Posted on 08/19/2010 7:41:23 AM PDT by scottfactor
It's disappointing to see that conservative writer and speaker, Ann Coulter, has decided to accept a speaking gig next month for a so-called “conservative” homosexual group called GOProud at their New York conference, Homocon. Ms. Coulter had been scheduled in the lineup of speakers for WND's Taking America Back Convention in Miami on September 16th through 18th. But when it was revealed that she had agreed to headline the homosexual conference on September 25th, Joseph Farah of WND had a "gut-wrenching" choice to make: take her or leave her for the WND convention. He left her.
Mr. Farah said the decision was very difficult, because they are fond of Ann Coulter as a person and speaker-writer. WND carries Ms. Coulter's columns and will continue to do so. Mr. Farah said,
"Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about ‘taking America back’ when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very 'unconservative' agenda represented by GOProud. The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning."
Mr. Farah asked Ms. Coulter why she is choosing to speak to the homosexual conference, and she said,
"They hired me to give a speech, so I'm giving a speech. I do it all the time."
He then asked her,
"Do you not understand you are legitimizing a group that is fighting for same-sex marriage and open homosexuality in the military-–not to mention the idea that sodomy is just an alternate lifestyle?"
She responded,
“That’s silly. I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don't endorse their views. I've spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion. The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaeda conference. I'm sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences. But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I'm speaking to. I was going to speak for you guys, [and] I think you're nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!)."
Well, Ann Coulter can tell that to herself all the way to the bank, after getting paid to speak for GOProud. What she fails to realize—or to care about—is that by appearing and speaking before this group, she is lending it an air of legitimacy with the credibility of her name. It’s not the same as speaking on a college campus where there are many messages represented. The message of this group focuses on the homosexual agenda, and the defense of those who practice it.
According to GOProud’s website, the organization represents homosexual conservatives and their allies. They claim to be, “…committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy.”
They hold that they promote their “traditional conservative agenda” by influencing politics and policy at the federal level.
Here is a subtle group. The terms “traditional conservative” and “homosexual agenda” are moral and polar opposites and cannot coexist. This is another crafty move by the left to create this “conservative” homosexual organization. We’ve known that they intend to infiltrate our ranks to create division and trouble, so here it is—one example.
Traditional conservative American values do not just include limited government and fiscal responsibility; they also include morality and traditional institutions like marriage and family. The homosexual agenda targets for destruction the timeless definitions of marriage and family.
WND’s David Kupelian notes some far-reaching consequences of legalizing homosexual marriage:
“Schools required to teach that homosexuality is normal and acceptable; the criminalization of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality as pastors and rabbis fear preaching their faith's core moral values; [and] the inevitable legalization of polygamy and other new and bizarre forms of ‘marriage.’"
Ann Coulter is making a bad choice here, and I don’t see how this can go well for her in the end. But she’s not the only conservative to fall prey to wishy-washy moral positions on homosexuality. WND reported on Monday that during an interview with Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck brushed off the issue of the homosexual judge in California overturning the voter-approved ballot initiative Proposition 8, rightly defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.
To Mr. Beck, homosexual marriage is no big deal and not a threat to our country. He said we have bigger fish to fry. That kind thinking is part of the problem, and part of why we find ourselves in the despicable place our country is in today. The erosion of morality is a poison that infects our entire culture. We are seeing the fruits of moral erosion throughout our government, our society—pretty much everywhere we look.
If we’re going to take America back, we’re going to have to restore our moral foundations, not continue to compromise on the principles we know to be true. Ann Coulter is not helping our cause by agreeing to legitimize this homosexual group. She’s being used to hurt the conservative movement, whether she knows it or not. I hope she’ll reconsider her foolish decision.
When did GOProud enter the scene?
How do they distinguish themselves from the Log Cabiners?
Does anybody know?
That's a quite rhetorical question. Should she refuse to speak to the muslim students association? Should she refuse to speak to the staff at KOS or Huffington Post? Should she refuse to speak to the Black Congressional Caucus? How about the AFL-CIO or SEIU?
Seems to me that being willing to speak before hostile or disputatious crowds shows chutzpah and steel.
I'm obviously an Ann fan. Sorry!! :-)
Read the article.
It clearly says they dumped her from the speaking gig but will continue to publish her articles.
Ann Coulter’s business is Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter makes her money by promoting the Ann Coulter brand and her products (books etc).
Who Ann Coulter decides to address is a business decision.
We as the consumers, can either accept or reject the Coulter brand and its products.
Maybe she’s trying to open new markets for herself. The danger for her is that by opening a new market she may lose a much larger consumer base that has generously rewarded her
for many years.
I think that this is economic pragmatism versus ideological purity. But whatever it is, she’s going to pay a price, one way or the other.
Okay, I reread what you wrote. I (and others) obviously thought that your sentiment was a bit wry and condescending. Care to enlighten?
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with what she does, did I?
“It’s all about the $$$ with media people.”
It sounds like it ... do you work for free? I don’t. My work is all about the money, too. I’m with her on this one.
