Conservative & Patriotic t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, buttons and more! RightNation.US Conservative & Patriotic t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, buttons and more!
Conservative & Patriotic t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, buttons and more!
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Farrell, Mike - RightNation.US

Jump to content

MODERATED FORUM

Since this forum is not for discussion, we have made it a moderated forum. Your posts will be read by a moderator and if they are substantive and beneficial to the topic--primarily additional information that can be added to the Halfwit's record--they will be approved and made public, or the information contained in the topic will be incorporated in the the Halfwit's record.
Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Farrell, Mike

#1 User is offline   Lisa_ 

  • *
  • Group: Site Owner
  • Posts: 7,283
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 15 April 2003 - 08:38 AM

Mike Farrell

Posted Image



Bush War Bad, Clinton War Good
On Bush and the War with Iraq:

Quote

"It is inappropriate for the administration to trump up a case in which we are ballyhooed into war."

Source:
CommonDreams.org


Quote

"An illegal war is an illegal war no matter what the result. We'll never know now what could have been achieved through peaceful means."

Source:
AmericanDaily.com


However, when Clinton took non-U.N. approved military action in Kosovo, Farrell said:

Quote

"...the bottom line is that I think itís appropriate for the international community in situations like this to intervene. I am in favor of an intervention. Iím not strong on techno war, however, and I think we have to remember that what they dismiss euphemistically as "collateral damage" is real human beings who are themselves not the perpetrators of either the ethnic cleansing or the slaughters that have been going on in Kosovo. I find myself in the peculiar position of being in favor of an intervention and yet unclear that what we are doing is the appropriate thing to do. On some level you have to say that at least somebody is doing something."

Source:
LAWeekly.com


The Abrams Report, Dec. 12, 2002

Quote

You know and the American people should know that this administration has hired a public relations firm to sell its case on war-for war on Iraq. If this leak that is, as Secretary Korb simply just pointed out inferentially, if this leak done in the way it is, which doesnít really tie them to it, but may propose the proposition, so that you and others can raise it on television and ratchet up again peopleís fears, if this report is not true, what does it mean?

And what does it mean to those of us in America who feel that perhaps this administration, as has been called the most secretive in U.S. history, is simply trying to gull us into approving an action that goes against the very principles upon which our democracy is based?

Quote

Is it important to you that the administration has lied in the past and that we have indications that theyíre continuing to try and gull us into believing that they are telling the truth?

Source:
LiberalArtists.com


American Public Not Objecting To Halfwits, It's Right-Wing Groups Trying to Stifle Dissent
Excerpts from trascript for ĎScarborough Countryí - May 20, 2003

Quote

SCARBOROUGH: Mike, let me begin with you. Do you think-and, again, looking at what Danny Glover has said, that itís very dark and sinister, do you think something is very dark and very sinister for people in Hollywood or in Washington to be called on the carpet for statements that they make that are out of the mainstream with the majority of Americans?

MIKE FARRELL: "I donít think itís the American public that is objecting. I think that when people are exercising their right to free speech, as has been the case in this instance, and organized right-wing groups attempt to sabotage either their careers or their personal public profiles, I think that is a suggestion that there is an attempt to do something to stifle dissent."

SCARBOROUGH: Well, Mike, is it sabotaging Danny Gloverís career? Really, not his career. He is a movie star. People are going to still go see this guy. But whatís wrong with, whether itís the right wing or the left wing, saying, hey, this is what Danny Glover said? He said George Bush is a racist. He compared 9/11 to American troops. What is wrong with that? Whatís sinister with that? Isnít that free speech?

MIKE FARRELL: "Of course. Nobody has any objection to people disagreeing and everybody has the right to agree and/or disagree. And I donít know-when you take statements out of context, I am not quite sure what was in fact said. But the fact is that there is an organized attempt to stifle free speech in this country. And I think itís interesting that they attack celebrities, only because they get more press that way, when in fact there were people in the military, people in politics, former ambassadors, any number of people who were disagreeing with the war policy of this administration, but they are not the ones that are being attacked."

Source:
Celiberal.com/MSNBC.com


Farrell said the backlash came from a small number of Americans galvanized by the Bush administration and conservative radio talk show hosts.

