About the Washington Post Hit Piece on Free Republic Today

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.

“Be careful Freepers. But don’t back down.”

Here’s my answer to Dr. Allen, as follows:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2037813/posts?page=217#217

Mrs. Allen informs us:

“The idea of unsubstantiated charges whispered through gossip trails has been a tried-and-true political technique since well before Machiavelli’s time.”

How about the king is wearing an empty suit today — bellowed from the rooftops … does that count?

Along with the poison of Machiavelli she then peppers her speech with ‘unanimity on the internet’ and the word smear — forgetting that many great and influential writers such as Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) and a host of other luminaries made use of pseudonyms.

Was it a smear when Mark Twain said: ‘ Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself ’?

She further says:

“The anonymous chain e-mail makes the false claim that Obama is concealing a radical Islamic background.”

There is a letter from some African Missionaries that seems rather strong but Beckwith didn’t write it.

Obama may be Muslim … and we all know he has radical friends… maybe even some radical Muslim friends… but where does the Obama file say that he — personally — is a ‘RADICAL’ Muslim?

She then says:

“I started thinking, How does one stop it?”

Well, Mrs. Allen could exercise her first amendment right of free speech, and lobby to limit free speech to only the speech she agrees with.

Perhaps she would be pleased to sit on a board of review with other ‘geniuses’ … a board that would act as a sort of social filter… one that would purge all views that don’t resonate with her rarefied cogitations.

Maybe she could reside over a book burning, or maybe we should say (figuratively) a cyber-burning, including certain websites and e-mails, that Dr. Allen disagrees with.

Dr. Allen doesn’t seem to grasp that the first amendment was designed to protect precisely that speech — sometimes even angry and pointed speech — that one may vehemently disagree with.

Perhaps Dr. Allen was truant on the day her Political Science professor discussed the first amendment.

Maybe she was off somewhere reading Machiavelli !

She says:

“This kind of misinformation campaign short-circuits judgment.”

Unless one is naïve enough to swallow whole any data one receives, whether through an anonymous internet e-mail, the mindless idiots on the mainstream TV. news, or other sundry sources; I am at a loss as to how anyone capable of reason — let alone a ’genius’ — would suffer impairment to their faculty of judgment.

One is not forced to read or accept anything.

One exercises the ability to discriminate … to sort out what one accepts and what one doesn’t, amongst the potpourri of ideas and views one encounters in life — a concept Mrs. Allen seems at odds with.

She then astoundingly says:

“It also aggressively disregards the fundamental principle of free societies that one be able to debate one’s accusers.”

Nay, Dr. Allen, the fundamental principle of free societies is that one be able to criticize those in authority and power — without fear of reprisal.

To the extent such criticism is chilled to that extent we live under tyranny.

… Machiavelli indeed!

STE=Q

Update: Beckwith clerifies what the Obama file DOES say, as follows:

“The charge that ‘Obama is a Muslim’ or ‘Obama was a Muslim’ does not exist in The Obama File.

The statement ‘By birth, blood and training, a Muslim, who has been a member of a Black-African church for 20 years’ is in The Obama File and is demonstrably true based on Obama’s own autobiography, press interviews, and statements of his teachers, classmates and family members — not to mention Islamic theology.”

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.