck’s House? [Real Estate]

A year ago today, we brought you news that hysterical paranoiac Glenn Beck was selling his $4.2 million walled fortress in New Canaan, Conn. He still hasn’t sold it. Let’s take another tour! More

Cavuto to Matthews: Stick Your Condescending Comments About Christie’s Weight Up Your You Know What

As NewsBusters previously reported , MSNBC's Chris Matthews took some cheap shots at New Jersey governor Chris Christie's weight while speaking at a radio event last Thursday. Displeased with the immature condescension aimed at his state's chief executive, Fox News's Neil Cavuto went after the “Hardball” host's lack of decorum on Monday's “Your World” (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

Originally posted here:
Cavuto to Matthews: Stick Your Condescending Comments About Christie’s Weight Up Your You Know What

Krauthammer on Obama’s Televised Tax Announcement: He Was Addressing Daily Kos, NYT and MoveOn

Charles Krauthammer on Monday said that when Barack Obama spoke to the nation hours ago to announce a tax extension compromise just reached with Republicans, “It was actually a speech addressed at Daily Kos, the New York Times, and MoveOn.” In Krauthammer's view expressed on Fox's “Special Report,” “This was a speech aimed at appeasing the Left which is extremely angry over this” (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

Read this article:
Krauthammer on Obama’s Televised Tax Announcement: He Was Addressing Daily Kos, NYT and MoveOn

Likely Voters Steer Clear of MSNBC, Don’t Like or Don’t Know Prime Time Talkers

According to a recent poll, likely voters get their political news primarily from cable television. Among cable channels, 42 percent, a plurality, watch Fox News for its political coverage. Only 12 percent said they watched MSNBC. What’s more, most likely voters don’t like or have never heard of MSNBC’s prime time talent. The poll , conducted by Politico and George Washington University, used a sample split evenly between political parties – even slightly favoring Democrats in some areas : 41 percent of respondents identified as Republicans, while 42 percent said they were Democrats. Forty-four percent said they usually vote for Republicans, while 46 percent answered Democrats. Forty-eight percent voted for Obama, while only 45 percent voted for McCain. Even among this group, Fox News is by far the most popular cable outlet. CNN comes in at second, with 30 percent. A sorry MSNBC brings up the rear. Among cable news personalities, FNC’s Bill O’Reilly – consistently the highest-rated cable news talker – is the most popular. Forty-nine percent of respondents said they thought O’Reilly has a positive impact on the American political conversation. Thirty-two percent said he has a negative impact. Interestingly, respondents – again, split evenly among the two parties – thought all three of Fox’s evening opinion commentators (O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity) have a net positive impact on the national debate. All three have a positive spread in the category. Also of note, for none of the three did majorities answer “never heard of”. MSNBC’s hosts are a different story. Only 23 percent said Keith Olbermann has a positive impact on the debate, while 25 said he has a negative one. A plurality, 42 percent, had never heard of him But at least it was only a plurality. Majorities said they have never heard of Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow – 70 percent and 55 percent, respectively. The positive impact/negative impact responses were split down the middle for both. In other words, the vast majority of likely voters either do not like MSNBC’s prime time talkers, or have never heard of them (with the notable exception of Chris Matthews, whose name was not included in the poll). “How did it get to this state?” wonders Ed Morrissey . After all, NBC had a long history in television news, starting decades before CNN and even longer than Fox. Its partnership with Microsoft should have given the cable news network a distinct advantage in the New Media world. Their roster of news anchors, present and future, should have immediately challenged CNN for primacy and marginalized Fox, who may have had cash but relatively fewer newsgathering resources in the US when it launched. Under the direction of GE’s Jeff Immelt, though, NBC’s cable network went for the full-insane demographic. Fox took CNN’s talking-head format and simply reversed the bias, although Fox rightly argues that it presents more opposing viewpoints than CNN did as part of their establishment talent and not just occasional guests and party spinmeisters. NBC decided to emulate Air America with its cable lineup instead, perhaps seeing some opportunity in the last Bush term to capitalize on his unpopularity and become a center of opposition opinion. Rather than accomplish that, the decision by NBC and its parent GE has not just destroyed MSNBC’s credibility but also NBC’s as well. With the exception of Joe Scarborough, who is hard to pigeonhole but certainly isn’t a hard-Left hysteric, the entire lineup is exactly what one would find on the failed libtalker radio network. It’s no coincidence that two of its featured hosts come straight out of Air America, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. Maddow has, at least, produced a watchable show, albeit with a hard-Left tilt that clearly is out of touch with the mainstream, but Schultz is barely coherent. Top that off with a daily “news” broadcast from Keith Olbermann that almost literally consists of a Two Minute Hate (Olbermann’s WPIW lists), and it’s a recipe for the kind of disaster that only political hacks could love. The wonder is that GE and NBC apparently seem content to alienate 88% of the viewing audience with its trainwreck theater.

