Ann Coulter slams Farah as 'swine,' 'publicity whore'

WND ^ | August 18, 2010 | Joe Kovacs

[DCPatriot]

But there are fiscal conservatives...who vote BTW, who understand that homosexuality is simply different wiring inside the womb.

BFD -- that's irrelevant to a Christian.

"Christians" are the result of a man-made religion...which began with the birth of Christ..."only" 2043 years ago.

Man has been walking on the earth a helluva lot longer than that.

Follow along for a sec, it's not the argument you're expecting.

Let us say (merely for argument's sake) that in the case of homosexuality, we have *solved* the "nature vs. nurture" debate and shown there is a strong biochemical / neuronic component to homosexuality.

Great.

Now how about heterosexuality? Every would agree readily that the basis for that is hard-wired into the vast majority of humans.

...and yet, despite that, nobody is saying that this hard-wiring gives heterosexuals a license to have sex whenever or with whosoever they want.

Key word there being "LICENSE". Again, a man-made law....while I'm trumping your argument with "Natural Law". What LAW OF NATURE forbids heterosexuals from having sex whenever or with whosoever they desire? Please tell me.

In particular, Christians *still* insist (on paper; many fall short of the ideal) that one must rigidly control sexual behavior, and that the only legitimate expression of full intercourse is between a man and wife.

Again....Christian law does NOT trump Natural Law.

And furthermore, for most of the lifetime of the Church, divorce was *STRONGLY* discouraged at best.

So why is it, that the assertion that homosexuality is latent in the brain, is suddenly supposed to give all kinds of license to *homo*sexual behaviour -- even in the face of prohibitions in the Bible against *ANY AND ALL* such activity, in terms even stronger than the condemnation of fornication?

Whoa there....I never said that homosexuality is "LATENT" in the brain. I said that somewhere along the gestation period, 'wires' get crossed and the homosexual trait is created.

Sure, homosexuals can live as heterosexuals, in order to appease societal norms, but.....they cannot change what God made them.

Unless of course, you undergo a sex-change...like Chastity Bono did, for example.

Cheers!

To you, too! Thanks for being a 'gentleman'.

[jamese777]

Doesn’t Obama qualify under #1?

Here’s the current law from the US Code on “Nationals and Citizens of the United States at birth.”
From Title 8 of the current US Code:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html

Also, in one of the 72 adjudicated Obama eligibility lawsuits, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled: “Based on the language of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided [by the US Supreme Court in their 1898 decision in the case of US v.]Wong Kim Ark, we conclude the persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article 2, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels” November 12, 2009
No higher court has reversed Ankeny and the Indiana Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.

[Matchett-PI]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2304853/posts?page=23#23
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2304853/posts?page=36#36

[Matchett-PI]

"'Christians' ...religion...began with the birth of Christ..."only" 2043 years ago. Man has been walking on the earth a helluva lot longer than that."

Exactly. And that ain't all. bttt

[BlackElk]

The Congressional enactment of 1952 gives rise to the further question as to whether Congress has any authority whatsoever or any rational reason whatsoever to distinguish between four years' and five years' prior US residency after the age of 14 and as part of ten years' minimum residency in the United States on the part of a citizen such as Ms. Dunham. It seems as unlikely that any court today would validate such a distinction any more than it would validate a distinction based upon the mother having red hair or being right-handed or having worked on a farm or whatever.

The remarks of Mr. Bingham and of Senator Pinckney, by well-recognized and objective judicial principles of statutory interpretation are mere "legislative history" relevant and cognizable by the courts ONLY where there is some facial ambiguity in the language of the enactment itself (i.e. the 14th Amendment). Otherwise the law (the 14th Amendment in this case) says what it means and means what it says regardless of Congressional intent.

Also, there are privately employed American citizens who are effectively permanently residing in other nations who nonetheless enjoy the same rights as any other citizen. The execrable Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., was born in Paris, France, to parents who were American citizens in Paris on business. The late George Romney was born in Mexico in circumstances suggesting his parents' intention to remain there in protest of Congressional requirements that Utah outlaw polygamy as a condition ofd admission as a state to the Union. Each ran unsuccessfully for President but citizenship was not seriously questioned in either case.

[Sola Veritas]

“Otherwise the law (the 14th Amendment in this case) says what it means and means what it says regardless of Congressional intent.”

Ignoring “original intent” is the reason so many good things have been preverted to bad things in regards to both the constitution and laws enacted.

[trisham]

Nope. Ann endorsed Romney.

[trisham]

I believe Ann is Presbyterian.

[BlackElk]

Words have meanings. The individual opinion of this or that legislator involved in the process is not "original intent" as that term is used by conservatives. It is most important that (as is the case with Judge Vaughn Walker's recent decision discarding the California ban on homosexual anal sex posing as marriage) the law itself, its own wording, be the standard for decision-making. In the event of conflicts, constitutional provisions take precedence over statutory ones. Judge Walker created a non-existent "constitutional right" to misuse Mr. Happy and pretend that the misuse is somehow "marriage." The text of the 14th had nothing to do with his lavender fantasies, based apparently on his own social misbehavior.

