PDA

View Full Version : WorldNetDaily Hit Piece/Action Needed




oldpaths1611
06-15-2007, 07:32 AM
A couple of days ago Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily, wrote an article in support of Fred Thompson for president. In that article he took a dig at Ron Paul. Today, Mr. Farah has written a hit piece on Dr. Paul called, "Why Ron Paul is disqualified." WND is the largest and most influential conservative website, reaching millions of people. I'm asking everybody to write WND and show your support for Congressman Paul. Let's flood their mailbox! Thanks.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56177

jfarah@worldnetdaily.com


-------- Ron Paul Media Matters --------

*** Please read forum guidelines before posting ***
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=658

beermotor
06-15-2007, 08:30 AM
You should provide a link when you put out the call like this, makes it a lot easier on us to respond!

beermotor
06-15-2007, 08:32 AM
Um, wtf? http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327

This place puts out an Article called Soy is making kids gay? Do people actually believe this garbage?

angelatc
06-15-2007, 08:38 AM
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56177 is the Paul article.

LibertyEagle
06-15-2007, 08:41 AM
World Net Daily is a highly read publication and it's not all bad. It carries Jerome Corsi's articles on the North American Union, etc. Farah is the top guy. He's never seen a Middle Eastern country that he didn't think should be attacked. He's definitely an Israeli-firster.

This is the 2nd hit piece that Farah has written on Dr. Paul in just a couple of weeks. I sent him an email on the 1st one giving him the information on just who substantiates Dr. Paul's statements on foreign policy. Now, to see him come back with stuff that sounds like he believes Dr. Paul invented the term, BLOWBACK, means he either didn't read what I sent him, or he just doesn't care about the facts.

Maybe someone else can do better than I, at getting to him.

LibertyEagle
06-15-2007, 08:44 AM
I've gotta tell you, I am just about sick and tired of that Bush administration line, and often reiterated by FOX news... "cut and run". Straight out of the Goebbels propaganda book.

LibertyEagle
06-15-2007, 08:45 AM
Here is Farah's email address:

jfarah@worldnetdaily.com

austinphish
06-15-2007, 09:14 AM
Is Farah Jewish? No I am not anti-semetic. I am anti-zionist. Please don't confuse the two.

RonPaul4President
06-15-2007, 09:17 AM
In the most recent debate, he implied amnesty wouldn't be such a bad idea if we could stop attracting illegal aliens with welfare-state programs.

That is grounds for slander and defamation. Jose Farah is a diabolical liar and a fraud.

briatx
06-15-2007, 09:26 AM
Man, for being a bunch of tough guys, they sure are scared of the evil terrists.

oldpaths1611
06-15-2007, 09:38 AM
Farah is Arab, not Jewish.

Patriot
06-15-2007, 11:29 AM
I used to have respect for Farah, but now it looks like he has been bought off by the Republican party. Sad. I will e-mail him when I get home.

Thanks for the e-mail link, LibertyEagle.

Kuldebar
06-15-2007, 11:39 AM
Farah has simply bought into the good versus evil racket. We must fight the evil (insert collectivist label) or they will destroy us because they are evil and don't like us.

Yeah, a clash of civilizations sounds exciting but it's never the real reason we fight wars, it's simply the slogan.


In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Krushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too

Bryan
06-15-2007, 01:43 PM
He is clueless about the nature of the threat we face from Islamo-fascism. He is clueless about the nature of the conflict in the Middle East
There are two forms of propaganda used here:

Demonizing the “enemy”: Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman (e.g., the Vietnam War-era term "gooks" for Viet Cong soldiers), worthless, or immoral, through suggestion or false accusations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Techniques

Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population, for example, Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore Kaufman's Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Techniques



Paul actually blames American interventionism in the Middle East for our problems with Islamo-fascism and the attacks of Sept. 11. In the May 15 Republican debate in South Carolina, Paul said it was America's history of interventionism in the Middle East that sparked our problems with terrorism.
This is a misrepresentation of Dr. Pauls statements which could better be stated by Dr. Paul himself, right after the debate in question Dr. Paul said to Sean Hannity in the Fox spin room: "I think it [our foreign policy] contributes significantly to it [hatred towards America]... The Americans didn't do anything to cause it [9/11] but policies over many years caused and elicited hatred towards us so somebody was willing to commit suicide."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuLjV3XHP_0 (start at 2:40 mark)



Paul called this "blowback." He illustrated his point by blaming the 1979 Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini revolution on CIA involvement in installing the shah 26 years earlier, not on U.S. undermining of the shah in his last days in power.
Dr. Paul's position is based on expert study and analysis, PBS reported in a 1987 documentary that the actions in Iran in 1979 were the result of the 1953 CIA coup as shown in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE

Dr. Paul did not state anything about the Ayatollah Khomeini revolution; he referred only to the hostage crisis.