Quote

"There was a well-orchestrated campaign to do that through hate radio and Web sites and voices that sprang from the (Bush) administration and said 'take your choice, you're with us or with the terrorists,"' he said.

"But the Dixie Chicks are back on the air and their record is number one again," he said. "Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon are not going to stop making movies for a long time. Janeane Garofalo has a (TV) pilot going forward. These ugly-mouthed people like to think they are more powerful than they are."

Source:
Drizzle.com
---
MudvilleGazette.com


He is President of Death Penalty Focus...

Quote

Our organization is dedicated to constructing a safe society for everyone. We in no way oppose consequences for unlawful or inappropriate behavior; on the contrary, we support them. We believe, however, that those consequences must be consistent with our stated ideals.

Source:
deathpenalty.org

---
Homepage

Contact:
How to find contact information

His Work:
us.IMDB.com

Posting content to this topic
1. Read our guidelines for suggesting additions.
2. Check all the messages in this topic for duplication.
3. Understand that this topic is not for conversation, but only for posting of direct information. It's a one-way conversation.
4. Understand that your post may be removed from this topic if we use it. We also reserve the right to edit or remove your post at our discretion.

This post has been edited by Wilrulz: 26 June 2005 - 11:47 AM

0

#2 User is offline   Lisa_ 

  • *
  • Group: Site Owner
  • Posts: 7,283
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 22 May 2003 - 10:32 PM

Trascript for ĎScarborough Countryí for May 20, 2003

http://www.msnbc.com/news/916398.asp

Now, in our final follow-up tonight: an update on the saga of Hollywood celebrities who say they are facing a backlash from a very angry public for their views. Hollywood people are now saying theyíve been blacklisted by Americans who disagree with their politics. And they are crying censorship.
Our friend Danny Glover recently told ďThe Washington PostĒ-quote -
Ē ďThe whole idea is to crush any kind of dissent. Something is happening now that is very dark and very sinister in this country. And for us not to admit itís happening is, in some ways, for us to be blind.Ē

