Tag Archives: ground zero mosque

SMH: The Mosque They Fought So Hard To Put At Ground Zero Is About To Be Evicted Over $1.7 Mil In Unpaid Rent??

Really?? After all of that “freedom of religion gives us the right to be here,” the people who were so determined to open a mosque up the street from World Trade Center haven’t been paying their rent. Or at least that’s what their landlord would like us to believe. Lower Manhattan’s controversial Park51 Islamic center is now in a court battle with utility Consolidated Edison, which says the center owes it $1.7 million in a dispute over back rent. In court papers, Park51 says it owes Con Edison only $881,000 and calls the utility’s demand “grossly inflated.” The center has filed suit against the company over a default notice it was issued in September, and a New York state judge has stayed any action until after a hearing in November. In a statement to CNN on Sunday, Con Edison said it “remains hopeful” that it can work out an agreement with Park51, which leases part of its property from the utility. Park51′s developers did not return a phone call seeking comment. The center, which includes a mosque, drew intense opposition in 2010 from politicians, conservative activists and some families of the victims of the al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center. The twin towers stood about two blocks from the site before they were destroyed by the suicide hijackings on September 11, 2001, leading critics to dub the project the “Ground Zero Mosque.” The interfaith center’s leaders said the project will be a 16-story community center with recreational, educational and cultural programming rooted in a spirit of cooperation and coexistence. City officials refused to block its construction, and Park51 held its grand opening in September. According to court documents, Park51 has exercised an option to purchase the Con Edison portion of the site for $10.7 million. The center says it has been paying $2,750 a month — minuscule by New York standards — under its initial lease. The rent was to be recalculated based on the market value of the property after it renewed the lease in 2008, but disputes over the appraisal lasted until this August. In September, Con Edison demanded the $1.7 million it said it was owed. “The lease for the property calls for the tenant to pay this money now that an appraisal process has been completed,” the utility told CNN. “Under the terms of the lease, Con Edison requested payment of outstanding rent, but to date, tenant has not yet made the required payment.” The people behind the Islamic Center think this is just a new tactic to get them out of the building. We can’t help but feel like they might not be way off… Source

Read the rest here:
SMH: The Mosque They Fought So Hard To Put At Ground Zero Is About To Be Evicted Over $1.7 Mil In Unpaid Rent??

Pity the Prez: NYT Blog Hauls Out the ‘Distraction’ Meme Again (Update: Press Treated NoKo as a Distraction in April 2009)

I heard Rush mention this Caucus Blog item at the New York Times on his program today. It seems that the Times's Michael Shear is disappointed that Dear Leader is yet again caught up in a “distraction” (“Pat-Downs Ensnare White House in New Distraction”) It's headlined in the item's browser window as “Pat-Downs Ensnare White House in New Controversy.” Interesting edit, don't you think? If it's a “controversy,” the President owns it. If it's a “distraction,” well, it's an unfair intrusion. Clever. Shear wrapped it in a narrative whose theme was that “It all felt vaguely familiar.” Well, yeah. What's more than vaguely familiar has been the press's tendency to lament the distractions our supposedly otherwise focused like a laser beam chief executive must endure. On April 9, 2009 (at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), I noted that “The words 'Obama' and 'distraction' have both appeared in 2,425 articles in just the past 30 days; excluding duplicates, it's about 450.” In his blog entry, Shear listed many other awful distractions the president has encountered. What's interesting are how many of them escalated because of Obama or people working directly for him: read more

See the article here:
Pity the Prez: NYT Blog Hauls Out the ‘Distraction’ Meme Again (Update: Press Treated NoKo as a Distraction in April 2009)

CNN’s Zakaria Paints Hezbollah as Tolerant of Jews as Lesson for Ground Zero Mosque Opponents