"Original intent" only comes into play when there are ambiguities in the language being interpreted or applied. The elitist habit of imposing elitist perversions as though they are somehow constitutional (abortion, homosexuality, etc.) without textual justification or even textual ambiguity and, in defiance of well-considered and expressed public opinion, and results-oriented jurisprudence aka legal positivism (is the actual source of the evils you decry.

An abandonment of legal positivism would have found laws against homosexuality to be quite constitutional and would have avoided the contrast between the embarrassing series of SCOTUS homosexuality decisions: Bowers vs. Hardwick (a Georgia case denying that homosexuality has "rights") and Lawrence vs. Texas, a mere few years later which upheld the right to homosexuality and a still subsequent case out of Colorado in which SCOTUS struck down a statewide referendum result which would have revoked a local "gay rights" ordinance of a Colorado municipality.

We either have a rule of law or we do not.

[grey_whiskers]

Will respond later: helping with teenage-related stuff.

[Tex-Con-Man]

What a coincidence...

Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck openly mock the birther movement.

Joseph Farah and WND are in a class by themselves promoting birtherism.

Joseph Farah tries to impugn their conservative credentials by accusing both of “Libertarian Materialism” and creating the impression that they both support gay marriage.

I'm sure the fear of Coulter openly mocking birthers at a WND convention never entered Farah's birther obsessed brain. (And I am a Nigerian Princess who needs help getting an enormous inheritance out of my country.)

Farah is all about keepin' those WND birther web hits comin’.

This is not unlike the pathetic attempt by the Post & Email to paint David Horowitz as not a true conservative because he wouldn't embrace birtherism. A guy who has dedicated his life to exposing true radicalism, and has been relentless in fighting the outright communists and socialists in academia. Horowitz is the anti-Chomsky.

But...he mocked birtherism...his conservative credentials must be destroyed.

We need to stick to electing candidates with a strong conservative philosophical foundation, and stay away from self promoters pushing unfounded conspiracy theories.

[aSeattleConservative]

They are not a large enough group of potential conservatives to deserve any pandering.

First of all, if they were to drop their sexually deviant lifestyle, then and ONLY then would they have the "potential" to be conservative.

My question to you is as follows:

And if they were (a large enough group), would you pander them?

[Sola Veritas]

“’Original intent’ only comes into play when there are ambiguities in the language being interpreted or applied. The elitist habit of imposing elitist perversions as though they are somehow constitutional (abortion, homosexuality, etc.) without textual justification or even textual ambiguity and, in defiance of well-considered and expressed public opinion, and results-oriented jurisprudence aka legal positivism (is the actual source of the evils you decry.”

I think we are pretty much on the same page; I understand what you call “legal positivism” you describe. Except that you fail to understand that, as an example, the 14th Ammendment has been used for purposes never intended. Because the wording - literally (textual as you say) followed - can be taken to mean something other than the original purpose of the 14th, that was to give citizen status and due process to freed slaves after the civil war. Sorry for my layman’s oversimplification.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to write something so clearly that it cannot be misused in a the wrong hands. That is why the original intent and the purpose of the ammendment or law is paramount to its interpretation or application. In my opinion, to go beyond the original intent or purpose of a constitutional provision or a law is NOT following the “rule of law.” I am afraid what is often called “rule of law” is in fact the “rule of lawyers.”

In the area of misapplyed laws...the RICO statutes are a prime example. Those laws, meant to stop the MAFIA, have been used to harass abortion opponents, etc.

[Sola Veritas]

“First of all, if they were to drop their sexually deviant lifestyle, then and ONLY then would they have the “potential” to be conservative.”

Agreed....there is no such beast as a “conservative homosexual.”

So, publicity whore or not, JF is correct in saying that AC is granting legitimacy to the so called “Homocon’s” by speaking at there meeting. She should have the good sense to stay away from them. This is one time she needs to back off and just admit she is wrong. This is bad for her, and it is bad for true conservatives. It is definitely harmful to the GOP that needs moral conservatives - its base.

[One Name]

Nope. But, going down that road...

The wages of sin is death. What sins do you find permissable under the conservative banner? Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like?( of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.)

The list is from Galatians 5:19-21

How squeaky clean does one have to be to join your party? Or can some things be forgiven if one is not active in their sin, like a practicing homosexual,etc.?

“Heresies” eliminates Mormons, JW’s, Unitarians, agnostics, etc. Some of them are pretty conservative from what I’ve seen.

[1234]

Is Anne gay?

'Is she homosexual?' seems more correct, conventionally speaking.

[aruanan]

Is Anne gay?

'Is she homosexual?' seems more correct, conventionally speaking.

Even more likely, given her history, is that she doesn't give a rat's butt about anyone telling her who she can or cannot talk to.

[aruanan]

"Christians" are the result of a man-made religion...which began with the birth of Christ..."only" 2043 years ago.

2014 to 2016 years ago, according to best estimates.

[DCPatriot]

Darn...you’re right.

Never was very good at math. ;^)

[DCPatriot]

Agreed....there is no such beast as a “conservative homosexual.”

Bullsh*t!

You're saying that a homosexual cannot be for small, limited government, low taxes, free-market capitalism?

How ignorant can you get?

You're what's wrong with the negative image Americans have of 'Conservatives' (thanks to the MSM)