Read more:
Likely Voters Steer Clear of MSNBC, Don’t Like or Don’t Know Prime Time Talkers

Rick Sanchez: Fox News ‘Essentially the Voice of the Republican Party’

On Tuesday’s Rick’s List, CNN’s Rick Sanchez again bashed Fox News and the conservative media, two of his favorite subjects of ire. Sanchez stated that President Obama was being “dogged” and blamed ” conservative talk radio hosts … lambasting this man 24/7 …. [and] Fox News, which is essentially the voice of the Republican Party, whose job it is to make this man look bad no matter what he does ” . The CNN anchor brought on political correspondent Jessica Yellin at the bottom of the 3 pm Eastern hour to discuss the President’s town hall meeting on Monday. After playing a clip of Velma Hart, an Obama supporter who bluntly told the chief executive that she was “exhausted of defending” him, Sanchez asked Yellin for her take on whether “others out there are thinking in many of the ways that she [Hart] expressed herself.” The liberal correspondent spouted the current administration talking point that “clearly, President Obama inherited this terrible economy and we’re still working our way out of it,” but continued that “the White House, at some point, has to be looking back and questioning their strategy both within Washington and their larger communication strategy outside, and how they’re messaging to the broader public. And it would seem that they’ve made crucial missteps on both fronts, and they have to take some blame for that.” Later, Yellin looked to the last Democratic president as a possible example for the current administration: YELLIN: [Y]ou’ve got to ask, is he messaging correctly? And, you know, with Bill Clinton out on the scene so much lately, it’s a reminder of how effective he is at hitting emotional chords, using anecdotes to help you relate to where he’s coming from, and help you understand his approach to policy. Whereas, President Obama tends to focus on these little examples or- you know, brass tacks sort of technician-type details of what he’s done, instead of giving you this overarching emotional frame. So you don’t end up connecting to it, and that’s one of the ways he seems to be misfiring on this message. Sanchez responded to this with his attack on his regular foes: SANCHEZ: All right- good stuff. It’s an interesting conversation, and I bet you it’s the kind of stuff that people are talking about. And then, of course, there’s the fact that- you know, he is dogged. There’s no question. You’d have to be a fool to not look at the landscape and see conservative talk radio hosts- YELLIN: Of course- SANCHEZ: Literally lambasting this man 24/7. And then, there’s Fox News, which is essentially the voice of the Republican Party, whose job it is to make this man look bad no matter what he does. So, you know, it’s a difficult thing that- YELLIN: Well, this is the time for political jujitsu. SANCHEZ: What’s that? YELLIN: It’s the time for political jujitsu. SANCHEZ: Yes (laughs)- YELLIN: You know, use it against them, right? So, effect- if he could do that- right. SANCHEZ: It all depends on how well he’s able to fight that. And, you know what? He’s got to do it, if he wants to survive in this, certainly up until November. Good conversation, Jessica. Exactly a year ago, on September 21, 2009, the anchor hinted that Fox News wasn’t a “real news organization,” and questioned his competitor’s legitimacy on August 2 of this year. On August 18 , Sanchez labeled Fox News ” way, way, way to the right ,” while putting his own network in the ” middle .” Earlier this summer, the CNN personality, along with guest Roland Martin, targeted Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh .

