Tag Archives: party

CNN and Time Promote Accusation That ‘Bigotry’ is Driving Mosque Debate

CNN’s American Morning and Newsroom programs on Thursday brought on Time magazine’s Bobby Ghosh to highlight his “Is America Islamophobic?” article and help promote his accusation that ” hate speech ” and ” bigotry ” have ” come out into the mainstream ” during the course of the debate over the proposed New York City mosque near Ground Zero. During his American Morning appearance, anchor Kiran Chetry hailed Ghosh’s article, which is the cover story of the upcoming August 30th issue of Time, as ” a very thoughtful piece .” Anchor Ali Velshi, who conducted the second interview of the Time deputy international editor, went further than his colleague: ” Okay, you’re American- Time magazine is required reading ….Bobby Ghosh… wrote the Islamophobia piece that I think everybody is going to have to read because if you are in this country, it’s part of the dialogue that we are involved in at this point .” But only days earlier, in an August 3 Time.com article about the imam behind the mosque, Ghosh stated that the “last legal hurdle to the proposed Islamic center near the site of the World Trade Center has been removed, but ignorance, bigotry and politics are more formidable obstacles …. Criticism [of the mosque] spans the gamut, from the ill-informed anguish of those who mistakenly view Islam as the malevolent force that brought down the towers to the ill-considered opportunism of right-wing politicians who see Islam as an easy target .” So the “thoughtful” Time editor whose latest is “required reading” even had the gall to criticize the families and the friends of those who died on 9/11, or who are generally emotionally-touched by the carnage of the attack. Ghosh didn’t speak so sharply during his two CNN appearance on Thursday, but he still went after what he labeled as “hate speech” in the controversy over the planned mosque. During the American Morning segment 15 minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour, Chetry first asked the editor, “Do you believe that this debate…typifies how people feel on larger scale about Muslims in America?” Ghosh seemed to walk back what he said on August 3: GHOSH: Well, let me clarify. You don’t have to be an Islamophobe to have reservations about this particular project. You don’t have to be prejudiced to have very genuine concerns about it . But what we have seen in the process of this debate and about mosques- not just here in New York, but all over this country- is that there has been a vicious- some very vicious hate speech has entered the mainstream of discussion in this country, and that is- certainly, we are seeing some Islamophobic views being expressed by people who we wouldn’t have expected it from – when you have legitimate political figures comparing the religion of Islam to Naziism. That is something on a scale that we have never seen before. The Time deputy editor pushed this point throughout this first interview: GHOSH: There are lots of people who feel- not unreasonably, they feel emotionally attached to that particular space. There are people who are concerned genuinely for the feelings of the families of the victims at the World Trade Center. There are people who have- as I said, perfectly legitimate reasons to have concerns. But what this debate has done is that has brought out- from previously, what was in the fringes into the mainstream, along with reasonable people- a lot of hate speech and a lot of very vicious hate speech that we haven’t heard before . CHETRY: And not just the mosque debate- the controversy over this one- but we’ve seen a bit of a change, many say, over the past few years. Any of it linked to the fact that we’ve seen more instances of either attempted or homegrown terror that we thought- I mean after 9/11, a lot of people said this is a problem the United States doesn’t have- what Europe has, problem with radicalization within our borders- and we have the Times Square bomber and a few other thwarted attempts or plots- has that added to this fear and feeling that Islam in America, perhaps, is radical in some way? GHOSH: Absolutely. There is certainly alarm that has grown in concern and suspicion. But there are also people who are taking advantage of this for political reasons- who are taking advantage of this concern- who are take advantage of the fact that a lot of Americans don’t know very much about Islam. It is a very small religion in this country, compared with some other places in the world. So many Americans- and we have a poll that shows this- we don’t really know that much about it. So- and now you have people, who for political reasons, are taking advantage of the combination of fear and lack of knowledge, and adding to this- this toxic language, and are spreading- sometimes, knowing full well- spreading lies and misrepresentations about the faith, and are tarring an entire community- an entire religion with the brush- that they are all from- that they’re all potentially terrorists . That your neighbor, who is an American citizen, and- by all polling, who’s proud to be an American citizen- happens to be a Muslim- may potentially be someone who’s plotting against us. Five and a half hours later, at the bottom of the 1 pm Eastern hour of CNN’s Newsroom, Ghosh repeated his main points, and even added an accusation of “racism” against the opponents of the mosque and other Islamic projects in the country: GHOSH: There’s a lot of Islamophobia growing in this country . It’s not as bad as some parts of Europe. There are no neo-Nazi thugs going around beating up American Muslims. But there is a lot of hate speech, and it’s getting louder and more vicious . And in these mosque protests, not just the one here in the New York, but all over the country- in these mosque protests, we’ve seen that hate speech take on a new and more venomous tinge to it. And here’s the worst part: it’s now come out into the mainstream and we’re listening to figures- not fringe lunatics, if you pardon the expression- but