Sunday, January 28, 2007

Your Hypocrisy Is Showing

Courtesy of Charles at TwoConservatives, I was reminded today's WaPo editorial, denouncing those who take note of Senator Barack Obama's middle name ("Hussein").

I guess I missed the WaPo editorial denouncing the campaign of Jim Webb and his paid Internet hacks, who engaged in the same tactic with regard to George Allen. You know. Like this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And ... well, you get the point.

Yet 'nary a word from the Standards Police at the Washington Post. Indeed, here is the result of a search of the Washington Post's website on "George Felix Allen."

Of course, when it's Conservatives taking note of the middle name of a Democrat, it's worthy of a lead (i.e., first), Sunday editorial.

Repeat after me: "There is no Left-Wing media bias. There is no Left-Wing media bias. There is no Left-Wing media bias. There is no Left-Wing media bias...."


Republitarian's Wife said...

Now this is a fine post! Good work.

James Young said...

This was posted by John on the Halogen comments, which I usually ignore, and have just not figured out how to disable. Thanks for commenting, John!

re: the Washington Post on January 28, 2007, re: Sticks and Stones and Mr. Obama

It is interesting how the press and media constantly avoid the more relevant issues by fogging the American vision with red-herrings and the smoke and mirrors of irrelevancies. While it's true that Obama's multi-cultural background can be an asset we should care most about whether he genuinely respects the doctrine of separation of church and state. But since he poses only religious reasons for denying civil rights it is clear he does not.

In fact Barack Hussein Obama is the only Democratic presidential candidate who has openly, repeatedly, and unequivocally, espoused denying 'fundamental' civil rights purely for religious reasons. It is amazing how lazy journalists don't do their basic homework. This editor misses the forest for the trees but perhaps this is deliberate blindness. Though the radical Muslim accusation may be false the media should inquire into Obama's religious beliefs if only because Obama himself has repeatedly made such an issue of them. It is he who ostentatiously marched both his religion and his minister into he public square and he who took to the evangelical pulpit - albeit for noble reasons.

The press and media should seek to answer the more important questions this editorial raises but miserably fails to answer: exactly what is the nature of Obama's current religious affiliations and what are the teachings of his denomination (the United Church of Christ). Why is this important? Do your Internet homework and see "Untangling Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo," by John P. Mortimer, Bay Area Reporter 11/16/2006.

Obama, is a so-called civil rights lawyer who constantly lectures us about respecting the doctrine of separation of church and state but he is the ONLY Democratic presidential candidate who has given only his religious beliefs as his sole excuse for refusing to acknowledge the right of same-sex couples to enter civil marriage.

Why does the press and media pretend to not notice that this civil rights lawyer and lawmaker offers no legal reasons for denying 'fundamental' civil rights? Why does the press and media pretend to not notice that this civil lawyer would deny due process and equal protection solely for religious reasons?

Who cares what Obama smoked in high school? We should care more about what he may have been smoking at Harvard Law School for it is incomprehensible that a Harvard educated civil rights lawyer (so called) could espouse the illicit means of violating the first amendment (separation of church and state) for the equally illicit end of denying 'fundamental' rights (due process and equal protection) guaranteed under the fourteenth amendment.

Obama and religion is the most important issue the media remains blind and deaf to.
In fact, as Mortimer's article spells out, Obama bears false witness against his own denomination and minister for, in fact, both support the m
John | 01.28.07 - 5:58 pm | #