Among the most controversial reactions to the landmark repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a recent column at WorldNetDaily by Joseph Farah, in which he essentially urged soldiers and those interested in becoming soldiers not to serve in the U.S. Military.
"As much as I respect and admire the U.S. military as an institution, I would find myself actively encouraging men and women to leave - in droves," Farah, who oversees the well-read site, wrote in the column posted December 17 before the repeal occurred.
"If the U.S. military is going to be transformed into just another tool of twisted social engineering, rather than a force designed to defend America's national security interests, dedicated, brave and upstanding young men and women should no longer participate of their own free will," Farah added. "It's just that simple. Let the politicians cobble together a military of social deviants if they think they can."
The column drew several critical responses from those in the news business and those who follow military and gay rights issues, ranging from one who called it "irresponsible" to another describing it as "disgusting bigotry."
Mike Triplett, vice president of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and top blogger on the group's website, blasted Farah's column.
"It is clearly, incredibly irresponsible. This is a good example of the kind of irresponsible commentary that goes on so often in the conservative press," he said. "It is unfortunate that there is so much irrational vindictive inside the conservative press and that it gets linked to by conservative bloggers and legitimate press. That is of greater concern, they are linked by more legitimate people."
Ashwin Madia, an Iraq War veteran and interim chairman of VoteVets.org, stated in an e-mail response to the column:
"It's disappointing to hear someone demand that brave American men and women stop serving their country because of his blind hatred for a particular group of people. Fortunately, those who have served in today's military - including leadership from every branch - are rightfully confident that every survey of service members is correct and this repeal will have little effect on recruitment, retention, and readiness."
He also added, "...the disgusting bigotry of Mr. Farah makes very clear who has rightfully earned the title of 'social deviant.'"
Col. Dave Lapan, a U.S. Department of Defense public affairs officer, dismissed Farah's column.
"We see editorials and opinions all the time and people are free to have opinions," Lapan said. "I would suspect that most people in the military are serving for other reasons and wouldn't listen to that type of admonition for people.
"The military is, if nothing else, a meritocracy, people advance because they are good at what they do, regardless of where they grew up or what gender they are or what racial group they grew up with."
Lapan added: "Historically, when other militaries have made this change, those who reported that the change would cause them to either leave the service or not join the service severely overestimated what actually happened in practice. Very small numbers actually followed through on that."
Jarrod Chlapowski, field and development director of Service Members United -- the largest gay and lesbian troop organization - said predictions of military problems are unfounded.
"They made much more dire predictions about white soldiers leaving the military during the integration of African-Americans in the military and it did not occur," said Chlapowski, an Army veteran who served from 2000 to 2005.
He said reactions like Farah's are not a surprise, but hardly the majority viewpoint: "We won our biggest gay rights victory yet and this is what you will see. Yes, the media should not be advocating something that is clearly wrong and incorrect, but it is an opinion column and he is entitled to it. The implementation of the repeal will be the best education in that regard, it will demonstrate that it is not an issue. We are at a point where we are not arguing for repeal, it is actually happening."
In a December 17 column at WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah encouraged U.S. service members to leave the military if Congress were to lift the ban on openly gay service, writing, "As much as I respect and admire the U.S. military as an institution, I would find myself actively encouraging men and women to leave - in droves." Farah also wondered, "So what's next if the U.S. military opens up its ranks to flaming homosexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, lesbians and other sexual deviants du jour?" From the post:
So what's next if the U.S. military opens up its ranks to flaming homosexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, lesbians and other sexual deviants du jour?
According to the Pentagon's survey on the impact of the move, 265,000 military service people would leave earlier than planned as a result of just this move. That represents 12.6 percent of all personnel, and, I think, that's low-balling it.
Military analyst Bob Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council, said the real number could exceed half a million.
"Twelve-point-six percent is just the people who said they would leave," Maginnis told WND. "If you add in the number who said they 'might' leave, you get 23.7 percent. That would be 528,000, when you count both active duty and reserves."
