Joseph Farah of worldnetdaily slanders Ron Paul

Look at his advertisers and you know where you are!
Nobody who has brains pays any attention to this AIPAC paid warmonger

The WORST mustache i have ever seen in my entire life......

hmmmm.....can you say HAIR LIP

I sent him a not so nice letter too. But mine focused on his "head in the sand" belief that the U.S. is at peace and prosperous. You'll find that here: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/17567

Vote Freedom
Vote Liberty
Vote RON PAUL

I sent this email to Farah...

Come on…Joseph, this is pretty weak. I know you support war against Islam in perpetuity, and think those of us who don’t are idiots, but to latch onto this pork vs. credits issue as your handle to discredit Ron Paul is just lame. You believe that the only “pure” position he could have is to ensure no monies his constituents have payed in taxes ever come back to their district? How does that make sense?

Chairman

for the United States to take care of every little whim Isreal has...financially, militarily and political. That's the purpose of his web site....just look at the articles and advertisers. Now when Ron Paul says "We shouldn't give them anything, other than free trade and fair treatment" that rattles Farah's team to the core. What? No MONEY? I'm afraid Ron Paul is not going to win the support of Farah. Other than the " No money for Isreal thing", he'd be onboard.

He had respect for Paul before Russert asked Paul about earmarks. Say what? This drove him over the edge?

How dumb does he think his readers are? Yes, what Ron Paul does is cynical, but what is he supposed to do? He disagrees with the spending and he votes against it, but in case it passes he wants his district to get some of the loot back. Afterall, they pay taxes too. Horror of horrors, hells bells, holly molly, I have lost all respect for Ron Paul.

Yeah, rightttttttttttttttttttttttt....................

Well, I emailed him and respectfully explained why he was wrong (not that I think it will do any good).

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson

In Dr. Paul's own words....

by Ron Paul, Dr. June 18, 2007

Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.

Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.

So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.

So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/482/earmark-victory-may-...

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson

Don't worry about this guy. The people who think Isreal is greatest thing to Christianity are never going to vote for Ron Paul. They have it in their heads that America knows what's best for Isreal. Not the other way around.

His ignorance astounds me though. "I have been studying Islam for 28 years and they have always hated America..." Really, why don't they attack in Switzerland, Lichtenstein, or a multitude of other places that leave them alone? The only reply I ever get to that is that well, "we are the big kid on the block." In which case I reply when Russia invaded Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden was funded by us to repel the Russians. Why doesn't Osama continue to target Russia. Where are all the we must continue to fight attack the Russians video tapes? The bottom line is this, they don't like foriegners on their soil or manipulating the leadership. I don't blame them. I blame our ignorant politicians who refuse to accept reality.

www.ronpaul2008.com

He believes he has uncovered some sort of juicy nugget he can slander the competition with, when indeed, he is telling only half the story. If the earmarks were not permitted to go back to his district guess who would receive the funds? Why, none other than the executive branch of the Neocon
dictatorship.

So you see, he's only being loyal to the party. The good people of Texas be damned! The machine must have it's fuel! Because it's not happy until it can see blood, guts, and veins in it's teeth.

I just wish these people could be a little less obvious and a bit more of an intellectual challenge. I guess it's difficult when your mind is preoccupied with a dying political philosophy.

Forget these people, they are history and they know it.

coming from Farah. Ron Paul for President!!

I won't even bother to reply to that fool on his own web site - I resolved a while back not even to go there unless it was a referenced URL from another site such as this was. But to Joseph Farah, what exactly is "dead wrong" about calling home our spread out and demoralized troops from around the globe and preparing for the _defense_ of this country from our enemies? What is "dead wrong" about cutting off financial and arms aid to our enemies? What is "dead wrong" about actually starting to check at our borders to make sure we know who is entering our country, to make sure that they intend us no harm?

Well perhaps you fellow Paul supporters can understand why I quit listening to anything this fool says now. Hey, it's a free country though. Let him keep his own stupid opinions, and let him continue to run his neo-conservative, false news web site. Ron Paul will have to be the President of _all_ of the United States, and he will have to protect even fools like Joseph Farah. It's ok though, Ron Paul's shoulders are broad enough for the task.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel... The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. - Patrick Henry

Before we blast WND, let us prepare an intelligent response.

Farah is just wrong on the war. I know he is aware of the NWO CFR organizations and their intent to keep things stirred up. I think personally that Farah has some sort of personal vendetta against Ron Paul.

One thing you can mention is that Ron Paul was the ONLY one who offered Letters of Marque and Reprisal to go after the terrorists. Much the same as Thomas Jefferson when dealing with terrorist pirates in 1804. He fails to mention that.
It sounds like Farah would prefer safety over liberty.

Something isn't right when all these so-called conservatives (though Farah doesn't call himself one) are so incensed about Ron Paul when he is the ONLY one standing up for the COTUS.

The whole damned system is unconstitutional. So how can one partake in it without violating the Constitution?

trying to obtain stolen tax money back from government via earmarks equates to "pork". Wrong! Pork is trying to get money stolen from OTHER taxpayers into your pocket by getting government to fund idiotic projects from which you benefit. Earmarks may be bad but at least some people in the district will be getting some of their tax money back via earmarks. Farah paid as little attention to what Ron said as did Russert - that being that at least citizens from the district have some input as to how their stolen dollars are spent. In the absence of earmarks all allocated funds would be spent as determined by Washington bureaucrats who have no care for any given district.

marlow