With me now from Burbank, California, is actor Mike Farrell. And, also, from the NBC News bureau in Washington, D.C., is Tom Fitton. He is president of Judicial Watch.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being with me tonight.
Mike, let me begin with you.
Do you think-and, again, looking at what Danny Glover has said, that itís very dark and sinister, do you think something is very dark and very sinister for people in Hollywood or in Washington to be called on the carpet for statements that they make that are out of the mainstream with the majority of Americans?
MIKE FARRELL, ACTOR: Well, first of all, I donít think itís the American public that is objecting. I think that when people are exercising their right to free speech, as has been the case in this instance, and organized right-wing groups attempt to sabotage either their careers or their personal public profiles, I think that is a suggestion that there is an attempt to do something to stifle dissent. And that is really whatís at issue here.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Mike, is it sabotaging Danny Gloverís career? Really, not his career. He is a movie star. People are going to still go see this guy. But whatís wrong with, whether itís the right wing or the left wing, saying, hey, this is what Danny Glover said? He said George Bush is a racist. He compared 9/11 to American troops. What is wrong with that? Whatís sinister with that? Isnít that free speech?
FARRELL: Of course. Nobody has any objection to people disagreeing and everybody has the right to agree and/or disagree. And I donít know-when you take statements out of context, I am not quite sure what was in fact said.
But the fact is that there is an organized attempt to stifle free speech in this country. And I think itís interesting that they attack celebrities, only because they get more press that way, when in fact there were people in the military, people in politics, former ambassadors, any number of people who were disagreeing with the war policy of this administration, but they are not the ones that are being attacked. I think the idea...
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Iíve got to tell you...
FARRELL: If you will let me finish my statement, I think the idea is to punish...
SCARBOROUGH: Well, how long is your statement?
FARRELL: How long would you like me to talk? I can go on for quite some time.
SCARBOROUGH: I bet you can.
FARRELL: I see that you have a habit of butting in. And I would just like to finish what I was about to say.
SCARBOROUGH: OK. Finish.
TOM FITTON, JUDICIAL WATCH: Can I butt in?
FARRELL: The fact is that-you do that quite regularly.
I think that the fact that these people are trying to punish celebrities is just a way for them to try to very publicly stifle free speech. And I donít think it works.
SCARBOROUGH: OK, Tom, now weíll go to you, give you time to talk.
Do you believe that this is censorship? Do you believe that this is blacklisting?
FITTON: Well, no, it isnít, obviously.
Danny Glover most recently signed on to a letter supporting Fidel Castroís Cuba, even after Castro put 75 dissidents away into dungeons and summarily executed three black Cubans who were trying to flee his country. And then Danny Glover signs a letter criticizing those who criticize Castro and suggesting that Castro ought to be left alone, talking about self-determination.
And now MCI has Glover as a spokesman. And Judicial Watch is calling for a boycott of MCI, telling MCI ought to fire Glover. Glover wants to participate in the public policy process, but he doesnít want to be held accountable for what he says. And when you have an actor or a corporate spokesman making supportive comments for a murderous dictatorship that not only murders Americans, but its own people in large numbers, I think you have got a real problem.
We are not criticizing Glover because he is in favor of higher taxes or increased federal spending in education. This is an issue of his being on the wrong side. And he is on the side of a totalitarian.
And we have every right in the world, Mr. Farrell, to criticize him and to exercise our free speech rights.
SCARBOROUGH: OK, I hate to interrupt you. I got to do it, though.
Hey, Mike, I want to read you something that Franceís Brigitte Bardot just published in a book.
(CROSSTALK)
FARRELL: Can I respond, before you do that, to the hyperbole that was just issued over your television station?
FITTON: Is Fidel Castro not a terroristic murderer?
FARRELL: And Danny Glover did not defend Fidel Castro.
FITTON: Yes, he did. You can read his letter.
FARRELL: No, he did not, nor did he defend Fidel Castroís imprisonment and the egregious sentences that were issued against those people.
What he was saying was that the people of Cuba have a right to determine for themselves who will their leaders be and the United States should not invade that country.
SCARBOROUGH: Mike, we have less an minute.
FARRELL: Iím sorry.
SCARBOROUGH: I want to read you something very quickly that Brigitte Bardot just published in a book attacking all sorts of groups, including gays, the unemployed, and artists.
And hereís what she said about Muslims-quote-ĒI do not hold religious Muslims in high esteem. We were disturbed by their barbaric practices; we went to court; we condemned their unacceptable behavior, which left homes covered in blood, to no avail.Ē
Now, I am sure thatís offensive to you that she calls all Muslims-paints with that brush for Muslims and attacks gays. Donít you think-if Brigitte Bardot were endorsing a product out there, donít you think that people of America would have a right to hear that and not buy that product if they were offended by it?
FARRELL: I would just keep from buying her book.
SCARBOROUGH: OK.
And so weíll just stop buying MCI service if Danny Glover is pushing it. Isnít that fair?
FARRELL: Which is the point, I think, of this whole program. And I find it offensive. The idea that Danny should be punished, his career should be infringed upon because...
SCARBOROUGH: OK.
FARRELL: Oh, Iím sorry. Weíre going to be cutting me
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Well, weíve got three seconds before the show ends-one second.
Thanks for being with us. Good night.
FARRELL: Yes. Youíre welcome.
0

#3 User is offline   METROULAS 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Registered Guest
  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 18-June 03

Posted 09 July 2003 - 01:38 AM

I saw him on Scarborough and it was absolutely hilarious!

Mike Farrell is such a self-righteous hypocrite.

You can just picture him sitting around a campfire singing Cumbaya, hoping, just praying that Communism will sweep the globe. He is so angry and bitter that he is not getting his wish.

For the real history of this flower-power hippie-crite, check this out...

Mike Farrell: Art of Deception By Jean Pearce
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 3, 2003

By now, Mike Farrell probably figures heís got the nation fooled. For over 20 years, the Hollywood actor turned peace activist has flawlessly played the part of the pacifist patriot with Americaís best interests at heart. Farrell is quite convincing when heís in character, as he has been since he propelled himself to the forefront of the Iraq war protest movement. Without batting an eye, Farrell will tell you how much it would pain him to see Iraqi or American blood spilled in the unjust war on Iraq.

