Here’s an interesting illustration of the sad state of the main stream liberal media in 2010. It’s hard to say whether it’s corruption, intentional misrepresentation, or merely incompetence.

On Monday, the project Election Day Tea Party (of which I am a co-organizer) launched.  We issued a press release announcing our “List the Top 50 House Races” and our partnership with former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.  Ambassador Bolton is participating as a volunteer citizen encouraging people to visit the site, where tea party activists can make the most difference in securing a victory.

Newsweek has reported this story incorrectly. Out of thin air, they made up a non-existent event, and claimed Ambassador Bolton would attend that event. Here’s what they said:

… and TPM’s Jillian Rayfield reports, [John Bolton]’s preparing for an Election Day Tea Party rally at Ground Zero.

The fact is, Ms. Rayfield’s article in TPM that day made no such claim. Newsweek either misread the article or intentionally misreported it. (more…)

Via the indefatigable Andy McCarthy at NRO, this latest example of the ongoing dhimmification of America:

Massachusetts used to be the home of patriots and birthplace of liberty. Now, it’s in the hands of bureaucrats practicing open sedition against the Constitution and the country.

Meanwhile there this item… (more…)

Never a dull moment in everybody’s favorite nut house:

Now that Pastor Jones has called off the Koran-burning, will Breitbart get the credit? (more…)

On Sunday, August 8, the New York Times ran a front-page article by Laurie Goodstein entitled “Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition.”   Three days prior to the publication of the story, Ms. Goodstein contacted ACT! for America president Brigitte Gabriel to get her comments for the story.

It was clear from the questions Ms. Goodstein asked that the newspaper was planning to re-frame the opposition to the mosque at Ground Zero into an “Americans are opposing mosques everywhere” narrative.

Such a narrative is an expression of the political left’s worldview that opposing the mosque at Ground Zero is motivated by bigotry and intolerance.  By recasting the debate as one where “opposition to mosques everywhere proves Muslims are being denied religious freedom,” rather than “Americans are concerned about the location of the mosque at Ground Zero,” the New York Times and its friends in the media are trying desperately to stem a growing and understandable tide of opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.

Of course, the Times’ narrative isn’t true.  It referred to three locations where so-called “mosque controversies” have occurred – hardly a battle “Across [the] Nation,” as the article headline states. There are approximately 100 mosques in New York and at least 2,500 mosques nationwide, virtually all of which encountered no opposition.  One pastor in Tennessee told us that plans for his church expansion received far more scrutiny from the local government than did the proposal for a mosque in the area.  But since when have the facts gotten in the way of a narrative the New York Times wants to peddle? (more…)

Keith Olbermann in his drive to be the champion of the Progressive Left and defender of all things, “President Obama and Democrats,” erroneously reported there is a Mosque in the Pentagon recently as a majority of American expressed their opposition to a possible community center/mosque at New York’s Ground Zero.

A mosque within the Pentagon, wait let me check the Constitution quickly; is there is something in there about separation of Church and State? (Actually, no, but there is Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, which has always been good enough for the left.)  I am also checking to see when military leaders endorsed one religion over another one — quick someone call Speaker Pelosi — there needs to be Congressional hearings into this!

Keith, I keep checking and can’t seem to find any media releases or official military documents about this mosque at the Pentagon. Could it be that the all powerful and smarter-than -hou Keith Olbermann was actually wrong on an issue and thus has become this week’s “Worst Person in the World?” (more…)

On Sunday I was honored to be a speaker at the rally against building the mosque at ground zero put on by the Coalition to Honor Ground Zero. As the rally concluded, thousands of the participants marched the one block from the rally site to the actual site of Ground Zero.

I noticed a man in black shirt with a phone camera aggressively questioning and haranguing a gentleman with the sign, “No Sharia Here.” He was very aggressive, disrespectful and condescending; apparently, he did not like the man’s answers about Shariah and pushed the point: “Why do you feel threatened? What are you afraid of? Why can’t you answer my questions?”

My instincts told me to document the scene, and I took out my camera. I originally thought he was a supporter of the mosque (they’d gathered in much smaller numbers a few blocks away), or some kind of fringe reporter for a small, even fringier leftist paper. When I challenged the man in the black shirt, asking him to tell me what media outlet he worked for, he refused to answer. He walked away.

But there was cameraman was standing nearby, watching the scene play out. When I asked, he said he worked for ABC News. I then asked if the man in the black shirt was with him. The ABC cameraman said, “yes.”
(more…)

Rancor among religions is one thing, but the questions surrounding the proposed mosque at Ground Zero are an entirely different sort of attack.

The land surrounding Ground Zero is a war memorial. The proposal of an Islamic mosque there is synonymous with a Nazi war memorial in downtown London. How would the world react to that proposal? Wouldn’t Western Europe just about leap off the map if that were proposed? Where is the outrage from our European “friends?”

Perhaps they are confused with the whole rosy picture of “peace” being painted by the Mainstream Media? Perhaps they believe the lie that this mosque is going to exist to “bring religions together.” Is that why they chose Ground Zero, the most hallowed ground in the country at the moment? (more…)

Stop the presses! This just in: The Associated Press “standards center” has issued a “staff advisory” on covering what is to be known from here on out as “the New York City mosque.” From now on, the AP “staff” – and, therefore, everybody who still actually reads newspapers that still actually use the wire service’s copy – is supposed to conform to what amounts to the Muslim Brotherhood narrative about the Islamic cultural center formerly known as the “Ground Zero mosque.”

AP’s Deputy Managing Editor for Standards and Production, Tom Kent, sent this “guidance” out to his colleagues, with inputs from Chad Roedemeier in the New York bureau and Terry Hunt in Washington: “We should continue to avoid the phrase ‘Ground Zero mosque’ or ‘mosque at Ground Zero’ on all platforms. (We’ve very rarely used this wording, except in slugs, though we sometimes see other news sources using the term.) The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at Ground Zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” Ground Zero, or two blocks away.”

