S.C. Sen. Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg) is ramping up the rhetoric in his bid against U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (RINO-S.C.). The social conservative bomb thrower – who previously (and aptly) labeled Graham a “community organizer for the Muslim Brotherhood” – now has his sights on U.S. President Barack Obama.

But is he reaching too far in an effort to throw red meat to the Palmetto State’s GOP base?

In a wide-ranging piece on the Palmetto State’s U.S. Senate race published by CNN’s Peter Hamby late Friday, Bright took off the gloves against Obama – saying he has “certain embedded hostilities to the American way of life.”

We’re obviously not going to argue that point … Obama is clearly hostile to constitutional liberty and the free market economy, two pillars of our (rapidly eroding) “American way of life.”

But Bright wasn’t done …

“He is more in line with Muslim extremists than he is with Muslims,” Bright continued. “He seems to identify with their cause.”

Again … Obama’s disastrous intervention in Egypt lends some credence to this criticism, so Bright is technically within his bounds in making such a statement.

Where did he veer way out of bounds, though? His very next thought …

obama bright

“I don’t know if he is a Muslim extremist,” Bright said of Obama. “But I don’t know what his faith is. He professes to be a Christian, so I take him at his word.”

Hmmmmm …

Couple points here …

First and foremost, Bright’s statement is a logical contradiction. If he takes Obama “at his word” on the profession of his Christian faith, then it is impossible for him to simultaneously believe that Obama is a Muslim extremist. The statement doesn’t make any sense because the terms are – last time we checked, anyway – mutually exclusive.

More importantly (as we’ve said on numerous previous occasions) any sort of attack against Obama based on his faith is totally inappropriate – and counterproductive. Seriously, has Obama’s legacy of failed economic policies, soaring deficits, Orwellian domestic spying, socialized medicine, global interventionism, and rampant administrative corruption not given his opponents enough to attack?

In light of all that egregiousness … what on earth does anyone care what his religion is? 

In Bright’s case the attack is also deeply hypocritical. See, if he were a true lover of liberty he would recognize Obama’s faith is none of his damn business – and that such a line of criticism is inherently at odds with the personal freedom he claims to embrace.

Bright is correct to exploit the sheer insanity of the Obama-Graham worldview – which is set to plunge our country into yet another needless foreign conflict. But there is a way to do that without compromising one of the most sacred ideals of the liberty movement he seeks to represent.