Posted on 06/28/2008 10:36:43 AM PDT by kristinn
The Washington Post published an article today in the Style section about researcher Danielle Allen's efforts to track down who is behind allegations that presumed Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Hussein Obama (Illinois) is a Muslim. Allen is an Obama supporter who works for the Institute for Advanced Study.
The article was written by Matthew Mosk. A curious choice for The Post considering Mosk's involvement in the nefarious MD4Bush scandal in which Mosk claimed to have been given access to a Free Republic poster's account to expose a Maryland GOP government appointee who was alleged to have commented on rumors that a Maryland Democratic mayor was an adulterer.
Mosk displayed the same talent for exposing Freepers' identities in today's article that he did in the MD4Bush scandal. However, the only person he exposed then was the Republican. The person (or persons) behind the MD4Bush screen name was not reported by Mosk.
The article Mosk wrote today purports to be about efforts to track down where the 'Obama is a Muslim' allegations began. However, it is actually a warning shot across the bow to opponents of Obama that they will be tracked down and exposed for speaking ill of the Obamessiah.
Mosk even makes sure to let Obamaniacs know who is behind Free Republic and where he can be found:
Of the file folders that are spread in neat rows across Allen's desk, only one is bulging. It holds printouts of the reams of conversations about Obama's religion appearing on Free Republic. Since its start in 1996 by Jim Robinson of Fresno, Calif....
The effort by The Post to protect Obama from rumors is in stark contrast to how they promoted potentially candidacy-damaging rumors eight-years ago.
When George W. Bush ran for president in 1999, The Washington Post led the way in rumor-mongering about whether he used cocaine in his youth. Bush refused to deny cocaine use saying that denying rumors just leads to having to deny more and more rumors. No one ever came forward with allegatons that they had first-hand knowledge of Bush using cocaine, but that didn't stop The Post and the mainstream media as painting Bush as a cokehead. No reporter ever asked Bill Clinton about cocaine use, even though several people known to Clinton claimed to have first-hand knowledge of Clinton using the drug while in public office.
While Mosk ignores The Post's own rumor-mongering, he leaves the impression of Free Republic as the rumor mill of the right. A fair reporter would have noted that Freepers exposed the fraudulent Texas Air National Guard documents that CBS News used in its attempt to derail President Bush's reelection bid in 2004. Buckhead, the Freeper who called foul on the documents, was tracked down by the Los Angeles Times even though he did not post his name on Free Republic.
Mosk's article closes with Allen complaining that the Internet has become as influential as unions and political action committees (PACs) in elections. Unstated is that the political activities of unions and PACs are heavily regulated by the federal government.
Allen seriously misunderstands the right to anonymous political speech--equating political speech with the right of a citizen to face his accuser when charged with a crime by the government:
..."This kind of misinformation campaign short-circuits judgment. It also aggressively disregards the fundamental principle of free societies that one be able to debate one's accusers."
While Mosk and The Post are furiously protecting Obama from the Obama is a Muslim allegation, they steadfstly refuse to report on Obama's well-documented connection to the terrorist supporter and Osama bin Laden sympathizer, Jodie Evans, co-founder of the anti-American group Code Pink.
The Post article claims that the Internet's danger to politics is the ability to spread rumors anonymously. The real danger is the left's willingness to use the Internet to track down and destroy its perceived enemies. Allen and Mosk's teamwork exposing Freepers is one more example of that.
Sometimes it’s easier to go to “view source” and cut and paste the html code with its formatting, so that you don’t end up with a block of packed letters. Then you don’t have to re-code the format.
It doesn’t take an investigative journalist to know that Obama’s repeated statement that he has “never” been a Muslim is a FLAT OUT LIE.
First, his father was a Muslim, which automatically makes his child a Muslim in Muslim eyes.
Second, his stepfather was a Muslim, and that, too, would have automatically made him a Muslim if he wasn’t already.
Third, he was registered as a Muslim in his Catholic school in Indonesia. (It was NOT a Madrassah, and no one who has looked into it says that it was.)
Fourth, he studied the Quran for year while in school.
Fifth, he attended service in mosques in Indonesia.
Sixth, he told a reporter that he loved the sound of the Muslim prayer, and proceeded to recite it.
We don’t know when, or for that matter, if, he ceased to be a Muslim. But he most certainly was a Muslim in his early days. And although Muslims hate apostates, and issue fatwas calling for their deaths when the learn about them, Muslims everywhere are suspiciously fond of Obama. His all-Muslim relatives in Kenya welcomed him and dressed him up as a Muslim. And no one has issued a fatwa, the way they did against Salman Rushdie and any other public apostates I have ever heard about.
In other words, Obama is a liar, and the Washington Post is complicit in his lies.
DOH!
I forgot about that! LOL.
