0 votes

Joseph Farah of World Net Daily Finds Ron Paul the Best of All the Remaining Presidential Candidates

Although Joseph Farah disagrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy, he finds Ron Paul to be the best choice of any of the remaining Presidential Candidates, Republican or Democratic:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59938



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

About frigging time!

Forward Liberty

What you sitting there for... Go get some of the NEW Common Sense V2.0 flyers and start making copies and getting them out there...

People gotta learn somehow!

This is actually perfect...

Farah's history notwithstanding, this is the perfect endorsement. Perfect because it is honest and addresses the compromise that many in the GOP constituency will have to agree to in order to vote for Dr. Paul.

Don't need their total buy-in...just need them to realize that Dr. Paul is the Best Fit in the Big Tent.

WND lost a lot of readership

In the past few months....why you might ask?

Then comes the reluctant reversal of their main editor....?

Let the site fall into the wasteland of has-beens for all I care.

----
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

Strike at the root - Watch Money Masters

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

Strike at the root - Watch Money Masters

Why I Don't Visit WND

I didn't know about WND until a link to it from a poster on the Daily Paul. Initially, I liked some of it, but I was eventually turned off by an article where they quoted some terrorists as saying that they really liked Ron Paul and wanted him to win.

WND SUCKS !!!!

I used to read the site daily especially like Corsi and the Kidd.
Along comes Chuck for Huck.

Now I think WND is in the long list of welfare recipients of the executive branch.

Bush Admin. spent over $2.6 Billion on advertising and P.R. since 2003, GAO finds.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Bush_Admin._spent_over_1.6_Bil...

----
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

Strike at the root - Watch Money Masters

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

Strike at the root - Watch Money Masters

These idiots just don't get

These idiots just don't get it. Farah didn't endorse Ron Paul but pretty much wrote why he dislikes him. He wrote about ALL the reasons why Ron Paul wouldn't be able to "run" the country. But that is precisely the problem we've had. Everybody wants to run the country instead of protect our freedoms! Do any of these so-called journalists GET IT?

If ever there was a man to reduce government, protect our freedoms and run the proper branches of government it's Ron Paul. The man is wisdom personified and he would fill positions with super-qualified people instead of sycophants and golfing buddies. Farah's a joke.

Jo Farah...

is a phony, sadly.

He has trashed RP over the months.

And..Farah's irrational agenda is pro-Israel--right or wrong...at any costs.

I had a running rapport with Farah over years and he liked to be fed juicy, but factual info. So, I won't belabor details...but Farah put up a libelous post on RP...and did not even interview sources ...however, I sent him data to counter his libel...and Farah still left up the RP smear...having data showing the real facts.

So, I wrote to Farah and told him ...I knew what he had done...and advised him he had lost a source (me) and a friend too. I won't even give WND a 'click' refuse to visit even.

So, Jo Farah..no thanks for the late crumbs.

well, whatever on that...

I did read the article and of all six remaining candidates he narrowed it down to two "lesser evils" and he prefers RP. I found it amusing so it actually is an endorsement. I think his critiques of the others were quite accurate and, to some extent, his criticism of Dr. Paul. Not that he can't lead, but on foreign policy...it is a HUGE obstacle as most think just the way he does about RP's views. It is up to RP to re-tune his message so that Americans can feel they will be secure with this incredible change in our post WWII foreign policy. This is not something to gloss over.

MInd you, I've never even heard of this guy, no axe to grind or agenda to support, it's just how I read his article.

Here's article....

since some of us will not visit WND under protest.

Why listen to me?
Joseph Farah, WND

Posted: January 30, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

I have received some interesting e-mails lately regarding my skepticism of all of the men and women running for president this year. For instance, Mitt Romney supporters, apparently swayed by endorsements or adulation offered up by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, among others, want to know why I am not falling in lockstep with these notable conservatives.

Well, first of all, regular readers of my columns and books will know that I do not consider myself a conservative. I reject the label out of hand. I won't get into this whole discussion here, but feel free to review what I have previously written – over and over again.

Secondly, I have written reams on the shortcomings of Mitt Romney. I've explained specifically why he's a phony and not to be trusted. It's simply wishful thinking to believe that a smart, good-looking, ambitious multimillionaire suddenly and earnestly changed positions on every issue under the sun in time for the 2008 presidential election. Paul had his Damascus Road experience, but I am deeply suspect of Romney's Washington Road experience.

Thirdly, ask yourself who was right in 2000? Did not all of the above well-intentioned friends of mine all swoon over George W. Bush? Did they not tell you he was the next Ronald Reagan? And what did I say?

In case you forgot, I warned you that Bush was dangerous – that electing leaders like him had the potential to destroy the Republican Party. I told you he was a phony "conservative."

I warned you in the primary season in 2000, and I warned you again in the general election.

Let us concede, at least, that I have differed with these illustrious men and women of the media before. And I think my independent position in previous elections has been vindicated by history.
So when I tell you Romney is a phony – and certainly no conservative – I can say I speak from experience. I can say I have a track record of accurately forecasting bad presidents. I can say I have a track record of seeing through campaign rhetoric even when many around me seemingly cannot.

And that goes for John McCain, too. I warned you about him way back in 2000 when he ran the first time. I put him in the same category as Bush, though I certainly think he has the potential to be far worse – even dangerous, because of his temperament.

Where does that leave us?

Again, it leaves us without many exciting choices for president in 2008.

Obviously, I am not going to support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or Michael Bloomberg.

But there are two men left in the race that deserve further scrutiny and consideration. Neither is perfect. Neither was my first choice. But if you insist on playing the lesser of evils game, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee should be considered.

My reservations about Paul are twofold: He's wrong about the external threats we face as a nation. He believes we brought them all on ourselves. He believes they will disappear if we retreat. He's just plain wrong about that. He also has no experience in governing and leading. It's easy to sit in the House of Representatives and vote correctly, which he has done, most of the time, for many years. Turning around the federal monster single-handedly is another story.

My reservations about Huckabee run deeper: His record as governor of Arkansas was not good at all – tax increases, welcoming illegal aliens with open arms, pardons for killers, corruption. He's still enamored of the powerful elite and courts New World Order types as advisers. And while correcting a number of positions from the past, he still seems to think government is part of the solution, not part of the problem, as Ronald Reagan understood.

But that's where we are today.

That's a little insight into my political soul.

Now do you understand why I don't run with the pack?

The 1st thing he needs is a lesson in blowback

And while i'm not going there you can call him on, "He believes they will disappear if we retreat." Never once has RP said that, that's total misinformation.

As far as leading goes, that's what the constitutions for. Every decision the president makes should be gazed upon threw the lense of the constitution.

As a Doctor does he not have to take charge of peoples well being when they are in his care? Is that not all we ask of the President?

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it."