we’re listening to people who are held in wide respect in this country, say things that, in other contexts, would be considered completely inappropriate . VELSHI: Have you been able to come up with contexts to give examples of where it would be appropriate- inappropriate? Where we wouldn’t use this kind of language to talk about another identifiable group? GHOSH: I don’t think any identifiable group but the Muslims in this country. I don’t think Newt Gingrich could say that- could compare them with Nazis. I think that would be considered- he- it would never occur to him. But as somebody who I spoke to during the story told me, Islamophobia is now the accepted form of racism in this country. Muslims feel that people are allowed in the public sphere to say whatever they want to say about Islam, and they can get away with it. The editor then gave an example of what he saw was “hate speech” against Islam and/or Muslims: GHOSH: Things did get quite a lot worse after 9/11. We weren’t paying that much attention because there was a war coming. There was enormous human tragedy in the city. And so, we didn’t pay that much attention when someone like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell compared the prophet Muhammed to a terrorist, and somebody else said he was a pervert. But if you were a Muslim-American, you were paying attention . Then things did quiet down, and to a substantial degree, the credit goes to President Bush, who made it clear right from the get-go, from the 12th of September- VELSHI: Our war is not with Muslims- GHOSH: It’s not with Muslims. It’s a religion of peace. It’s just a small band of extremists that we are fighting. But then more terrorist acts took place- more recently, there have been acts committed by Muslim-Americans. America went to war in two Muslim countries. You started hearing about suicide bombings on television every day. So, a certain fear and sense of alarm crept in, which is all right- which is permissible. But then you have people who have made it their business to capitalize on that sense of alarm for political gains- who have stoked up this thing and sort of deliberately spread very poisonous lies about the religion and about the people who practice that religion, and put it out there into the public theater . So Robertson and Falwell’s historically-accurate assertion that Mohammed was a 7th century-version of a terrorist, particularly in his treatment towards the Jews of the Arabian peninsula , is “hate speech” in Ghosh’s book. Furthermore, it is completely legitimate to point out that Muhammad was a pervert according to many culture’s standards, as his wife Aisha was betrothed to him when she was six or seven years old, and their marriage was consummated when she was nine or ten, according to the very hadith writings held up by Islam . One might guess it’s “hate speech” to point that out as well. Velshi, who worried on Wednesday’s Newsroom that if a government helped moved the site of the planned mosque, other governments  would ” entertain petitions of moving Catholic churches away from the Oklahoma bombing site ,” since Timothy McVeigh was baptized Catholic, actually helped forward some of the editor’s talking points later in the interview: GHOSH: Four in ten Americans have a negative view of Islam, and that’s a very dangerous proportion . And so, some of the challenge for the Muslim community is to communicate better, is to give a better sense of what Islam really is, is to persuade people that they’re not all to be tarred with one brush. And ironically, that is what the people behind Park 51, the cultural center here in New York- that’s what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to communicate that Islam is not what many Americans perceive . That it is a- VELSHI: Right-right. But every part of their message has been lost? GHOSH: At the moment, yes. VELSHI: The name Cordoba- some people are associating it with Muslim rule and bloody battles, when, in fact, Cordoba was one of the finest times in relations between the major religions . GHOSH: Exactly right- in interfaith discourse- VELSHI: Yeah- GHOSH: And the great mosque of Cordoba that people are talking about and that Newt Gingrich was talking about- the man who built it, the Muslim prince who built it, bought it from a Christian group- paid money for it and bought it from a Christian group. And there was not a lot of alarm and anger raised then. It’s- as I said, we- I’m afraid, at this point, no rational discussion seems possible- VELSHI: Right- it’s just too hot. GHOSH: It will take us a little while, and temperatures have to cool down. Maybe we have to wait for this election to get over (unintelligible)- VELSHI: What’s difficult- and I was going to say- what’s difficult is that it’s been difficult for people who would like to have a reasonable discussion about this to do so, because they are then lumped with being politically correct or things like- in fact, it’s hard. We’ve heard politicians who have come out in defense of letting this mosque be built sound like they are apologists or some sort. Now, everybody now is backing away from the positions that defend free speech. GHOSH: No less a person than the president of the United States, which, for many Muslims, is quite disappointing. It will take an act of statesmanship. Statesmanship is when you can rise above the public sentiment and bring people along with you. If we went with the majority, there would still be segregation in this country. If we went with the majority- VELSHI: Women wouldn’t vote in this country . GHOSH: Exactly- American Jews would still be- still not have all their rights. So, it’s time for leadership. It’s time for our politicians- and if it doesn’t come from politics, it may have to come from somewhere else- it’s time for Americans to step up and say, this will not be allowed in this country. This country was built on finer principles than this, and we are going- we’re not going to tolerate this kind of prejudice, this kind of bigotry, and this kind of Islamophobia.

