Tag Archives: crime

CNN Joins Media Speculation on NYC Stabbing’s Connection to Mosque Debate

CNN’s Deborah Feyerick joined the media guessing game as to the motivation behind the stabbing of Muslim taxicab driver in New York City, emphasizing the possibility it may have been ” connected to this big Ground Zero controversy, where we’re hearing so much anti-Muslim sentiment .” Feyerick raised this hypothesis during reports on Thursday’s Rick’s List and The Situation Room. The correspondent’s first report on the attack aired 12 minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour of Rick’s List. Anchor Rick Sanchez played a clip from victim Ahmed Sharif’s press conference on Thursday before introducing Feyerick. She began by stating that when “Michael Enright, the suspect, was arrested, he had numerous journals and notebooks on him, all of them filled with writings, some of it completely illegible. That is now with authorities, all of that being vetted and looked through to see whether, in fact, there was anything indicating that he had undergone some sort of a mental or emotional change.” Feyerick did mention that Enright “ironically…was a volunteer working for a non-profit organization that promotes peace,” but didn’t mentioned that the organization, Intersections International, actually supports the planned mosque near Ground Zero . She continued with the speculation over the possible motivation of the attack, including the “anti-Muslim” charge: FEYERICK: So, there are two very, very different pieces of the puzzle that investigators are now trying to figure out. Was this simply a crime that occurred because of some emotional stress, like PTSD, or i s it connected to this big Ground Zero controversy, where we’re hearing so much anti-Muslim sentiment? Was that the trigger? The CNN correspondent gave a more thorough report on the stabbing over two and a half hours later during the bottom half of the 6 pm Eastern hour of The Situation Room. Feyerick interviewed a representative from Intersections International, whose affiliation was identified on-screen, but again didn’t explicitly mention the organization by name or its support for the planned mosque. She twice raised the possibility of “anti-Islamic sentiment” during this second report: FEYERICK: The executive director of your group said- quote, ‘The transformative experience an impressionable mind can have in five short weeks- there are intense emotions surrounding that.’ Did anyone see a change in him? JOSEPH WARD, INTERSECTIONS INTERNATIONAL: Michael has been a responsible volunteer for our organization, and he was very consistent in that, in the whole year that we worked with him. FEYERICK (voice-over): Enright volunteered for a non-profit group promoting peace between different races and religions . He helped soldiers deal with the trauma of returning home. But what caused Enright to snap? The death of a soldier he met, maybe- or, perhaps, growing anti-Islamic sentiment fueled by controversy over the proposed Islamic center and mosque? Maybe it was something else entirely. Sharif says Enright asked if he was Muslim, seconds before allegedly shouting, “Salaam aleikum [Arabic for, ‘Peace be upon you’]- consider this a checkpoint,’ then stabbing the defenseless cab driver. AHMED SHARIF: Of course, it was for my religion. FEYERICK: Prosecutors have charged the attack as a hate crime, but are investigating what caused Enright to allegedly snap. FEYERICK (live): Now, investigators are looking into a number of personal journals that Enright was carrying when he was arrested after this assault. They also say that inside his backpack was an empty bottle of Scotch. He was intoxicated when he was arrested. Now, as for Enright’s attorney, we placed some calls to him- we are waiting to hear back. He does face a long sentence if convicted of this hate crime, and that’s what this is being charged as. Suzanne? MALVEAUX: And Deborah, is- does anybody say that he snapped? Is he saying that, or his attorneys, or- where is that coming from? FEYERICK: It seems so out of character- what he did; why he did it; this, sort of, mounting need or desire. So it’s unclear whether he saw something when he was- you know, in the theater of war, or- there’s so much, sort of, anti-Islamic sentiment now because of this mosque- a lot of authorities are saying it’s- people have to be very, very careful, because it’s the kind of hate speech that could lead people to do things. So they’re really monitoring very closely whether there is a rise in hate crimes, and this is considered a hate crime. Just over a month earlier, on July 21, Feyerick actually conducted a hardball interview of mosque developer Sharif el-Gamel, where she asked, “Why not have a prayer space for Buddhists or Jews or Christians…why must it be Muslim?” When el-Gamel initially replied, “There are Jewish community centers all over the country,” the correspondent interrupted, “But the Jews didn’t take down two towers.” The developer continued that “there are YMCA’s all over the country,” but she gave a similar reply: “But the Christians didn’t take down two towers.”

