By his own admission, Joseph Farah, the Editor-In-Chief of the allegedly “conservative” news giant World Net Daily, is not a conservative:
I can’t even count how many times I’ve written in books and columns about why I am not a “conservative.”
No matter how many times I do, I am still saddled with the label by friends and adversaries alike.
It seems everyone must be a conservative or a liberal in America today.
Today I write with a new reason: “Conservatives” don’t recognize sin when they see it. Nearly the entire “conservative” establishment, such as it is, fears even mentioning this word or acknowledging its existence. And, I’m afraid, without that recognition, this is a movement that is hopelessly lost.
Thus it makes perfect sense that he’d want to stock his upcoming “Taking America Back” National Conference with others of his ideology — other Christian radicals more interested in puritan morality than defending our political tradition and American values — while excluding conservatives. Hence someone like Ann Coulter couldn’t make the cut — and even worse, had to be exploited for publicity.
Why did Farah — and his editorial team — chop Coulter from their line-up? As Chris Barnhart blogged here at NRB earlier this month, Coulter chose to headline Homocon, a gay conservatives gathering on September 25 in New York. 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,” 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.”
Today The Daily Caller published Coulter’s response to Farah:
“[T]his was an email exchange [between] 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.” Coulter wrote in the email to TheDC. “[W]hy would he do such a despicable thing? … for PUBLICITY.”
The conservative pundit said that WND is well known for making decisions just to get attention, citing the conspiracist site’s regular articles about President Obama’s birth certificate.
“I will say that [Farah] 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.”
Coulter’s right. This is a publicity stunt to draw attention to WND and its event. What’s the conclusive evidence? This nugget from Coulter’s email to the Daily Caller:
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.
WND had not even booked Coulter for the event. Ergo, by publicly making a statement like this the sole priority is publicity. If this was really about principles then WND would have just quietly discontinued its efforts to get Coulter at the event. But as all conservatives who have studied Saul Alinsky know, to the radical mind principles are expendable and the ends justify the means. Such is the case with Farah.
Farah nakedly lays out his agenda as a radical, theocratic vision, not a political one:
Just exactly what is it that “conservatives” are trying to “conserve”? Free enterprise? Why? Because it works? So does traditional marriage. It’s been proven for 5,000 years. It’s the building block of any self-governing society. Without it we have chaos – sexual anarchy. I like free enterprise, too. But I know it’s best because private property is affirmed by the Bible. So is marriage between one man and one woman. That’s my standard.
Farah places not the constitution, but his particular interpretation of the Bible at the center of his political vision — instead of solely at the core his personal spirituality where it belongs.