Catching up on an item from the August 22, Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN, host Zakaria — formerly of Newsweek — ended his show with commentary in which he ridiculously suggested that Americans who oppose construction of a mosque near Ground Zero could learn a lesson about tolerance from the terrorist group Hezbollah, and cited the group as being accepting of diverse religions – including Judaism – in Lebanon in light of the restoration of a synagogue in Beirut. Without informing viewers of the history of viciously anti-Semitic speech from Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and other leading figures within the anti-Israel group, the CNN anchor quoted Hezbollah’s claim that, rather than being anti-Semitic, they are simply opposed to “Israel’s occupation of Arab lands.” Zakaria: The project is said to have found support in many parts of the community, not just from the few remaining Jews there, but also Christians and Muslims and Hezbollah. Yes, Hezbollah, the one that the United States has designated a foreign terrorist organization. Hezbollah’s view on the renovation goes like this: Quote, “We respect divine religions, including the Jewish religion. The problem is with Israel’s occupation of Arab lands, not with the Jews.” Food for thought. But, as recounted by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), Hezbollah members not only desire to take over all of Israel which they consider to be occupied, but the group’s leader Nasrallah has been very direct in his anti-Semitic speech, once even declaring that if the Jewish people “all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, August 22, Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN: And now for the “Last Look.” With all the talk about places of worship and where they do and don’t belong, I wanted you to see this. This is the Magen Abraham synagogue. It’s not in Miami. It’s not in Tel Aviv. It’s in Beirut. That’s right, Beirut, Lebanon. The synagogue is just now emerging from a painstaking restoration project. When the repairs began over a year ago, the temple was literally a shell of its former self. So why did this nation, often teetering on the brink of religious hostilities and hostilities with Israel, restore a Jewish house of worship? To show that Lebanon is an open and tolerant country. And indeed, the project is said to have found support in many parts of the community, not just from the few remaining Jews there, but also Christians and Muslims and Hezbollah. Yes, Hezbollah, the one that the United States has designated a foreign terrorist organization. Hezbollah’s view on the renovation goes like this: Quote, “We respect divine religions, including the Jewish religion. The problem is with Israel’s occupation of Arab lands, not with the Jews.” Food for thought. Thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week.

See the article here:
CNN’s Zakaria Paints Hezbollah as Tolerant of Jews as Lesson for Ground Zero Mosque Opponents

Survey Shows Arabs More Opposed to GZ Mosque Than American Media

Here’s a fact you’re not likely to see on tonight’s evening news broadcasts: According to a recent poll, Arabs living abroad are more likely to be opposed to the “Ground Zero Mosque” than the American media are. According to a recent survey by the Arabic online news service Elaph (Arabic version here ), 58 percent of Arabs think the construction should be moved elsewhere. And according to a Media Research Center study released last week, 55 percent of network news coverage of the debate has come down on the pro-Mosque side. The MRC study also found that on the question of whether opposition to the mosque demonstrated a widely held “Islamophobia” among Americans, 93 percent of network news soundbites answered ion the affirmative. In contrast, when asked whether the United States is a “tolerant” or “bigoted” society, 63 percent of Elaph respondents chose the former. So the Arab world has a more favorable view of Americans than our own media elite, and sides with the American people over the network news broadcasters on the hot-button issue of the day. Faoud Ajami highlighted the Elaph poll in his Wall Street Journal column on Monday: From his recent travels to the Persian Gulf-sponsored and paid for by the State Department-Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf returned with a none-too-subtle threat. His project, the Ground Zero Mosque, would have to go on. Its cancellation would risk putting “our soldiers, our troops, our embassies and citizens under attack in the Muslim world.” Leave aside the attempt to make this project a matter of national security. The self-appointed bridge between America and the Arab-Islamic world is a false witness to the sentiments in Islamic lands. Deputy Editorial Page Editor Bret Stephens and Editorial Board member Matthew Kaminski on the plan for a ‘Mosque at Ground Zero,’ and Senior Editorial Writer Joseph Rago reports on the Missouri results. The truth is that the trajectory of Islam in America (and Europe for that matter) is at variance with the play of things in Islam’s main habitat. A survey by Elaph, the most respected electronic daily in the Arab world, gave a decided edge to those who objected to the building of this mosque-58% saw it as a project of folly. Elaph was at it again in the aftermath of Pastor Terry Jones’s threat to burn copies of the Quran: It queried its readers as to whether America was a “tolerant” or a “bigoted” society. The split was 63% to 37% in favor of those who accepted the good faith and pluralism of this country. So a larger proportion of Arabs believe in that notion than American journalists. That is a sad indictment of the press in this country.