More information on blowback can be found in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Consequences-American-Empire-Second/dp/0805075593



While I am not a defender of the way the war in Iraq has been waged by President Bush, Paul essentially calls for running up the white flag of surrender to an enemy that seeks America's destruction... It would be disastrous if we cut and run now as Ron Paul suggests.
This is a smearing and mischaracterization of Dr. Paul's position on the Iraq war. The use of the term "cut and run" when charactering Dr. Paul's position on the Iraq war is inaccurate since this term implies a change in judgment that is not true for Dr. Paul. Wikipedia includes the following when describing the term "Cut and run":

"The added pungency of the phrase comes from the partially obscured implication that this withdrawal is a course only undertaken by dishonorable fools whose fear and confusion has overcome their better judgment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_and_run

Dr. Paul has maintained his judgment on the Iraq war issue from the beginning:

I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit-one fraught with the danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with." –September, 2002
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090402.htm



He also flirts with many of those who believe 9-11 wasn't really an attack by Islamo-fascists at all but an inside job by the U.S. government. While I take a backseat to no one in my distrust of government, these conspiracy theorists Paul courts are, quite simply, doing the propaganda work of America's fiercest enemies.
This is a guilt by association "Reductio ad Hitlerum" propaganda tactic and Mr. Farah offers no supporting evidence for his claim.

Reductio ad Hitlerum propaganda technique: used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus if a group which supports a certain policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people support the same policy, then the members of the group may decide to change their original position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Techniques


Let me tell you something else that disturbed me about Paul's position on amnesty for illegal aliens.

In the most recent debate, he implied amnesty wouldn't be such a bad idea if we could stop attracting illegal aliens with welfare-state programs.

Dr. Paul has a firm stance against amnesty in any way as stated in his past writings, an example:

Amnesty Opponents Are Not Un-American
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst061107.htm

In the debate, Dr. Paul implied the opposite of what Mr. Farah is stating in that he is against amnesty by discussing how states are forced to subsides illegal activity which in turns promotes illegal activity. Here is the debate transcript:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13549/

MR. BLITZER: Congressman Paul, I want you to weigh in on this as well.

I believe — and correct me if I’m wrong — you voted o support that 700-mile fence along the border between the United States and Mexico. Did you?

REP. PAUL: I did.

MR. BLITZER: What about Canada? Is there a need for a similar fence along the border between the United States and Canada?

REP. PAUL: No. No, because that bill — probably the fence was my weakest reason for doing that, but for other reasons — to enforce the law — was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to.

But one thing that has not been mentioned here, which I think is very, very important — if you subsidize something, you get more of it. So — we subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.

But we force our states and our local communities to pay for the health care and pay for the education. Why wouldn’t they bring their families? And because of our economic conditions, we do need workers. But if we had a truly free market economy, the illegal immigrants would not be the scapegoat. We would probably need them and they would be acceptable, but because of economic conditions, they have become the scapegoat.




This demonstrates, again, a fundamental misunderstanding of why illegal immigration is so threatening to our country.

Hardened criminals come to the U.S. illegally.

Terrorists come to the U.S. illegally.

Drunk drivers come to the U.S. illegally.

Millions of low-skilled workers come to the U.S. illegally and transform our culture.
After misrepresenting Dr. Paul's position on illegal immigration, these strawman arguments are irrelevant. Dr. Paul does not support terrorism, drunk driving nor hardened criminals.