Link:
Rick Sanchez: Fox News ‘Essentially the Voice of the Republican Party’

Shameless: Kathy Griffin Insists Calling Scott Brown’s Daughters ‘Prostitutes’ Was a Fantastic Career Move

Liberal “comedian” Kathy Griffin thinks there is no line of rudeness she can’t cross, including calling the daughters of Sen. Scott Brown “prostitutes.” On Monday’s Joy Behar Show on CNN Headline News, Griffin proclaimed “But yes, whenever a statement is issued against me, I`m in heaven. I feel my next special is half written for me. And then I get to read statements allowed in my live shows which you can go to KathyGriffin.net and see the many, many cities I`ve picked up for my current tour.” Not even Rep. Barney Frank could make her feel bad about it: BEHAR: So you’re really feeling bad about it all? Okay, I mean, when Barney Frank turns on you, one of your gays, you have to start to wonder. GRIFFIN: Hey, the gays, look, there is — that’s — there is a reason that that flag has colors. There’s many levels and colors. There’s not just — I mean, I make the joke about the gays, but there’s many, many kinds of gay people like there are many, many kinds of straight people. And you know, he’s one of my gays. He just doesn’t know it because he doesn`t know, you know, who I am, as usual. Behar had the same conversation with liberal “comedian” Margaret Cho on August 25, but Cho had no idea who Scott Brown was. So Behar told her (incorrectly) that Scott Brown posed for Playgirl magazine — when it was really Cosmopolitan.  BEHAR: And he also introduced his daughters in one speech that he gave saying they’re available and he posed for them in bikinis. They were in bikinis. People felt that they were easy targets and available. But she got into trouble because he didn’t like that she called them prostitutes. CHO: Yes, well, I don’t know. I think she can say whatever she wants. And part of her appeal and her glory is that she does. She doesn`t really care. BEHAR: She doesn’t care, the more you criticize, the more she loves it. This logic of Griffin’s doesn’t always work — CNN did bump her off their New Year’s Eve program as she incessantly tried to embarrass Anderson Cooper. 

See the rest here:
Shameless: Kathy Griffin Insists Calling Scott Brown’s Daughters ‘Prostitutes’ Was a Fantastic Career Move

Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld Rip Richard Engel’s Silly Saddam Remarks

Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld had some fun Thursday evening bashing NBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel for absurd comments he made on the “Today” show this week. As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, Engel that morning told NBC’s Ann Curry: If there had been no invasion Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the, into, by, by a lot of European countries, he was being welcomed in Eastern Europe in particular. He was heading in a, in a direction of accommodation. On Thursday’s “O’Reilly Factor,” substitute host Ingraham and guest Gutfeld had a field day with what the former labeled “The Dumbest Things of the Week” (video follows with transcript and commentary): LAURA INGRAHAM: In the “Back of the Book” segment tonight, “The Dumbest Things of the Week.” Is NBC News making excuses for Saddam Hussein? Regardless of your thoughts on Iraq, one thing most people agree on is that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. But some are wondering if NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engle, doesn’t miss the good old days when Saddam was still around. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICHARD ENGLE, NBC CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: If there had been no invasion, Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the — into — by a lot of European countries. He was being welcomed in Eastern Europe, in particular. He was heading in a direction of accommodation. The sanctions regime that was holding him in place was starting to fail. So, I think it would be somewhat of a basket case, but it would be — Iran would be a lot more contained. (END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: Joining us now from New York is Greg Gutfeld, host of “Red Eye” and the author of “The Bible of Unspeakable Truths.” So Greg, as far as I can tell, Saddam was on the verge of having his own reality show. GREG GUTFELD, HOST, “RED EYE”: I mean, you have to figure out he said he would be more moderate. You have to ask him, what does he mean by moderate? Was he talking about alcohol intake? Was he going to cut back on his booze? Or was he going to only gas half as many Kurds or tell his sons they could only rape women every other weekend? Pr maybe he was becoming more environmentally friendly and was going to use renewable car batteries when he electrocuted his citizens. So we need — we need to give specifics on what he meant by moderation. INGRAHAM: I think he was clearly going green, Greg. He was making inroads with Eastern Europe. I don’t know what countries in Eastern Europe? Poland? Old Czechoslovakia? What countries was he getting close to? I just don’t recall that. GUTFELD: He does have a point, though. He said that, if we didn’t have the war, Saddam would be more accommodating, which is true because you are more accommodating when you are not dead. It’s really hard to buy somebody dinner when you’re dead. So, in effect, he’s actually correct by accident. INGRAHAM: Well, Iran — Iran might not have been the problem it is today, but the idea that he — it was going to be Saddam the milquetoast if we didn’t invade. I just — I was desperately looking to follow that logic. But you know, when NBC is involved, Greg, all bets are off. All bets are off. GUTFELD: Yes. Can’t stomach victory. You’ve got a war that you’ve won. Enjoy it. INGRAHAM: Winning is not fun. We’re supposed to be America on our knees, begging for mercy all the time. You don’t understand that. We need to apologize, Greg. Get used to it. GUTFELD: I am. Believe me. I’m married. To give readers an idea just how absurd Engel’s comments were, even the liberal Mediaite found this segment to its liking. Now that’s saying something.