Read the original post:
Survey Shows Arabs More Opposed to GZ Mosque Than American Media

Former CNBC Reporter: GE CEO Immelt Meddled in Network’s Editorial Coverage

This could confirm what many suspected all along – the corporate heads at General Electric (NYSE: GE ) would try to use their media holdings to portray President Barack Obama and his administration in a positive light in order to gain a corporate advantage. That’s how former CNBC reporter and current Fox Business Network senior correspondent Charlie Gasparino explains it in his forthcoming book, “Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street.” According to Gasparino, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt had “helped his company feast off of the subsidies of Obamanomics,” including the green energy initiatives and health care reform. And although Immelt is a registered Republican, Gasparino detailed how Immelt would walk around his company’s headquarters saying “we’re all Democrats” now at the prospect of government checks going to GE. But later, Gasparino explained how Immelt would use his authority to manipulate the editorial coverage of on Obama for that reason: Immelt touted his status as a registered Republican when he stated publicly and infamously among his Republican friends his support of the president, saying, “We are all Democrats now.” His friends tell me that the reasons Immelt supported Obama came down to the fact that he liked the president on a personal level and believed he was the moderate that he sold himself as on the campaign trail. At CNBC, where I worked for several years, Immelt called a meeting of top talent to discuss coverage of Obama’s economic agenda and whether the heavy criticism by on-air commentators (like me) was fair to the president. Those sentiments are similar to ones Gasparino relayed to host Bill O’Reilly on the Aug. 10 broadcast of Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor” . “There was this issue where Jeff Immelt, chairman of GE, which used to own NBC Universal, called in some of the senior staff, and clearly was worried, according to the people I spoke to who were in that meeting, about the possibility that we were becoming too anti-administration,” Gasparino said. “This is when the Obama administration first took over … They will deny it, but from what I understand, people got called into this meeting and they were basically, not exactly read the riot act, but the question of whether they were being fair to the president was brought up.” However, Gasparino went on to say that Immelt regretted this pro-Obama stance by mid-2010. He complained abroad, calling Obama’s policies “overregulation” of the economy. And in the end the potential upside wasn’t enough. “Why the change of heart? GE may have benefited from a few government handouts, but with the economy weak, the conglomerate’s many businesses reflect the Obama-induced economic malaise caused by putting ideology, in the form of socializing health care and imposing higher taxes on entrepreneurs, before the economic well-being of the American people.” “Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street” will be available on Oct. 5.

Originally posted here:
Former CNBC Reporter: GE CEO Immelt Meddled in Network’s Editorial Coverage

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell Relays Iranian State Spin on Today

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reporting live from Tehran on Tuesday’s Today show, on the American hikers held hostage in Iran, relayed Iranian government spin, that the Ground Zero mosque protest and controversial Koran “desecrations” have “added to the tension here, the anti-American spirit.” Spurred by a question from substitute anchor Carl Quintanilla about the protests in New York city, Mitchell actually held up one of the state-owned newspapers and relayed that “if the government needed any excuse to drum up more anti-American fever,” they have it, as she noted “all the headlines” in Iran are about the “desecration” and “burning” threats of the Koran. The following segment was aired on the September 14 Today show: CARL QUINTANILLA: But we begin this morning, in Iran, where tense negotiations are underway to free one of the three American hikers detained there for more than a year. NBC’s chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell is in Tehran. Andrea, good morning. ANDREA MITCHELL: Good morning, Carl. As you say it’s been tense, feverish negotiations led by Swiss diplomats here representing the United States and an Iranian lawyer retained by the Shourd family, trying to win her release, trying to get prosecutors to relent on their demand for that bail, $500,000. And it’s been a roller coaster, as you point out. There were plans to release her, then those were retracted. So they’re waiting to see, but there are some signals today that she could be released at any time. And they are, of course, hoping for that to happen. Carl? QUINTANILLA: Andrea the discussions about this, this potential release, the discussions in this country about the would be mosque near Ground Zero, what has all of that done to the political climate there, where you are? MITCHELL: Well it has really added to the tension here, the anti-American spirit. And, in fact, if the government needed any excuse to try drum to up more anti-American fever, you can see the state owned newspapers today, all the headlines are about the desecration threat, the burning threat and also what happened in Washington last weekend, on 9/11, when some pages were torn out of Koran, out of the holy book. That has inflamed the anger here and they are planning big protests today. Carl? QUINTANILLA: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell in Tehran. Andrea, thank you for that.