More here:
CNN and Time Promote Accusation That ‘Bigotry’ is Driving Mosque Debate

Is CNN Perpetuating the ‘Obama is Muslim’ Meme? Chyron: ‘W.H.: Pres. Obama Isn’t Muslim’

Every time the question about President Barack Obama’s faith is brought up, the wizards of smart in the mainstream media get up in arms about “right-wingers” or “tea partiers” perpetuating those allegations. But is it possible that by devoting so much attention to these issues of Obama’s faith and his citizenship, the media are creating the very feeding frenzy they’re appalled by? On CNN’s Aug. 19 “The Situation Room,” host Wolf Blitzer led his program off with at what first glance is a startling chyron: “W.H.: Pres. Obama Isn’t Muslim”. That graphic was in response to a recent Pew Research Center poll that found 18 percent of respondents thought Obama was Muslim. Later in the program, Blitzer went to his panel – CNN political analyst James Carville and Washington Times columnist and Heritage Foundation fellow Tony Blankley. Initially Carville said he didn’t have a clear explanation. Video with partial transcript and commentary below fold “I don’t other than the fact people are just willing to believe anything or there are a lot of stupid people out there,” Carville said. “I really don’t have an explanation, just like I don’t have an explanation for the fact that you see some of these polls that a quarter of the people believe he was born outside the country. I’m just as flummoxed as the next person.” Blankley cited an instance in 19 th Century England, which people questioned the faith of British Prime Minster Benjamin Disraeli. “I would compare it to what happened to Benjamin Disraeli, the British Prime Minister in the mid-19 th Century,” Blankley said. “He was suspected of being a Jew all through his career. His dad had been Jewish, but he baptized young Benjamin in the Church of England and he remained a practicing Christian with Jewish ancestry. I think it’s a similar situation with Obama.” And according Blankley, although he didn’t condone that belief, he suggested the same sort of circumstances were in play with the 44 th President of the United States. “His father was obviously Muslim and so that suspicious is there,” Blankley continued. “And then I think — what’s interesting is the numbers have gotten worse for him since he’s been President and I think some of his decisions, the outreach to Islam, good as it may be, wise as it may be, encourages some. His getting into a fight with the Israeli prime minister and his lack of attending church conspicuously, although Reagan, the President I worked for, didn’t go to church much because he said it would interrupt the congregation. So, there are good reasons for it, but the public is going to think what it’s going to think and he’s not made it easier.” Carville wasn’t buying it. Instead he just chalked the public up as “stupid” and willing to believe anything. He conflated the argument with questions about the President’s birth certificate. “I guess I would dispute, Tony — I don’t think the public thinks,” Carville said. “How can they think he wasn’t born in the United States, I mean with two birth announcements in both Honolulu papers. Again, I don’t have an explanation, and the quality of information to people today is exponentially higher than it was in 19 th century England. But again you’ve got to assume some people are just willing to believe anything and some people are out and out stupid. I wish I had a better explanation for it.” Despite the explanations (or lack of) from esteemed panelists, it’s possible the media themselves are to blame. By consistently using questions about Obama’s faith and his citizenship as fodder to demean conservatives, specifically the Tea Party movement and thereby creating a general mistrust by saying vile things, have the mainstream media perpetuated the very allegations they are abhorred by?

See the article here:
Is CNN Perpetuating the ‘Obama is Muslim’ Meme? Chyron: ‘W.H.: Pres. Obama Isn’t Muslim’

Former Majority Leader Dick Armey Credits CNBC’s Santelli for Sparking Tea Party

February 2009 was a pretty dark time for the conservative movement. The arguably most liberal president in the history of the United States has been sworn in to office just weeks early. The Congress had solid Democratic majorities in both chambers. And there were overtures that only way to save the nation from suffering the worst of a downtrodden economy was through an avalanche of costly legislation that would create huge budget deficits and ever-expanding bureaucracy. But in the midst of that dark spell, CNBC’s Rick Santelli lit the spark that ignited the conservative pushback. On CNBC’s Feb. 19, 2009 “Squawk Box,” Santelli called for a “tea party” in Lake Michigan to protest the idea the Obama administration was preparing to enact a massive housing bailout to reward people who took part in risky behavior by purchasing a home they couldn’t afford. According to former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, now the chairman of FreedomWorks , often portrayed as a Tea Party villain by the American left , Santelli really is a father of the movement. Armey, along with Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of FreedomWorks, credit Santelli in an Aug. 17 Wall Street Journal op-ed and more extensively in their book “Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto.” And on CNBC’s Aug. 19 “Squawk Box,” Armey explained the importance of Santelli. “The Santelli rant, which we talk about with great affection in our book, immediately went to the Internet and the Internet is so important to this movement, in terms of the baffled liberals who can’t understand what’s going on without a George Soros,” Armey said. “It’s the Internet, because that went viral. And everybody said – and that’s where the term ‘tea party’ comes in.” Armey explained that his organization served as a mechanism for the activists to coordinate the Tea Party movement. “So what we found happening very soon is with people who had found us because they said, ‘I like that guy on TV. I want to have a tea party. How do you do it? Well, let’s go see who does it.’ That’s how they found FreedomWorks and they asked us, ‘Give us some, you know, advice how to do this, how to put it together,’ and so forth. And we developed this mentoring relationship.” Despite accusations of opportunism , Armey explained his organization predated the Santelli rant and the entire movement. “We’ve been doing this since 1984, and we are the best there is at,” he added. Later in the program, Santelli responded Armey’s appearance on “Squawk Box.” “[T]he rant was a year and a half ago,” Santelli said. “The Tea Party movement is really moving along. It’s pretty cool after a year and a half.”

Read this article:
Former Majority Leader Dick Armey Credits CNBC’s Santelli for Sparking Tea Party

Stewart Rips Fox’s GOP Contribution, Ignores Viacom’s Dem Donations

Comedian Jon Stewart on Wednesday bashed Fox News for parent company News Corporation’s $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association. Unfortunately, Stewart failed to inform his viewers that Viacom, the parent company of Comedy Central, has so far given disproportionately to Democrats this year. Also missing in the “Daily Show” host’s attack of FNC and Glenn Beck was that News Corp. prior to this contribution had historically given more to Democrats than Republicans. Such facts were unimportant Wednesday evening, for Stewart was on another in a long line of Fox News is the devil incarnate rants (video follows with commentary): The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c News Corp. Gives Money to Republicans www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party JON STEWART: I really think if anything the Republicans should be paying Fox News millions and millions of dollars.  If Stewart is indeed concerned with “following the money,” maybe he should look at the contributions by his own company. After all, according to Open Secrets, Viacom’s Political Action Committee has so far this year contributed 62 percent of its money to Democrats and only 38 percent to Republicans (h/t Lachlan Markay): In 2008, this ratio was 58 percent Democrats, 42 percent Republicans: Beyond this, as NewsBusters reported hours before Stewart made his comments, prior to this $1 million donation, News Corp. had actually given 54 percent of its donations to Democrats and 46 percent to Republicans. The “Daily Show” host didn’t mention this inconvenient truth Wednesday evening. More importantly, since for his part Stewart has historically bashed Republicans and Fox News far more than he’s attacked liberal politicians and their shills at MSNBC, maybe the Democrats should be paying Comedy Central millions and million of dollars. 

