Topic: Ron Paul
The WorldNetDaily Anti-Ron Paul Machine Joseph Farah's latest article about Ron Paul isn't exactly a smear attempt, but it was poorly researched (if at all) and definately written for the sole purpose of discrediting Dr. Paul and his campaign's platform.by Paul M. Green
(libertarian)
Thursday, December 27, 2007
NOTE: After reading some comments, and some other articles regarding this topic, I've decided to remove the accusation of "smear" from the origonal title. Having taken the time to re-read Mr. Farah's column, I realize that the article, while poorly researched (if at all), and totally unobjective, it was not an attempt to overtly smear Dr. Paul.
However, I do believe Mr. Farah wrote the article solely to discredit Dr. Paul and his campaign's platform of freedom, limited government, and most importantly (and threatening) to Mr. Farah, noninterventionalist foriegn policy.
WorldNetDaily is nothing more than a "False Front" for the NeoCon agenda and its propaganda. At one time, the site was truly an alternative news and information outlet. I used to be a regular reader - I even subscribed to the magazine. But now, since moving the operation to Washington D.C., Joseph Farah and his operation have been assimilated by the dark side. The NeoCon Dark Lord now rules at WorldNetDaily.
Now, on with what I origonally posted:
------------------
Please follow this link below to read the latest WorldNetDaily (WND) smear piece by Joseph Farah. Then you'll better understand my latest tirade in support of Ron Paul's movement for freedom, liberty, and the Constitution.
Below is the response I emailed to WND imediately after reading this editorial. You'll notice that I didn't focus so much on Farah's comments about earmarking money, but rather his statement that the Untited States is living in "relative peace and prosperity," and how that will be "lost" if we run from "the enemy".
Please read on, and let me know what you think.
-------------------------
Dear Sir,
I write in response to your editorial, "Earmark this, Ron Paul!", December 27, 2007.
We live today, in the United States, under a dictatorial NeoCon president, at war in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and with personal freedoms in peril. Ron Paul states that if we pull out of Iraq, and Afghanistan, and ease our rhetoric with Iran, not only will we save lives, and money, but fuel for terrorism and extremism will be removed. These are both true statements. Your response was thus: "But the sad truth is that if we run from this enemy now, our days as a country living in relative peace and prosperity are over."
Hogwash, sir.
How can you make that statement while Americans are DYING over in Iraq and Afghanistan, with our military based in over 100 different countries? Strange for a country at relative peace. Who is this "enemy"? Who are we running from? How can you make that statement when Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or any other country 10,000 miles away is of NO treat to our soil. They can not attack us, they have not attacked us, nor will they ever be able to attack us (and don't even think 9/11 was their fault - you know that is false). Why then should we be over there attacking them? You make such claims, but give no facts to back them up. Please explain our nation's, "Relative peace and prosperity". Peace? No, we are not at peace. Prosperity? No, sir. This country is not currently prosperous. Our debt is growing by billions every month. Inflation is killing the middle class, and keeping the poor in poverty. Our currency is controlled by unelected PRIVATE bankers (the FED) who profit from our losses. Our jobs are being sent overseas where some sweatshop worker gets paid five cents and hour to make our clothes and electronics.
Explain our peace and prosperity, sir. Give me some facts and figures that prove our peace and prosperity. Then, tell me what would be so bad if we as a nation went back to our most basic Constitutional Principles? Why would it be so bad if our president upheld his oath, and DEFENDED THE CONSTITUTION, thus protecting our civil and inalienable rights? I remind you that Bush referred to the Constitution as "just a G--damn piece of paper". Is that the kind of man we want as our president? A man who took an oath and swore to support and defend what he believes is just a "G--damn piece of paper"? No wonder things are happening the way they are. Warrantless searches, suspension of habeas corpus, torture, illegal wiretapping of citizens, secretive government, preemptive aggression, huge bureaucracy. Are these things the product of a free and prosperous nation? No, sir. They are the product of a nation on the downslide toward tyranny and fascism. An honest look at history will tell you this is true.