More:
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell Relays Iranian State Spin on Today

NYT’s Blow Offers Fabulous Opinion on 9/11, Mosques and Koran Burning

New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrote a short piece on the ninth anniversary of 9/11 that should be must-reading for all Americans on both sides of the aisle. In fact, I’m sure liberal Times devotees will be just as shocked by ” A Lesson From 9/11 ” as conservatives that take the three minutes necessary to get through it. After sharing his experience as a New Yorker who was in Manhattan that awful day, Blow marvelously tied it all together with what Americans have fought and died for since our forefathers were colonists: My attitude that day was the same as most Americans: the terrorists must not be allowed to win. America would not be cowed. We would rise, our greatness would shine, and our ideas of freedom would remain a beacon to the world. That is why the debate these past few weeks over Islam in America – from the proposed Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan to talk of the burning of Korans – has been so hard to watch. Too much of the debate seems to be centered around the sensitivities of terrorists a world away who have hijacked the passions of a faith, who would see us destroyed and who want to attract more damaged souls to their cause. I understand, in theory, the idea of not stirring the hornet’s nest while our troops are still in harm’s way. But I chafe at the idea that great American debates, in all their ugliness and splendor, should be tempered for terrorists and their attempts to recruit. Blow then shared results of a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finding the number of people feeling America is currently safer from terrorism than before 9/11 is at a new low. He continued: But we simply cannot allow this new wave of fear to make us into something that we’re not. We are a country of freedoms, a country where religious freedom and freedom of speech hold equal standing, a country in which the construction of a building and the destruction of a book are rights extended to all, even if opposed by most. Free expressions are not always pleasant, but they must ever be protected, with no regard to the proclivities of the enemy. This is America, and the moment we forget that, they start to win. Indeed. Our media today, and much of the cowering Left, operate under the premise that we have to alter our behavior to win the approval of our enemies or else expect violent repercussions. Although Blow didn’t use the word, it’s akin to wartime appeasement. As most Europeans found out during World War II, it doesn’t work. The more modern term that pertains to appeasing radical Islam is dhimmitude, a process by which Western nations enact changes to their culture and their very way of life so as not to create unrest in their growing Muslim populations. This is already happening in Holland, France, Germany, and Great Britain to name a few. With this in mind, what we as a nation have to decide is whether we’re going to follow Europe’s lead and start remaking ourselves out of fear that our enemies will somehow retaliate or enjoy new recruits if we don’t. As Blow surprisingly noted, if we do this, we lose. After England’s Neville Chamberlain made a fool out of himself at Munich, stronger leaders named Churchill and Roosevelt opted to not make the same mistake he did. 72 years later, the United States is once again faced with the option of either following today’s Neville Chamberlains or taking a stronger, less-cowardly, more American approach with our enemies. Of course, some of the recent furor concerning a little-known Pastor in Gainesville, Florida, was stoked by comments made by David Petraeus. Although most Americans have great respect for the General, it is possible he over-reacted to Terry Jones’s Koran burning threat, and may have unnecessarily inflamed the situation with his warning. That, too, is up for debate, or at least should be unless we fear that also will stoke our enemies’ ire. But if a diehard liberal like Blow can see that we shouldn’t be afraid of debates on sensitive subjects, maybe the rest of the cowering media can pull out their pacifiers, take off their diapers, and stop acting like freedom of speech is only a good thing if nobody is offended by it. As Europe learned in 1939, if you give your enemies an inch, they’ll take a mile. If we give up this right to make radical Islamists happy, what’ll be next?