View original post here:
CNN Joins Media Speculation on NYC Stabbing’s Connection to Mosque Debate

Lindsay Lohan Tweets For First Time Since Rehab

Actress blasts paparazzi in her return to Twitter. By Mawuse Ziegbe Lindsay Lohan Photo: Dave McNew/ Getty Images After a fairly rough summer, Lindsay Lohan is getting back into the swing of things. The actress, who left rehab Tuesday after spending 23 days in court-ordered treatment, has returned to Twitter . In her first tweet as a free woman, Lohan targeted some familiar foes: paparazzi. “Clearly.. Paparazzi shouldn’t be allowed to take pictures or video while someone’s driving or at a stop light. 4every1’s sake #trafficpolice,” the starlet tweeted Thursday (August 26). Just like her constantly changing hair color and shenanigans behind the wheel, Lohan’s run-ins with photogs have marked her years in an unrelenting spotlight. A car crash that Lohan claimed was the fault of an overzealous snapper partly inspired a California law aimed at cracking down on eager paparazzi. In her return to the social-networking site, Lohan appears to have revisited her tradition of oversharing and antagonizing others via the Web. The actress’ turbulent relationship with ex-girlfriend Samantha Ronson played out in front of millions of viral fans, with both ladies typing swipes at each other. More recently, bawdy comedienne Joan Rivers went after Lohan on Twitter before the actress began her stint in jail. Lohan has also blasted her publicity-hungry father, Michael, on the site as well. Even if Lohan has taken up her viral antics once again, many have hope the actress can bounce back from her recent troubles. “I feel like people in the film industry are rooting for her,” film critic Ryan Gilbey recently told MTV News . “[Director Quentin] Tarantino has been saying great, supportive things about her and how brilliant she’s in this movie he’s produced [‘Machete’].” Indeed, her “Machete” co-stars have been beaming about Lohan’s performance in the flick. “I wish her all the best. I mean, she’s a talented young actress,” Cheech Marin told MTV News at the film’s premiere. “Hopefully, she won’t let her personal life overwhelm her professional life. … At some point, you gotta be responsible.” “She’s so good in this movie,” Jessica Alba added of “Machete.” “I can’t wait for people to see [her in] it.” Are you happy Lindsay Lohan is tweeting again? Let us know in the comments below! Related Videos Lindsay Lohan: Crime And Punishment Related Photos The Highs And Lows Of Lindsay Lohan Related Artists Lindsay Lohan

Follow this link:
Lindsay Lohan Tweets For First Time Since Rehab

‘Machete’ Cast Thinks Lindsay Lohan’s ‘Gonna Be All Right’

Lohan’s co-stars praise the performance by the actress, who recently left rehab. By Jocelyn Vena, with reporting by Kara Warner Jessica Alba, Danny Trejo and Michelle Rodriguez at the “Machete” premiere Photo: Kevin Winter/ Getty Images Most of the cast of “Machete” was on hand in Los Angeles on Wednesday (August 25) to celebrate the premiere of their B-movie-inspired, Robert Rodriguez-directed flick. But one of the film’s stars was noticeably absent: Lindsay Lohan, who had been released from rehab a day earlier. The young actress’ road to recovery was on the mind of her co-stars. “You know what, I just care about her as a person,” Don Johnson told MTV News on the red carpet. “God bless her and she’s gonna do fine.” That sentiment was mirrored by Danny Trejo, who added, “Get home, girl! You’re gonna be all right. She’s gonna be fine. She knows what to do.” Another one of the flick’s stars, Cheech Marin, wanted to let Lohan know he supports her, and that he hopes this incident will be a catalyst for her getting her life back on track. “I wish her all the best. I mean, she’s a talented young actress,” he said. “Hopefully, she won’t let her personal life overwhelm her professional life … at some point, you gotta be responsible.” Michelle Rodriguez felt that publicly wishing Lindsay the best would not just benefit her former co-star. “I just think everybody should have in mind that when you wish the best for people around you, it only makes your country, your society, your culture better,” she explained. “So I think that we should all just respect the evolutionary paths of people and as much as we possibly can wish for the better, for light.” Earlier in the night, Jessica Alba praised Lohan , saying, “She’s so good in this movie. I can’t wait for people to see [her in] it.” Praise for Lohan’s performance also came from the film’s director. “She’s awesome in the movie. That’s what they’ll see: the actress behind all that paparazzi nonsense that follows her and won’t leave her alone,” Robert Rodriguez said. “They’ll get to see her and say, ‘Oh, that’s why we follow her around.’ ” Related Videos Lindsay Lohan: Crime And Punishment Related Photos ‘Machete’ Premieres In Los Angeles Related Artists Lindsay Lohan