See the original post:
Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld Rip Richard Engel’s Silly Saddam Remarks

Hannity, Bozell Take On MSM Ground Zero Mosque Bias on ‘Media Mash’

“This is one of those ever more obnoxious teaching moments that we’re getting from the left-wing press,” NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell complained on last night’s “Hannity” after watching a clip of MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell lament that Americans need to be more sensitive to minorities, not for the “burden” to be on Imam Feisal Rauf to assauge concerns about the planned Ground Zero mosque. Noting that polls show 70 percent of the American people oppose the Park 51 project planned just two blocks from Ground Zero, Bozell argued Mitchell’s complaint is just more evidence of the liberal media’s “worldview that is completely contrary” and out-of-touch with the American public. Besides Ground Zero mosque bias, The Media Research Center founder also reacted to NBC’s Chuck Todd passing along an unnamed “observer” who told him the 2010 midterms would be the “fear” election in contrast to the 2008 “hope” election: If you go back to every presidential campaign, it’s always fear against hope [in the media’s eyes]….And in the off-year election, it’s the same thing. Look at ’94. It was all about fear. It was all about fear and hatred on the Republican side, and about hope and change on the Democratic side. It’s always this [in the media’s mind]. So this is the pattern. And then he says sources tell him, look, this is the watercooler talking at MSNBC.  To watch the full segment, click the play button in the embed above at right, or click here to download the WMV video file. To listen to the segment, click here to download the MP3 audio file.

Originally posted here:
Hannity, Bozell Take On MSM Ground Zero Mosque Bias on ‘Media Mash’