View post:
NYT’s Blow Offers Fabulous Opinion on 9/11, Mosques and Koran Burning

Chris Matthews Accuses Sarah Palin of Aiding and Abetting Koran-burning Pastor

Chris Matthews on Thursday accused Sarah Palin of aiding and abetting Pastor Terry Jones, the man threatening to burn Korans on Saturday’s ninth anniversary of 9/11. For days, Matthews and his colleagues on MSNBC have been calling upon Republicans to speak out against Jones. On Wednesday, the former Alaska governor did exactly that at her Facebook page and at Twitter .  But this wasn’t enough for Matthews who repeatedly on the 5PM installment of “Hardball” attacked Palin for being too “soft” in her admonishment of Jones, and actually accused her of giving the Pastor the linkage between burning Korans and the controversy surrounding the Ground Zero mosque. Matthews also included House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Oh.) in his pathetic plot (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Democratic strategist Steve McMahon joins us now, along with Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez. You know, this is one of those moments where, OK, I`m going to take you on, Leslie, here. Ready? LESLIE SANCHEZ, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: All right. MATTHEWS: I think that people like Boehner and Sarah Palin are the first people in the news cycle to put out the word there`s some linkage between burning the Koran on national — international television and the mosque a couple blocks away from the World Trade Centers. Honestly, was Matthews being intentionally naive or lying? The whole reason media have given Jones all this attention is because of the Ground Zero mosque. Any suggestion to the contrary is absurd:  MATTHEWS: And now these people down there, this minister, discovered, hey, this is handy. I will trade one for the other. It turns out the trade wasn`t real, but at least he`s pretending. Your thoughts about accomplices before — accessories before and after the fact here. SANCHEZ: I think that`s a stretch. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Why is that a stretch? SANCHEZ: Because — MATTHEWS: Have you ever heard these ministers talk about a link with the mosque before Mr. Boehner or Sarah Palin mentioned it? SANCHEZ: Well, I don`t read everything with the mosque. But let`s look at the realities. You have got 50 people in a garage that say these crazy things and, all of a sudden, we have all the networks, the president, and everybody responding to them. Look at it for what it really is. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: So, is Sarah Palin one of the 50 crazy people in the mosque, or what? How disgraceful!  SANCHEZ: I think what is interesting is that Sarah Palin is brought up again. She puts a tweet out there. She starts talking about it, and everybody wants to say she has directed and shaped this debate. MATTHEWS: “People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive” — I would say it`s more than insensitive — “and an unnecessary provocation.” That`s pretty soft language compared to the way she talked about the mosque. Actually, why don’t we look at Palin’s entire posting at Facebook: Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero. I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don’t feed that fire. If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive.  Our nation was founded in part by those fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of religion is integral to our charters of liberty. We don’t need to agree with each other on theological matters, but tolerating each other without unnecessarily provoking strife is how we ensure a civil society. In this as in all things, we should remember the Golden Rule. Isn’t that what the Ground Zero mosque debate has been about?  That seems like a pretty strong condemnation of Jones’s plan, doesn’t it? Yet Matthews never once read the entire thing to his viewers. Instead, he continued with his pathetic plot:  SANCHEZ: They`re — not judging her, it`s the fact — MATTHEWS: It`s insensitive? We have a travel alert. (CROSSTALK) SANCHEZ: But why pick out Sarah Palin? I guess that`s my point. MATTHEWS: Because I`m looking at the news that came in this morning. And, all of a sudden, she`s getting her fingers into this thing. Your thoughts, Steve. I think it`s incredible that she would be so soft — taking such a soft line on this guy burning the Koran, because you never attack to the right when you`re on the right. That`s what I think is going on here. Excuse me! Matthews and his network have been criticizing Republicans for not speaking out against this guy. Now that some have, he accuses them of aiding and abetting the Pastor! How pathetic:  SANCHEZ: But for what political purpose? That`s what I`m saying. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: — with as far out, with as far out with the fringe as she can, because that`s her base. (CROSSTALK) STEVE MCMAHON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: That`s right. It`s not just her base. It`s the people that are taking over the party. It`s the Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh — MATTHEWS: You can`t hurt by being friendly with the right. MCMAHON: –. base of the Republican Party. Exactly. You cannot be too far right, because especially if you`re thinking about running for president or if you want to have a controversial talk show on FOX, you need to do these things. And they generate headlines. They get people like us talking. And it works for Sarah Palin, who wants to be an entertainer and a provocateur. I`m not sure it works very well if she wants to be the president of the United States. MATTHEWS: Do you think that`s a statement you could live with, Leslie, people have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to? Do you