Tag Archives: politics

New Comic Book: Arnold Schwarzenegger For President

A new comic book launched this month presages California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s rise to the White House: Is he the embodiment of the American dream? Or is he simply a man lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time? That’s the question Bluewater Productions tackles in its newest biography comic, Political Power: Arnold Schwarzenegger . As Patrick Gavin writes in Friday’s Politico, the authors have his ascendancy all figured out including a change to the Constitution to make it happen: The panels continue: “It’s an uphill battle. The Constitution is clear: ‘No person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president…'” (Schwarzenegger was born in Austria.) “He was born in the wrong place, or at the wrong time …” the comic book reads. “But the beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed. And traditionally, it has changed to make us a freer society, bound less and less to the circumstances of our birth. Arnold surely knows this. He’s counting on it.” As someone that has watched the Governator go from a reasoned conservative to a Republican In Name Only, let me say unequivocally that America should hope this never happens.  After all, the overwhelming majority of Caleefornians can’t wait until January to say, ” Hasta la vista, baby! ”

Read more here:
New Comic Book: Arnold Schwarzenegger For President

ABC News Issues "Reprimand" To Their Ground Zero Mosque Plant

ABC News has reprimanded one of its employees for trying to start some kind of ruckus during Sunday’s Ground Zero Mosque protest. A freelance audio operator covering a protest at the site of a proposed mosque and community center near Ground Zero has been reprimanded for his behavior. Andrea Lafferty , who was a speaker at the mosque opposition rally, first noticed the audio operator questioning a man in the crowd who was holding a sign which read, “No Sharia Here.” ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider tells TVNewser the network has looked into Lafferty’s complaint and agrees that the tech “aggressively” questioned members of the crowd with his personal camera. Adds Schneider, “He was not instructed to perform interviews or to engage with protesters and was there solely as an audio tech. He has been reprimanded for his behavior at this event.” “Reprimanded”. Like, “Be cool about it next time”…?

Follow this link:
ABC News Issues "Reprimand" To Their Ground Zero Mosque Plant

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

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

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

ABC, CBS: Did ‘Heightened Fear and Prejudice’ of Ground Zero Mosque Prompt NYC Violence?

