Bet this never happened to the REAL Judy Garland

coultergeist-bondage.jpg

This should happen more often, though…because it shows the wingnuts in their true colors:

A few months ago, right wing firebrand Ann Coulter reacted to words of advice from a Canadian University official with stringent claims that she was being silenced and was the victim of a “hate crime.” But how will Coulter respond now that her own fellow conservatives have dumped her from a “Taking Back America” conference for agreeing to speak her piece at a gay conservative group’s event?

Anti-gay religious news site WorldNetDaily announced in an Aug. 17 article that Coulter had been disinvited from the WND event, which is slated to take place on Sept. 17, because Coulter has accepted an offer to speak at Homocon, an event scheduled for Sept. 25 that is sponsored by conservative gay group GoProud. Coulter had previously been scheduled to appear as a keynote speaker at WND’s “Taking Back America” event, but that invitation was rescinded by WND.

WorldNetDaily describes its “Taking Back America” conference as being “about freedom, the freedom the founding generation of leaders fought for in establishing the United States.” By “freedom,” WND seemed to mean a legal curtailing individual choices, based on a specific notion of morality: “It is time to choose the kind of country in which we want to live–whether we want to live under the rule of law or under the rule of man,” text at the WND site read.

“The choice is simple: the world of standards and morality, self-government and accountability to God or the world of tyranny and ever-changing moral codes enforced by government,” continued the text. “The only way we can reestablish our freedom–our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness–is to break the hammerlock of statism and the notion that moral relativism holds the answers to ordering people’s passions and behavior.” The text did not indicate what agency, if not government, would enforce this brand of freedom.

Ha, ha…who’s the REAL freedom-of-speech party again? Big hint: it’s NOT over there on the right.

And check this out. I always thought that being a far-right “libertarian” capitalist meant that you could literally do anything for a buck. Well, maybe not:

WND condemned GoProud’s sponsorship of a conservative conference earlier this year, and the site’s editor and CEO, Joseph Farah, said that dropping Coulter was the only thing to do given that she was, he suggested, lending credibility to the gay conservative group.

“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,” Farah told his own news site.

“Earlier this year, GOProud was permitted to sponsor the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, the biggest event of its kind,” Farah noted, going on to recall that various anti-gay groups dropped out of the conference rather than attend an event that had been partially underwritten by a gay organization. “GOProud is about infiltration of the conservative movement and dividing it from within with twisted and dangerous ideas way out of the mainstream of American public opinion,” Farah continued. “Ann Coulter is, I’m afraid, validating this effort for money.”

“Validating this effort for money”–I thought that was supposed to be GOOD, at least to those guys. I guess it’s not good when those guys are GAY. And even a flippant ‘phobe like the Coultergeist gets her convictions tied in more knots than her panties.

Speaking of knots, how’s this for tortured logic?

The article stated that Coulter would be welcome to continue as an op-ed writer for the site, and Farah drew a distinction between allowing people of differing political views to publish at WND and allowing people who speak to other groups to speak also at a WND event. “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,” said Farah of the event’s roster of speakers.

Shorter Farah: We’ll still pay you to spout crap on WingNutDaily because we could sure use the eyeballs, but it has to be OUR uptight, conservative brand of crap. But we can’t let you bring those gaywad cooties to our conferences. Freedom isn’t free, y’know.

And how’s this for a bitchy widdle slap-fest?

To Coulter, Farah directed pointed questions about her appearance at GoProud’s Homocon event. “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?” Farah asked.

“That’s silly,” Coulter rejoined, going on to tell Farah, “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,” Coulter continued. “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, [even though] I think you’re nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!).”

Shorter Coultergeist: You’re nuts, but I like you. And I give speeches for al-Qaida. Yeah, I’m nuts too. But those crazy faggots like me!

And speaking of nuts:

Coulter’s response to Farah was markedly different from the thrashing she gave last March to University of Ottawa’s provost for what Coulter characterized as his attempt to “silence” her by cautioning Coulter about the legal differences in what is considered to be hate speech in Canada, as opposed to the U.S.

“Since arriving in Canada I’ve been accused of thought crimes, threatened with criminal prosecution for speeches I hadn’t yet given and denounced on the floor of the Parliament (which was nice because that one was on my ‘bucket list’),” Coulter wrote in a March 24 column at Conservative News. “Apparently Canadian law forbids ‘promoting hatred against any identifiable group,’ which the provost, Francois A. Houle advised me, ‘would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.’

“I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn’t use,” Coulter continued, “but I take it I’m not supposed to say, ‘F—-you, Francois.’ ” Coulter went on to declare herself the victim of a hate crime due to Houle’s note. In the event, Coulter’s appearance had to be canceled due to safety concerns when a mob of students–described by Coulter as “rioting liberals”–became increasingly unruly before Coulter’s speech.