like the phraseology there? People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to? Do you like that — The hypocrisy on display here was astonishing. For weeks, folks like Matthews have been telling the American people that the backers of the Ground Zero mosque have a Constitutional right to build it there, and this supersedes the public’s overwhelming opposition. By contrast, the conservative position has been to recognize the Constitutionality in play while questioning the wisdom of doing something that would offend so many Americans. As such, Palin – and Boehner as you’ll see in a bit – were making the exact same argument concerning Jones: he has the right to burn these Korans, but they wish he wouldn’t. Not only didn’t Matthews see the consistency in these positions, he was the one being inconsistent by now claiming Jones’s Constitutional rights were irrelevant and represented a “soft” position on Palin’s part. The net result is that the Constitution in Matthews’ mind must only protect those involved with the Ground Zero mosque but not Pastor Jones:  (CROSSTALK) SANCHEZ: First off, I`m not going to put Sarah Palin`s words in my mouth. Let`s put it that way. MATTHEWS: OK. Good. SANCHEZ: I can speak for myself. But I will say this much. I think you play too much into this game that Sarah Palin wants you to do, which is — talking from a conservative Republican perspective, I think we were very clear, both bipartisanly, from a bipartisan perspective, of how people felt about how ludicrous his statements were and his actions to be. MATTHEWS: Whose were? SANCHEZ: The reverend in this case. MATTHEWS: Sure. SANCHEZ: And I think why can`t we talk in solidarity about that? It`s all this — this ruse that it`s Sarah Palin pulling the strings – – (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I just want to know — I will go back to my question — why did she throw him the life jacket and say, put this on, tie it to the mosque? Why did she do that? Why did Boehner do that? Nobody else was doing it in the media. I wasn`t drawing the connection. Then you’re either an idiot or a liar, Mr. Matthews, for there not only is a connection here, but also people like you and the rest of the media would have totally ignored Jones if the Ground Zero mosque wasn’t currently an issue:  SANCHEZ: She — MATTHEWS: These characters were sitting, were on the show right here, talking to me, both these pastors, Sapp and Jones — neither one of them mentioned the mosque. Both long interviews. I said, is there anyone who could appeal to, we could appeal to you to stop this? Or any — nobody mentioned the mosque until today, after these stories moved by your — people on the far right. Not on the right. People like Boehner, just a Republican golfer. (LAUGHTER) SANCHEZ: Well, the tan is important. But to be fair to that point, I think a lot of people were talking about it. If you want to see that`s a lifeline, I think you`re going to see it regardless of anything that I have to say. MCMAHON: It`s interesting — it`s interesting here, though, if people continue to draw a connection between the actions and the words of John Boehner and Sarah Palin and suggest that somehow the leaders of the Republican Party and the woman who is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president — I mean, that`s why this makes so much news — if there`s some suggestion that the Republican Party is sort of behind this guy, and manipulating this guy, I think it further alienates the Republican Party — SANCHEZ: Further. MCMAHON: — from the majority of Americans who feel differently about this. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: There`s a big difference between the difficult question of building a mosque a couple blocks from the World Trade Center, which I`ve always said on this program is a difficult question. I`ve admired Michael Bloomberg for the courageous position he`s taken given the fact of his job up there. But I think there`s two sides of that argument. Can we agree there`s no two sides to the argument about burning religious books on world television? Can we agree on it? No, we certainly can’t agree for they both involve folks exercising their Constitutional rights in a fashion that the majority of citizens find offensive. They are indeed the exact same issue, and any suggestion to the contrary demonstrates ignorance, willful dishonesty, or both:  MCMAHON: Yes. Yes, we can agree. MATTHEWS: OK. We just got the word that Gates — Secretary Gates did make a call to the reverend to try to smooth this thing out or end this thing. Maybe that was influential. Here`s John Boehner making the point I was trying to relate to here, conflating — there`s a word I don`t like, but it`s big these days on the right — conflating Koran-burning with the Islamic center near Ground Zero. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), MINORITY LEADER: To Pastor Jones and those who want to build the mosque, just because you have a right to do something in America, does not mean it is the right thing to do. (END VIDEO CLIP) Exactly. And this is the same position the Right has taken concerning the Ground Zero mosque. Not surprisingly, Matthews was having none of it:  MATTHEWS: That was healthy. We call that in the NBA, an assist. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: That`s called an assist. SANCHEZ: No, I mean — MATTHEWS: Or an alley-hoop actually. SANCHEZ: Wow. MATTHEWS: Get it near the top of the rim so the other guy can put it in.  I ask you: do you need a better example of liberal media bias? Matthews and his colleagues complain for days that Republicans aren’t doing anything to stop Jones from burning Korans on Saturday. Two top GOP figures do, and they’re accused of helping the Pastor. Makes you want to throw your television set out the window, doesn’t it? 