I was not addressing just you, but the tone of the thread at that point, if you look at it. It wasn’t meant to be personal, but you have to admit, it sounded like some sort of criticism. Unless the /sarc tag fell off..
“A quick glance at WND...Shows she is still there.”
Read beyond the headline. She was dumped from the conference.
Sure, but that's part of the mixed bag that is online debate. I get called names by the frightened and the ignorant, sometimes fire back, but I hang on for the intelligent folks who like to have honest, informed debate.
Similarly, Ann is doing the good work here, while WorldNet is being scared and silly.
I completely understand that this group is in part having her so they can say "Look how mainstream we are, we have Ann Coulter!" But they're gonna get zero applause from the wrong folks (libs) and if they WANT her there, how bad can they be? Sure, I don't agree with them on certain issues, but there isn't a single group or candidate out there I don't have significant issues with.
This only speaking to friendly audiences is cowardly and self-destructive. It isn't about being a RINO and bending to the stupid desire to be liked by "The Moderates" ala McCain--we have to be genuine conservatives. But conservatives shouldn't be afraid to spread the word no matter what the location or audience. Why all the fear?
He spoke to Soviets and even Democrats. Yep, he was offering aid and comfort to the Evil Empire, a genuine commie-lib, according to WorldNet's "logic".
there was no con of a pretense.
this homo-con is a con disguised behind a name.
Ann Coulter makes her living speaking to groups.Exactly!What is so wrong about speaking before a group you don’t agree with?
Aren’t we trying to spread the word? Or do we just want to sit around talking to each other?
...This is the exact opposite of when conservative institutions pay libs to speak—
this time a conservative is taking money from the opposition.I don’t see the problem.
Besides, stiring up controversy is just Ann Being Ann" --
Let me give you a church-related example:
As the pastor of a local conservative Baptist congregation, lets say I call in a preacher from the Universalist Unitarians (they claim to be Christian too...) to speak at a function or even a Sunday service... They may even have similar ideas on one particular subject (maybe the theme of the hypothetical event)...
That legitimizes a faith/belief system that is VERY much different from ours. IT give credence to what we consider to be blasphemous and unscriptural.
The point being - this just proves what I have been trying to argue against for a long time with liberals in my family... They say all the time that Ann is just an attention whore who just takes the radical conservative line to inflame people and sell books. Well... this decision on her part sure seems to back that up.
He also was the first to give amnesty to illegals! We need to tear down his legacy before it threatens to take down the entire conservative movement!
Even Barry Goldwater was a homo-lover! Clearly these two are liberals in disguise!
“The point being - this just proves what I have been trying to argue against for a long time with liberals in my family... They say all the time that Ann is just an attention whore who just takes the radical conservative line to inflame people and sell books. Well... this decision on her part sure seems to back that up.”
First, my condolences on the family problems. Second, she is an attention whore in the same way that was Twain, Swift and Dickens. Just better looking.
A Twitter from their head banana.
Chairman of the Board, Christopher Barron: "We are a gay organization, we only work on gay issues, we have never claimed otherwise. My God people."
Was Ronald Reagan giving credence to the Soviet Union when he spoke to them? Was he condoning what they did? Or was he challenging them, showing them he wasn't the monster the liberals claimed he was who wanted to nuke the planet, and explaining what the US and USSR have in common and why they should work together?
RWR was NOT this fire-breathing 'Join us or die!!!!!" character the left AND some on the right would have one believe. There is a reason why the Russian PEOPLE loved Reagan, whatever the pols believed.
Similarly, Ann is going to speak to people who are on our side on some things, against us on others.
I don't see the problem with that. She's not a religious person going into a church preaching as if what she says is condoned by the church in question, she's a citizen talking to other citizens, so I don't think your example applies at all.
The point being - this just proves what I have been trying to argue against for a long time with liberals in my family... They say all the time that Ann is just an attention whore who just takes the radical conservative line to inflame people and sell books. Well... this decision on her part sure seems to back that up.
That's ridiculous--"attention whore" is another liberal female-bashing line they use on conservative women, and "selling books" is what everyone yelps when they can't address actual substance.
When I read "attention whore who's selling books" I think "A woman whose JOB, the way she makes money in our capitalist system, is giving her opinion, not just spouting a party line, and she's finding all kinds of sources of income from whoever--including making people I don't agree with give her money."
Do your relatives only make money, sell products to, or give money and buy products from liberals? Do you only do these things with Baptists? If your house contains any products NOT made and sold by conservative baptists, your argument is moot.
Well I won't be voting for THAT guy! Oh, wait, I did...
I never saw the appeal. She’s an ugly person - inside and out. And I don’t recall anything she had to say that made a difference to me.
I wonder how many people who will trash her for speaking to this group work for someone who they disagree with on certain issues. They will call her all kinds of names but will they leave their jobs if the head of the corporation they work for takes a different stand on an issue?
This article is based on the premise that there is no difference between homosexuals on the left and those who hold more conservative views. It’s a faulty premise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