I can’t believe this bullshit version of the story is still circulating out there. Once more, with feeling: The Coultergeist was too busy boozing it up at a pricey fundraiser. Of course she couldn’t be bothered to show for a FREE appearance. She thinks independent-thinking, leftist students are Randian “looters” for al-Qaida, remember? Plus, she had to make herself out to be the martyr, af
ter all, and we nasty-wasty Canadians weren’t obliging her with any serious reasons. She was not forced to cancel anything–she CHOSE to. And saps that we are, we supported her right to choose, even if it meant that she could open her big yap and accuse us of all sorts of horrible things that we did not and never would do!

But the most tortured bit of logic is this, at the end:

Homocon has drawn sponsors from the rightward end of the political spectrum, noted Christopher Taylor in an Aug. 17 op-ed piece at the Washington Examiner. Taylor questioned the purpose of Homocon and GoProud, promoting a version of conservatism that the rightward fringe might not have recognized. “One of the most basic principles of conservatism as opposed to the modern left is that we treat everyone as Americans in America, not as any form of hyphenated-American,” wrote Taylor. “Conservatives shouldn’t care what color you are, how tall you are, if you’re male or female, they don’t care if you are left handed or ambidextrous, it simply doesn’t matter.”

Taylor went on to write, “Having a Homocon for gay conservatives is a slouch toward this identity group-politics, where we focus on the ideas and interests of each specific specially split off group, as if you can really take human beings and jam them into little boxes of like-minded and like-cultured people.”

For gay conservatives, the principle values of conservatism still apply–a catalogue, as defined by Taylor, that includes “limited government, individual responsibility, love of liberty, suspicion of government power, free market capitalism, and equal justice,” all of which conservative gay rights proponents say dovetail with GLBT equality.

It’s always so funny to see concepts like “limited government” and “suspicion of government power” touted by the same people who voted for Dubya, he of the warrantless wiretap, the search-and-seizure, the spying on dissident groups, the Free Speech Zones, and all those other things that we don’t have up here in the Great Unconservative North (or didn’t, until Harpo decided to emulate his crushboy).

And since when do conservatives REALLY not care what color you are, or if you’re female, or what? They are the MOST discrimination-prone people on the planet! Of course they care. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be so blatantly racist in their protests against Barack Obama. Nor would they elect a single anti-choicer. Black people would not still be agitating for their rights, nor would women, nor would queerfolks, in a country that blats loud and long about liberty but is really bristling with laws and statutes and state constitutional amendments and oh yeah, “free markets” geared at taking it all away.

Maybe what these homo-contards really mean is that everyone should be equally repressed and discriminated against, albeit in different ways, but turn themselves inside out trying pretend they’re really, truly equal and that nothing’s wrong. That’s conservofascism as I understand it.

Good thing I’m a socialist and don’t have to tie my brain in so many knots. I believe in struggling for equal rights and freedoms for everyone–no exceptions–until you get ’em, for holding politicians accountable in order to hang onto ’em, for being free and able to seek redress for governmental and corporate violations of those rights, for redistribution of wealth (hey, it enables a LOT more freedoms than it inhibits!), and for keeping the environment clean–and that includes kicking the dirty-minded conservatives out of the bedrooms of the nation. My ideology is clear, straightforward and just plain makes sense, which is more than I can say for theirs.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Canadian Counterpunch, Crapagandarati, Fascism Without Swastikas, Free Trade, My Ass!, Isn't It Ironic?, Karma 1, Dogma 0, Schadenfreude, Socialism is Good for Capitalism!, Teh Ghey. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Bet this never happened to the REAL Judy Garland

  1. Jim Hadstate says:

    Hah! Don’t you just LOVE it when the wingnuts get hung on their own petard? The Coutergeist and FarahFawcett bitch slapping each other. And in PUBLIC no less! Wingnuts are so gay when they start in-fighting. Oops! Can I say that? Gay to describe wingnuts?
    The quicker these 2 and all the rest of their slimy ilk drop out of the public arena and become just another asterisk in history, the better I’ll like it.
    I think we can coin a new term for wingnut slime crawling back under its rock. We can call it Schlessingerized.

  2. M. Blinderman says:

    With blessed thanks to Hitch Watch, I just learned of your blog page. What a delightful minx you are — a beautiful wordsmith and an original thinker. I am now a devoted reader. Best wishes to you.

  3. Wren says:

    If I am reading this right, I believe conservative reasoning on free speech is based on the premise that only government restrictions on speech, even to defend minority rights, is wrong, and thus private restrictions on speech such as losing a job like Helen Thomas and Octavia Nasr did or being uninvited from a speaking event is perfectly fine. This fits in with their belief that the only threat to freedom is from the government and that there is no threat from any private groups. To these people, forcing the majority to treat minorities as equals is the only real threat to freedom.
    The whole conservative movement boils down to inequality of opportunity (against inheritance taxes, equal rights for gays, for unequal funding of schools) and inequality of outcome. (they just admit to this) In other words, not for any equality at all. So, to be a gay conservative is to be immune to cognitive dissonance.

  4. Their logic is whack. Government is really the smallest threat to freedom of speech. The greatest is being a have-not–or a minority, or both. They seem to enjoy pretending that the playing field is and always has been level, when in fact it is not and never was.
    PS: I love what Digby says about them here.

Comments are closed.