What is at the heart of evil in our world, and how do we lessen its power in our own lives? Check out David Kupelian's newest book, "How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"
As much as I respect and admire the U.S. military as an institution, I would find myself actively encouraging men and women to leave - in droves.
If the U.S. military is going to be transformed into just another tool of twisted social engineering, rather than a force designed to defend America's national security interests, dedicated, brave and upstanding young men and women should no longer participate of their own free will. It's just that simple. Let the politicians cobble together a military of social deviants if they think they can.
After all, this is simply a plan being orchestrated by a regime that loathes the military and seeks to destroy it. Maybe it's time for America to recognize what that will mean to the future of the country.
As Media Matters previously noted, most respondents to the Pentagon's DADT survey said repeal would not affect their career plans, and predictions that integration would hurt retention proved false in foreign militaries.
Since NPR terminated Juan Williams' contract, numerous conservative media figures, led by Fox News hosts, have suggested -- citing no evidence whatsoever -- that the firing is related to a recent $1.8 million donation to NPR from Open Society Foundations, a philanthropy started by George Soros.
It seems like many on the right can't stop gushing about Carl Paladino's recent remarks about homosexuality -- except, actually, Carl Paladino. Even after New York's Republican gubernatorial candidate Paladino issued an apology yesterday for his remarks to Orthodox Jewish leaders on Sunday, anti-gay conservatives keep praising his speech, which included a call to protect children from being "brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option" as heterosexual marriage.
Adding their voices to the many conservative pundits who have already applauded Paladino's comments, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah and CNSNews.com Editor-in-Chief Terence Jeffrey are now jumping on the bandwagon. In a post early this morning, Farah said that Paladino's comments were "perfectly reasonable" and said it's "undeniably true" that there's "an ugly, revolting side to the 'gay rights' movement." From the post:
Paladino doesn't want kids "brainwashed," he said. Most people don't realize that is exactly what happens in many or most public schools when it comes to homosexuality. Kids are taught values that would be anathema to their parents if they only knew what was happening. That's what Paladino was saying. He said there is an ugly, revolting side to the "gay rights" movement. That is undeniably true. When candidates boast about taking their kids to "gay pride parades," you have to wonder about their sanity. These are spectacles that could never be aired in their entirety on television because of obscenity laws.
Farah also falsely claimed that "the overwhelming number of Americans reject same-sex marriage." In fact, two recent polls -- one in September from the Associated Press, and one in August from CNN --show that a majority of Americans support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.
Jeffrey spewed similar vitriol in a post today, writing that "no prominent politician who questions the wholesomeness of same-sex sex can escape a vicious beating by the liberal elite" and that these beatings are "designed to uproot the laws and norms of our society from the immutable natural law that is the true foundation of our freedom."
He also furthered the idea that gays want to "brainwash" children by falsely suggesting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit "ruled that parents cannot opt their kindergarteners out of Massachusetts public-schools classes that teach 5-year-olds that same-sex marriage is a good thing." Actually, the ruling simply stated that parents can't micromanage schools' curricula. The court never said parents don't have a right to move their children to another school, or a private school, or to homeschool them.
Paladino, in the meantime, issued a letter yesterday acknowledging that he made "mistakes" in his comments to the Jewish leaders. "I sincerely apologize for any comment that may have offended the gay and lesbian community or their family members. Any reference to branding an entire community based on a small representation of them is wrong," he wrote.
Too bad we'll never see Jeffrey and Farah apologizing for their own comments.
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah continues his attacks on Ann Coulter -- Ann Coulter! -- for "weakening of the resolve within the conservative movement" by speaking at GOProud's Homocon event:
I am far from alone in viewing Coulter's acceptance of that high-profile speaking engagement as further evidence of a weakening of the resolve within the conservative movement in defending marriage, the integrity of the U.S. military and the First Amendment by embracing as allies those who attack all three of those institutions, while championing the false notion that Americans should be granted special privileges and protections based on the perverse sex acts they prefer.
