Joseph Farah displays his thin skin yet again in a Jan. 10 WorldNetDaily column engaging in one of his favorite sports: taking petty potshots at his critics.
Farah complains about a columnist at the American Muslim website who, among other things, asserted that he wanted "to criminalize being gay," to which Farah responded: "in all the millions of words I have written in my life, no evidence of such a belief has ever been found."
That, of course, is a baldfaced lie. Farah has regularly railed against the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned state sodomy laws -- Farah demanded that the "Sodomy Six" (the six justices who ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against the state) be impeached. Just last June, Farah lamented that "sin" in the form of homosexual sex can no longer be criminalized as a result of Lawrence:
Keep in mind, it was the federal government that made all this inevitable with the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, in which it presumed to tell the people of that great republic they had no business enforcing laws against sodomy. Justice Antonin Scalia predicted in short order the ruling would open the door to something unimaginable a decade ago – same-sex marriage. He was right.
That’s how sodomy moved from being a sin 10 years ago to being a “right.”
It’s not a right. It’s a sin. And, in a civilized, self-governing society, when the majority of people ban sinful behavior – from murder, to theft, to adultery, to child molestation – they have the right and the duty to legislate against it. Courts have no business overruling the will of the people on such matters by dreaming up “rights” that are to be found nowhere in the Constitution, the Bible or the history of mankind.
It’s just that simple.
And it’s about time somebody said it.
And it's about time somebody said that Farah is a baldfaced liar.
But he's not done smacking around the American Muslim columnist with his huffiness:
Musaji then massages some more facts to arrive at this conclusion: “Farah would also like to criminalize being Muslim.”
How did she deduce that?
From this statement in a discussion on the need to limit future Muslim immigration into the U.S.: “It seems obvious to me that anyone who subscribes to Saudi-style Shariah law, as described in the Islamic Quran and Hadith, would not be inclined to swear allegiance to the Constitution – at least not without crossing his fingers taqiyya-style.”
Then comes another lecture from Ms. Musaji: “This is how Islamophobes [that's me] muddy up the water and confuse issues in order to deceive their readers. Shariah and Saudi-style Shariah are not synonomous (sic). The Saudis have a particular interpretation of Shariah that is very conservative and repressive. Much of the Saudi interpretation of Shariah is rejected by most Muslims in the rest of the world. In fact, the Wahhabi interpretations are seen by a majority of Muslims as going against the Quran and Hadith.”
So I modify the term “Shariah” with the phrase “Saudi-style,” and explain that they are not necessarily the same thing. Isn’t that why people use adjectives – to be more precise?
Anyway, you get the point: According to Ms. Musaji, Farah is an unrepentant Islamophobe. Just to set the record straight, no one who criticizes Islamism the way I do is “afraid” of Islam. No one afraid of Islam, which would be the literal definition of “Islamophobe,” would dare criticize it publicly, as I do.
Curious thing about the Nov. 29 Farah column in which he pointed out he specifically focused on "Saudi-style Shariah": it didn't make the migration to the the new WND site. If he's so proud of having made that distinction, why is that column about to fade into the digital ether?
(Here's the column via Google cache -- make your own copy now before it disappears!)
Of course, that's a distinction he really didn't make; he goes on to assert, without making any such distinction:
- "We need to put the burden of proof on Muslims to demonstrate their desire to leave the world of Shariah behind them, to renounce its principles as well as to take a formal oath to uphold and affirm America's national covenant."
- "Furthermore, we need strict national quotas on immigration by Muslims – even those willing to renounce Shariah and swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution."
- "There are no doubt conscientious Muslims who deplore the institution of Shariah and would prefer to live in a constitutional republic like America instead of Saudi Arabia. But, again, as Americans we have no obligation to welcome anyone to these shores unless they meet our needs and specifications."
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, Joe.
If that wasn't enough, Farah finds time to rail against a fellow ideologue in a semantics argument over Ron Paul. Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press accused Farah of expressing "support" for Paul -- entirely understandable, given that Farah penned a Jan. 5 column headline "Ron Paul Is Right,"in which he states, "There’s a reason Ron Paul is resonating with Republican voters – because he wants to downsize Washington, and everyone knows he’s serious about it."
Farah, though, decided to misread "support" as "endorse." Let the snit fit begin:
ranted I have written many columns about Ron Paul stands that I like and admire – such as his pledge to cut $1 trillion out of federal spending. But daily I am attacked by Ron Paul disciples who would like to see me tarred and feathered. And nowhere, nohow, noway have I ever endorsed Ron Paul nor suggested I support him for the presidency in any way.
For the life of me, I don’t even know how someone could ever get that impression. I mean I write just what I think. I’m not known for holding anything back or pulling punches. And I write every day!
I figured this one would be an easy correction. All I would do is ask my old friend Judi McLeod to do the right thing and set the record straight. Certainly I agree with her more often than I agree with Ron Paul. I’ll take a few minutes and pick some low-hanging fruit.
So I emailed Judi McLeod: “I really must insist on a retraction and apology for this. Please point to where you can find Joseph Farah endorsing Ron Paul. I am vilified daily by Paulites for not supporting him and for criticizing his positions.”
Her unexpected response: “Please point to where I wrote Joseph Farah is ‘endorsing’ Ron Paul.”
My counter: “You didn’t use the word ‘endorse.’ You used ‘support.’ I fail to see any meaningful difference between the two. So, if you want to play word games, show me where I have ever offered Ron Paul support as a presidential candidate. Because that is clearly what you wrote.”
Her response: “To my way of thinking there is a world of difference between ‘support’ and ‘endorse.’ If you wish you could write a column or letter stating your point of view and I would publish it word-for-word without editing and post as main cover.”
My retort: “You still haven’t answered the question: On what basis can you possibly come to the conclusion that I either endorse or support Ron Paul for president? Obviously that is what you stated clearly in your commentary. Since there is no basis for any such claim, you have decided to be cagey. I have no desire to write anything in Canada Free Press. If you want to make sure WND never again links to any articles in CFP because of questions about unreliability of statements and accusations by the editor, you can simply ignore my simple question. On the other hand, if credibility is something that matters to you, you will choose to do the right thing: Apologize and retract the erroneous accusation against me.”
To which she concluded the dialogue by saying, “Suit yourself, Joe.”
At no point does Farah acknowledge that he wrote a column headlined "Ron Paul Is Right." Instead, Farah clings to his thin skin and tries to Heather McLeod by essentially declaring that she can't sit at his table because anymore because she said something he misinterpreted.
How petty can one person be?