Excerpt from:
‘Machete’ Cast Thinks Lindsay Lohan’s ‘Gonna Be All Right’

Lindsay Lohan Faces Home Confinement, Outpatient Rehab

Actress was released from court-ordered rehab Tuesday. By Gil Kaufman Lindsay Lohan Photo: Dave McNew/ Getty Images Even though Lindsay Lohan was released from an inpatient drug rehab facility Tuesday after serving less than one-third of her court-ordered 90-day stint, that doesn’t mean the “Mean Girls” star is free to do as she pleases. Lohan, 24, who previously logged 13 days in jail on a 90-day sentence for a probation violation, faces a number of rigorous requirements if she wants to stay on the outside and not face another, longer term in jail.

Read this article:
Lindsay Lohan Faces Home Confinement, Outpatient Rehab

Can Lindsay Lohan Make A Comeback?

‘She’ll either be forgotten, she’ll be dead, tragically, or she’ll have an Academy Award,’ one PR expert tells MTV News. By Gil Kaufman Lindsay Lohan Photo: OutOfSightMedia/ Getty Images Troubled actress Lindsay Lohan has completed her jail term (13 of 90 days) and, on Tuesday, her court-ordered stint at an inpatient rehab facility (23 of 90 days). So now that she’s back on the outside, can the onetime rising Hollywood starlet get her career groove back? Though the annals of Tinseltown are littered with stories of crackups that actors and actresses were unable to bounce back from, Lohan need look no further than Oscar winner Robert Downey Jr. for proof that once-left-for-dead careers trashed by drugs and erratic behavior can indeed be revived and thrive once again.

Read the rest here:
Can Lindsay Lohan Make A Comeback?

Blaming the victim of rape is wrong. Don’t do it. Make sure others don’t do it.