Go here to read the rest:
Stewart Rips Fox’s GOP Contribution, Ignores Viacom’s Dem Donations

Open Thread: Education Secretary Duncan to Join Sharpton’s Counter-Beck Rally

The Daily Caller reported yesterday that Arne Duncan, Obama’s Secretary of Education, will speak at Al Sharpton’s August 28 rally in Washington D.C., seen by some as a counter-protest to Glenn Beck’s march on the same day. The U.S. Department of Education’s spokesperson hung up on The Daily Caller Wednesday when seeking clarification regarding the Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s planned speech at an Aug. 28 protest march that the Rev. Al Sharpton and his National Action Network (NAN) are holding to counter Fox News commentator Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally… Hamilton hung up the phone on TheDC when contacted for further comment, refusing to answer actual questions, including whether Duncan believes the Tea Party is racist or if he believes Beck is trying to “hijack” the American dream, or comment any further on Duncan’s planned participation in the rally… Sharpton was quoted in a blackvoicenews.com story asking black people nationwide to attend his rally, which, by extension, he says casts doubt on Beck’s message.  Duncan’s presence there will certainly aid in that effort. Sharpton claims education is this century’s civil rights issue. Does that fact alone explain Duncan’s presence? 

See original here:
Open Thread: Education Secretary Duncan to Join Sharpton’s Counter-Beck Rally

‘Morning Joe’ Panels Condescendingly Smear Opposition to Ground Zero Mosque – for Two Days Running