ABC’s Good Morning America and CBS’s Early Show on Thursday both speculated as to whether the stabbing of a New York City cabbie was prompted by a climate of anti-Islamic anger. At the same time, GMA and NBC’s Today both ignored the fact that the attacker, Michael Enright, volunteered for a charity supporting the mosque. ABC’s Jeremy Hubbard wondered if the violence was ” proof the rhetoric surrounding the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque near Ground Zero has created a heightened fear and prejudice against Muslims .” Early Show’s Chris Wragge bluntly asserted, “And this ongoing debate may have led to a brutal anti-Muslim attack here in New York City.” However, only CBS’s Elaine Quijano pointed out this salient piece of information: “Now, as for Michael Enright, he had volunteered for a group that promotes interfaith dialogue. The group Intersections International has supported the controversial cultural center and mosque near Ground Zero.” ABC’s Hubbard vaguely explained, “[Enright] also volunteers for a collegiate, church-affiliated group, dedicated to promoting peace and understanding.” ABCNews.com , on the third page of a three page story, did acknowledge the connection : Enright had traveled to Afghanistan with an organization called Intersections International, a New York-based group that promotes itself as promoting justice and peace across lines of faith (and has come out in support of the Islamic cultural center’s construction.) NBC’s Today had almost no coverage of the violence. Natalie Morales briefly explained, “An Honors student is charged with attempted murder and assault after allegedly stabbing a New York City cab driver in the neck. The victim said the suspect, Michael Enright, asked him if he was a Muslim and then slashed him.” A transcript of the Early Show segment, which aired at 7:12am EDT, follows: CHRIS WRAGGE: A new poll says a growing number of Americans are against the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero. And this ongoing debate may have led to a brutal anti-Muslim attack here in New York City. CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano has the disturbing details this morning. Elaine, good morning. ELAINE QUIJANO: Good morning to you, Chris. Well, police say the attacker was a college student who had done volunteer work in Afghanistan. He is now behind bars facing multiple counts, including attempted murder and assault as a hate crime after allegedly attacking a cabbie who said he is Muslim. Police say 21-year-old Michael Enright asked a New York City cab driver whether he was Muslim. When he answered that he was, Enright, authorities say, attacked. First uttering in Arabic a common greeting in the Muslim world, peace be unto you. AHMED SHARIF (slashing victim): I’m driving. He ask me where I’m from. I said, “Bangladesh.” Then, second question he asked me, “Are you Muslim?” I said, “Yes.” Then he told me “As-Salamu Alaykum.” QUIJANO: The alleged hate crime took place against the backdrop of a highly emotional debate over whether an Islamic cultural center, including a mosque, should be built two blocks from Ground Zero. The protests are spreading from New York to Tennessee where an intense debate over a proposed mosque near Nashville has raged all summer. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It’s not about religion. It’s about stopping Tennessee homegrown terrorists. QUIJANO: There are nearly seven million Muslims and 1200 mosques in the United States. But a CBS News poll found 71 percent of Americans say it’s inappropriate to build a mosque so close to Ground Zero. Among them, some families of 9/11 victims. KEN FAIRBEN (father of 9/11 victim): I understand their religious beliefs. I understand they should have a place to play, an educational center. I have no problems with that whatsoever. But not there. Definitely not there. QUIJANO: Now, as for Michael Enright, he had volunteered for a group that promotes interfaith dialogue. The group Intersections International has supported the controversial cultural center and mosque near Ground Zero. If Enright is convicted of attempted murder, he faces a maximum eight to 25 years in prison.

Here is the original post:
ABC, CBS: Did ‘Heightened Fear and Prejudice’ of Ground Zero Mosque Prompt NYC Violence?

Are Republicans Being Too Optimistic About November?

Visit link:
Are Republicans Being Too Optimistic About November?

The Religion Called Tolerance

So AP writer Allen Breed begins his recent mosque piece by defining the word, “tolerance.” It’s a traditional rhetorical device, one learned back in sixth grade while plagiarizing the Encyclopedia Britannica. His piece focuses on religion, of course, – but not Islam, Christianity or even my favorite, “the universal life force of the Grand Unicorn.” His all powerful religion? Tolerance. Of course, for him, tolerance can only play one way. As Yanks we must kneel before the alter of acceptance, while everyone else uses us as a footrest. I mean, I doubt Breed would MENTION tolerance to the mosque developers. Instead, true to the predictable mind grazing on hysterical cliches, he hearkens back to the witch trials – the most overused example of intolerance ever – and one that probably deserved it. I mean, witches suck. Breed then quotes a reverend who says this is all due to a “dominant religious lens factor” – meaning, i guess, when one group thinks their religion is better than others. He knows this, since he’s a wiccan minister, a practitioner of a cult populated by veiny spinsters with cats. I guess the writer wouldn’t find an imam tolerant enough to grant him an interview. Or maybe he didn’t look. After all, it would be a sign of intolerance to question the intolerant, especially when their intolerance is protected by tolerance! Instead, focus on us. We’re nice people. We won’t kill you. But look, intolerance is not the issue. Think about your pal who can have any girl he wants, but chooses to go after the girl dating you. There, tolerance, doesn’t enter the equation. Being a jerk, does. And that’s what this is all about. Tolerance now serves as a condom for jerks seeking protection from their own jerkiness. I’d use it myself, but they don’t make one in my size. And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobe who owes me thirty bucks. Crossposted at Big Hollywood