I wanted to post this because I saw a lot of rape apologists on a recent thread on here. Maybe this will raise some awareness. And it's written by a guy, so maybe other dudes will have an easier time grasping it. -AL http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/8/882464/-Blaming-the-victim-of-rape-is-wro… ___ I meant to write this diary a long time ago—in fact, I meant it as a followup diary to my On Rape and Men (Brace Yourself), which I still receive mail for (mostly positive). I have received a few stories that have prompted me to finally write a follow-up diary. So here it is. I will be addressing this issue largely as a women's issue—uh, because it is—but I will also cover male victims of rape because they are a feminist issue as well. To put the thesis of this diary simply, the victim of rape is never at fault. I. Why We Blame and Why It's Wrong Before we get into why it's wrong to blame the victim of rape, I think it's important to examine why many people feel inclined to blame the victim. Ellen Friedrichs shares a compelling theory: Another study done by researchers in Israel found that people blame rape victims in order to maintain a sense of control over their own lives. As they write, In general, the results show that subjects attribute blame to the rape victim. Attribution of blame helps to reinforce the casual observer’s belief that the world is a safe, protected place, and that occurrences such as rape can be controlled…Blame reflects the way in which people organize data regarding events and behaviors that have actual or potential adverse consequences. It is possible that, given the perception that women are vulnerable, exposed, and more aware of their vulnerability, they are expected to act with extra caution to avoid rape, and are therefore judged more harshly when actually victimized. These results can explain victim blaming more as a self-defense mechanism than a callous act of judgment or misogyny. When you believe that victims are to blame for their assaults, you can ensure you won't make the same mistakes. I understand the thought process here—we want to believe the bad things that happen to others are their fault because we want to believe we have a disproportionate level of control over what happens to our persons—but it's still wrong. The fact that women are regarded as more vulnerable and exposed should be a cause for us to blame the people who assert their power over them unjustly, NOT the women themselves. This debate is one that boils down to a debate of agency: how much control do men have over their own actions? As a male feminist, I believe that men have a good degree of control over their actions, especially when it comes to their decision to rape somebody or not. Blaming the victim of rape implicitly suggests that men are incapable of exerting control over this particular decision, which is ridiculous. Victim-blamers point to different things in order to justify their mentality and one of the most popular is “She was drunk. She shouldn't have been drinking in such a place. She knew what could have happened!” Here's one of the worst examples of victim-blaming I've seen, which to my chagrin was written by a female Princeton student: Did she have the right to accuse the boy of rape? Before you say yes, think about this for a minute: Should the fact that she willingly got herself into an advanced state of inebriation prevent her from complaining about anything that happened to her while she was in that state? She knew what would happen if she started drinking. We all know that the more people drink, the less likely they are to make wise decisions. It is common sense. Therefore, the girl willingly got herself into a state in which she could not act rationally. This, in my opinion, is equivalent to agreeing to anything that might happen to her while in this state. In the case of our girl, this happened to be sex with a stranger. Sorry, but if you agree with this reasoning, there's something really wrong with you: inebriation in an environment with men implies consent to anything? That's disgusting. This view is probably more common than I would like, though the reasoning for it is usually not explicitly stated like it is here. But when it comes to rape involving the woman consuming alcohol, you see a lot of people focus on that factor, even though it was the man who perpetrated the rape. It reflects a mentality that views women as these delicate creatures who must take steps to avoid the autonomic impulses of men. On the contrary, the societal onus should be on men to not fucking rape, namely because the decision to rape or not is voluntary. Another factor that people point to is what the woman was wearing at the time of the rape. Obviously what the woman was wearing does not make her rape any more or less justifiable: it's unjustified regardless of what she was wearing. But this particular factor obfuscates the debate because it implies that rape is about lusting after a female body. Feminists know that rape is about power and can present evidence that it's not about lust or provocative behaviour: Myth: Rape victims provoke the attach by wearing provocative clothing * Most convicted rapists do not remember what their victims were wearing. * Victims range in age from days old to those in their nineties, hardly provocative dressers. * A Federal Commission on Crime of Violence Study found that only 4.4% of all reported rapes involved provocative behavior on the part of the victim. In murder cases 22% involved such behavior (as simple as a glance). This, and flirtatious behavior preceding the rape, are usually the excuses for remarks like “she had it coming”. But as with dressing provocatively, flirtatious behavior is not explicit consent to sex, nor is it justifiable grounds for blaming the victim of rape. Blaming the victim on a personal level also leads to unnecessary feelings of revictimization and contributes to a stigma that makes it hard for other victims to come forward. II. Addressing Attacks on the Last Diary My previous diary set off a firestorm of straw men and male apprehension at the notion that their gender is largely responsible for the problem. A few commenters pointed to male victims of rape in order to “distribute blame” and put an irrational focus on the false accusations of rape. On the subject of male victims of rape, either by male or female assailants, it is a horrible trauma regardless of who it happens to. But invoking male victims of rape to try and trivialize a systemic problem that overwhelmingly affects women is something I consider to be unconscionable and in effect also trivializes what male victims experienced. And yes, of the reported rape cases, women overwhelmingly make up the cases: 1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape). 17.7 million American women have been victims of attempted or completed rape. 9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003. Stating that fact though doesn't mean we have to treat male victims of rape in a trivialized fashion, but again, one shouldn't invoke male victims to make it look like it happens to both genders equally in an attempt “distribute blame.” …full article at link added by: animalia_libero

Report: Shirley Sherrod to Meet with Vilsack on Tuesday; Will the Press Raise Worker Exploitation Charges?

