WaPo After Free Republic Again, Now Over Barack-is-a-Muslim Email

The Washington Post published a June 28th piece geared to protect Barack Obama from the nagging rumors that he is a secret Muslim, rumors that have been circulating since 2004. The Post's Matthew Mosk penned an attack on Free Republic, based on an Obama flak who claims she has somehow discovered that Freepers are to blame, if not initially responsible, for floating the Barack-is-a-Muslim chain email that so many millions of Americans have found in their email boxes over the last four years. But, the Washington Post's article is so filled with assumptions and a singular desire not to really investigate the matter that it boggles the mind. Naturally, all the journalistic missteps serve to shield Barack Obama from any controversy and make all opposition seem nefarious or unhinged.

The Obama flak in question is one Danielle Allen of the Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton. Mosk wishes to assure us that she is one smart cookie, apparently. To settle any question to the contrary, we are treated to some earnest, if over-the-top, adulation for good Doctor Allen. Allen is called a "razor-sharp, 36-year-old political theorist," that she's "gained valuable insight into the way political information circulates," and that she works at the institute "most famous for having been the research home of Albert Einstein." Mosk tells us that Allen "boasts two doctorates, one in classics from Cambridge University and the other in government from Harvard University." The Post tells us that one winter morning Allen was "studying in her office at the Institute for Advanced Study, the renowned haven for some of the nation's most brilliant minds." Mosk also tells us that Allen "works alongside groundbreaking physicists, mathematicians and social scientists. They don't have to teach, and they face no quotas on what they publish. Their only mandate is to work in the tradition of Einstein, wrestling with the most vexing problems in the universe."

Jeeze, next Mosk will be telling us that Danielle Allen is the virtual reincarnation of Einstein himself!

Byron York saw how silly all this puffery was, too. Over at NRO's Corner Blog, York takes a jab at those vaunted “vexing problems in the universe” and succinctly sums up the big nothing that is the real underlying conclusion of the Washington Post's extensive four-page story.

The piece goes on and on in grave tones about the chain email that seems to have first surfaced sometime in 2004. Allen "obsessively" worries about such things as chain emails we come to discover. Allen tells the Post, "I started thinking, 'How does one stop it?'" She then informs Mosk that the whole mysterious, shadowy email has a nefarious and unidentified genesis. Mosk assures us that this email is the "modern version of a whisper campaign," and worries about the "secret identities" of the Freepers that Allen reveals to him.

We are dealt the conclusion that all this email and Freeper stuff is… well, dontcha know it's scary, kids? I wondered if Mosk wanted his Mommy to keep the nasty Freepers away from him by the end of this curious piece?

So, what about this email saying that Obama is a secret Muslim? Where did it come from? Matthew Mosk doesn't know and neither does his main source, the brilliant Doctor Allen. But they are both sure it has something to do with the website Free Republic. Or maybe a perennial candidate from Illinois named Andy Martin... or a guy in Philadelphia who operates a website and posts on Free Republic... or maybe not. But whatever the case, Matthew Mosk of the Washington Post just took the word of open Obama supporter Danielle Allen as gospel, assuming that her "research" was indisputable.

Allen began her "investigation" by using key phrases that appears in the email and Googling them to see where else they appear. As a result, she found Andy Martin of Illinois.

Back in 2004 in Obama's hometown, Chicago, a fellow named Andy Martin was attempting to launch his own attempt to become Obama's opponent for the Senate. Martin is a political gadfly and perpetual candidate in Illinois who has never been elected to much of anything, the sort of guy who has been hanging on the fringes for decades without ever getting much traction. To be sure, he was an actual candidate in the last primary to determine who will be the poor GOP sacrificial lamb to face Dick Durbin in the coming general election, so he did get on a ballot for a change. One thing is for sure, that Martin is tenacious and knows how to publicize himself is beyond doubt.

In the run up to the 2004 election, Martin admitted to the Post's Mosk that he had circulated the claim that since Obama was born to a Muslim Father, Barack himself would be considered a Muslim by birth to any other Muslim. Martin also pointed out that the Obama campaign then, as now, rejects any claims that Barack is now or ever has been a Muslim. Martin was quite upfront that he believes that Obama is not being truthful over the whole Muslim question.

But, it is also completely obvious that Martin did not write the original email nor that he is a member of a secret anti-Obama conspiracy. Martin’s activities are well known to many and are completely out in the open.

On top of all that, there is no indication that Doctor Allen ever contacted Andy Martin during her "investigation."

" Most people have long understood that Obama, as a child, was educated in a Muslim school. There is no proof whatsoever that he is currently a practicing Muslim..."

