Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah says he's not fighting with Ann Coulter over her new closer ties to GOProud, which exploded in a war of words last year. Which, of course, is why Farah devoted two columns to it.
Farah's Aug. 11 column kicks off in his usual self-aggrandizing way:
I just learned from news reports that Ann Coulter, the doyenne of celebrity conservatism, has joined the advisory board of the faux conservative homosexual activist group GOProud, recently dropped as a potential sponsor of the Conservative Political Action Conference, thanks largely, if I do say so myself, to my efforts.
I'm hardly shocked by this announcement by Coulter. In fact, WND insiders will know I actually predicted it.
Farah goes on to declare that he has "principles I will never compromise," and "One of those principles is that I do not condone or excuse sinful behavior as defined by the Bible." (One principle he seems all to willing to compromise, meanwhile, is using his website to tell the truth.) Farah concluded: "I'm so sorry to see Ann Coulter, once seemingly a non-compromising, hard-charging conservative pit bull, reduced to flacking for the faddish and unseemly cause of 'doing what's right in your own eyes.' That's not conservatism. That's libertinism."
The next day, Farah continued to rant against Coulter, this time for promoting the heretical idea that gays are born that way:
Look, I'm not picking a fight with Ann Coulter. There are many people in the world doing more destructive things and sowing more confusion. But she's a big girl, and she knows how to defend herself. And, as they used to say, you're either part of the problem or part of the solution.
That there is no scientific or anecdotal evidence for the "gay gene" theory does not seem to bother Coulter.There are thousands of formerly homosexual people who have left the lifestyle for monogamous heterosexual relationships. Those people represent inconvenient statistics to the "gay gene" theory, which is, by the way, an entirely liberal invention – much like global warming.
Farah then promotes his theory of why gays can't be conservative, and vice versa:
The reason homosexuals tend not to be conservatives is because they tend to reject the notion that we live in a universe of moral absolutes dictated by a sovereign deity. People who choose to live their lives contrary to God's laws generally reject those laws as real or binding on them. And people who do that also tend not to be conservatives.
[...]
Conservatives, by definition, are not people who want to destroy the foundations of Judeo-Christian civilization. But those who attack marriage, who devalue God's order, who reduce the effectiveness of America's armed forces and who seek to place legal restrictions on those who uphold their own deeply held religious convictions are not conservatives.
Isn't it really that simple?
Even the normally publicity-seeking Coulter has not bothered to respond to Farah over this.
Meanwhile, there's another area where Farah is quite willing to bend principles: if he can make a buck off it. Last year, when Farah kicked Coulter off his "Taking America Back" conference in retaliation for her GOProud ties, he declared that WND wouldn't stop running her column over it. WND is one of a select few websites allowed to publish her column the evening before its print date, something that presumably draws a significant amount of traffic to WND. If Farah canceled her column, he would likely see WND's viewership decline.
An Aug. 10 WND "news" article on Coulter's new ties with GOProud reminded readers that during the battles of last year, "Farah said there was no question that Coulter would remain a weekly columnist for WND." Farah has yet to repeat that view in response to Coulter's latest. Is Coulter that much of a traffic-driver that Farah dare not abandon her?