More:
Chris Matthews Accuses Sarah Palin of Aiding and Abetting Koran-burning Pastor

CNN’s Feyerick Promotes Ground Zero Mosque Imam

CNN’s Deborah Feyerick played up Imam Feisal Rauf’s apparent credentials as a “moderate” Muslim during a report on Wednesday’s American Morning. Feyerick omitted using sound bites from Rauf’s critics, and only briefly mentioned his controversial remarks about on CBS’s 60 Minutes about the 9/11 attacks and his reluctance to condemn Hamas. The CNN correspondent’s report led the 6 am Eastern hour, and was re-broadcast throughout the day on the network. Almost immediately, Feyerick stressed how Rauf is apparently a “voice of moderation” by playing three clips from three who unequivocally endorse him- the State Department’s P. J. Crowley, mosque developer Sharif El-Gamal, and Professor John Esposito of Georgetown University. She continued by describing the Islamic cleric as a ” Sufi Muslim, at the other end of the Islamic spectrum from the radical theology that feeds groups like al Qaeda .” After two further sound bites from Esposito, who gushed over Imam Rauf, Feyerick highlighted his background: “According to his biography, Feisal Abdul Rauf was born in Kuwait in 1948 into an Egyptian family steeped in religious scholarship . In 1997, he founded the non-profit American Society for Muslim Advancement- its mission, described on its website, as ‘strengthening an authentic expression of Islam based on cultural and religious harmony through interfaith collaboration, youth, and women’s empowerment.'” The correspondent didn’t bring up Rauf’s controversial past until the end of her report, and almost as an after-thought: ” He was criticized after 9/11 for saying U.S. support of oppressive regimes was partly responsible for the attacks, but maintained his remarks on 60 Minutes had been taken out of context. Rauf supports Israel’s right to exist, but says as a bridge builder, he can’t condemn radical Palestinian group Hamas as terrorists .” Overall, Feyerick played six clips in favor of the imam, and none critical of him. She didn’t even quote from any specific critic of his. Feyerick has been on a roll, as of late, with her recent one-sided reporting on the Ground Zero mosque and related “Islamophobia” issues. On August 26, she advanced the theory that the stabbing of Muslim taxicab driver in New York City may have been ” connected to this big Ground Zero controversy, where we’re hearing so much anti-Muslim sentiment .” Exactly a week later, on September 2, the CNN correspondent c ontinued her network’s promotion of the charge that “Islamophobia” is a growing phenomenon inside the U.S. The full transcript of Deborah Feyerick’s report from Wednesday’s American Morning: FEYERICK (voice-over): If you have never heard him speak, this is what Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has to say. IMAM FEISAL ABDUL RAUF: The major theme in Islam is the oneness of God, and that we should worship one God- love and adore the one God. FEYERICK: People who know Imam Feisal say he’s a voice of moderation. The State Department- STATE DEPARTMENT ASSISTANT SECRETARY P. J. CROWLEY: His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well known. FEYERICK: The developer of the controversial Islamic center near Ground Zero. SHARIF EL-GAMAL: He is somebody who has sacrificed his life to building bridges within communities. FEYERICK: Islamic scholar and university professor John Esposito. FEYERICK (on-camera): How would you describe him? Is he a threat? JOHN ESPOSITO, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Feisal is, from my point of view- he is ‘Mr. Mellow.’ FEYERICK (voice-over): Imam Feisal is a Sufi Muslim, at the other end of the Islamic spectrum from the radical theology that feeds groups like al Qaeda. ESPOSITO: He approaches Islam spiritually. He is a Sufi in background, which means one pursues, if you will, a more, kind of, spiritual mystical path. He’s somebody who would find terrorism and religious extremism as abhorrent. He’s run a mosque in this area for years and years and years. FEYERICK: That mosque, the Masjid al-Farah, is 10 blocks from Ground Zero, and has co-existed peacefully in the Tribeca neighborhood for 28 years. ESPOSITO: He has integrated himself into the community. FEYERICK: According to his biography, Feisal Abdul Rauf was born in Kuwait in 1948 into an Egyptian family steeped in religious scholarship. In 1997, he founded the non-profit American Society for Muslim Advancement- its mission, described on its website, as ‘strengthening an authentic expression of Islam based on cultural and religious harmony through interfaith collaboration, youth, and women’s empowerment.’ Several years later, Rauf founded the Cordoba Institute to improve relations between the Muslim world and the West, writing how American Muslims can help bridge the divide. The State Department noticed, sending him as a cultural ambassador on four trips to the Middle East, most recently this summer. GRAEME BANNERMAN, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: They try to get people who reflect the best aspects of American society. FEYERICK: Rauf is often asked to speak at meetings like the World Economic Forum in Davos. He was criticized after 9/11 for saying U.S. support of oppressive regimes was partly responsible for the attacks, but maintained his remarks on 60 Minutes had been taken out of context. Rauf supports Israel’s right to exist, but says as a bridge builder, he can’t condemn radical Palestinian group Hamas as terrorists. As for the proposed Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero, he says that, too, is about bridges. RAUF: This is also our expression of the 99.999 percent of Muslims all over the world, including in America, who have condemned and continue to condemn terrorism. This is about our stand as the Muslim community, which has been part of this community. FEYERICK: But right now, this moderate Muslim cleric finds himself at the eye of a storm. Deborah Feyerick, CNN, New York.