But it would still be no substitute for securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.
Dr. Paul has voted to secure the borders and enforce immigration laws. In the third GOP CNN debate that is referred to in this piece, the moderator (Mr. Blitzer) states "Congressman Paul... I believe — and correct me if I’m wrong — you voted o support that 700-mile fence along the border between the United States and Mexico. Did you?" Which he did as shown here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-446

More on Dr. Paul's position:
"Among the steps the federal government should take is to restrict immigration from countries which support or harbor terrorists, and implement policies to effectively enforce existing immigration laws.", November 16, 2001
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr111601.htm



even if he had the support necessary to win, which he doesn't and never will.
Mr. Farah is implying that he knows the future with 100% certainty, a complete absurdity. These type of philological attacks are commonly used bandwagon propaganda tactics.

"Bandwagon: Bandwagon and "inevitable-victory" appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that "everyone else is taking.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Techniques
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect


Readers of this piece should be cautioned, in this 657 word essay about Dr. Paul, Mr. Farah used the term "Islamo-fascist" four times.

Argumentum ad nauseam: This argument approach uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach works best when media sources are limited and controlled by the propagator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Techniques

johngr
06-15-2007, 01:46 PM
Man, for being a bunch of tough guys, they sure are scared of the evil terrists.

I know, huh. Like they're afraid they're going to come over in droves with their huge army and navy and hold everyone at bay with their boxcutters.

I think what the communist-Trotskyist neocons are more afraid of is the last remaining holdouts from central banking and the resources they control. If I'm right they must be shitting their pants at the thought of the President of the United States, Dr. Ron Paul.

Bison
06-15-2007, 01:59 PM
I have written a response to Joseph Farah. Any feed back you can give would be appreciated. http://www.commentaryusa.com/commentary/politics/ron-paul-joseph-farah-and-the-qualified-man.html

Bison

oldpaths1611
06-15-2007, 02:14 PM
WorldNetDaily has now moved their Ron Paul hit piece from a lesser story to their top story on the front page. A couple of days ago, Farah had taken a dig at Dr. Paul in an article advocating Fred Thompson for president. After receiving some angry letters from Paul supporters in response to that article, Farah wrote today's hit piece. The word's been put out and many more are writing to WND today defending Congressman Paul. Now they've moved the article up to be their main story. It seems the louder Ron Paul supporters voice that support, the more Farah and crew are racheting things up. I have a feeling Ron Pauls popularity, in spite of WND's smear articles, is really upsetting some of the folks over there. Let's keep it up! Joseph Farah is a neocon shill and WND has turned into nothing but a propoganda mouthpiece for the establishment elite.

RonPaul4President
06-15-2007, 02:33 PM
WorldNetDaily has now moved their Ron Paul hit piece from a lesser story to their top story on the front page. A couple of days ago, Farah had taken a dig at Dr. Paul in an article advocating Fred Thompson for president. After receiving some angry letters from Paul supporters in response to that article, Farah wrote today's hit piece. The word's been put out and many more are writing to WND today defending Congressman Paul. Now they've moved the article up to be their main story. It seems the louder Ron Paul supporters voice that support, the more Farah and crew are racheting things up. I have a feeling Ron Pauls popularity, in spite of WND's smear articles, is really upsetting some of the folks over there. Let's keep it up! Joseph Farah is a neocon shill and WND has turned into nothing but a propoganda mouthpiece for the establishment elite.

WorldNutDaily = Media Whore. He's like a little brat looking for attention. Ignoring him is the best offense.

LibertyBelle
06-15-2007, 02:37 PM
Farah is Arab, not Jewish.

How does being Arab equate to not being Jewish? You've certainly lost me there. There are black Jews and Arab Christians. With your generalization, Farah must be Muslim.

No offense, just pointing the obvious out. :)

oldpaths1611
06-15-2007, 02:59 PM
How does being Arab equate to not being Jewish? You've certainly lost me there. There are black Jews and Arab Christians. With your generalization, Farah must be Muslim.

Hi Liberty. I used the term Jewish in terms of ethnicity. What I meant was that Farah is ethnically an Arab. As far as religion, Farah is a Christian. He is also a member of a highly secretive right-wing organization, the Council for National Policy.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Joseph_Farah

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_National_Policy

stalcottsmith
06-15-2007, 03:48 PM
Here is what I wrote -- I did not have long to spend on it. There are probably many other points to make.