Farrell is counting on the fact that no one remembers another part he played one Friday night, 18 years ago in San Salvador. For 2 Ĺ hours, Farrell, who played a surgeon on M*A*S*H, assisted Dr. Alejandro Sanchez in a real-life operation to restore movement to the arm of Nidia Diaz, a guerilla leader of the Marxist Central American Workerís Party. Just two months before, the group had claimed responsibility for the slaying of four U.S. Marines, two American businessmen and nine civilians. Diaz is still barred from entering the U.S. for her role in the murders.

"Apparently, it was the most important role in his life," Sandra "Sand" Brim of Medical Aid for El Salvador told the Associated Press at the time. The U.S.-based Medical Aid, which was founded by Farrellís long-time friend and radical activist buddy, actor Ed Asner, flew in the Los Angeles doctor because there was no surgeon available with the skills to perform the delicate operation. Because he needed someone to assist him, Sanchez asked Farrell, who at the time was in Central America at the behest of Amnesty International, for help on the way to the hospital.

"I know this is going to look like a publicity stunt, but thatís too bad. It isnít," Farrell told the Los Angeles Times after the operation.

If not a publicity stunt, than what was it? A good-hearted effort to put a Marxist terrorist with American blood on her hands back in the battlefield to prey upon the very civilians Farrell claimed to want to help?

By 1985, Farrell and a small handful of Hollywood actors had become a thorn in the side of the Reagan administration, which spent millions aiding the Nicaraguan Contras in their battle against the Cuban and Soviet-backed Marxist Sandinistas. Farrell and Asnerís group, Committee of Concern for Central America, even went so far as to invite Nicaraguaís Communist Sandinista leader, Daniel Ortega, for a nine-day publicity tour of American cities, the purpose of which, The Washington Post reported, was to counter the Reagan administrationís "disinformation" effort against Nicaraguaís communist government. At the final event, a fundraiser for the Committee of Concern, the Post reported that Ortega raised his fist in the air and shouted "If the United States commits the error of invading us, we know we will struggle with you at our side," which elicited cheers from the audience.

This is the real Mike Farrell Ė Marxist sympathizer, militant anti-American, selective pacifist with a disdain for the American blood that flows through his own veins.

Like the other Hollywood radicals who spent years "helping" in Nicaragua and El Salvador in direct opposition to U.S. efforts to combat communism at Americaís doorstep, Farrell would probably insist that they were merely trying to help Nicaraguan civilians who were suffering at the hands of the Contras the U.S. supported.

But in the1990s, after the people of Nicaragua deep-sixed Ortegaís violent government and voted out the communist Sandinistas, the Hollywood crowd scattered like roaches from the light. When Hurricane Mitch killed 11,000 and devastated Central America in 1998 Farrell and his Committee of Concern were nowhere to be found.

So what exactly was Farrell up to while thousands of Nicaraguan children died of starvation? What could possibly have been more important to the man who once offered himself to the media as Central Americaís anti-Contra protector and spokesman?

Apparently, sparing convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal from the death penalty and setting him free took precedence. Farrellís only public appearance of note in the months after the hurricane was a stint on 20/20 in which Farrell, who once co-chaired the New York-based Committee to Save Mumia Abu-Jamal, was summarily shellacked by ABC newsman Sam Donaldson.

Given his history, it would be easy to brush Farrell off if he werenít so good at grabbing the limelight when he wants to make a point. Like lesser-known activists with Marxist credentials, Farrell seems to have the formula for using the media to reach the public down pat. He simply creates a protest group, signs up half of Hollywood, then uses their combined star power as leverage to weigh in on an issue. Itís what he did while stumping for the Sandinistas, and what he did again with the help of actor Martin Sheen when he launched Artists United to Win Without War in September.

With about $300,000, a couple of ads and a web site, Farrell and his friends set up a virtual march on Washington to protest the war that resulted in thousands of phone calls and faxes from 80,000 people who signed up online to harass Congress and the White House with anti-war messages.

Once again, Farrell had gotten away if not with murder, then with aiding and abetting it . :) :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users