Wednesday Night Fights: Laura Ingraham vs. Ground Zero Mosque Supporter

As the summer of 2010 comes to a close, American tempers are dramatically rising over the Ground Zero mosque. A fine example of the heat this issue is generating occurred on Wednesday’s “O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News. In the left corner was Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. On the right filling in for the usual host was Laura Ingraham. What ensued was an ideological battle that likely pleased folks on both sides of this contentious debate (video follows with transcript and commentary, h/t our friends at the Right Scoop ):  LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Scott, let’s talk about this controversy in New York that’s made some people say a slow news month of August, quite chaotic. Mayor Bloomberg has now staked his ground. He’s doubled down. He made that comment about it’s un-American. Just to throw the word un-American out seems to be a little odd. I don’t know anyone who’s conflating law abiding Muslims in the United states with al Qaeda. It’s about the sensitivity of the place at Ground Zero. SCOTT STRINGER, MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT: There’s no doubt about it. As someone who was in Manhattan on that terrible day when the terrorists attacked, we will never forget that. And we will always honor the families and the people in that community, who didn’t walk away from New York. They actually stayed and rebuilt the community. Having said that, a few very well orchestrated agitators have created a situation where we have now seen Tea Party people going after Jewish American elected officials, Mayor Bloomberg, myself, the speaker of our state assembly Shelly Silver. They’re using this as a national political wedge issue. And I have to tell you something, today we now have a report that a cab driver was stabbed when he told a passenger that he was Muslim. INGRAHAM: Right, well, we don’t know the details. STRINGER: But– INGRAHAM: I mean, throwing out examples like that, we don’t know the details of that, Scott. STRINGER: –I have to tell you something. It’s building– INGRAHAM: Well, let me tell you– STRINGER: –and we should tone this down. INGRAHAM: You want to do an anecdote like that? STRINGER: Let’s tone it down. INGRAHAM: I’m going to throw down to doing anecdote. No, I’m going to keep the temperature up because I think this is important. STRINGER: Well, you’re keeping the temperature up because you’re just– INGRAHAM: No, no, no– STRINGER: –you’re creating something that doesn’t exist. INGRAHAM: I’m not creating anything. STRINGER: Well, of course you are. INGRAHAM: You know what happened down at Ground Zero? STRINGER: And the reason I’m on the show is because we have to fight back to let America know that we’re not like this. INGRAHAM: Do you know what happened at Ground Zero? America disagrees with you vehemently. STRINGER: America does not disagree. INGRAHAM: 77 percent of the country disagrees with you. STRINGER: They do not disagree– INGRAHAM: They’re not Islamophobic. STRINGER: –that we should use anti-Semitic slurs– INGRAHAM: They’re not nasty people. They’re good people. STRINGER: –that we should go after Muslim– INGRAHAM: Do you want to know what anti-Semitic was? Let me get in here. STRINGER: This is your Tea Party friends– INGRAHAM: –what happened at Ground Zero. STRINGER: –trying to create an election (INAUDIBLE) when we all know it. INGRAHAM: And I mean, you dismissed the Tea Parties, but they’re obviously having huge and positive influence in the United States. What happened at Ground Zero– STRINGER: You don’t believe that. INGRAHAM: –in these dueling protests, and I think the more protests the better on both sides. STRINGER: Well, constructive debate is good. INGRAHAM: I think people should have their — well, it’s not up to you to determine what’s constructive. That’s the elite’s little trick. STRINGER: No, but I have– INGRAHAM: That’s the elites trick here. STRINGER: –an opinion, too. You can call me– INGRAHAM: You have an opinion, but let me just tell you what else happened, because you raised the issue– STRINGER: Sure. INGRAHAM: –of Judaism in this debate. There was also an exchange. And Andrew Breitbart has this posted on his website. You should see it because a pro-mosque protester got in the face of an 83-year-old man, who said he was a Holocaust survivor. He got in his face and he said you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t know what the con — I mean, he’s in the face of this old man, who survived the Holocaust who doesn’t want this mosque there. STRINGER: That is terrible. But I have to tell you something. I’m talking about– INGRAHAM: How’s that for an example? STRINGER: –Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, people trying to divide this country and divide this city of New York. INGRAHAM: Trying to divide this country? STRINGER: It’s not going to work because– INGRAHAM: Do you agree with this imam that America has more blood on its hands than al Qaeda? Do you agree with the imam? STRINGER: I believe that we should have an opportunity for everybody to come together. INGRAHAM: How about an opportunity to hear from him? STRINGER: We don’t go and take away people’s property. We don’t raid people. INGRAHAM: I’m not saying we have a right to do any of that, no, no, no. STRINGER: Of course you are. You’re doing that every day. INGRAHAM: No, no, no, no, no. STRINGER: You’re doing that every day. INGRAHAM: They have a right to build this mosque. We have a right– STRINGER: You– INGRAHAM: –to raise questions about funding. And you as an elected official– STRINGER: You started this. INGRAHAM: You as an elected official should have an obligation to ask this imam– STRINGER: You told Daisy Khan, you told them on this show in December of 2009, you said you’re doing the right thing. INGRAHAM: Assimilating, absolutely. STRINGER: You’re doing great work. INGRAHAM: Assimilating. STRINGER: Rabbis support it. You actually– INGRAHAM: Blood — do you believe America has blood on her hands? STRINGER: You supported this and then you– INGRAHAM: You won’t answer the question, will you? STRINGER: that you left the studio. Well, let me just make point and– INGRAHAM: No, no, you want — blood on her hands? STRINGER: You (INAUDIBLE). What did I do? INGRAHAM: Why don’t you want these questions? STRINGER: What did I do? I didn’t stick to the talking points. I have to now go back and reverse myself because I need ratings. INGRAHAM: No, no, no. That’s what I heard. I heard what you don’t want to hear. STRINGER: You agreed with them. INGRAHAM: Pipe down. You know what I heard? STRINGER: Yes. INGRAHAM: I heard– STRINGER: I saw you on the show. INGRAHAM: –blood on our hands. I heard Americans are mean and they’re Islamophobic and they hate Muslims if they disagree. Is that building bridges? STRINGER: But why did you support the cultural center in December 2009? INGRAHAM: I absolutely support assimilation. STRINGER: Okay. So that’s great. INGRAHAM: I don’t support founders of an organization– STRINGER: So that’s great. INGRAHAM: –who actually believe that America is the equivalent of al