COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Oz

    Farah showed himself to be a nutjob several years ago.

  • JadedByPolitics

    I know EVERY time I have seen an article linked by someone from them I immediately know that it will be EXTREME and choose to ignore it.

  • AceInTX

    In that Farah is a fool as much as McCain, Grahamnesty and the Christian hating wing of the party are!

    • avgjo

      n/t

  • http://lenamargita.com txgeekgirl

    Although you made some good points, I have to disagree with you regarding the entire view of Joseph Farah. When Bush was in office, he was just as critical of Bush not being hard enough, of starting a fight in Iraq, and of going against what is Constitutionally demanding.

    I think Farah wants people to think and to know that we have some really shady people running this country and unfortunately – Obama is the biggest of them.. He wants you to know that Obama’s whole life is pretty vague, cannot be properly documented, and therefore, he “may not be” eligible as president.

    But more importantly, Farah wants you to know that the socialist policies being put forth will be the demise of our country, that big government is not a direction we want to be heading in, and that if people stuck to what was morally true and right, we wouldn’t be in this predicament.

    • Scope

      The Libertarians, the Progressives, and the Conservatives all have their own definitions. What moral principles do you hold near and dear? The philosophies of all are very very different. If you would/could explain your comment it would be helpful.

  • SirGladiator

    What is morally right is standing up against the killing of innocent children, it’s defending the institution of marriage, its not handing our nation’s children and grandchildren a mountain of debt that they may never be able to repay, its giving all our citizens the freedom to succeed or fail in their businesses without interference or bailouts from big government. Thats just a few examples of what’s morally right. If anyone needs more examples, I’d suggest they open their Bible, there’s lots more there.

  • greycoat

    Christian Bentzen is a fool and is lying about Joseph Farah. See Joseph Farah’s reponse here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=196329

    A fool for attacking one of our own instead of going after the real enemy. Bentzen seems to believe he has to create enemies on our side. A house divided can not stand.

    Let me also add that as an attorney, I have yet to see a self-authenticating certified long-form birth certificate proving IN FACT that Obama was born in the U.S. The “evidence” presented to date would not get past the rules of evidence if such issue as Obama’s birth ever had the chance to be heard in a court of law.

    I am beginning to lose a lot of respect for this site with such artilces as this one which only serves the Left and like a cancer attempts to eat one of our own.

  • avgjo

    is the birther crap or having Pat Buchanan on his website. I remember a diary from Mr. Bentzen about why conservatives should capitulate on gay marriage. Obviously, this is an important issue to Mr. Bentzen. Fine. But why throw the birther stuff or Pat Buchanan stuff in? I believe it is red meat for Redstaters. As he said, birtherism isn’t tolerated here, and the people here are staunchly pro-Israel. This is disingenuous on two counts, one greater, one lesser. The lesser is that, while Pat Buchananis a jerk with anti-Semitic views, I don’t gather that Farah is; read him, and you’ll see he is staunchly pro-Israel. He also has liberals writing on his website, and I don’t think anyone would try to make an implication that Farah is a lib. The greater is that if your issue with someone is X, stick to that. I notice that when Mr. Bentzen wrote his last article on the gay marriage issue, the response was decidely against what he was saying. So what does he do? He attacks it from another angle, spending most of the post on other issues,which he knows will cast Farah in a bad light with most here, and at the end, slipping in an attack against Farah on his stance on gay marriage and the gay ‘lifestyle’ through a quote.

    Who reads WND? I do. They actually have some good columnists, including Chuck Norris, Pat Boone, Herman Cain, Roger Hedgecock, and others. When Farah is not on his birther kick, he writes some okay articles too. And you know what I respect about him? He doesn’t compromise on his values. Beck, whom I used to like, has compromised on this issue, mocking Farah for his stance on gay marriage in the whole Ann Coulter issue. This is the same Beck who acts like he is on a mission from God. Well, he’d better go back and read what that God said about homosexuality. Don’t hate the person, hate the sin. But we can’t use that word, ‘sin’ anymore, it’s too extreme, apparently even for conservatives. Another victory for the libs. Beck seems to fancy himself another Founder. So do many other conservative ‘activists’ now. Well, they’d better go back and read their history. The American Revolution was the culmination of a social and religious, yes, RELIGIOUS, dynamic that was 100 years in the making. Those folks, much wiser than people today, understood that so-called political rights came from God, and that if this was not accepted, then those rights were arbitrary. Hand-in-hand with receiving those rights from God goes obeying that God’s commandment. Remember Madison’s words about our type of government.

    It may not be popular to say, but if we try to have a second (violence-less) American Revolution without the spiritual aspect of it, we’re doomed to failure. And having the spiritual aspect will require drawing lines and holding them, something which is not very popular in America, even among conservatives. And that’s unfortunate; the libs won that one, too, apparently.

  • http://www.christianbentzen.com Christian Bentzen

    Mr. Avgjo,

    I respect your opposing opinion on this issue and I concur with you that religion is an important aspect in our society. This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian laws and cultural traditions and I also realize and respect this fact.

    I was raised Christian (and remain so) and am a proud conservative writer living in the *liberal* city of Washington D.C. but I will have to break with you on the point regarding my stance on Mr. Farah. Completely by coincidence, Mr. Farah lived in the same town as I did growing up and I have been *somewhat* following him for several years – I do not think that his brand of Religious reconstructionism will bode well in the long term.

    I am a right-winger, this much is true, but I believe that the Republican party needs to make a shift toward the libertarian ideologies that have become popular in the hearts of many Americans, particularly the youth and those involved in the Ron Paul ‘revolution’.

    We must, as the Next Generation of Conservatives, embrace new ideas that expand our base while keeping up with our central tenants of our ideology: limited government, less taxes, individuality, free markets, and work, not welfare. Further, we must address the waves of illegals and the growing threat of Islam.

    It is for THOSE reasons that I have chosen to simply stop caring about wasting our resources on trivial and fruitless pursuits such as the gays and massive drug enforcement. We could argue all day and use a laundry list of political science terms in the debate but what is comes down to is pure individualistic reality: If we want to be the party of freedom and liberty, than we cannot hold the contradictory view that limiting such freedoms is equally acceptable – i.e., if you don

  • avgjo

    I agree with you on every issue that you said needs to be addressed. But the question is whether what we are trying to do is built on a strong foundation. If political rights don’t come from God, what unmoveable base are they founded on? And if they do come from God, don’t we have an obligation follow His commandments? That’s why I personally can’t shut out the other issues.

    As far as limiting ‘liberty’and ‘freedom’, how are those defined? Liberty does not equal licence and freedom does not equal lawlessness. Farah mentioned recently that Thomas Jefferson, who was one of the great articulators of freedom as we know it, proposed (frankly, I think too harsh) harsh punishments for certain aspects of the gay lifestyle. And if we read his writings, and those of the other founders, they say things that many conservatives of today would consider ‘extreme’, unfortunately.

    At any rate, it is refreshing to disagree with someone and not have names or insults or a babyish tone come into the discussion. Thanks and good luck.

    To you also the best and a nice day.