Ron Paul would indeed uphold his oath as president. He would put government back into its Constitutional place. He would remove the power to wage war from the Executive, and give it back to the Congress, where it belongs. Why are you opposed to that? Why should our nation get involved in the internal affairs of another? Wouldn't you agree that trade and friendship would be far more profitable than war? Was it really necessary to destroy Iraq, when we could have gone about it another way?
I can already hear your response to the latter question: "Twelve years of sanctions and UN resolutions didn’t work." A true NeoCon answer - way to tow the party line, sir. Well, I submit to you that sanctions against Iraq were meant only to punish and depress. What a great way to soften up a sovereign state for invasion than to cut off its revenue, starve it's citizens, and restrict its trade? And now its Iran's turn, right? You all are using the same, tired, old play book - likely authored by Dick Cheney, edited by Donald Rumsfield, and bound and printed by the national mint.
Really, sir, I believe you and Dr. Paul have more in common than you think. I've read your website for a long time, and even agree with 85% of what you write. You and I share many beliefs. But I'm baffled. How can you be so in favor of aggressive war, big government bureaucracy, and policies that strip freedom? How can you be blind to the facts and claim that America is in relative peace and prosperity? How do you do that, sir?
As to Ron Paul's defense of his earmarked money, did you bother looking up what Ron Paul wanted to use the money for? One thing was a children's hospital, another was for Texas shrimpers. By the way, these "earmarks" weren't solicited by special interests, pharmaceutical companies, or big oil and defense corporations. I can't speak for the man, but I'm sure Dr. Paul seriously considers what the money is used for, before requesting it. You also claim he requests the money, then votes against it. You skew the facts, sir. He votes against the entire budget proposal as a whole if it is unbalanced. Once it is passed, then the money is distributed. The money Dr. Paul has requested is likely not wasted, and almost assuredly not lining some bureaucrat's or CEO's pockets.
You seem to be criticizing for the sake of criticism, sir. If I had the time, and the desire, I could dig up and print MANY things about your man Mr. Huckabee, but I'd prefer to take the high road and only criticize you.
-----------------------------
I don't really know why Mr. Farah's comments fired me up so much. I guess I'm just getting tired of hearing the same old, tired excuse from the NeoCons, the Establishment and the MSM for continuing our illegal wars of aggression in Iraq, Afganistan, and soon Iran.
Its time for a change of direction in our nation. Its ironic that we who fight for and defend freedom today are called the radicals, or progressives. I guess anything that challenges the status quo seems radical and fringe. And that is what is so sad about the United States we live in today. Somewhere in the bible it says, "Woe to those who call good evil, and evil good." Yes, woe to the keepers of the status quo, and woe to those who would steer our nation toward fascism and tyranny, while smearing those who defend the TRUTH.
Ron Paul WILL be our next president, and those who hold the mainstream today will be back where they belong - on the fringes of our society.
Vote FREEDOM
Vote LIBERTY
Vote RON PAUL 2008
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 81 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Paul M. Green only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Paul M. Green is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I too saw the article, but wouldn't dignify it with the direct response he seems to crave. The "journalist" in question isn't the first to try and use his little speck of limelight as a bully pulpit for the benefit of some unseen third party. It's the oldest trick in the book of junk journalism, and an excellent determining factor when purging a reading list of useless drivel.
The funny thing to me is that they never mention the fact that his supporters are not big business machines like the special interests, pharmaceutical companies, or big oil and defense corporations. The support that Dr. Paul receives is from the everyday American Tax-payer. Never do they mention that the average campaign donation comes in the form of $150. Pork barrel politics is completely the wrong statement on this issue. If Ron Paul's contributors were actually the Pharmaceutical, Millitary, and Big Business industrial Complexes, then yes it would be Pork. However, they are not.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-27 09:32:48
I'm sorry, but I can't agree that the WND article is a smear piece. As I understand the term, a smear piece is an attempt to denigrate someone by spreading lies and half-truths about that person. Mr. Farah's article did not do that. While I personally disagree with Mr. Farah's analysis, characterizing his article as a smear piece simply isn't accurate and only makes you look foolish.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. WND (Writings with No Depth) has a long history of being clueless overdosers on the neocon Kool-Aid. Farah is just the biggest junkie there.
WND has ben on my "ignore on the web" list for quite some time, along with Redstate, LMAO, HotAir, Western Standard, DailyKos, and JB Williams. They are all off the planet when it comes to the reality of the world.