Follow this link:
The Religion Called Tolerance

Ed Schultz Threatens to ‘Torch’ 30 Rock, Then Breaks Down in Tears

Ed Schultz may have finally lost it. He has reportedly been neglected by MSNBC brass. The last straw came yesterday when Schultz found out he would not appear on MSNBC’s election night promo. He went absolutely berserk, according to people on the scene. “I’m going to torch this f***ing place!” he screamed during a meeting in the MSNBC newsroom according to the New York Post . “F***ers!” he added for good measure. According to an unnamed source, Schutlz was dragged into a meeting with MSNBC president Phil Griffin, where Schultz was told that he would be fired if he did it again. He broke down in tears. The Post has the full scoop (h/t Treach ): A witness told us, “Ed was furious the network was running election-night promos and he wasn’t in them. He’d been arguing on the phone with marketing, then he slammed down the phone and exploded. It was like Mel Gibson had entered the newsroom.” Fuming Schultz was immediately dragged in for a meeting with NBC News President Steve Capus and MSNBC President Phil Griffin following his Aug. 12 meltdown. Our source added, “Schultz was told: ‘If you do that again, you are fired.’ He broke down crying.” Sources say the hothead was pushed over the edge by MSNBC’s catering to bullying fellow anchor Keith Olbermann and its focus on golden girl Rachel Maddow. A second MSNBC source said, “Ed never gets any attention and love, and he finally snapped.” Poor Ed. If it’s any consolation, we hope MSNBC includes Schultz in its election night coverage. With blowups like this, it’s hard to top the entertainment value.

See the original post:
Ed Schultz Threatens to ‘Torch’ 30 Rock, Then Breaks Down in Tears

NYT Editorial Board Calls Successful Tea Party Candidates ‘Insurgents’

The New York Times editorial board on Thursday called successful Tea Party candidates insurgents. For those not intimately familiar with the term, despite having several meanings, it has in the years since 9/11 become largely synonymous with terrorists. With that in mind, the imagery in ” The Wrong Kind of Enthusiasm ” was unmistakable:  Republican insurgents from the far right did well in Tuesday’s primaries. What their campaigns lack in logic, compassion and sensible policy seems to be counterbalanced by a fiercely committed voter base that is nowhere to be seen on the Democratic side. In fairness, there are two meanings to insurgent: 1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel. 2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.   On cross-examination, the authors might make the case that their intent was to depict these illogical, compassionless and senseless conservatives as the latter. But the imagery and implication throughout was clearly to brand these “insurgents” as something far worse:   In Alaska, Joe Miller, a little-known lawyer from Fairbanks, has a lead for the G.O.P. Senate nomination over Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent. The race is too close to call, but Mr. Miller’s possible victory shows the power of his mentor, Sarah Palin, and the misguided popularity of his anti-immigrant, pro-gun message. Among other dubious positions, he has questioned the constitutionality of unemployment benefits. Then, the Times predictably took sides: The good news is that the anti-immigrant message may not play as well in Florida in the general election. Good news? Good news for whom? Certainly not the overwhelming majority of Americans that support Arizona’s new immigration law. But the Times wasn’t done displaying its deplorable biases, for even a victory by a moderate mainstream candidate left a sour taste: Insurgents did not triumph everywhere. In Arizona, Senator John McCain easily fended off a challenge by a former congressman, J. D. Hayworth. But he did so by throwing his principles overboard. Gone was the stalwart voice for campaign finance reform and a humane, bipartisan overhaul of immigration laws. In his place was a man calling himself “Arizona’s last line of defense,” strutting along the Mexican border in a campaign ad, telling a county sheriff that all we had to do to fix immigration was “complete the danged fence.” Yes, McCain is the Times’ darling when he tacks far-left to help pass legislation that makes conservatives sick. But defending Arizona’s border is “throwing his principles overboard.” Not surprisingly, a good Republican to these shills is really one with no principles at all.  Disgracefully, this editorial ended with more terrorist imagery: Much of the G.O.P’s fervid populist energy has been churned up by playing on some people’s fears of Hispanics and Muslims, by painting the president as a dangerous radical, by distorting the truth about the causes of the recession. Far too many Republican leaders have eagerly fed that destructive anger. Yes, the desire of the majority of Americans to defend the borders from illegal immigrants while doing everything possible to prevent another terrorist attack is “destructive anger.” Makes you wonder if former President Jimmy Carter is heading up the Times editorial board. But the larger point is that the Obama-loving liberal media are in a full state of panic about Democrat prospects in the upcoming elections. As such, the goal now is to paint every GOP candidate as too scary to hold political office.  That even the formerly lovable McCain, who has been in Congress since 1983 and is currently one of the most moderate Republicans up for re-election, is being depicted as equally frightening should clue readers in to just how far the Times is willing to go to help Democrats this cycle. Ironically, as this editorial board clearly is way on the wrong side of public opinion concerning the issues herein addressed, aren’t they behaving like insurgents rather than the objects of their disaffection? The only question is whether their actions fall under definition one or two. We’ll let you decide that.

