Chris Wallace: Bigot and Bad Journalist on the Unfair and Unbalanced Network

I saw about 5 minutes of Chris Wallace's interview with Rick Santorum ont eh unfair and unbalanced network. That again confirmed my view that Chirs Wallace is deserving of noting but utte and total contempt, and that yu should boycott the unfair and unbalanced network (unless yo are just briefly suring, like me, to see what eVIL lies in the hearts of men (9r media)--to quote The Shadow. Chris Wallace is an unfair and unbalanced man on the unfair and unbalanced network.


Questioin to Rick Santorum: "Do you bewlieve that theMormon religion is a cult?"


Now if you ask Chirs Wallace, you will hear that a STUPID, irrelevant question like that is his way of asking a "hard" question, and that the PASTOR supporting Rick Perry has made this an "issue" in the Repubican race. Message to Wallace: You are a STULPID, EVIL amn, and this is flatly not true. You are just using this pator, who di not say anything other than what you might expect an evangelical pator to say, to ask a REPUBLICAN a religious question. Now if Wallace had asked OOBAMA: "How can you call yourself a Christian, and support abortion up to the moment of birth?" Or if Wallace had asked OBAMA whether he believes Mormonism is a cukt: what he thinks of the Muslim religioin, since it has been used as an exuuse for so much death in the world: OR what he thinks of evangelical, Christian religions, I MITHGT have some respect for Chirs Wallace (not because the questions are any less stupid, but but because that would reflect COURAGE). Did I just say that Chris Wallace, and all of the unfair and unbalanced network, are COWARDS? Damn right I did, and I mean it. In fact, where are the questions to Obama, from the unfair and unbalanced network, about whether he agrees with Bill Maher that he is a secular humaninst rather than a Christian?


No, I did not see more than my self-imposed limit of 10 minutes of the unfair and unbalanced network this whole weekend. Yet, I "surfed" by several times, and VERY time the unfair and unbalanced network was hung up on this PASTOR (not Rick Perry himself) saying that Mormonism is a cult. The unfair and unbalanced network is perhaps MORE obsessed with this ridiculous, irrlevant matter than even the mainstream media (see previous article). For his alone, and they commit similar journalistic crimes every day, you should BOYCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network. In fact, I amybe surfed 5 minutes on Friday,, and that wa the only subject I saw on the unfair and lunbalanced network.


Why is it a ridiculous and EVIL question to ask Rick Santorum whether he believes the Mormon religion is a cult? It is like Piers Morgan asking the similarly EVIl question as to whether Santorum believes that homosexualtiy is a "sin". In fact, I wsh that Santorum had ATTACKED the question, and given the same answoer that he gave Morgaon (that he was not a theologian, but a man running for President). What difference does it make whehter Rick Santorum thinks that the Mormon religioin is a "cutl"? That is a rELIGIOUS question, just as is the question of whether homosexualtiy is a "sin". Yes, Chris Wallace is a BIGOT for even asking the question, because Wallace is representing that the question is a RELEVANT question. It is not. It assumes that it is some sort of legitimate issue as to what kind of religion the Mormon religion is. Now it may be that it is a legitimate issue whehter a candidate is a member of a religiioin that favors the sacrifice of children (lthough would a JEW ever be read the passages from the Old Testament suggesting that such a sacrifice to God might be defensible), but it is ridiculous to suggest that the practices of the Mormon religion are such as to be relevant to SECULAR ISSUES. As I stated in the previous aarticle, it may well be relevant to evangelicals--as to everyone--whether a candidate shares "their values", and evangelicals have a problem with Mormonism as aan aggresively COMPETING religoion, but it is not a relevant POLITICAL ISSUE. And a PASTOR cannot make it one. No, it is not even a valied question to be asked of Rick Perry, although it is too mch to ask of the incompetents of the media (including Wallace, and the others on the unfair and unbalanced network) to understand this. It is NOT a relevant question whether a candidate consides Mormonism as a cult, from a religious perspective, any more lthan it is a relevant question whether Obama is really a Christian (as Bill Maher and I agree he is not). The only RELEVANT question is whether a CNDIDATE is asserting that Mitt Romney should not be President because he is Mormon, and why.