Interestingly, among those who formerly used the now-proscribed descriptor “Ground Zero mosque” is none other than Feisal Abdul Rauf, its imam and chief promoter. He called it that even though the proposed venue has always been two blocks away from the World Trade Center site.

Perhaps Rauf used this moniker because his planned location for the mosque was part of the real estate attacked and damaged on 9/11 – the home of the Burlington Coat Factory until it was struck by a landing gear from a plane that struck one of the Twin Towers. Perhaps he used that term to brand his “Cordoba House” because body parts from the victims of those attacks have been found all over Lower Manhattan, including the old Burlington factory area, making it part of the hallowed ground.

Or perhaps, Imam Rauf called his project the Ground Zero mosque because he wanted to associate his 15-story, $100 million complex as closely as possible to the location where nearly 3,000 Americans and other innocent people – precisely because they were murdered there by people who wanted, as he does, to “bring shariah to America.” (more…)

Go ahead: write tomorrow’s headlines tonight:

(Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Friday backed construction of a proposed mosque and Muslim cultural center near the site of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York — a project opposed by U.S. conservatives and many New Yorkers.

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,” Obama said to applause at an event attended by diplomats from Islamic countries and members of the U.S. Muslim community.

(more…)

As the battle over the Ground Zero mosque continues to rage in the streets — and on the sides of buses — in New York City, the MSM — taking its cue from the nasty little lifestyle-fascist mayor, Mike Bloomberg — has continued to frame the discussion as one of bigotry instead of cultural self-preservation.

Now comes a Muslim woman, living in Canada, to speak the truth, not only about the significance of the mosque, but the sniveling, accomodationist nature of the pathetic surrender-monkey-in chief known as Hizzoner:

(more…)

Reporters may think they’re being objective and balanced when they first report and then write a story, but those of us who know the racket can spot a rigged stuss game every time.  It’s not just a matter of what you put in and what you leave out, whom you talk to and whom you don’t bother to ask for comment.

It’s also the way the story is structured, and the little semiotic signals the writer (and/or editor) send to the reader that say this is what is important.  This is whom you should believe.

For Exhibit A of this process, please consider the following story:

Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition

Given that this is the New York Times, you know the paper disapproves of this phenomenon, just like its nasty little lifestyle-fascist mayor, Mike Bloomberg, a Boston-born billionaire who finagled his way around term limits in order keep a hold on Gracie Mansion. It’s Bloomberg who’s been helping to fast-track the Ground Zero mosque and therefore who, in part, is responsible for the national backlash the Times now chronicles:

In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law.

These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether the best way to uphold America’s democratic values is to allow Muslims the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, or to pull away the welcome mat from a faith seen as a singular threat.

Threat? Where would anybody get that idea?

(more…)

According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, the majority of New Yorkers are opposed to the building of an Islamic supremacist mosque at Ground Zero — as are, not coincidentally, the majority of Americans.

In New York City, where all power is centralized, all roads lead to the Mayor’s office. And Mayor Bloomberg is covertly pushing the Ground Zero mega mosque forward. Bloomberg controls the calendar, so why would he suddenly, last week, schedule a landmarks committee meeting for tomorrow and a landmarks commission meeting for next week, in the middle of July, when no one is around?  Boss Bloomberg, is the fix in? And if so, why?

More troubling is the media has paid scant attention to Bloomberg’s pernicious display of megalomaniacal governance. It is corruption when our elected officials ignore the will of the people, but it is far worse when our media, who are supposed to give voice to the voiceless, work in tandem with such corruption. Why is Bloomberg given a free pass by the free press while Governor Paterson is eviscerated daily, for sport?

Why isn’t the New York Times, the Daily News or the Post demanding to know why Mayor Bloomberg is trying to expedite the building of the Ground Zero mega mosque, when the majority of New Yorkers do not want it? Why isn’t the media demanding to know why the World Trade Center has not yet been rebuilt and why its reconstruction or replacement is not being given the same priority as the mega mosque? (more…)

We’ve always known that the Left is essentially fascist in both outlook and temperament — censor it! burn it! ban it! — and here’s the odious Bill Press to illustrate the truth of the proposition once again.

(more…)

After more than 20 agonizing months in exile at an undisclosed location, Mayor Ed Koch’s runaway mind made a daring escape from its captor, Obama-mania, this week and has at last come home safe and sound. At 85, the former New York mayor’s mind—a little haggard, a little road-weary—nevertheless appeared to be in full control of its former lucidity after a long stint in captivity to the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize laureate’s New World Order.

Before discussing their safe reunion with the Mayor’s body, let’s recall the day the Kochian faculties took their abrupt and surprising leave of absence, stunning New Yorkers who still harbored fond memories of their Greenwich Village bachelor mayor. It was September 9, 2008 when Mayor Koch—after supporting Hillary Clinton throughout her failed primary—wrote this:

So the issue for me is who will best protect and defend America. I have concluded that the country is safer in the hands of Barack Obama, leader of the Democratic Party and protector of the philosophy of that party.

That was Day One of captivity for the mayoral mind. The Koch endorsement of Obama was not solely founded on defending America from the threat of terrorism, as it had been, for example, when he endorsed George W. Bush in 2004, stating then “the overwhelming issue for me was international Islamic terrorism, including al-Qaeda.”

No, on September 9, 2008 Koch’s mind already displayed significant traces of Stockholm Syndrome support for Obama’s full-fledged progressive agenda, along with what would become the liberal’s fail-safe prescription, a strong injection of Sarah-phobia: (more…)