For two days running, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” seemed overwhelmingly in favor of allowing the Ground Zero mosque to be built, despite a poll showing Americans being opposed to the construction of the mosque. The panels included co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, and liberal columnist Mike Barnicle as well as MSNBC contributors Mark Halperin, Norah O’Donnell, and Pat Buchanan. Their toughest rhetoric was reserved for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, due to his comments about the mosque being the equivalent of Nazis hanging a swastika next to a Holocaust memorial. But the talking heads also failed to give the American people’s opposition to the mosque its just due. Perhaps the biggest gem came from columnist Mike Barnicle, who described those Americans questioning the mosque as stuck in their own reality. “They’re not really thinking about the idealistic trek, they’re thinking about their own reality,” Barnicle quipped. “And their own reality is that we were attacked on September 11. They’re not making the connection to the Constitution, and that’s where we are this morning.” Joe Scarborough called the whole debate a “wedge issue” that is distracting the country “from doing good things” such as “working on jobs.” The co-host continued, saying the issue has become so much more complicated due to opposition to the mosque, and added that America giving in to “radicals” could worsen the whole debate. When the news broke that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) opposed the location of the Ground Zero mosque, co-host Mika Brzesinski huffed, “I just have a question. Did somebody ask him what his opinion was? Um, ’cause I didn’t. Did you?”     When Pat Buchanan asked guest Anita Dunn “What about tolerance for the vast majority of Americans and their opinions?” Mika Brzezinski jumped in with Dunn afterward. “They have, like, other things there that are – a lot of people would have issues with – like peep shows,” the co-host chimed in, dismissing the argument that the area around Ground Zero is free of obstacles to its “hallowed ground” status. The panels reserved the biting criticism for Newt Gingrich, however, describing his words as “political pyromania,” “despicable,” and “demonizing.” Mike Barnicle went further, opting to get personal, bringing Gingrich’s failed marriages into the debate. “Apparently, because he has had two badly failed marriages, quite publicly failed marriages, [he] has now married his ambition to his ignorance on this issue in a craven attempt to get votes, as he thinks he’s going to run for President of the United States.” A transcript of the notable quotes from the two shows is as follows: MORNING JOE 8/17/10 7:06 a.m. EDT MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I just have a question. Did somebody ask [Sen. Harry Reid] what his opinion was? Um, ’cause I didn’t. Did you? (…) MIKE BARNICLE: It has nothing to do with life in America. But it’s going to be, right now and for the forseeable future, maybe a couple of weeks, the paramount issue in our pathetic politics. (…) JOE SCARBOROUGH: Newt has always been a provocateur. We’ve known that, that’s how he got elected Speaker. I don’t think he’s gone quite as far as he has. He’s made a couple of comments over the past month, Pat, that have been obviously fanning the flames of several controversies, and Newt’s taken, then this – what did Mike call it – political – BRZEZINSKI: Pyromania. SCARBOROUGH: …pyromania to a new level. (…) SCARBOROUGH: I just know that the only human being alive who has characterized him as a radical Islamist suggesting that he’s a terrorist somehow connected to 9/11 attacks is Newt Gingrich, who again has compared building of a mosque in America, on private property Mika, to putting a swastika on the Holocaust Museum. It’s deplorable, it is sick politics, and I pray to God sincerely that some Republican on the national stage, some elected leader, will have the courage to call Newt Gingrich out. Because until the party stands up to this type of extremism, this is a party that will find itself further and further marginalized by these voices of hate and anger. (…) BRZEZINSKI: Honestly Anita, I think it’s going to lead us toward an independent candidate sooner than we could expect. (…) ANITA DUNN, Fmr. White House Comm. Dir.: I think the Republican Party as solidifying it’s reputation for intolerance in this year for almost any kind of difference in American society, is going down a very dangerous long-term road, and they might see some short-term things, although I think the American people are better than that. PAT BUCHANAN: Anita, let me ask you about this word “tolerance.” I mean, what about tolerance for the views of the thousands of families of those who died on 9/11. Hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers are saying “Please, you have the right to move the mosque there, but please don’t do it, it doesn’t belong there.” And the vast majority of Americans who say the same thing, they have a right to build a mosque. But for heavens sakes, given the fact that the terrorists were Islamic, it was crucial to their identity and their mission, please don’t put an Islamic mosque just two blocks from where this happened. What about tolerance for the vast majority of Americans and their opinions? DUNN: Well, you know, I have to ask, it’s two blocks from the site. It’s a center that is supposed to be about promoting inner faith and about reaching out, which is in many ways what I think President Bush back in those horrible days of 2001, really tried to promote. And I think that how many blocks is okay? Is nine blocks okay? Is ten? I don’t know where you go with this argument. BRZEZINSKI: And Anita? They have, like, other things there that are, a lot of people would have issues with like peep shows. So, I mean, I think you bring up a really good point. (…) SCARBOROUGH: The Gingrich comment – so over the top. (…) BRZEZINSKI: I think that Gingrich’s comments are more of a story than anything the President did. I think they are a real sign of the times, and I hope that the times are changing, and that the people don’t play into that, fall for it even, and that they’re smarter. SCARBOROUGH: The comments are reckless, they’re irresponsible, they make millions of Muslim Americans law-abiding Muslim Americans – feel as if some leaders want them to be under siege in their own country. And it sends a horrific message across the globe. BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. But what you’re saying actually takes a backbone, and takes a little bit of self-control, when it comes to not wanting to feed into either extremist views or to make waves by kind of playing into weaknesses, tendencies, or even a lack of understanding of our Constitution that some may have. (…) SCARBOROUGH: Because I actually have read the First Amendment, and understand what the First Amendment means, and understand what freedom of religion means, and understand that if our government, our centralized state takes actions which chills people’s freedom of religion today, because they’re Muslims, and because they’re unpopular in lower Manhattan, then the next time with another administration, it could be a Pentecostal church that’s not allowed to build in San Francisco. And then it may be an Evangelical church or a conservative Catholic church or it may be, with anti-Semitism in this country and across Europe, it may be a conservative Jewish synagogue 20 years from now. I mean, you don’t take the first step down this path, it’s what, in law school, our professors always called the slippery slope. This is taking the first step, and when Newt Gingrich compares Muslims to Nazis, which he did, unmistakably, compared Muslims to Nazis simply because of the god they worship, because of the faith they follow, that is contemptible, and it suggests that Newt Gingrich is either desperate for votes, or desperate for money. I suggest this man read the Constitution of the United States of America, and that he reveres the Constitution of the United States of America, and he stops pandering to the lowest base of American politics, and instead embraces the genius of our Constitution. BRZEZINSKI: He is definitely pandering, and even worse, and I don’t even like to think of the word that comes to mind to characterize this, but he’s demonizing people. (…) SCARBOROUGH: Newt Gingrich will not be elected President of the United States. He will not even win a Republican primary. He will sell a lot of books. He will make a lot of money. He will stir up a lot of hatred on the right on this issue, but just because he may have this overarching ideological theory of a grand clash between civilizations doesn’t mean that he can get his facts wrong, doesn’t mean that he can call the Imam a “radical Islamist.” (…) BARNICLE: It’s about the lowest common denominator of politics, taken there by people just like Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, who apparently, because he has had two badly failed marriages, quite publicly failed marriages, has now married his ambition to his ignorance on this issue in a craven attempt to get votes, as he thinks he’s going to run for President of the United States. MORNING JOE 8/18/10 6:47 a.m. EDT SCARBOROUGH: So even if the President, even if David Patterson, even if people inside this Islamic cultural center developing want to move it 20 blocks, we now are in a much more complicated situation than we would have been a month ago in trying to figure out how to do it without thinking, “Well, America caved in to these radicals that were accusing this guy of being a Muslim radical, and accusing all Muslims of being Nazis, so it’s gotten much more complicated, hasn’t it? (…) BARNICLE: I think this entire flap is just one more thumb on the scale tilted against the President at this moment in time. Memory has nothing to do with it. And I think what the mosque flap does, is it adds to the agita that’s out there in this country over the economy. I mean, the President can talk all he wants about what he inherited. This is his economy, these are his wars, this is his problem, and now I think people are looking and saying “Geez, is this guy in over his head?” Not that he is, but I think people are now beginning to wonder what is going on here. Every time he opens his mouth, and maybe he opens his mouth too much, something happens. (…) BARNICLE: There’s a lot of people in this country who say, you know, “Why? Why are we letting them build a mosque?” Them being the people who want to build the mosque. They’re not really thinking about the idealistic trek, they’re thinking about their own reality. And their own reality is that we were attacked on September 11. They’re not making the connection to the Constitution, and that’s where we are this morning. (…) SCARBOROUGH: The fact of the matter is that Harry Reid was forced by Sharron Angle to come out and take this position after Newt Gingrich started going on Fox News comparing Muslims to Nazis. Now if you don’t think that there is a connection, a nexus, between Harry Reid scrambling out with a statement after being pressured by Sharron Angle to make a statement on this, you are, I think you are sadly disconnected from the realities of Nevada politics. I know that’s not the case. (…) SCARBOROUGH: We always, always find a wedge issue, as a country, to distract us from doing good things, to distract us from working on jobs, to distract us from balancing the budget, to distract us from reforming social security, to distract us from ending the war. There are always these stupid wedge issues – and I’m not talking about this one specifically – where there’s more heat than light, and it’s a distraction for Washington and the chattering classes.