No CANDIDATE has expressed that opinion, even Rick Perry . Now it would not be too much to suggest that Rick Perry be asked whether he agrees with such an opinion by a strong supporter of his, and whether Perry thinks it is appropriate to brign religion so directly into contested politics by suggesting that people should vote against Mitt Romney because of his religioni. But that does NOT--Chris Wallace asiide, since he is an evil, stupid man--making him merely typical of today's media person--make it open season to ask EVERY Repubican hsi or her RELLIGIOUS opinion of Mormonism. They--these Republicans--are NOT making that an open "issue" in the campaing. Why should an EVIL media do waht they are not, by making such a point of asking about the Mormon religion. Just because one pastor said that Mormonism is a "cult" (a word without meaning, as ALL religions started off as a cult, including Christianity itself). It is the MEDIA who is encouraging BIGOTRY here by making such a big deal out of what people think of the Mormon religion. By implicatiion , the media is saying that it is OKAY to make an issue out of religion, so long as lyou do it in a way the MEDIA is doing (by innuendo, "question", and impied disdain for evangelical Christians).


Is the unfair and unbalanced network BIGOTED toward Christians---especially evangelical, fundamentalistt Christians? You can make that case, and I believe that Chris Wallace has shown that he is. This blog has already established that this is true of CNN and the rest of the mainsstream media--CNN's close relationship with Bill Maher alone proves it for CNN--but you might think that is not a valied charge for the unfair and unbalanced network. Not so fast. What is the IMPLICATION of Chris Wallace's question to Rick Santorum? Rick Santroum, despite his efforts to talk about jobs and the economy, has been LABELED a "religious conservative". That is why he got the "religious" questions in the debates conducted by the unfair and unbalanced network, and why Crhis Wallace aksed him this particular question. Is this LABELLING of peole not a form of bigotry? I think it is, and the headline calls Wallace a BIGOT for more than one reason. He is willing to sort of give a gack-haned nod to BIGOTRY against the Mormon religion, while at the same time suggsesting that all evangelical Christians are BIGOTED. Further, he is willing to suggest that someone like Rick Santorum, with strong religioous views, is more rightly to be questioned on those views than, say Barack Obama. Nope. Wallace , you are a COARD, bigot and bad "ournalist".


Doubt me? Never, ever, do that. Guess what the NEXT question Wallace asked Santorum was? It was the Piers Morgan question, except "cleaned" up to make it not so obviously religioious. But it is Santorum's expressed religious views that caused the qeustion to be FEATURED to him, even though he has nNOT made it a big issue in his campaign. Yep. I am talkking aobut eh view that homosexual CONDUCT is the same as the African-American struggle against slavery and for civil rights. Did I not tell you that Wallace is an EVIL person? Wallace spent an ungodly (pun intended) amount of time asking Santorum about homosexuals in the military, picking up the LEFITST talking point about that "gay soldier" at the Tea Party debate (a ridiculous qusestion for a Tea Party debatre, as this blgo told you at the time). This is not even a matter of whether openly gay people should be allowed to FaLUNT their conduct in the military. Wallace, by the way, ridiculued the idea that gays would "ti on" other soldiers. Why not? Can you even IMAGINE that a soldier will NOT be thrown out of the military for such conduct? Wallace tried to suggest to santorum that gays are now going to be treated just like heterosexuals. NOT A CHANCE. Gays now have a SPECIAL status where it is going to be almsost impossible to throw one out of the military--no matter how outrageous the conduct. Meanwhile, a herterosecual person may still easily be thrown out for HETEROSEXUAL misconduct. Agai, though, that is not the main issue here. Wallace is willing to use of a good amount of Santorum's time about the UNIMPORTANT issue of gays in the military, to the point of ARGUING with Santorum about his answer. That is because Wallance is UNINTERESTED IN INFORMATION. He is only interested in "gotcha", BIGOTED "journalism".


Of courfse, Wallace is welcome to respond on this blgo, and I promist not to EDIT a single word. Note the "journalistic" tactic here. Do something that people might consider sometwhat unfair, and thien invite a response that cannot help the peron you have attacked. No, it will not do Wallace nany good to repsond on this blgo (although he may be surpirsed how much influence this blog really has). yep. I am more lthan willing to go on Wallace's program a, or anywhere on the unfair and unbalanced network, and repeat these chareges. Note, again, the clever "journalistic" tactic, with the APEARNESS of "fairness", when fairness is not my intention at all. But the offer still stand.s. My name and email HAS been set forth in the body of this blog before. But all anyone has to do is comment with contact information, and I will respnd (provided, of course, it is not the kind of "journalistic" deive referenced in this paragraph or some sorrt of obvious sales gimmick).


P.S. No proofreading or spell checkig (bad eyesight).