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.
With all the problems we conservatives need to solve ... we’re still eating our own. Stupidity abounds.
Keep your eye on the ball, Farah.
SnakeDoc
What’s to enlighten? There’s $$ in the media, doesn’t matter the views, it’s their job.
The examples of Ronald Reagan, who made a career in an industry where the percentage of homosexuals is probably closer to 30% rather than 3%, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, etc. (the same), Barry Goldwater who famously said that he was certain that some of the fellows he served with flying over the Himalayas in WWII were homosexual, all come to mind. Were all these people somehow "fake" conservatives?
Sin is a central concern of religion, not a political philosophy, while Conservatism is a political philosophy in which the concept of sin has no real function, and preserving personal human freedom means that the freedom to make awful and sinful choices cannot be excluded.
If Joseph Farah wants to turn WND into a church then he has every right to do so. Nothing is stopping those of you who want to join it and follow all the dogma of the Church of Joe Almighty. The rest of us can read and enjoy Ann Coulter's writing elsewhere.
I think you may have heard more of what you wanted to hear, than what I said. I work for money also. I’m neither for her or against her.
You’ve got to laugh at how liberals are failing left and right to get any traction on homosexuality. No matter how many “conservatives” are co-opted, homosexuality will still be rejected. When put to a vote anywhere, even in California, gay marriage always goes down in flames.
The big picture is that if liberals thought demographics were on their side, they would wait a few years or a decade for everyone to all support gay marriage. But it isn’t happening. So they are trying to force the issue (which won’t work in the long run).
People should realize that people like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and even people like Rush Limbaugh are not so much interested in a conservative movement as they are interested in a conservative industry (where they make money). One recent blogsite, Hillbuzz, which is run by gays, is currently trying to become part of the ‘conservative industry’ (where they can make money and stuff). I’ve been dumbfounded how stupid conservatives are that fall for it and give these people money.
With people like Rush Limbaugh, does he ever tell you business lessons so that you can become successful at business yourself? No. That education is only for him and the high crust family of lawyers, judges, and doctors. The rest of us peasants are supposed to “work hard” and make these people rich listening to their rhetoric (which never makes us rich. Instead, we are supposed to buy their ‘gimmicks’ which is like soap on a rope or a T-shirt or an event).
I have no idea why the fear.
Clearly he is a liberal and his legacy deserves no part of our movement. He was nothing more than a RINO in disguise!
Read the article?
Sure. But the headline says.... WorldNetDaily Dumps Ann Coulter
So is the article right and the headline wrong?
Read beyond the headline???
Dude. It is YOUR headline. If you can’t get the headline right, then why should I pay attention to anything else?
...[speaking in front of a group, some of whose values are abhorrent to you] legitimizes a faith/belief system that is VERY much different from ours.From dailycaller.com: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.
This email was sent to The Daily Caller from conservative pundit and author Ann Coulter in response to the announcement that WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah had dropped her as a speaker for an upcoming event.
The email, which Coulter prefaced was written “in a rush” reads as follows:1) farah is doing this for PUBLICITY and publicity alone;2) this was an email exchange btwn friends and even though I didn’t expressly say “OFF THE RECORD” and I believe everything I said,
he’s a swine for using my private emails politely answering him.
why would he do such a despicable thing? … for PUBLICITY.
3) but now that he has, I will say that he could give less than two sh-ts about the conservative movement — as demonstrated by his promotion of the birther nonsense (long ago disproved by my newspaper, human events, also sweetness & light, american spectator and national review etc, etc etc).
He’s the only allegedly serious conservative pushing the birther thing. for ONE reason: to get hits on his website.
4) his group hadn’t come up for the money to book me for a speech, anyway, so he’s not canceling me from anything.
also, FYI; my fellow evangelicals — and I know lots and lots of ‘em — – all think it’s great that I’m doing this.
(of course, they know I’m not changing my mind on gay marriage even though I like gays.)
this is total b.s. for PUBLICITY by a publicity whore. Attack ann coulter, get publicity. liberals figured that out a long time ago, so he’s a little late to the party.
There’s also $$$ in going to work or starting a business or performing a specialized task for a fee, et al.
You’re saying you were just stating the obvious? OK.
Bull Manure.. A quick glance at WND...
Shows she is still there.
Please allow me to direct you to the fifth sentence...
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, .....''see that wasn't so hard...there is life after the healine...
Ditto! I dumped Coulter when she did that as well. Battle Bones Coulter just wants to be a part of the beltway boys club.
Pretty much, except it seems that many times media persons are held in a different light. Sort of like they are really doing what they do for a higher reason. I don’t believe that, I believe it’s just a job to them, and they pick the most lucrative side. Just makes sense, doesn’t it?
See post 49. See post 50.
Same here. I quit reading her columns and rarely watch her on the cable news shows anymore. I'd like to think she lost her way but I personally believe we are starting to see the "real Ann Coulter coming out". Perhaps she can still be useful in the conservative cause but I personally no longer put much stock in her worth as a (solid) conservative.
Her support of the Log Cabin fagots is like having a cancer on the conservative cause. She's trying to have it both ways. Sorry, it doesn't work like that in our neck of the woods.
Correction. Post 50 and 51.
Point is.. If the headline contradicts the article, then forget it.
“I’m trying to puzzle out what sexual orientation and (very) personal morality have to do with belief in self government, the right to ownership of property, freedom of speech and thought, and the right to own the means (in the form of “arms”) to protect all these when necessary.”
That is not what self-government means. Self-government means someone controlling his or her actions. When a person is unable to control, say their appetite, not only do they get fat, they become enslaved to food (after a fashion). It is the same way even with sexual appetites.
You ask what personal morality has to do with self-government? Listen to John Adams:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
What John Adams is referring here is that the people govern themselves. Self-government does not mean people voting for representatives. Self-government means people controlling their own passions just as people control their own property, their own businesses, and so on and so forth.
One of the reasons why governments regulated sexual morality is because of the birth rate issue. As nations begin to collapse because of the lack of birth rate, it is an illustration as to why sexual morality was regulated by the government and also demonstrates why governments have a future mandate to do so.
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.