Next thing they'll be finding some perverted and bogus convulsion to blame the Bhutto assassination on Dr. Paul as well...
Posted By: Paul M. Green
Date: 2007-12-27 09:53:45
To: Walt Theissen.
I agree, that Farah's article was not blatent smear, however by your own definition of the word, it fits the bill. He accuses Dr. Paul of hipocracy concerning his earmarks. This is a half-truth and a distortion. His article is not meant to report any useful information of even to make a legitimate point - his accusations have no real basis and he provides no proof to back them up. If you look up the archive of Joseph Farah's writings about Ron Paul, you will find nothing but smear, smear, smear. And, the only one coming off as foolish is Mr. Farah himself.
I know little about politics. I am 66 and have been voting since LJB ran in 1964. I am sick to death of the Republicans and the Democrats. I have never contributed a thing to any candidate. So far, I have made two $500 contributions to Ron Paul --- and this morning I ordered 8 yard signs from his Web site. He is the only political candidate who is unafraid of the establishment and the media. If he gets the nomination, which I hope he does, he will be in for the biggest smear campaign that the Amerian Media has ever had. I hope he ignores the smears and realizes that he has many people who love and respect him.
Posted By: Paul M. green
Date: 2007-12-27 10:00:40
CORRECTION TO MY PRIOR COMMMENT:
I was able to find a fair and balanced artcle on WND that mentioned Ron Paul. It had to do with the Newsweek Hit-Piece about the NAFTA super highway. To their credit, WND did a good job of reporting the facts objectively. However, my opinion still stands that Joseph Farah's article was nothing more than an attempt to spread false, skewed information in a attemtp to smear.
Posted By: Stephen Morris
Date: 2007-12-27 12:10:11
Does anybody else remember when Joseph Farah thought like us?
What a puke. He moves his publication to DC "the belly of the beast" as he once called it, now he is bought and paid for by Bush Cheney.
Rot in hell with your Neocon friends Joe.
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin principalis, from princip-, princeps
Date:
14th century
1 : most important, consequential, or influential :chiefprincipal ingredient> principal city> 2 : of, relating to, or constituting principal or a principal
Main Entry:
2principal
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century
1: a person who has controlling authority or is in a leading position: as a: a chief or head man or woman b: the chief executive officer of an educational institution c: one who engages another to act as an agent subject to general control and instruction; specifically: the person from whom an agent's authority derives d: the chief or an actual participant in a crime e: the person primarily or ultimately liable on a legal obligation f: a leading performer :star 2: a matter or thing of primary importance: as a (1): a capital sum earning interest, due as a debt, or used as a fund (2): the corpus of an estate, portion, devise, or bequest b: the construction that gives shape and strength to a roof and is usually one of several trusses; broadly: the most important member of a piece of framing
Main Entry:
prin·ci·ple
Pronunciation:
ˈprin(t)-s(ə-)pəl, -sə-bəl
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Middle French principe, principle, from Old French, from Latin principium beginning, from princip-, princeps initiator — more at prince
Date:
14th century
1 a: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1): a rule or code of conduct (2): habitual devotion to right principles(Link Edited For Length)3 a: an underlying faculty or endowment principles of human nature as greed and curiosity> b: an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality4capitalizedChristian Science: a divine principle :god
— in principle
: with respect to fundamentals in principle>
usage Although nearly every handbook and many dictionaries warn against confusing principle and principal, many people still do. Principle is only a noun; principal is both adjective and noun.
Hey Walt, How about soliciting Derek as an editor for some of the articles that appear on Nolan Chart? And while I also hate to nit-pick, could you possibly fix the way "links" get mangled in comments when you get chance? :)
Posted By: Paul M. Green
Date: 2007-12-27 19:51:14
Hey Derrek,
Thanks for the "nitpick". I found and corrected the mistake. I actually know the difference between "principal" and principle", and it was a typo on my part. I am forced to proofread my own stuff, so some things slip throught the cracks. I appreciate the correction. I'll do better to be sure my stuff is clean before I publish. Note however, I don't always do so well with comments because I type them fast and move on.... :-)
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