Coulter's action cannot be judged in a moral and political vacuum. Same-sex marriage and open homosexuality in the military and hate-crimes legislation are all political realities that are being shoved down the throats of Americans against their expressed will. This is hardly the time to be singing Kumbaya with the radical advocates of those positions. They're winning. America is losing.
By the way, has anyone considered what Ann Coulter might have said to "Homocon" had her feathers not been ruffled by the accountability she received from me and WND?
Did you ever think you'd see the day when Ann Coulter was criticized for being insufficiently hardline?
Farah also claims that his previous criticism of Coulter came "without any invective, any rash charges or ad hominem attacks."
Oh, really? Last week, Farah suggested that gays are worse than the Ku Klux Klan.
WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah goes off on Ann Coulter's appearance at GOProud's Homocon event:
[T]he point I was making was driven home by all of the press coverage of the event – that "her presence marked the increasingly mainstream embrace of gay rights."
That's the trouble with allowing yourself to be exploited by a group with a dangerously extremist agenda that includes the promotion of same-sex marriage, open homosexual service in the U.S. military and a wink and a nod toward hate-crimes legislation.
If a celebrity chooses to speak to the Ku Klux Klan, there is no question the Klan benefits from such an appearance – no matter how much the speaker might attempt to explain the differences he or she might have with the group's agenda. Justifying such an appearance by suggesting it's just another paid speaking gig would hardly mollify the criticism or negate the benefit the Klan received from the event.
Of course, no one in respectable public life would consider speaking to the Klan for those reasons.
However, I would suggest the ungodly, sin-glorifying homosexual agenda represents a far greater and far more imminent danger to the future of the United States than does the Klan's racist, ungodly and sin-glorifying agenda.
That's not to say we should never speak to or evangelize sinners – be they Klan members or homosexual activists. In fact, that's exactly what we should do. What we should never do is to embrace or celebrate or validate their activism in any way.
It's overshadowed by the barking-mad comparison of gay rights advocates to cross-burning Klansmen, but the description of Ann Coulter as "mainstream" is astounding in its own right: Among other offenses against decency, Coulter has suggested President Clinton should be assassinated and said she wished Tim McVeigh blew up the New York Times building. She's "mainstream" only in comparison to Farah.
Hanging out in St. Maarten has not mellowed Joseph Farah out.
Filing his September 22 column from the Caribbean island paradise, where he's leading like-minded folks on a "Tea Party at Sea" following last weekend's "Taking America Back" convention, the WorldNetDaily editor and CEO goes into freak-out mode about President Obama's paraphrasing of the Declaration of Independence's section about "unalienable rights" without mentioning the part about those rights being "endowed by their Creator":
This was not an accident.
It was not a slip of the tongue.
It was not an oversight.
It was not an innocent mistake.
This was an attempt at deicide by Obama.
This was an effort to strip from America's national heritage a direct connection with God Almighty.
Even worse, this was Obama's way of stripping from America's consciousness the notion that liberty's underpinnings require direct accountability and responsibility to the Creator, not man-made government.
Our rights do not descend from Obama, much as he might like.
Our rights do not descend from government, much as he might like.
Our rights are not endowed by evolution, much as he might like.
They are endowed by our Creator.
That's a key word that the Obama mentality would like us all to forget.
He clearly doesn't want Americans to be thankful and responsible to their Creator. He would like Americans to be indebted as subjects to him and the power structure he represents. In other words, we would like us to forget the sacrifices of our forefathers over the last 234 years, shirk our pledge to independence and freedom and be like the other nations of the world where the ultimate authority about right and wrong, law and lawlessness, liberty and servitude is defined by an elite class of mortal men.
Obama let it all hang out there with that simple act of omission.
But it wasn't merely an omission.