The Theater of the Sherrod(s) is apparently not over. At AL.com last night, Mike Tomberlin of the Birmingham News reported the following : Former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod says she will meet Tuesday with agriculture secretary Shirley Sherrod, the former USDA rural development director for Georgia, said today she plans to meet Tuesday with U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to discuss a new job offer. … Sherrod today spoke in the Sumter County town of Epes at an event hosted by the Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund. Ben Jealous, executive director of the NAACP, shared the stage with Sherrod during a panel discussion. Sherrod said she had no ill feelings toward the NAACP or President Barack Obama. It the meeting does indeed occur, it will be an interesting test of establishment media credibility, given the accusations leveled at Ms. Sherrod and her husband Charles by Ron Wilkins at the leftist publication Counterpunch several weeks ago . Here are some of the specifics: The Other Side of Shirley Sherrod … The swirling controversy over the racist dismissal of Shirley Sherrod from her USDA post has obscured her profoundly oppositional behavior toward black agricultural workers in the 1970s. What most of Mrs. Sherrod’s supporters are not aware of is the elitist and anti-black-labor role that she and fellow managers of New Communities Inc. (NCI) played. These individuals under-paid, mistreated and fired black laborers–many of them less than 16 years of age–in the same fields of southwest Georgia where their ancestors suffered under chattel slavery. … Mrs. Sherrod says she began to see poverty as more central than race. So, should indigent black child farm laborers warrant less reflection by Mrs. Sherrod? What lessons does she have to share from her tenure as management when she had power over her own people working under deplorable conditions at the same New Communities, Inc.(NCI) identified in the current issue? Shirley Sherrod could have included this chapter of her history in the same confession speech. Justice and integrity require at least as much accountability from Mrs. Sherrod to the poor black farm workers of NCI as to the white farmers she came to befriend. This lack of full disclosure of the whole truth is a “sin of omission” that trivializes the suffering of poor black farm workers and exacerbates the offenses of NCI. Shirley Sherrod was New Communities Inc. store manager during the 1970s. As such, Mrs. Sherrod was a key member of the NCI administrative team, which exploited and abused the workforce in the field. The 6,000 acre New Communities Inc. in Lee County promoted itself during the latter part of the 1960s and throughout the 70s as a land trust committed to improving the lives of the rural black poor. Underneath this facade, the young and old worked long hours with few breaks, the pay averaged sixty-seven cents an hour, fieldwork behind equipment spraying pesticides was commonplace and workers expressing dissatisfaction were fired without recourse. … Worker protest at New Communities eventually garnered some assistance from the United Farm Workers Union in nearby Florida in the person of one of its most formidable organizers, black State Director, the late Mack Lyons. The September 28, 1974 UFW newspaper El Malcriado, page two, reported on the worker’s strike (“Children Farm Workers Strike Black Co-op”) and the UFW stepped in to protect black farm workers from exploitation by NCI. Fearful of both UFW efforts to unionize NCI’s labor force and scrutiny by the Georgia State Wage and Hour Division, the Sherrods and NCI management hastily issued checks in varying amounts to strikers to makeup ostensibly for minimum wage differentials. It is bitter irony that the Sherrods have succeeded in being awarded $300,000 following a discrimination lawsuit, while Mrs. Hawkins and other impoverished NCI black laborers whom NCI exploited were never adequately compensated for their “pain and suffering”. In addition to the “pain and suffering” payments Wilkins noted, NCI “won a thirteen million dollar settlement in the minority farmers law suit Pigford vs Vilsack.” This occurred in late July of last year, just a few days before Sherrod was hired by Vilsack to be the USDA’s Georgia Director for Rural Development. A graphic of the full article to which Mr. Wilkins referred is here . The two most damning paragraphs are these, which directly relate to Charles Sherrod: Your eyes are not deceiving you. The UFW accused the Sherrods of using scab labor. Wilkins wrapped up his Counterpunch column with a challenge: Ask Shirley Sherrod about this part of her history. I know this story well, for I was one of those workers at NCI. Will the establishment press follow up? Based on the non-coverage of Wilkins’s accusations during past three weeks, the prognosis is: “Very doubtful.” A Google News search on “Ron Wilkins” (in quotes) returns all of 10 items , eight of which relate to the Cal State professor’s accusations. Three of those eight cover two items authored by yours truly, including this August 8 NewsBusters post . Of the remaining five, three are posts at center-right blogs ( NCPPR , American Thinker , Patriot Post ). There is also an excerpt at the Daily Caller , plus an item at Digital Journal . A search on “Ron Wilkins” (not in quotes) at the New York Times returns nothing relevant . It’s virtually inconceivable that such damaging baggage would be ignored if a conservative, Republican, or important businessperson had been similarly accused of worker exploitation. The Associated Press has picked the Birmingham News item, which is on the wire service’s raw national feed. There are now no valid excuses for ignoring what Wilkins has alleged. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read more:
Report: Shirley Sherrod to Meet with Vilsack on Tuesday; Will the Press Raise Worker Exploitation Charges?