Joseph,

I read your article attacking Ron Paul today on World Net Daily. Your contradiction and misjudgment compels my response. To wit:

"He illustrated his point by blaming the 1979 Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini revolution on CIA involvement in installing the shah 26 years earlier, not on U.S. undermining of the shah in his last days in power."

Either way, it is US intervention.

"It would be disastrous if we cut and run now as Ron Paul suggests."

I do not accept this at all. This is related to the notion of sunk costs. No matter how far you've gone down the wrong road, turn back.

Islamism would burn itself out if we were not fanning the flames of hatred and ethnic strife in their home countries. What will the blowback be in 10 or 20 years if we continue? We should stop giving the radicals what they want which is war, strife and chaos. It strengthens their hand and pulls us in deeper. Even if intervention could result in a positive outcome, we do not have the cultural understanding, wisdom, ruthlessness and fortitude to truly do what would be required. That is the business of empire and I want no part of it.

People are coming to their senses and waking up. I voted for GWB. I used to believe as you do, but no longer. I urge you to reconsider.

Sincerely,

RonPaul4President
06-15-2007, 05:01 PM
Listen people. When you go to this site you generate hits. They sell advertising based on their hit count. Please ignore these jerks. Everytime you go to their site to read their crap you are putting money in their pockets. You are playing right into their hands.

jon_perez
06-18-2007, 11:34 AM
America has made many foreign policy mistakes in my lifetime. We have indeed intervened militarily too often. I have preached non-interventionism many times. However, America is under siege from Islamo-fascist enemies. We've been attacked – the worst ever in our history. This is no time to back down or even to appear to be weak.I find it hard to blame people who have this point of view since there is some evidence to support their assertions. The way to go at this is to debate whether the current foreign policy is lessening the number of "Islamofascists" (people who hate America for its own sake) or increasing their influence by justifying their beliefs with an interventionist foreign policy.


It would be disastrous if we cut and run now as Ron Paul suggests. "Cut and run" can easily be re-framed as "cut your losses while you still can". Ron Paul's excellent point about Vietnam comes to mind. There was no glory to be had staying in Vietnam, much as self-styled patriots tried to insist otherwise back then.




Let me tell you something else that disturbed me about Paul's position on amnesty for illegal aliens.

In the most recent debate, he implied amnesty wouldn't be such a bad idea if we could stop attracting illegal aliens with welfare-state programs.

This demonstrates, again, a fundamental misunderstanding of why illegal immigration is so threatening to our country. When it comes to Iraq, I think it's hard to change Farah's beliefs, but on this issue of immigration, I believe he has truly misunderstood Paul. Paul has explained brilliantly the root of the problem of illegal immigration which is indeed that these immigrants are being attracted by "welfare state programs" and Paul, as a conservative, wants these programs abolished. Paul has NEVER stated that this is a substitute for securing the borders, just that securing the borders would not be as effective as refusing welfare for illegals.

I think when it comes to this issue, Farah can still be convinced to see the wisdom of Paul's position.

Bob Cochran
06-18-2007, 11:41 AM
Paul said it was America's history of interventionism in the Middle East that sparked our problems with terrorism.
Well, y'know what?

THAT'S ACTUALLY TRUE!



It would be disastrous if we cut and run now as Ron Paul suggests.
.......it's disastrous NOW!!!

LastoftheMohicans
06-18-2007, 11:53 AM
Listen people. When you go to this site you generate hits. They sell advertising based on their hit count. Please ignore these jerks. Everytime you go to their site to read their crap you are putting money in their pockets. You are playing right into their hands.

Maybe, we can have one person volunteer to read sites that do hit pieces on Ron Paul. And then they can report back, quoting the article, to the forum with an email address that everyone can use to voice their opinion. This way we minimize the hits to their website but also keep appraised of what's going on.

hambone1982
06-18-2007, 12:05 PM
Maybe, we can have one person volunteer to read sites that do hit pieces on Ron Paul. And then they can report back, quoting the article, to the forum with an email address that everyone can use to voice their opinion. This way we minimize the hits to their website but also keep appraised of what's going on.

I don't think that we're going to be able to boycott every site that has anti-Ron Paul propaganda on there. World Net Daily carries some really good articles from time to time - they carried the Article by Pat Buchanan that supported Ron Paul over Rudy Giuliani after the SC debate. They also cover a lot of the North American Union crap that the MSM refuses to acknowledge.