Posted on 08/19/2010 7:00:21 PM PDT by tutstar
Conservative superstar Ann Coulter today was dropped as a keynote speaker for WND's "Taking America Back National Conference" next month because of her plan to address an event titled "HOMOCON" sponsored by the homosexual Republican group GOProud that promotes same-sex marriage and military service for open homosexuals.
Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, said the decision was a gut-wrenching one for his team because of their fondness for Coulter as both a person and writer-speaker.
"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," said Farah. "The drift of theconservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning."
Asked by Farah why she was speaking to GOProud, Coulter said: "They hired me to give a speech, so I'm giving a speech. I do it all the time."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Snort. If just saying you don’t care about gay marriage one way or the other is so provocative that several FReepers have to come running and say, in effect, “Oooohhh, Dad TOLD us never to talk like that! I’m telling!” - then that is just sad.
Modern conservatism has always been a coalition. Not every person who thinks and votes in a generally conservative way has ever subscribed to all the social/moral issues. It doesn’t hurt my feelings to be declared “not a real conservative” or “useless to the conservative movement” by the hall monitors here, but I think it’s to FR’s detriment if it’s now banning variations of opinion even among different types of conservatives. That’s how echo chambers are built.
With my brother it depended on what mood he was in that day. My brother is only against the agenda when he's between lovers. And everyone is the "love of his life". Few of them are monogamous. And they lie. To get what they want. To be viewed as normal. The homosexuals that I have met don't want the "sexual deviant" stigma. And they want to live immoral lives without the guilt. So instead of changing behavior, they want everyone else to be silenced. What they don't realize is that won't make the guilt go away.
Their agenda is to “mainstream” their lifestyle. Most of them are guilt ridden and they think if they can demand they be viewed as normal, the guilty feelings will stop. They won’t. The second driving force is recruiting. And they are all “chicken hawks”. Confused teens are a big target.
"Dad" is watching the thread. Saw his post when I got up this morning. He is serious about keeping the prohomosexual message off of FR.
but I think it’s to FR’s detriment if it’s now banning variations of opinion even among different types of conservatives.
This is an activist site. It isn't simply a forum. It is where we discuss issues and what to do about them. It is not a forum to debate liberals or their POV.
If you misunderstand FR's mission, read the Mission statement by Jim Robinson
conservative is conservative.
there is no chinese menu conservative.
The mission here is to persuade those on the left that they are wrong, as usual, and we are right, as usual. This site for the most part, minus trolls and paulites, represents the majority of America.
If you think I’m a liberal, you are very, very mistaken. I have a co-worker who thinks I’m a conservative wingnut (though if he met some of the folks on FR, I think he’d adjust his standards). In reality, I’m neither. I’m conservative on most issues, libertarian on a few - and yes, you can weigh each issue separately and decide where you stand. It really doesn’t have to be “accept the whole conservative ball of wax or you’re a liberal.”
Jim, if you are watching this thread, I respect you, I respect your site, and I respect that you make the rules on your site. But I still don’t think banning a point of view, provided it’s expressed civilly, is the way to go.
>>there is no chinese menu conservative.<<
I say there is. Might I remind you that “the majority of America” voted Barack Obama into office, so it may be that not everyone agrees with you as strongly as you think. If you shun everyone who dissents on any one point of the conservative manifesto, you’re not going to have too many voters left to get us out of this mess.
I never stated that you were a liberal. Homosexual "rights" is a liberal ideology. I pointed out that it is not to be debated on FR. That is not FR's purpose.
But I still don’t think banning a point of view, provided it’s expressed civilly, is the way to go.
Legalizing deviant behavior is a point in the Communist Manifesto. That's because it weakens the fabric of society. Wanna destroy a country? Normalize deviancy.
It bores me, but if people are threatening to turn in posters to the Mods who express the opinion that our nation faces bigger problems than queers and the queer agenda, then maybe I should be banned....
Hate to break it to you, but it ain't just gays who want to shut down the voice of dissent in the country....
It’s not me you need to worry about. It’s the guy in 71. And I never said that posters should be turned in for disinterest. However, you opened this thread and posted on it. That doesn’t denote disinterest. Your first post was confrontational. I have no idea what your intent is.
They want to silence any dissent, including churches. So you're saying we should let them? What's your point?
I could give a cr@p about what queers want. I'm more concerned with who's in the Justice Department and on the Supreme Court and in charge of the FCC. They're the only ones with the power to try to silence us....
Nope. Judge Walker did fairly well at discounting voters. And states are ushering in laws to protect homosexuals without voters approval.
Kevin Jennings, the man that founded GLSEN, is now Assistant Deputy Secretary in the Office of Safe Schools.
You have grandchildren? You might want to watch who is teaching them and what they are learning. You think this is a joke. Meanwhile they are "educating" the kids.
It's time FR terminated your membership and you went off to the Daily Kos or some other leftist website.
Some of you don’t seem to understand: This issue stopped being about “privacy” years ago. Who cares what consenting adults do in privacy? Most of us don’t want to know what happens behind closed doors between consenting adults.
The issue is not about privacy, anymore. It’s about special privileges, special protections, and special rights being granted to a group of people, just because they engage in deviant behavior. It makes no sense.
The fact of the rival paramilitary force, controlled by Ernst Roehm who was homosexual being assassinated, gave them some credence. Hitler's mob did him in. Of course it was a power struggle, Roehm would have been a gonner anyway. For those living just after WW2, they were inundated with the "information" that the homosexual, the gypsy and the mentally deficient were confined to the concentration camps. Thus anyone having doubts about the first two, could be compare to a "Nazi". Very clever move.
There was even an attempt by the British television network to claim many of the heroes of "The Battle of Britain" consisted of the elite "public schools" who became fighter pilots. A rebuttal appeared, this was too much to stomach, the rebuttal was titled "The Gaying of the Royal Airforce". A former Wing Commander said the records of the air aces, showed they were Flight Sgts, not the officer class which was automatically given officer status.
At that time the penalty for over homosexual acts was a maximum of seven years jail. Unlikely practice among lower class Flight Sgts. It was a cartoon character created during WW2 of an upper class officer, with his cries of "Tally Ho" and "Wizard Prang" who came from the elite classes. Seized on by the homosexual lobby, to assign homosexuality to the Royal Airforce.
Finally even politically correct televison had stepped over the line. Many of those Battle of Britain airmen were still living.
“Those who have ears to hear, let them hear..”
Homosexual activists can KMA. Hmmm.... well, you know what I mean.
T have seen many times where the power/authority to set the language is the beginning of societal control. EPA has used this approach over the years by redefining such matters as operations.facilities. sources,etc. Now I and many others find ourselves excluded from the use of ‘gay’ because at sometime a homosexual(s) found the word to their liking. Now I will/can never say I had a gay time. Now we are at redefining ‘marriage’. My marriage of over 50 years is to be socially catagorized the same as long held deviant relationships. What is next in our history and culture to be redefined? Watch for change.
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.