I disagree with this. In fact, it seems that unless you are an alternative media buff, people have had no opportunity to hear that Obama was educated in a muslim school. The MSM certainly hasn't made this fact well known. It is merely assumed it is well known by people such as ourselves that peruse alternative media sources. You might be right that it is well known by most people, but imo, that's an assumption, not a fact. The MSM has been actively screening everything about this candidate's backround. The farthest they've gone was to show his "pastor" slamming every group in America, yet still insist that Obama is a "christian" because he's been a member of Wright's hate-filled "church" for 20 years. They seek to connect a long membership in that church to the attributes of being a practicing christian, which in itself stretches credulity. Labeling something 'christian' doesn't make it so, yet the media continue to parrot the line that he's a christian, and won't even touch on his muslim backround except to insist that he's a christian because he belongs to Wright's church. Is Bill Ayers an issue? Do you think most Americans have heard about him via the trusty MSM? What about his Rezko connection, or his teaching of Saul Alinsky's principles at Harvard? All these things are worthy of discussion as it relates to Obama, yet the media have nary mentioned any of them with any type of concerted investigatory gusto. Are we only to discuss the things that the MSM wants to discuss? Even on the energy issue, they are covering for him as best they can, insisting that "Big Oil" already has enough land to drill on, and that Obama is right. How many Americans know that argument is FOS?

"...I was thinking just before signing on to FR, that his Muslim background doesn't seem to bother most Americans even a little bit..."

Again though, I don't believe it's possible to know how many Americans have even heard the truth about his "muslim backround." They certainly haven't heard it from the MSM, unless it was to downplay it due to some pesky "rumors" floating around about it.

Despite it, and the fact that we are currently at war with terrorist Muslims, Obama has become the democratic nominee for president.

Yes, but he was selected by the DNC, not elected by the voters. Of course you're right that a certain segment of the population isn't going to care one way or the other, but it is the undecided voter that is being targeted by both campaigns, not the people that have already committed to each candidate. The real question is, how many undecided voters know of his muslim backround? If they're tuning into the MSM, they aren't going to hear the details of his childhood except as the MSM wants to spin it. If these undecided voters were to find out about his muslim backround, it could be an issue against him for many of them. Don't assume that just because lib-dems don't care, that they somehow speak for the undecided voter.

"...Therefore, the argument that he has a Muslim background and Muslim ties, has already proven to be a loser.

I disagree. It's been effectively squelched by the MSM, but the issue itself has not been determined to be a loser, especially among the undecided voter that has perhaps only heard that he's a christian.

If we continue to use it, it's going to bounce off Obama and stick to us.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. The people that have already decided it doesn't matter, and the people that have decided it does matter, have already made up their minds. The point could just as easily be made that if the undecided voters finally hear about Obama's muslim backround, then it could bounce back to him very negatively, since those are the people he needs to win. Of course, my argument is different than your argument, and is allowing for the possibility that the undecided voter has not heard much if anything at all about Obama's muslim backround. If I assume that most people have heard about it and disregard it as an issue, then I'd agree with your point, but I don't necessarily believe that to be the case.

The issues that will have better traction with the American people, are the ones that will hurt their pocketbooks. We'd be wise to exploit the current gas crises.

I agree, but I think the man should be cornered on all issues. Economic, national security, ideology, and anything else out there. I certainly don't see undecided voters saying "oh well, I was thinking of voting for McCain, until those GOP meanies decided to bring up Obama's muslim heritage, so now, I'm going to vote for Obama just to show them how mad I am at them for doing that." I don't see it being the "distraction" you do, but we're each entitled to our opinion. I can certainly see the angle you're coming from (most americans know about his past and don't care), I just don't necessarily agree with it. If you can show that most Americans (especially undecided voters) HAVE heard about his muslim backround, then I agree, it's pointless to continue to go after him on that issue. I don't think anyone can show that though. People are assuming it, just like many others are assuming that many Americans haven't heard about his muslim backround.

[”A first group of people published articles that created the basis for the attack. A second group recirculated the claims from those articles without ever having been asked to do so. No one coordinates the roles,” Allen said. In other words, even this Obama flak is unwittingly admitting that there really is no grand conspiracy here...]

Not exactly the way the “professionals” on the NY Times and Washingon Post operate, is it?

[”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.”]

So now Allen calls the uncoordinated discussion of ideas on the internet a “misinformation campaign”.

[”Who doesn’t know that those “unions and political action committees” of which Allen speaks are entities regulated by the Federal government? Who could easily miss that Allen must think that the Federal government should regulate political free speech on the Internet just as it does the political actions of PACS and unions?]

This is an understatement by the writer, if anything. Another government regulated medium whose political content people like Allen think should be regulated is the airwaves. These scumbags have already done a good job of restricting the flow of ideas on radio and TV (even the govt. subsidized PBS) without overt help from the Feds. Furthermore, when people with “liberal” opinions shout down or rough up speakers at universities whose opinions they don’t like, their Nazi tactics are defended by liberals as “protected free speech”.

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.