Qaeda when destroying Muslim lives.. STRINGER: Then you know what? Let’s go to the FBI and Homeland Security. If you have information I don’t know, we should hear. But in the meantime– INGRAHAM: Read the 2005– STRINGER: –December 2009– INGRAHAM: You apparently don’t care what he says. You just don’t care. STRINGER: You supported this before Michael Bloomberg, before anybody else. INGRAHAM: I supported assimilation. You better believe it. STRINGER: You said what they were doing was the right thing. INGRAHAM: And professor, you got short shrift here. Do what you need to do and ask the questions. Ask questions. STRINGER: I’m just endorsing what you said what should happen. INGRAHAM: That’s so weak. Do you actually get elected with that kind of line? Ask questions. Yikes. Someone throw some water on the contestants. That said, Stringer like so many on his side of this debate greatly misrepresented Ingraham’s interview with Daisy Khan last December. It’s been characterized by most liberal media members that Ingraham on that occasion agreed with the location of this mosque. Here’s the video of that segment along with a full transcript. You decide if that’s what actually happened:  INGRAHAM: In the “Impact” segment tonight, some controversy surrounding Islamic mosque and cultural center in the works at Ground Zero. The imam responsible for this project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has conducted some post-9/11 sensitivity training for the FBI, but he’s also made some questionable remarks about America’s behavior towards Muslims. Joining us now from New York, the imam’s wife, Daisy Khan, the executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement. And Daisy, before we get into this, I know you were listening to our previous segment about the culture war with the — the war against Christmas and these ads, and you wanted to comment. DAISY KHAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MUSLIM ADVANCEMENTS: Yes. I was most intrigued, because I don’t think that there is a war between people who are believers. I think our real issue is bringing people who disbelieve and, you know, have absolutely no notion of what God is and believe in the existence of God. And this is what our faith community should be doing together to work on a common platform to remove this kind of ignorance against God. INGRAHAM: All right. I like the — I like the backup you’re giving me on that. Let’s talk about the Islamic center at Ground Zero. Questions, I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it. Bloomberg for it. Rabbis in New York saying they don’t have a problem with it. Why near Ground Zero? Why did you choose that space? KHAN: Well, I think the closeness of the center to Ground Zero, first and foremost, is a blow to the extremists. And you know, we Muslims are really fed up, Laura, of having to be defined by the actions of the extremists. You know, we are law-abiding citizens. We are faithful people. We are very good Americans. And we need to project a different message of Islam, one of tolerance, love and the kind of commonalities we have with different faith communities. And the center will be dedicated to promoting what it needs to be Muslim and what it also means to be Americans, and that is the real message that needs to get out. INGRAHAM: When you see surveys, and I know your group takes a moderate approach to Americanizing people, assimilating people, which I applaud. I think that’s fantastic. But when you see — when you see Pew’s survey, the global survey that came out — what is that, 18 months ago or so — global opinions of Muslims, especially younger male Muslims on a number of issues, including whether jihad is morally justifiable, the figures are disturbing to me. And I was wondering what your thoughts were. KHAN: Well, once again, our faith has been defined by people who have political agendas. And what they do is they use religion as a veneer to mobilize people. And what we have to do is talk about what is the central core of all faiths, which is the love of God. And this is a message, and this is why we want to create a center so close to Ground Zero: to promote a different message, one that most majority of Muslims live. I mean, the extremists are a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. And they don’t represent the majority view. And what we are afraid of is that they become the center and the majority. And we have to stop that. INGRAHAM: The problem is — we’re going to get to your husband’s comment from back in 2004 in a minute. But Pope Benedict has asked for parity, kind of a reciprocity. Look, we’ll have a mosque in Rome. Absolutely, a mosque in Rome, freedom of religion. But let’s have a cathedral or a Catholic church in Saudi Arabia. How far do you think he got with that? I mean, or Lebanon today. Try to build a new church in Lebanon. You know, previously a hot bed of Christianity. And you don’t get anywhere. So that’s what kind of upsets Christians, especially with what’s happening to Christians in Iraq and Iran and places like that. KHAN: Well, I completely agree with you. Because if you look at the history of Muslims and you look at, you know, the pluralism that existed within Islamic history over the last 1,400 years, there used to be great mosques and great cathedrals and churches and synagogues in every place. What has happened is there is a new interpretation that has crept in: one of intolerance and one of non-acceptance. And this, we have to push back against that and bring back what, you know, our religion says: there is no compulsion in religion. Which means you can disbelieve and believe, and believe in other faith communities, because… INGRAHAM: Daisy… KHAN: Yes. INGRAHAM: … let’s get into what your husband said in 2004, because this is a sticking point with a lot of people. Sydney Morning Herald interview, he was quoted as saying it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets. He placed some blame on Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians. That disturbs a lot of people. A lot of American soldiers died liberating Muslims around the world in Kuwait and Bosnia, and they didn’t appreciate that. KHAN: Well, I don’t think he meant it that way. I think what was trying to say is that, you know, when we take — when we have a small crime, and then there is such a huge response to that, where there’s a calamity on such a large scale, that, you know, we have to look at what the law says. And Christians — Christianity is defined by love. When things are done in the name of Christianity like, you know… INGRAHAM: Well, we didn’t — we didn’t wage World War II in the name of Christianity. KHAN: No, I’m not… INGRAHAM: That’s a difference. I mean, our fighter pilots weren’t screaming, “Allah Akbar,” you know, or the equivalent in English, “Praise be to God.” KHAN: Yes. INGRAHAM: I think — I’d amend that if I were he. I’d kind of go back and re-do that statement. But I like what you’re trying to do, and Ms. Khan, we appreciate it. And come on my radio show sometime. KHAN: Yes. We need the support of people like you, seriously. So we… INGRAHAM: OK, take care. All right, Daisy. Take care.