Read the original:
CNN’s Feyerick Promotes Ground Zero Mosque Imam

NYT Calls New Yorkers ‘Appalling’ for Opposing Ground Zero Mosque

The New York Times Friday called many of its readers “appalling” for their opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. As NewsBusters reported moments ago, the Times released a new poll Friday finding that 67 percent of New York City residents are against the proposed location for the Islamic center. At the same time, the Gray Lady, clearly not concerned about offending its dwindling number of patrons, chose to insult portions of its remaining readership with the following editorial : It has always been a myth that New York City, in all its dizzying globalness, is a utopia of humanistic harmony. The city has a bloody history of ethnic and class strife. The Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island are two pinnacles of American openness to the outsider. New Yorkers like to think they are a perfect fit with their city. Tolerance, however, isn’t the same as understanding, so it is appalling to see New Yorkers who could lead us all away from mosque madness, who should know better, playing to people’s worst instincts. That includes Carl Paladino and Rick Lazio, Republicans running for governor who have disgraced their state with histrionics about the mosque being a terrorist triumph. And Rudolph Giuliani, who cloaks his opposition to the mosque as “sensitivity” to 9/11 families without acknowledging that this conflates all prayerful Muslims with terrorists, a despicable conclusion. New Yorkers, like other Americans, have a way to go. That’s a heckuva way to treat your patrons as well as prospective customers. Is it any wonder this company’s stock is trading close to a 26-year low?

Excerpt from:
NYT Calls New Yorkers ‘Appalling’ for Opposing Ground Zero Mosque