Go here to see the original:
NYT Editorial Board Calls Successful Tea Party Candidates ‘Insurgents’

Chris Cuomo: Christians Shouldn’t Condemn Jihad Because of Crusades

Is it a case of removing the plank from your own eye before removing the speck from your brothers – or political correctness run amok? In a tweet Aug. 26 , ABC “20/20” anchor Chris Cuomo told his 987,000 followers not to condemn Muslim violence because other religions have perpetrated violence in the past. “To all my christian brothers and sisters, especially catholics – before u condemn muslims for violence, remember the crusades….study them,” Cuomo tweeted around 9:30 am. So does past violence justify modern violence? If so, maybe Cuomo should take his own advice and study the Crusades. Even a brief study would reveal a much more complicated situation than Cuomo’s tweet suggests about who struck first. Historians, including professor and author Bernard Lewis, have noted that the Crusades were in fact a response to jihad. “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad – a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” Lewis wrote in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. One of Cuomo’s Twitter followers, magoluv69, pointed out that “by the time the Crusades began Muslim armies had conquered almost 2/3 of Christian world. Neither just.” Cuomo responded that he is “not sure how pointing out Muslim wrongs erases Christian wrongs.” So pointing out Muslim wrongs doesn’t erase Christian wrongs – but pointing out Christian wrongs justifies Muslim wrongs? Author Andrew Bostom noted that the comparison of jihad to the Crusades is not be apples-to-apples anyway. “The jihad is intrinsic to the sacred Muslim texts, including the divine Qur’anic revelation itself, whereas the Crusades were circumscribed historical events subjected to (ongoing and meaningful) criticism by Christians themselves.” 

Go here to read the rest:
Chris Cuomo: Christians Shouldn’t Condemn Jihad Because of Crusades

Couric Crows: Reagan Unlikely To Replace Grant On $50 Bill

“The old general might still have it in him … 145 years after Appomattox, Grant won’t have to surrender this one either.” — Katie Couric, Notebook, 8-25-10 What does it take to get Katie Couric to root for a military man?  Put him in a fight against the MSM’s great bogeyman, Ronald Reagan. The CBS Evening News anchor devoted her Notebook yesterday to the battle to replace Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 bill with the Gipper.  And Katie left little doubt–witness her concluding lines above–that she’s pulling for the man who’s buried in Grant’s tomb to defeat the president who made Mr. Gorbachev tear down that wall. There is, apparently, nowhere that the liberal media won’t extend its fight against conservatives.  In the meantime, Katie presumably prefers to pay with $20 bills, featuring Dem-party founder Andrew Jackson, rounding things off with JFK half-dollars and FDR dimes. Wonder if, when visiting DC, Couric insists on flying into Dulles, to avoid having to patronize that other airport, named after . . . you-know-who?

Read the rest here:
Couric Crows: Reagan Unlikely To Replace Grant On $50 Bill