Excerpt from:
‘Morning Joe’ Panels Condescendingly Smear Opposition to Ground Zero Mosque – for Two Days Running

Roland Martin to Dems: ‘Protect the Constitution’ By Supporting Mosque

On Tuesday’s Anderson Cooper 360, CNN contributor Roland Martin strongly pushed for the Democrats to ” stand up and protect the Constitution ” by defending the planned New York City mosque near Ground Zero: ” Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution .’… Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution .” Substitute anchor John Roberts brought on Martin, along with Republican strategist Ed Rollins and CNN senior political analyst David Gergen, to discuss the continuing controversy surrounding the mosque project. The anchor first turned to the black talk radio host and asked, “Roland, is this the sort of thing that Democrats want to be talking about right now, at a point where many people form their opinions of who they’re going to vote for in November?” Martin didn’t begin with his “constitutional” argument, but instead emphasized that Democratic candidates needed to focus on local issues: “Frankly, if I’m a Democrat and somebody comes to me with that question…I say, ‘Hey, go talk to…the folks representing New York. I’m here talking about my district.'” Both Gergen and Rollins disagreed with their fellow guest. When the strategist stated that “there’s going to be some seats lost over this issue,” Martin doubled down on his initial point: “You’ve got school districts laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers. And you’re actually going to say, ‘I’m going to vote for somebody based upon this issue’- to me, that’s nuts. You vote on what’s happening where you are.” The CNN contributor then went right in his proposed strategy about making it a constitutional issue and echoed the argument of The Washington Post’s David Ignatius : that the President shouldn’t have backed away a bit from his initial statement on the issue on Friday: “Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.’ The President was strong on that on Friday. I think he blew it on Saturday by walking it back. Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution, because every member of Congress, they are supposed to stand up and protect the Constitution.” Martin continued on this point throughout the remainder of the segment. Refreshingly, Gergen pushed back and disagreed: ” I increasingly believe it may come back to haunt him [President Obama] over time….there was a sense that this is another example of people thinking, ‘He doesn’t understand me. He’s not like me. He sees the world through different glasses than I do.'” Later, after Martin rephrased his point and stated that “it is amazing how he’s criticized for saying it is a constitutional right- to freedom of religion,” the senior political analyst retorted by basically endorsing the main argument of the mosque opponents: ” It is not simply a constitutional issue. It has to do with the sensitivities and sensibilities of a lot of families who lost loved ones there for whom this is hallowed ground . And a lot of Americans are saying, basically- look, if they’ve got real problems with it, I would rather they’d move it somewhere else.” Earlier in the segment, as he introduced the controversy, Roberts didn’t use the word “mosque” to describe it, labeling it instead as a ” planned Islamic community center and prayer space down on Park Place in lower Manhattan , two blocks northeast of the Ground Zero site, another two blocks south of a mosque that’s been in that area since 1970, before there even was a Twin Towers.” The full transcript of the panel discussion, which began 37 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday’s Anderson Cooper 360: ROBERTS: We’re talking tonight about the planned Islamic community center and prayer space down on Park Place in lower Manhattan, two blocks northeast of the Ground Zero site, another two blocks south of a mosque that’s been in that area since 1970, before there even was a Twin Towers. Sixty-eight percent of Americans surveyed by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation oppose it. In other polling, so does a smaller majority of New Yorkers. A narrow majority of Manhattanites say they support it. Believe it or not, when the local community board voted on it, the result was 29-1 in favor, with 10 people abstaining. It seems the farther you get from the location, the closer you get to election day, the hotter the opposition becomes. Well, that’s ‘Raw Politics’ for you, and here to talk about all of that: political analyst Roland Martin, political contributor/GOP strategist Ed Rollins, and our senior political analyst David Gergen. Good evening to you all, gentlemen. Roland, is this the sort of thing that Democrats want to be talking about right now, at a point where many people form their opinions of who they’re going to vote for in November? ROLAND MARTIN: Of course not, and you’re running for office- you don’t want to be talking about what’s happening in New York City in lower Manhattan. You want to talk about what’s happening on the ground, economic-wise, in Indiana, in Georgia, in Mississippi, Alabama, Idaho, California, or wherever you are. And so, frankly, if I’m a Democrat and somebody comes to me with that question, and I’m running for the U.S. Senate, I say, ‘Hey, go talk to Chuck Schumer, or go talk to- you know, the folks representing New York. I’m here talking about my district.’ ROBERTS: Well, if only Harry Reid had said that, instead of what he said. So Harry Reid is another Democrat, David Gergen, who’s distancing himself from the President. Do you believe, as time goes on, now that the White House has weighed in on what was a local issue, you’ll see more Democrats looking to put some space between them and the President? DAVID GERGEN: I think so, yes. There are a lot of Democrats that, of course, would like not to talk about this. Roland is right about that. But when it becomes a big national controversy, and you’re running for a Washington office- you know, it seems to me it’s totally legitimate for the press or their opponents to ask them, what do you think about this issue? I think that- you know, it’s like one of the issues you’re going to have to deal with when you’re in national life. ROBERTS [to Ed Rollins]: And you were one of the notable quotables from the Sunday shows when you said, ‘This is the dumbest thing that any president has said or candidate has said since Michael Dukakis said it was okay to burn the flag.’ ED ROLLINS: It’s a similar issue. It’s an emotional issue. You can give an intellectual answer- ROBERTS: Is it a defining moment for this president? ROLLINS: It may be. It may very well be. There’s going to be some seats lost over this issue, I think. It’s going to energize our base- ROBERTS: Really? ROLLINS: Yeah, I think there will. I think there’s- I think you’re down to where these seats are a couple hundred votes. I think people are distracted by they can’t talk about the things they want to be talking about, as Roland said, and I think this is an issue that’s not going to go away. It’s going to get bigger as time goes on, and- you know, it shouldn’t be, but I think it will. ROBERTS: Do you agree, Roland? It’s going to cost the Democrats some seats? MARTIN: No. No. I think if you’re sitting here voting- if you were in any other place in America and your district is broke, you’ve got people who are- increasing number of Food Stamps. You’ve got school districts laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers. And you’re actually going to say, ‘I’m going to vote for somebody based upon this issue’- to me, that’s nuts. You vote on what’s happening where you are. And I will also say this here. Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.’ The President was strong on that on Friday. I think he blew it on Saturday by walking it back. Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution, because every member of Congress, they are supposed to stand up and protect the Constitution. ROBERTS: David, you’ve been here- I’m not sure if you’re nodding your head or shaking your head or a little bit of both. GERGEN: Listen, I’ve been talking to people about- is this a one-week story or is this going to be a lingering story, especially for President Obama, and I increasingly believe it may come back to haunt him over time. I thought at first it would be short. But there was a quality about this that I think a lot of people concluded- wasn’t just about the merits of the issue, but there was a sense that this is another example of people thinking, ‘He doesn’t understand me. He’s not like me. He sees the world through different glasses than I do.’ ROBERTS: Communication problem? GERGEN: Well, it’s- I thought in Philadelphia. during the campaign, that was a masterful speech because he gave voice to alternative perspectives and was respectful of them. And in this situation, he stated one point of view, but for lots and lots of other people who oppose this, he showed no sympathy for what they’re going through and why the public is- MARTIN: David! David, the one point of view is the Constitution! ROBERTS: Yeah, well- GERGEN: That is not the only issue, Roland. I’m sorry MARTIN: Wow! That’s not the one point of view! GERGEN: That’s not the only issue. ROLLINS: I don’t think anybody is basically arguing about repealing the First Amendment. I think the critical thing here is, it’s a judgment call. It was a bad judgment in the heart of the politics, and where this president carries this party or sinks this party is on his approval ratings. You go back to 1947- ROBERTS: Which are not looking good. ROLLINS: And they’re 52 percent- 42 percent today in the Gallup, back to the Nixon and the Reagan levels now. If he drops another two or three points, which he clearly could- and this is a defining- could be a defining moment- he’s going to hurt his party. And I say people are going to lose seats. The whole thing is about 3 percent or 4 percent out there. And our base is energized already, and this is going to energize some conservatives, some Tea Party people. ROBERTS: But the point has been made, though- but the point has been made, Roland- let’s get you to speak to this- that the GOP could also lose something over this, because they’re trying, obviously, to get as many votes as they can. There’s a large section of the Muslim population that presidential candidates and, obviously, local candidates court in Dearborn, Michigan. How are Muslims in this country going to feel about what the GOP are saying these days? MARTIN: Well, obviously, frankly, people really haven’t cared what they thought since 9/11, whether you’re a moderate Muslim- and folks have just blown them away and dismissed them and said they’re absolutely irrelevant. And so, sure- bottom line is if you’re Republicans, you’re trying to lock up those freshman Democrats who won in conservative districts, and that’s really who you’re really targeting. But it is amazing to me, though, when you have folks on the right who have attacked this president by saying, he’s not one of us and doesn’t understand our values, and when he does actually reinforce the Constitution, then it’s a bad thing. I get the whole political thing, but maybe- but it is amazing how he’s criticized for saying it is a constitutional right- to freedom of religion. That’s pretty interesting. GERGEN: It is not only- it is not simply a constitutional issue. It has to do with the sensitivities and sensibilities of a lot of families who lost loved ones there for whom this is hallowed ground. And a lot of Americans are saying, basically- look, if they’ve got real problems with it, I would rather they’d move it somewhere else. ROBERTS: We’re not going to solve this tonight. It’s going to continue- MARTIN: Right. It’s hallowed ground? There’s a mosque four blocks away. This is two blocks away. Wow! (laughs) ROBERTS: Roland Martin, David Gergen, Ed Rollins, thanks for coming up- appreciate it.