It was omission by commission.
Don't think for one minute that speech wasn't written in advance with an express purpose.
The purpose was to take America one more step away from God the Creator.
Obama reached a new height of subversion with his bastardization of these keywords from the Declaration of Independence. That betrayal of the founding document of our country – America's birth certificate, if you will – shows him not only unworthy of the office of the presidency, but unworthy of U.S. citizenship as well.
Farah thus wins the freak-out competition the right-wing media over Obama's omission. Such outrage, needless to say, ignores all the times Obama got the quote right and less-than-exact renditions of the phrase by conservatives.
Perhaps the next port of call on his Caribbean cruise will find Farah in a less vicious and hateful mood.
With the guest lineup of World Net Daily's Taking America Back 2010 national conference, it was no surprise that birtherism and bigotry were prevalent throughout the convention. After all, WND's Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi are perhaps most (in)famous for their repeated birther attacks against President Obama.
Displaying shocking ignorance of his own publication, Farah kicked off WND's first national convention by asking if "anyone at WorldNetDaily ever asserted" that President Obama "is foreign-born." We can. It turns out that one of WND's commentators, Craige McMillan, has referred to President Obama as an "illegal alien" in at least three separate posts on WorldNetDaily's website. Despite Farah's suggestion that WorldNetDaily held itself above the tired questions about President Obama's citizenship, Jerome Corsi was quick to jump on the case.
Questioning the president's citizenship, and thus his eligibility as president, was not the only way speakers at WND's convention attacked Obama. Speaker after speaker attacked Obama's faith as a Christian. Jerome Corsi alternatively claimed that Obama "doesn't believe in God" and that he's a Muslim, Floyd Brown claimed that Obama "hates Christianity" and "is a Muslim," while Aaron Klein said that the president "has a certain affinity toward Islam."
Other attacks against Obama included the zombie lie that Obama supported "infanticide" and an absurd demand by Corsi that Obama "come out and renounce Lucifer." Floyd Brown also stated that the "most important step" for the next session of Congress is to impeach President Obama.
Anti-gay bigotry was also out in force at the Taking America Back convention. WorldNetDaily founder, editor, and CEO Joseph Farah suggested gay marriage would lead to "sexual anarchy" and claimed that opposing gay marriage was akin to opposing "sexual offenses" such as "polygamy, incest, statutory rape, child pornography, molestation, [and] prostitution." Noted anti-gay bigot Robert Knight similarly compared a gay marriage ban to bans on polygamy and incest. However, Jerome Corsi refused to be outdone in this vein, going so far as to link same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality.*
Speakers at the convention were also, to put it mildly, displeased with Imam Rauf's proposal to build an Islamic community center in Manhattan to serve an existing Muslim community as a place for worship and community. After nine months of right-wing anti-Muslim bigotry and incidents of violence against mosque sites nationwide, WND's speakers decided to rachet up the rhetoric against the Islamic community center by declaring that its intention is to promote further attacks by Muslims against America. Aaron Klein flatly stated that "the individuals behind" the Islamic community center in Manhattan don't "have peaceful intentions." As well, WND speaker William Murray said that the purpose of the community center is to host "raiders" to "do even more damage" in America.
Just how does WorldNetDaily plan to top all of this with its next national convention?
From WND's Taking America Back 2010 convention in Miami, FL:
Loading the player reg...
From WND's Taking America Back 2010 convention in Miami, FL:
Loading the player reg...
The battle between WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah and Ann Coulter over the right-wing author's decision to keynote a gathering of gay Republicans is set to take a different path on September 17.
GOProud -- the gay GOP group Coulter will be addressing -- put out the following press release indicating its board chairmen will be debating Farah, the right-wing's homophobic birther king:
Today, GOProud, the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies, announced it has accepted World Net Daily's offer to participate in a debate at their "Taking America Back" conference on September 17th in Miami, FL. Christopher R. Barron, Chairman of GOProud's board, will square off against World Net Daily's Joseph Farah.
