WHAT IS FOLGER BREWING?

*




Janet Folger heads Faith 2 Action, a well-known Christian activist ministry. She was the spearhead behind the Values Voter debate. She is a Mike Huckabee shill who has greatly distorted the records of both Huckabee and Dr. Ron Paul.


Her deception can be confirmed in at least three places - and please check out all three. The first was her own interview with Rep. Paul on F2A. We then can see how she misrepresented things Paul said to her in her WorldNetDaily column and in an interview of her by WVCY Crosstalk host Vic Eliason. I've casually known Bro. Eliason, and respected him greatly, for more than 15 years and I am shocked that he is giving Folger opportunity to spread her propaganda.


Folger has ignored several unpleasant facts about Mike Huckabee, (he outspent Bill Clinton, wrote for the CFR, was reprimanded five times for ethics violations, supported illegal aliens being funded by taxpayers and foreigners voting in our elections, etc.) and has made up several unpleasant falsehoods (I'm being polite in my assessment here) about Dr. Ron Paul. A few of her misrepresentations of Rep. Paul were due to her ignorance of the Constitution, but most of them were made up out-of-thin-air, much like the Federal Reserve does with our money.


In her WND column she spews this fabrication about Dr. Paul:


Rep. Ron Paul: In addition to being against the Marriage Protection Act, Paul is an evolutionist who wouldn't protect the Terri Schiavos of the world from a starvation death because our Founding Fathers never thought to enumerate it in the Constitution. He also wants to legalize drugs and prostitution but wouldn't enforce obscenity violations. Don't believe me? See for yourself at ValuesVoterDebate.com.


She likewise boldly challenged listeners on Crosstalk to listen to her interview with Ron Paul to hear for themselves. Maybe she didn't think anyone would take her up on that challenge, but I did. I went and listened to her interview. I was left wondering if she was even listening to her own interview. Some of the things she claimed about Dr. Paul were virtually the opposite of what he told her. To do so five or six times goes beyond being a careless mistake. To repeat the same slanders in at least two different forums suggests careful intent. Let's take a look at her claims and compare them to what Dr. Paul told her himself in his interview.


Rep. Paul is "against the Marriage Protection Act". (WND) "Did not vote for the Marriage Protection Act." (VCY)


Folger is either in gross error or is being deceptive. Far from opposing it, Dr. Paul was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act as a proper response in lieu of a federal amendment (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html). He also supports the Defense of Marriage Act.


Dr. Paul asserts, "I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman ... liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage."


Once we give "Big Brother" the authority to define marriage, we will have no recourse when marriage is redefined to include homosexuality, bigamy, incest, or bestiality. We will have given a future Court of a President Hillary administration the right to tell us what marriage is.


"Paul is an evolutionist". (WND) "He believes in evolution". (VCY)


Folger is wrong again. Maybe she is hard of hearing. He did not say that at all. He told Janet it was "a scientific question", but "I think that the creation has been brought here by God ... We're God's creatures ... I don't say there's no evolution, nor do I say there is evolution". In many other forums he has referred to God as our "Creator" and the Originator of our rights.

While he doesn't hold as strong of a young earth creation position as I do, at worst, he took virtually the identical position that Huckabee originally took (which Folger lauded him for). The difference being that Huckabee backed down and said he thought evolution should be taught in the public schools but creation shouldn't, while Paul believes it should be up to the parents what their children are taught, and they could be taught creation. So even if Paul was an evolutionist, his position is better for creationists than Huckabee's position.


"Wouldn't protect the Terri Schiavos of the world from a starvation death." (WND/VCY)


Another mischaracterization to make Rep. Paul appear to be immoral. Dr. Paul is probably the most pro-life member of Congress. But he recognizes the danger of dealing with such things at the federal level, saying "Once you deliver to the federal government, you're more likely to have a bad effect, just like Roe vs. Wade was federal and that's why all States have legalized abortion.".


Rep. Paul asserted, "Any type of murder, manslaughter, any type of violence, in any area, we don't go to the federal government. It is still a State issue." This doesn't mean you don't have respect for life." When someone is robbed, assaulted, or raped, they don't call Washington - they call their LOCAL law enforcement, and deal with their LOCAL courts and LOCAL government. Does that mean we believe in the legalization of rape and robbery? Would I be being honest to say Folger believed in the legalization of rape? Every bit as honest as she was to say Ron Paul wouldn't protect Terri Schiavo and believed in the legalization of prostitution.


"He also wants to legalize drugs and prostitution". (WND) "He believes in the legalization of prostitution, the legalization of drugs." (VCY)


In his interview with Folger, Dr. Paul specifically told her he didn't "endorse" legalization of such things, but he believed the Constitution mandated such things be dealt with at state and local levels. His words were, "That does not mean that because you allow States to solve this, doesn't mean that you endorse any of this." Where Folger claimed Paul wanted to "legalize" these vices, Paul specifically said otherwise. Yet Folger continues to wrongly accuse Dr. Paul. She continued making every effort to portray Rep. Paul as being supportive of immorality, apparently even to the point of telling flat out lies about what he said (and lying is still quite immoral last time I checked my Bible).


Bringing things to the federal level hasn't worked in our favor thus far. We have national abortion-on-demand. We have more pro-sodomite laws than ever before. We have more anti-Bible and anti-Christian laws that ever before. Drug abuse is worse than ever. Pornography is more rampant than ever. Why would we advocate more of what has been so terrible for Christianity and America? When America operated as Rep. Paul advocates, we had a much more moral and Christian society. As we've increasingly looked to the federal nanny to meet our every need, American has become increasingly immoral.


"Wouldn't enforce obscenity violations." (WND) "He would not enforce the hard core obscenity violations." (VCY)


Sorry to sound like a parrot, but it's the same answer that Rep. Paul gave Janet over and over again. Rep. Paul wouldn't enforce those because it is not the duty of the federal government to do so. It's not because he supports obscenity, although that's the impression Folger is again trying to paint Dr. Paul with. He would have to violate his oath of office to enforce those things at the federal level.


Every elected politician takes a vow before his God and his countrymen to support and defend the Constitution. God says in Ecc 5:4 that one who defers to keep a vow is a fool. Are we advocating that our candidates violate their vows to uphold the Constitution? Ron Paul wants to support the Constitutional principle of federalism, that State and local governments supersede the federal Leviathan in everything not specified in the Constitution, per the 9th and 10th Amendments. Janet Folger is advocating that politicians defy Ecc 5:4. It looks like a case of "misery loves company".


"He is also not in favor of a human life amendment". (VCY)


Ron told Janet that there have been several offered and some he supported and others he didn't, depending on how they were written. He told her twice that he co-sponsored Jesse Helms' human life bill, and about his own pro-life bills. Dr. Paul authored the Sanctity of Life bill, which declares personhood upon conception. He also has authored bills to use Article Three of the Constitution to prohibit courts from ruling in favor of abortion.


Pertaining to the pro-life position in general, Paul told Folger, "You can still protect life, but you can't misconstrue what I say and say that the government is legalizing killing. That isn't anything of what I'm talking about."


Janet Folger has repeatedly tried to smear Dr. Paul with the reputation of immorality by claiming he supports legalizing horrible vices like pornography and abortion. Dr. Paul repeatedly told her otherwise, and carefully explained the Constitutional position of State's rights to her, yet Janet has continued to repeat the horrible accusations.


How Janet could keep missing such things is difficult to believe. She seems to be pretty sharp. It's very hard to believe she could be so mistaken so often. She either has a very bad memory, she is delusional, or she is a liar. She's convinced me her memory lapses about Dr. Ron Paul were intentional.