The Incredible Hypnotist Richard Barker Street Hypnosis in Orlando,Fl

Richard Barker the incredible hypnotist goes to Lake Eola in Orlando Florida where he hypnotizes people in the street. The street hypnotist comes across a homeless man in a wheel chair who is paralyzed and gets him to stand up, it is amazing. Random passers buy are dropped into a trance like a sack of potatoes added by: motomaxx

Wikileaks Lawyer Says Pentagon Given Access to Unpublished Secret Documents – Newsweek

A U.S. lawyer representing the whistleblowing web site Wikileaks says U.S. government officials have been given codes and passwords granting them online access to official U.S. government documents that Wikileaks so far has not published. Timothy Matusheski, a lawyer from Hattiesburg, Miss., who says he represents whistleblowers and has been in touch with both Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and at least one government official involved in investigations of Wikileaks, said Wikileaks had set up a “secure channel” through which authorized users could access the unpublished material. He said credentials for using this Web site had been forwarded to representatives of the U.S. government whom he did not identify. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Matusheski said U.S. officials had even been given access to an online mechanism where they would be able to redact what they consider potentially sensitive information. Matusheski says he himself has only been given a portion of the codes needed to access the unpublished material. So, he says, the U.S. government now has wider and more complete access to the material than he did. added by: toyotabedzrock

Lauer to Giuliani: Some Say Mosque Protestors Were Ones That Added ‘Vitriol’ to the Debate

