While the following narrative might sound like a joke, it is not.

Little John Lauber, a “soft-spoken new student” at the prestigious Cranbrook School in Detroit’s exclusive suburb of Bloomfield Hills, was reportedly “different” than all the other boys. In fact, so different was Lauber said to be, that he was tormented “for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality” (and especially, for his “bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye”).

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” one of the school’s bullies allegedly shouted before pinning the boy down and cutting his bangs.

Glenn Beck Slams Washington Post Article on Mitt Romney Haircut, Asks Where Coverage for Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama IsThe monster in the schoolyard 47 years ago was, according to Washington Post gumshoe Jason Horowitz, none other than GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

There’s just one snag: The Lauber family came out last week claiming that not only was the portrayal of John inaccurate, they do not recall the alleged incident ever taking place. Perhaps if Horowitz had relied less on hearsay and instead taken the time to interview members of the Lauber family for his article (as one would expect a journalist to do), his work might have read less like a desperately contrived attempt at character assassination.

But while the Washington Post story could be brushed off as laughable, it points to a grave matter occurring within American press. How seriously could a media outlet the scale of the Washington Post take the vetting process if it deems a haircut that nobody can remember — including the alleged “victim’s” family — sufficient enough “dirt” to destroy the credibility of a presidential candidate? Moreover, how could a purportedly reputable news outlet do so while having failed to report on treasonous incidents that were perpetrated by at least three past Democratic candidates? In this context, the Washington Post article flies in the face of reason and logic and some might argue, is an insult to those who take the vetting process seriously.

During his Wednesday morning broadcast, Glenn Beck took a moment to point out the hypocrisy of the mainstream media in smearing Mitt Romney while whitewashing the dubious pasts of former presidential candidates Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Barack Obama. So un-thorough was their vetting process in fact, that two of them went on to become president.

 

Staying in the home of hardline Stalinists 

In 1970, five years after the alleged Romney-haircut, Bill Clinton was graduate student atGlenn Beck Slams Washington Post Article on Mitt Romney Haircut, Asks Where Coverage for Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama Is Oxford University. It was the height of the Cold War, yet the man some call a draft dodger for having used student deferments and other loopholes to avoid military service, spent a week in the home of Bedrich and Jirina Kopold, members of the Czech Communist Party Central Committee.

According to Ken Blackwell, the Kopolds were not even “liberal” reform-minded backers of ousted leader Anton Dubek, father of the “Prague Spring” of 1968 who attempted to bring about “Communism with a human face.”

Blackwell adds that as the Soviet tanks rolled through Prague, Dubek wound up in chains in Moscow.

There, a drunken Brezhnev sneered and jeered at Dubek and some of his fellow chained Communist brothers because they had soiled themselves. This wasn’t the Kopold team, however. Bedrich and Jirina were the hard-line Stalinists who demanded the Soviet tanks come in and crush these first shoots of freedom sprouting up in Wenceslas Square.

Yet, five years after Romney was a senior in high school, a Rhodes Scholar who would go on to become President of the United States spent a week in the home of a couple who literally demanded that Soviet tanks roll into Prague and over whatever glimmer of freedom the Czech people had left.

Meantime, back in Paris…

Glenn Beck Slams Washington Post Article on Mitt Romney Haircut, Asks Where Coverage for Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama IsJohn Kerry’s reputation among war veterans as a “traitor” is well known. After returning from Vietnam to pursue a Congressional career, the member of the New England elite testified in 1971 before Sen. J. William Fulbright’s Foreign Relations Committee to display his new “dovish” sensibilities and solidify himself as the Democratic candidate to beat. As Blackwell noted, at the time of the hearing, Kerry wore half his uniform and all of his medals in what was clearly a calculated political move. What could be a greater affront to military than debasing its very uniform, for which decades of tradition and symbolism are interwoven? Perhaps delivering a testimony against fellow soldiers that spawned the term “baby killers”…and Kerry did that too.

On second thought, however, there could be yet another affront perpetrated by John Kerry that is on par or if not worse than defiling the uniform and accusing U.S. soldiers of violating the Geneva Convention: Meeting with members of the Vietcong while in Paris in 1970 (again, five years after a heinous Romney allegedly played coiffeur in the schoolyard). Blackwell notes that the Post did cover this story,”but only on page A8, and only in the context of reporting on a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad attacking Kerry.”

Yes, in 1970, John and Julia Kerry traveled to Paris where John met with Madam Win Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG) — the political wing of the Vietcong — and with representatives of Hanoi who were in Paris for the peace talks.

After his liaison with enemy (a.k.a. “treason”), that same year Kerry joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War where he became an outspoken critic of his fellow soldiers and delivered speeches alongside famed anti-war activist, Jane Fonda.

All of this transpired while American POWs were tortured (a violation of the Geneva Convention, by the way) by the very Communists Kerry chose to engage in Paris. He remained silent on the atrocities committed by the Vietcong and so has, in large part, the mainstream press.

 

Cavorting with Marxists circa Evil Empire-days

Years after Mitt Romney allegedly gave an unsolicited haircut to a boy, in April of 1983 (the same year President Ronald Reagan gave his now infamous “Evil Empire” speech) then-Columbia student Barack Obama attended the Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City. The fact is well documented Obama even admitted as much in his own memoir, “Dreams From My Father.”

The conference was meant to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Marx’s death and indeed,Glenn Beck Slams Washington Post Article on Mitt Romney Haircut, Asks Where Coverage for Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama Is celebrate the father of modern Communism’s life and accomplishments. Obama’s attendance likely doesn’t come as a shock, however, given the long line of far-left mentors he has had throughout his life. The Blaze documented the president’s role models in a two part special report detailing the fictional elements of Obama’s life.

Blackwell pointed out that for a good deal of time after World War II the actions and associations of Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama would prevent them from obtaining security clearance, let alone a seat in the Oval Office.

Yet the first thing the mainstream media should have done with Kerry, Clinton, and Obama, according to Beck, was hold an open and honest “adult conversation” about the past lives of these presidential contenders. This would have given each of these candidates a chance to either own or disavow their past deeds and perhaps even come out the stronger for it. This is meant to be one of core principles of true journalism — that by shining a light on people and events (without engaging a double standard) — the very best of society can rise to the top where the less desirable elements can be exposed for who and what they are.

When “journalists” instead chose to cherry-pick their coverage with clear political goals, the institution loses credibility. Perhaps this point is best illustrated in the Washington Post’s 5,000-plus word profile on the unproven schoolyard antics of a teenage boy.