More:
Roland Martin to Dems: ‘Protect the Constitution’ By Supporting Mosque

For Bill Press, Ground Zero Is Sacred Until Conservatives Say So

Bill Press is confused. He can’t seem to decide whether Ground Zero is a sacred site. When he was using the memory of 9/11 as a political football to blast Glenn Beck, lower Manhattan was hallowed ground. But now that conservatives are making that claim, Press has proclaimed that the area “is not a sacred site.” Make up your mind, Bill! In June, Press compared Beck’s planned 8/28 rally at the Lincoln Memorial commemorating the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech to an Al Qaeda “rally on September 11 – at Ground Zero.” “Sometimes you have to stand up and say, this is wrong – the wrong place,” he added. “It’s a slap to the American people… There are some places where cheap political tricks should not be allowed.” But now that the right is saying virtually the same thing about the Ground Zero Mosque, Press has proclaimed that “there’s only one reason to oppose this mosque, and that is to paint Islam as an evil religion and to paint all Muslims and equate them with a 19 terrorist who’s flew into that building. it is wrong. it is un-American and the people against it ought to be ashamed of playing a cheap political trick” (h/t Jamas Taranto ). Well which is it? Doug Powers writes : Tea Partiers are like Al Qaeda even though the only thing the Tea Party has in common with 9/11 is that it’s trying to prevent another one. In this case, Press is not condemning an entire group of people for the actions of a few, but rather demonizing an entire group of people for the actions of none of them. The Tea Party is comparable to the Islamic terrorists who murdered thousands on 9/11, but it’s un-American to criticize a mosque near Ground Zero because to do so is to blame an entire group for the actions of a few? This is hilariously misguided and insane even for Bill Press.

See the rest here:
For Bill Press, Ground Zero Is Sacred Until Conservatives Say So

Marilyn Manson and Evan Rachel Wood Call Off Engagement

Couple reportedly ‘fought a lot’ and ended their seven-month-long engagement last week. By Jocelyn Vena Evan Rachel Wood and Marilyn Manson Photo: Kevin Mazur/ Getty Images Marilyn Manson and Evan Rachel Wood have called off their engagement. After getting engaged in January when Manson popped the question to his on-again, off-again girlfriend onstage in Paris, the pair has decided to split, according to People.com . They reportedly ended the relationship last week. UsMagazine.com reports that “they fought a lot. It was always on and off. He’s a creative mind so not the easiest person to be in a relationship with.” A rep for the “True Blood” actress hadn’t responded to MTV News emails to confirm the reports by press time. The two have reportedly always been very on-and-off. After initially dating in 2006, they split two years later before reconciling and getting engaged earlier this year. During their time apart, Wood was reportedly dating “Nikita” star Shane West. And it seems Manson is handling his broken heart by hitting the town. Manson, who was once married to burlesque star Dita Von Teese, and guitarist Twiggy Ramirez were seen getting their party on in Los Angeles on Saturday night. They had dinner at hotspot STK before getting their dance on at Boudoir along with Playmate of the Year Colleen Shannon. E! News reports that Manson also had an unidentified brunette with him and was introducing her to people as his new girlfriend. “They just broke off their engagement, and he needed a night out with friends,” one source tells People.com. Last year, Wood spoke to MTV News about Manson , saying, “We have the same sense of humor.” And she admitted that no one was too surprised by the pairing. “They would be more shocked about [my ‘Whatever Works’ co-star] Larry David,” she joked. “Nobody asked me why — they asked me how.” Related Artists Marilyn Manson

View post:
Marilyn Manson and Evan Rachel Wood Call Off Engagement

Hey Fox Fans, Your Favorite Network Is Part-Owned By a Saudi Prince Whose Family Rules By Sharia Law

Maybe Newtie could persuade Rupert Murdoch to have his partners build some synagogues and churches and end all this unpleasantness. The stridency with which Fox News personalities attack the downtown Islamic center — red meat for the millions who tune in each night — is an example of the often uneasy relationship and occasionally diverging interests between many of News Corp.’s properties, in this case Fox News and its parent corporation. For example, News Corp.’s second-largest shareholder, after the Murdoch family, is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (pictured above), the nephew of Saudi Arabian King Abdullah, and one of the world’s richest men. Saudi Arabia, which is ruled by Alwaleed’s uncle King Abdullah, is, of course, an authoritarian petro-monarchy that actually is governed by Sharia law and is known as one of the top global sponsors of terrorism. A spokesperson for the Saudi embassy in Washington says that while Alwaleed is part of the royal family, he isn’t a member of the government, but rather a private citizen. I doubt all those Fox news patriots know that the same News Corp that’s owned by a Wahhabist Saudi prince just donated a million dollars to the Republican party. Of course they’ll never find out because the only network they watch is the same terrorist funded network that’s doing it. But if they were to hear about it, considering that they all seem to be so worried about the terrorists coming to kill them in their beds, I would imagine they’d be uncomfortable about getting all their news from a network that’s partially owned by one of “them.” And I’d be very surprised if they were sanguine about a scary Muslim donating to their patriotic political party. Why next thing you know they’ll be trying to build community centers near Ground Zero. At the very least, this whole thing is very insensitive, don’t you think? After all, some people really hate Muslims and it’s very unpleasant for them to have to watch news networks that are owned by them and be asked vote for a Party that’s funded by them. I’m not saying that Murdoch should be forced to stop donating millions to Republicans or partnering with Saudi princes who believe in Sharia law. I just think it’s common sense that he wouldn’t do it in the first place. added by: vixxxen618