NBC’s Matt Lauer invited on Rudy Giuliani to discuss the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque with the former New York City mayor diplomatically addressing most of the religious freedom concerns while still recommending that the site be moved, but Lauer furthered the notion that the imam fronting the project was not at fault for the “vitriol” in the debate, as he questioned the former mayor: “Some would say he didn’t create the vicious, angry battle. That it’s the people who decided to weigh in on it who add, added the vitriol to the battle.” To which Giuliani responded that “they’re wrong…if you are a healer, you do not go forward with this project.” The following is the full interview with Giuliani as it was aired on the August 19 Today show: MATT LAUER: Now the debate raging over those plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero. The current mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, has been one of the most vocal proponents of that mosque. But former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has a different opinion. Mr. Mayor, good morning. It’s nice to see you. RUDY GIULIANI: Good morning. LAUER: What’s your problem with it? I mean most people say, look, it’s, it’s legal, it’s within the Constitution. We protect religious freedom in this country. Why don’t you think it should be built there? GIULIANI: I agree with all that. And beyond that it’s an as of right project, as far as I can tell under New York law. They never even had to go through all those reviews they went through. The question here is a question of sensitivity, people’s feelings. And, are you really what you pretend to be? As I understand this, this Cordoba House, the idea of it is to healing. To show that Muslims care about the same things as Christians and Jews do. That we’re one people. That we should be one. Well, if you’re going to, if you’re going to so horribly offend the people that were most directly offended by this, most directly affected by this, the families of the September 11 victims — who I happen to know and have gotten to know, you know, really well — then how are you healing? I mean all this is doing is creating more division, more anger, more hatred, and I mean, there are, there are- LAUER: Are you worried about the imam behind this project? In terms of his politics, his religious beliefs, do you find him to be anything but the moderate that he’s described as by the current administration, and by the way, the Bush administration before that? GIULIANI: I’m confused by the imam. I see all the things that you’re saying. But I also see a man who said that America was an accessory to September 11. That, those are the very words that required me to give $10 million back to an Arab chic or prince. He gave us $10 million for the 9/11 fund. LAUER: Let me just clarify so people understand what you’re saying. Shortly after 9/11 on 60 minutes he said, quote, “I wouldn’t say the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened on 9/11, because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world.” GIULIANI: Well, that, that’s exactly what the, what the Arab prince said when he gave me $10 million. That America was an accessory to September 11 because of its foreign policy. America was not an accessory to September 11. All you gotta do is read about jihad. And the second thing, the second thing he said was, he refused to condemn Hamas, with whom he is alleged to have had some ties, as a terrorist group. It’s recognized by everyone as a terrorist group. And he said America should apologize. So, okay, that’s one part of him. The other part of him is he has had a history of appearing to be a healer, appearing to be someone that wants to talk about a moderate Islam. Appearing- LAUER: Yeah he’s made appearances with Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes. GIULIANI: -appearing, appearing to recognize there are two ways you can interpret the Koran. The, the better way, which is the peaceful way, or the warrior way, which is the way in which you get into trouble with jihad. But those quotes trouble me. But here’s what troubled me more. If he’s truly about healing, he will not go forward with this project, because this project is not healing. LAUER: Let, let me- GIULIANI: This project is divisive. This project is creating tremendous pain to people who have already paid the ultimate sacrifice. LAUER: There are a lot of, a lot of issues are divisive, and yet they have to be, tough choices have to be made. GIULIANI: But Matt- LAUER: Let me just play you- GIULIANI: But, but, but Matt, Matt. But Matt, there, there, that’s true. A lot of issues are divisive but if you want to claim to be the healer, then you’re not on the side of the person who is pushing those divisive issues. LAUER: Let me just play you something you said on, on our program, Meet the Press back on December 22nd of 2002. So about 14 months after 9/11. GIULIANI: Right. LAUER: Take a look. (Begin clip) GIULIANI: If you think about the, the attacks on September 11, I think everyone would acknowledge that part of the core of that attack was the fact that we have freedom of religion in America. That, that it’s part of why America was founded. It’s part of what we’re all about. It’s one of the most prominent things about us. That you can be a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Muslim, or no religion at all, and no one’s going to interfere with you. (End clip) LAUER: “And no one’s going to interfere with you.” By, by, by saying that these people shouldn’t build their mosque where they plan to build it, isn’t that interfering with them? GIULIANI: Well, of course not. First of all, they have freedom of religion. They can build it. They have every right to build it. The question is, should they build it? In, are they displaying the sensitivity they claim by building it? For example, the Pope asked the nuns to take a convent back from right in front of, I forgot if it was Auschwitz or one of the- LAUER: Auschwitz, it was Auschwitz. GIULIANI: -one of the concentration camps. They had a perfect right to be there. They had their freedom of religion there. The nuns were sensitive enough to the concerns of Jews that they pulled it back. Now here’s a man who is selling sensitivity. He’s got $180,000 in the bank, he wants to raise $100 million. Ask me how he’s going to do it, I don’t know. You don’t do it by creating this kind of vicious, sort of angry battle that’s going on. The people who are speaking about it- LAUER: Well some, some would say he didn’t create the vicious, angry battle. That it’s the people who decided to weigh in on it who add, added the vitriol to the battle. GIULIANI: And they’re wrong, and they’re all wrong. I was the first person on September 11 to step forward in the heat of battle, that afternoon, my third press conference and say, no group blame. Do not blame Arabs. We have to, we have to understand this is a small group, and we have to focus on them. But, the reality is, that right now, if you are a healer, you do not go forward with this project. LAUER: A couple of real quick things before- GIULIANI: If you’re a warrior, you do, but not a healer. LAUER: Before I let you go, a couple of quick things. Do you think union workers in this city- GIULIANI: I don’t know. LAUER: -plumbers, electricians, carpenters, will build on that site? GIULIANI: I told you, I told you before I returned to New York last night on an airplane, and I was walking and there were a couple of construction workers there and they told me, in their typical New York accent. “We ain’t working on that project. Let ’em see if they can go find somebody to work on that project.” My answer is, I know New York well enough, you’re going to probably find somebody to work on it. I question whether they can raise the money. Every indication from the attorney general’s reports of their charities are they have about $180,000. $100 million project. And then where is the money coming from? LAUER: In your gut do you think if we sit down a year from right now this project will be under construction at this site- GIULIANI: No. LAUER: -or a different site? GIULIANI: No. I think Governor Paterson had the best approach here. Nice compromise, find another place, have a beautiful mosque there. Don’t have it there. Don’t offend easily 80, 90 percent of the families are seriously offended. I know some people that are crying over this who have lost, who have lost loved ones. You, you or I might not even agree. We, we might say, “Okay, put the mosque there. What’s the, you know?” But maybe we haven’t lost that, that son, that father, person who if you’re watching their child today and you still remember every day that person is gone. It was an attack in the name of Islam. It was a perverted type of Islam. But a kind of prevalent view that goes on in a lot of parts of the world. So we gotta be sensitive to everybody here. LAUER: Rudy Giuliani, good to have you here. GIULIANI: Thank you, good to see you Matt. LAUER: Good to see you.

Visit link:
Lauer to Giuliani: Some Say Mosque Protestors Were Ones That Added ‘Vitriol’ to the Debate