Why I Support WorldNetDaily
I have read many center-right attacks on Joe Farah's Worldnetdaily.com over the years, but they all come down to the same thing: "We, the wise folk of the Republican Party, do not wish to be associated with the riff-raff of the [Christian] conservative movement."
I am not a Christian. I don't particularly support the notion that we should teach the Ten Commandments in public schools. I am not aboard with any of that. That said, I cannot help but see the supposed 'Wise folk of the Republican Party' as nothing more than smarmy pseudo-conservatives who have compromised all the root principles to which their alleged ideology lays claim.
The taunts directed at Joe Farah are like so many from the allegedly wiser sect: They lack sincerity. These, who would be our leaders, simply don't get it. We don't need leaders, like lefty-statists do. Leaders on the conservative side are a matter of convenience, but not a necessity. We don't need a cabal of supposedly elite righty-statists leading us around by the nose.
If they don't like stories about Obama's birth certificate, then don't read them. They don't need to agree. I cannot fathom, however, what could be wrong, in this era of political fakery, in demanding that a President provide his bona fides for that office. The requirement is law.
The allegedly 'wiser set' of the Republican party doesn't understand at all, and it threatens to leave them alone, without party to lead. For decades, we have watched as lefty-statists made a mockery of law, the notion of law, the idea of rights, and all that is justice. We have watched them smear and sneer since at least the time of Ronald Reagan. We have watched them line up with enemies of the United States in order to further their opposition. We have watched, and mostly remained silent, except at the polls.
That time is past. While we watched that horror show in progress, we also noticed that those 'wiser republicans' would abandon us and principle at the first hint of danger. Like the philosophical vacuums they are, ever-wishing to remain in the popular and uncontroversial middle, they would take no stand on the side of justice if it was difficult or complicated to explain. No, it is easier to jettison principles and go with the flow. This is why their 'pragmatic' approach denies all truth, in the end: They cannot suffer a moment's discomfort in its name.
To these 'wiser republicans,' this 'new(or next) right,' there can be no truth. Not absolutely.
This is why they must now pummel Joe Farah and WND.com: Joe doesn't flinch under pressure, and it is rewarding him now. Only media elites, lefty-statists, and fake republicans hate Joe Farah's site. Yes, the 'wiser republicans' have again thrown their lots in with the enemy. Make no mistake about it: They are the enemy.
Unless and until the right shamelessly casts off this 'cabal of the wiser,' it is always going to be drug in the direction that cabal flows: Leftward, and downward.
Do I believe everything on Joe Farah's site? No. Do I believe everything on the Six O'clock news? No. Do I agree with all the commentary there? No. Am I glad it's there, anyway? Yes. Am I glad the six O'clock news is on? Yes.
The question most conservatives need to ask themselves is: "Do I believe I can compromise with those who would undermine me?" Look around, all of you, and see with whom it is you've chosen to lie down. The idea of a new(or next) right that is wiser, and better able to lead is the kind of arrogance we generally associate with which politicians and party? Yes, that's quite right. It's okay to think it. It's even all right to say it. These "Next Right" types look a bunch like the old left, don't they? Well, that's why I support Joe Farah's Worldnetdaily.com: He doesn't mind saying it, either.
Update: Several hours after I posted this, Van Jones, Obama's 'Green Czar', resigned amid a hub-bub over his past associations and advocacies. The first news organization of which I am aware that covered this story and began pummeling the Obama administration over Van Jones was...you guessed it...worldnetdaily.com
Farah is jubilantly taking credit for the ouster, and there can be no doubt he made a significant impact by reporting a story that for months, no other news outfit, left, right or middle, would touch. One of the most interesting parts of this story is that during a press briefing on Friday, Gibbs was asked how he could reject 'conspiracy theories' about Obama's birth certificate while employing an avowed conspiracist... Touché! The irony that the Van Jones story became well known largely due to the work of Farah's worldnetdaily.com should put to rest the notion that wnd.com is a bad site.
