The Shameless Hypocrisy of James Fallows

Liberal hack James Fallows of the Atlantic is all upset that some people jumped to conclusions in the wake of the Norway attack, assuming that it had to be radical Muslim terrorism.

this is a sobering reminder for those who think it's too tedious to reserve judgment about horrifying events rather than instantly turning them into talking points for pre-conceived views.

But here's Fallows right after the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, pushing the leftist smear that it had something to do with right-wing rhetoric in general, and Sarah Palin in particular.

"We don't know why the killer did what he did. If he is like Sirhan, we'll never 'understand.' But we know that it has been a time of extreme, implicitly violent political rhetoric and imagery, including SarahPac's famous bulls-eye map of 20 Congressional targets to be removed -- including Rep. Giffords. It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be.

Apparently it was "legitimate" to pretend that the killer might have been influenced by a Sarah Palin campaign map which there's no evidence he ever saw, but not to jump to the obvious conclusion that radical Islamists might be behind a major terrorist attack. Fallows' credibility is sinking into the same territory of his fellow Atlantic writer Andrew Sullivan.

Censoring Art that Offends Religious Sensibilities

GOP Congressional leaders successfully forced the the removal of a controversial video that was part of an art exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution's National Portrait gallery. Why? Here's Representative and soon to be House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va), who called it,

an "outrageous use of taxpayer money and an obvious attempt to offend Christians during the Christmas season."

The art in question showed"Jesus on a crucifix covered in ants." Let's imagine that the gallery hosted some art that Muslims found offensive, such as any image of Mohammed. Would the same GOP congressmen be up in arms about that? I doubt it. (Although instead there would be Democrats trying to censor it.) From what I saw in the article, I personally think the art in question is a pile of garbage. But art is highly subjective. I also oppose federal funding for the arts. But once you do provide federal funding, it's crazy to censor displays because of the tender sensibilities of religious people. That should apply to any religious group, including the Christian majority.

And is this really an issue that needs to be of concern to our congressional leaders? Don't they have anything better to do than work to prevent Christians from being offended by some exhibit in a museum? Instead of threatening to cut funding because they don't like an art display, they should cut funding because it's unnecessary and something we can do without in this budgetary environment. Here's an idea. How about if Christians don't like the art they just don't patronize the museum during that exhibit? Why do they need government involvement?

Religious people do not have a right not to be offended. And they don't need big government intervention to protect their feelings. The same GOP congressmen who will rail about big government and nanny-statism on other issues, have no problem telling an art museum what art it can display. You don't think the museum is worthy of funding because of the quality of its art exhibits? Fine. Kill the funding. But micro-managing art displays from Capitol Hill is just ridiculous, and goes directly against the principles of small government the Republican party stands for.

Hypocrite in Chief

As everyone knows, President Obama recently spoke out with regard to the Park51 project,  a project that roughly 70% of America feels is tasteless or offensive and should be moved elsewhere. Here's what he had to say about it.

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," ... "That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

He later expanded on those remarks, but continued to emphasize the rights of the developers to proceed regardless of public opposition.

But now we have another situation involving the first amendment, with a small religious group wanting to burn a book on their own private property. This action is even more unpopular than the proposed Islamic community center near Ground Zero. But since the president is such a strong supporter of the first amendment naturally he took the same position. Wrong.

I just hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values of Americans. That this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance. And as a very practical matter, as commander of chief of the Armed Forces of the United States I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. ... it is frustrating. Now, on the other hand, we are a government of laws. And so, we have to abide by those laws. And my understanding is that he can be cited for public burning. But that's the extent of the laws that we have available to us. You know, part of this country's history is people doing destructive or offensive or harmful things. And yet, we still have to make sure that we're following the laws. And that's part of what I love about this country. [emphasis mine]

Where's our valiant defender of the first amendment now? He's bemoaning the fact that our laws inhibit him from taking action to shut down the Koran burning. Now the first amendment is a problem. He mentions citing him for "public burning." Apparently the administration has been searching for ways to suppress the religious freedom and free expression of this church. It's just too bad that the first amendment stands in its way. 

Remember all the times the public has been lectured by liberals like Obama about how we can't let fear of terrorism compromise our rights and freedom? Remember all the talk about "fearmongering," and how if we give in to fear, and compromise our principles Al Qaeda wins? But now one person plans a calculated act designed to offend Muslims, and suddenly fear of their reaction means that the entire force of the government must be directed at intimidating him into changing his mind. It's doing everything possible to figure out how it can get around the first amendment to shut him down. Obama is a gutless hypocrite.

Military Religious Freedom Foundation Wants to Distribute Korans

Seriously. An organization supposedly dedicated to the First Amendment, and keeping religion a private matter within the military, is actually organizing a drive to give Korans to the Afghan Army.

After being contacted by scores of our active duty military clients asking us to do something in response to Terry Jones’s planned “Burn A Koran Day,” MRFF has decided that the most appropriate response would not be to try to stop Jones, but to donate to the Afghan National Army, as a gesture of good will and a statement of opposition to this entirely un-American act of religious bigotry, a new Qur’an for each one destroyed by Jones and his followers.

They are responding to an actual exercise of freedom of religion -- albeit an obnoxious one -- by promoting the Islamic scriptures. According to their own mission statement,

No religion or religious philosophy may be advanced by the United States Armed Forces over any other religion or religious philosophy.

So why are they going to distribute Korans? What does the Afghan Army have to do with a single civilian Christian fanatic making a symbolic personal statement inside the U.S.? This organization that is supposedly so concerned with equality among religious beliefs within the U.S. military is pandering to Afghans where Islamic supremacy is the rule.

What are the odds of the MRFF ever distributing Bibles to the U.S. Army under any circumstances whatsoever, even if Muslims fanatics burned a 10,000 Bible pyramid in downtown Kabul? The Military Religious Freedom Foundation -- except when religious freedom involves doing something that offends Muslims. Then it's the Military Koran Distribution Foundation.

h/t Friendly Atheist

Hypocrite-in-Chief

According to the Washington Post, the president actually criticized "scare tactics" by opponents of health reform. But in the second paragraph, we find that Obama asserted that Americans are "held hostage by insurance companies." Sounds a little like a scare tactic, doesn't it? Obama's entire pitch on healthcare involves scaring the American people about the current system. His ridiculous whining about opponent scare tactics just reveals him to be a gigantic hypocrite.

When the president isn't being intellectually dishonest or hypocritical about the health care issue, he's blatantly lying or spouting doubletalk.

"I don't want government bureaucrats meddling in our health care - but the point is I don't want insurance companies' bureaucrats meddling in our health care either,

What's that supposed to mean? He wants far more government involvement, which obviously necessitates government bureaucrats "meddling," plus he's been working with insurance companies to get their support for his "reform" efforts, even while he demonizes them. 

Hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, scare-tactics, doubletalk, and lies -- that's President Obama on healthcare.