"Since we announced that conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter would be headlining our Homocon 2010 in New York City, Farah has attacked GOProud, attacked Ann, and challenged our work almost every single day," said Barron. "I look forward to standing on the stage with Mr. Farah to defend GOProud, to debunk the misinformation he has spread, and to make the case for GOProud's conservative mission."
Farah and Barron have agreed to debate the thesis, "Is GOProud Conservative?"
"I welcome the opportunity to debate whether GOProud is really a conservative organization. Our work on behalf of conservative policies and conservative candidates speaks for itself," continued Barron.
The war of words between right-wing author Ann Coulter and WorldNetDaily birther king Joseph Farah just keeps raging.
It all started when Coulter agreed to headline "Homocon," a gathering of gay Republicans in New York City on September 25. GOProud -- the group sponsoring the event -- described the pundit as, "the right wing Judy Garland!" in promotional materials despite her long history of homophobia, gay baiting, and name-calling when it comes to the LGBT community.
As the real Judy Garland was spinning in her grave somewhere over the rainbow, Farah was gearing up for an attack on Coulter over the appearance.
In mid-August, Farah announced that Coulter had been axed from her role as keynote speaker at his "Taking America Back National Conference" scheduled for later this month in Miami because she had agreed to headline "Homocon."
Speaking exclusively to WorldNetDaily, his own publication, Farah revealed details of private emails between Coulter and himself.
In those emails, Coulter purportedly indicated that she was only speaking to GOProud because she was being paid and that she regularly speaks in front of audiences with which she disagrees.
Furious that details of their private email discussions had been released, Coulter attacked Farah both online and on television.
In an email to Tucker Carlson's conservative Daily Caller, Coulter wrote that Farah was going after her for "publicity alone," that she believed her emails with Farah had been "private" and that he was a "swine" and a "publicity whore" for using them. She also said that Farah, "could give less than two sh-ts about the conservative movement -- as demonstrated by his promotion of the birther nonsense."
Ultimately she reiterated her opposition to gay marriage (and her "like" of gays), concluding that Farah hadn't canceled her keynote at all – he just couldn't come up with the money to pay her booking fee.
Then, appearing on Fox News' Red Eye, Coulter went a bit further. Speaking at times in the third person, she called Farah and WorldNetDaily "fake Christians trying to get publicity."
Farah responded in a statement -- again to his WorldNetDaily -- saying, "Coulter called me a 'publicity whore' for my decision. But look who is on television talking about this – throwing mud, name-calling, smearing not only me but my entire staff. I will not engage in the kind of ad hominem attacks that have made Coulter so famous and that are making her even more of a media darling in this age of reckless anger and character assassination for the sake of entertainment. Every day, since we made this decision at WND, I thank God for giving me the clarity of mind and discernment to make the right choice."
Seeing Farah take Coulter to task for "ad hominem attacks" in an "age of reckless anger and character assassination" is pretty funny considering it is one of the many similarities the two share.
After a few days off, Farah decided to launch some "ad hominem attacks" of his own against the LGBT community in an effort to breath new life into his spat with Coulter.
In a column this week titled "The homo con continues," Farah writes that since Coulter accepted the "Homocon" headlining role other "Republicans and 'conservatives' [were] now lining up to support" GOProud.
Farah went on to say that the event "literally represents the homo conning of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and that we are "witnessing the destruction of Washington's conservative establishment before our eyes." He sees those supporting GOProud as tacitly supporting such things as "liberty-destroying hate-crimes legislation" and "special government perks for homosexuals."
It may sound funny but it is no laughing matter for Farah -- in his eyes, he's the only one in "the Republican Party or the conservative movement standing up to this wholesale retreat on some fundamental conservative issues." He's "the only one willing to stand up for liberty as a gift of God."
Thus far, Coulter hasn't seen fit to further extend her back and fourth with Farah -- despite the birther king's best efforts.