Though sometimes that includes a lot of junk that one would be wise to leave out of an FR post . . . like ads.
No one told you to sit down and shut up, stand up and yell all you want. I’m just pointing out that if you do so from a position of ignorance all you’re going to attract is the ignorant. If that’s what you’re going for, knock yourself out.
There is a lot to be concerned and alarmed about concernig the MSM. Their domination and propaganda of information dissemination being chief among them. But that has been true for 40 years.
But one thing we don’t have to worry about is them trying to shut FR down. Look to DU, Move On, KOS or some of the other neo fascist jack booted thugs for that.
If you can’t recognize your enemy, how are you going to defeat them? You’re only shadow boxing while the real enemy slips under your radar and knifes you in the back.
BTW - The disaffected, angry bannees of FR more commonly known as anti-freepers have done far more damage to this site then the Post or Times and most of the anti-FR “hit pieces” you see are mostly self inflicted.
Anyone who thinks there isn’t a segment of participants here who are racist, violent or bigoted have their heads up their bums. Does that mean the site is racist? No, but the bad apples give all of us a black eye.
However, it has been my experience that the majority of people banned from FR have been because of their loyalties to the opposition. Awhile back we had someone who turned out to be a loyal fan of Keith Obermann who appeared in an FR thread and thankfully he was banned shortly afterwards.
The reason people like myself address this issue of media bias in such stron terms are because there are still those who seem to eat up everything the MSM says. The reality is that there's a lot at stake here in this election and that is why people like myself address this issue so strongly. It may seem to some as though I'm saying the sky is falling but the truth is in some cases it is and this is something that does need to be adressed if America is going to have a future.
And while there may be a few bad apples here at FR. The vast majority of people here do share the same concerns that I have for the future of this country. When Jimrob established FR. he made it clear that this was a website for conservatives only. This is called freedom of association as defined in the first amendment.
The bottom line here is we all stick toghether or we all hang toghether. Simple as that.
.
Great post potlatch!
FR is slooooow -
FR-Yahoo! is saying they are offline
Esp. on certain threads
Possible DNS attack on FR threads?
You can't prove a negative (Barack is NOT a Christian) under the rules by which Obama is playing.
Being a Christian and being a muslim are mutually exclusive.
We've seen paperwork identifying him as a muslim enrolled in a school in Indonesia. We are told this paperwork was legit but in error.
We've seen quotes from his own book saying that he attended Koranic study classes (and goofed off). But these religious studies also reportedly don't make him a muslim.
And why is he not a muslim? Because they claim he was a Christian at that time. FINE. Show a SINGLE document from a church that he WAS following Christian studies (baptism certificate, first communion, confirmation, etc.).
Where is the papertrail to show he WAS a Christian? There IS a papertrail to show he may have been a muslim.
The Obama campaign TELLING me he was a Christian will need evidence. The current evidence is to the contrary.
Any post on FR that violates this warning “Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.” is fair game for the abuse button and can result in that comment being purged.
I agree with this stance. If someone (even a long term poster) is in violation, drop the comment to keep the offense from derailing the thread (they can become lighting rods for all of the subsequent comments.
Even trolls are zotted and often have their post pulled rather than letting it derail a thread.
The press plays it off that we are xenophobic and intolerant for suspecting that Obama may have been a muslim.
It isn’t that he may have been a muslim (not by choice), it is that he vigorously denies it despite a lot of evidence to the contrary.
And his claims at Christianity are baseless. He has no facts to back it up until he attends Pastor Wright’s church for 20 years and we aren’t supposed to talk about their version of Christianity.
But Mitt Romney’s Mormonism was made a factor in the election by the press. Harry Reid’s Mormonism has never been a factor. Never saw a poll asking how many Americans thought he would be unfit to ascend to the presidency because he is a Mormon.
Those cars that were vandalized had anti-Obama AND anti-McCain graffiti on them. The anti-McCain details are found in the content of the news reports, they are not to be found in the headline.
The media is in the tank for Obama and some suspect that Drudge is too.
There was also pro-Hillary literature found at the scene.
for later for me
.
We can first selectively pick off just one representative TV network - the worst
CBS
NBC
ABC
I*d say NBC is the worst now - and also a profiting partner of Iran
The others will get the message
so they really think that anyone would believe that Barack Obama is a Christian or Jewish name?
“I can’t vote for him. He’ not an American.” ``Cheech’s Mom.
I haven’t read this thread so don’t know what’s been posted about the TV networks. I just responded to your post and mentioned the Google thing.
I haven’t watched network news in years!
Well - the first ‘black President’ is under there, lol.
.
The Washington Post is leading the Obama campaign train -
WaPo’s record of fakeroo journalists continues -
[The Washington Post is leading the Obama campaign train ]
Lol, I know! A minute ago it was about the networks. I need to go find a silly thread I can understand!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.