Continue reading here:
Wednesday Night Fights: Laura Ingraham vs. Ground Zero Mosque Supporter

Group Founded by Van Jones Claims FNC Lies, Proceeds to Lie About Fox, Tea Party

Reading through material from the “Turn Off Fox” campaign, one gets the very clear impression that the folks at the Fox News Channel are bold-faced liars. They have “no regard for the truth,” and uses “half-truths” to push a “stream of misinformation” and “distortions of the truth.” Turn Off Fox is a project started by Color of Change, the far-left political organization founded by neo-Marxist and black liberation theologist Van Jones. Despite Turn Off Fox’s righteous indignation, the same document making the above accusations pushes blatant misinformation about both Fox and the Tea Party movement. Got that? The Turn Off Fox campaign wants FNC to tell the truth, and uses demonstrable falsehoods to bolster its case. The document accusing Fox of pushing misinformation claims that Bill O’Reilly got former USDA official Shirley Sherrod fired, and claims that Tea Party protesters shouted racial slurs and spit on black congressmen outside the Capitol. Both claims have been thoroughly debunked. Turn Off Fox claims that “Fox News hosts Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity were the first to air maliciously edited video of Shirley Sherrod’s speech to the Georgia NAACP – video that cost Sherrod her job with the USDA.” Clearly, the implication is that Fox was responsible for Sherrod’s ouster. Granted, the document doesn’t actually say that Sherrod was fired because of O’Reilly’s or Hannity’s work, only that they were the first to air the video, which is true. But the document is an attempt to single out Fox News for supposed wrongdoing. So if other cable networks did the same thing Fox did, there would be no reason to mention it in this document. And as Howard Kurtz wrote , Fox did not air the video in question until after Sherrod resigned. Fox was joined by numerous other television news shows, which all aired the viral clip. In other words, the role Fox News played in Sherrod’s resignation was no larger than any other cable news channel. Call Turn Off Fox’s claim a lie, call it a half truth, call it what you like. But the fact is, the document pushes the false notion that Fox was uniquely responsible (among television news channels) for the Sherrod controversy. That claim is nothing short of false. The document goes on to offer flimsy evidence linking Fox News to the Tea Party movement. It says the following about the latter: “As the House of Representatives deliberated over health care legislation this past spring, some Tea Party members gathered outside the Capitol shouted ‘Ni**er!’ at black congressmen.” The document also claims that “One of the protesters spat on Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver.” Both of those claims are false. Or, at the very least, there is no evidence to support either claim. Numerous videos of the protest in question give no indication that any racial slur was uttered, or that any protester spit on Congressman Cleaver. The New York Times recently issued a retraction to that effect, noting the lack of evidence for a claim that most media outlets – but not Fox! – were willing to unquestionably parrot for so long. The “Turn Off Fox” campaign is the latest effort in Color of Change’s continuing vendetta against Fox News. This is the same organization that tried to get Glenn Beck taken off the air by targeting Fox’s advertisers. These blatant factual inaccuracies raise serious questions regarding Color of Change’s credibility. How can it accuse Fox of spreading misinformation, while using misinformation to bolster its case? This document suggests that, contrary to Color of Change’s claims, this is little more than a political effort designed to stifle speech the group’s far-left members don’t like. A request for comment from Color of Change was not returned by deadline.

See the original post:
Group Founded by Van Jones Claims FNC Lies, Proceeds to Lie About Fox, Tea Party