Right-wing media figures like Cal Thomas and Dick Morris have preposterously suggested that the proposed Park51 cultural center in Manhattan would be a staging ground for future terrorism. But now Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily's Birther in Chief, has taken things a step further, contending that construction of the cultural center would itself be an act of terrorism:
The unacceptable symbolism of replacing the Burlington Coat Factory with a mosque is even more compelling than the idea of building a mosque at the former site of the World Trade Center.
In effect, by tearing down this building to make way for a mosque constructed with foreign Islamic money and leadership linked to Islamic extremism, Americans would be consenting to the completion of the audacious and insidious attack of Sept. 11, 2001.
[Imam Feisal Abdul ] Rauf calls it "iconic."
I call it "completing the attack."
How long before right-wingers like Farah start insisting that falafel stands are acts of terrorism?
Media Matters noted Wednesday that WorldNetDaily (WND) had announced the cancellation of right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's keynote speech at the fringe outfit's "Taking America Back National Conference" next month in Miami because Coulter agreed to headline a gathering of gay Republicans.
WND's report on the cancellation of the keynote apparently included details from a private email exchange between Coulter and Farah and that didn't please the right-wing author one bit. As Capitol Hill Blue's Doug Thompson writes (emphasis added):
The homophobic Farah blasted Coulter, saying "there is simply no room (at his conference) for compromisers or for people who accept money from those determined to destroy the moral fabric required for self-governance and liberty."
Coulter fired back at Farah, calling him a "publicity whore" and a "swine" for publishing an email exchange between the two.
Farah, Coulter said in Tweets and emails, "could give less than two shits about the conservative movement as demonstrated by his promotion of the birther nonsense. He's the only allegedly serious conservative pushing the birther thing and for one reason — to get hits on his web site."
Coulter writes a column for WorldNetDaily and said of her planned appearance before the conservative gay conference:
"They hired me to give a speech. So I'm giving a speech. I do it all the time."
Coulter added that she isn't losing any money over Farah's decision to drop her from his conference because he couldn't afford to pay her anyway.
Farah later responded to Coulter defending his role as the reigning Birther King while also saying he was sad to lose her "as a friend" but that he had "no regrets" over dumping her from the WND confab in Miami.
A little over a week ago, Media Matters noted that right-wing author Ann Coulter is scheduled to speak at an upcoming gathering of gay Republicans:
Right-wing author and noted homophobe Ann Coulter is slated to headline "Homocon 2010" on September 25 in New York City benefiting the gay Republican group GOProud. On the event's invitation, GOProud refers to Coulter as, "the right wing Judy Garland!"
It now seems not everyone on the right is as excited about "the right wing Judy Garland's" scheduled appearance as the event's sponsor.
Earlier this evening, WorldNetDaily (WND) announced that Coulter had been axed from her role as keynote speaker for the right-wing outfit's "Taking America Back National Conference" being held next month in Miami:
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 the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning."
GOProud may want to rethink its decision to host Coulter as she appears to make it clear to Farah in the WND piece that she's only attending the event because she's being paid:
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."
Farah then asked: "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?"
Coulter 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-Qaida 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, I think you're nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!)."
If you thought for a moment that this was a matter of Farah's convictions, you'd be wrong. WND may be canceling Coulter's appearance at its conference but it will still be running her column:
Coulter will remain a weekly columnist for WND.
"There's a different standard for columnists and speakers at our conference," Farah explained. "We boast the broadest ideological forum of commentators in any news or opinion publication or website anywhere on the planet – and we will continue to do that. We think people should hear all points of view discussed openly and honestly. However, this conference is a serious event designed to provide some real leadership for those who are serious about changing the direction of this country. There is simply no room there for compromisers or for people who accept money from those determined to destroy the moral fabric required for self-governance and liberty."
Perhaps Coulter's column is less expensive to WND than her speaking fee?