Sharia law -- especially its [animal] treatment of women, is not seen by American liberal / extremists to be a serious threat. Why? Because radical libs embrace political correctness and multiculturalism which essentially and falsely believes that all value systems are equal and thereby have inherent rights to be fully and freely exercised. Therefore I maintain that a liberal / extremist cannot logically or morally exist with any semblance of intellectual equilibrium. Only when a liberal / extremist's life is personally threatened, will then, that person re-evaluate his philosophical BS.

Remainder of the above reply comment:

Furthermore, I ask: "How many commentaries have you written in the past slamming those [liberal extremists] who shut out Coulter from speaking? Why "take it out" on Farah, simply because his religious views encompass [perhaps] so much more than yours? Why "take it out" on Farah because frontpagemag does not endorse his "birther" views and North American Union views? American conservatives must unite and not fight. Dissing another conservative because they have a more strict view of homosexuality is no cause to intentionally malign them.

Finally, I take exception [and, offense] to your view, that I disrespect you and David Horowitz. Even though I believe that David has some way to go to come to the [full] knowledge of genuine religious belief and experience, I truly appreciate his support for Israel and his denounciation of Islamic terrorism. For you, writing for frontpagemag -- you have made a good choice. Please -- no more divisive, targetted commentaries, like the Coulter / Farah one........

FYI -- I've finally read your entire commentary, and believe (even, more so) that my initial comment was spot on. I will compliment you, though, on including WND'S David Kuplien's comment info. However, I maintain that your commentary was initially designed to unfairly brass knuckle Farah's conservative principles. And, you skillfully [using left wing extremist tactics] did that. But what have you now accomplished? The conservative tent is big enough for Farah and Coulter. But you now have driven a wedge -- and, for what redeeming purpose?

Remainder of the [above] reply comment, to follow:

I can tell from your defensive reply that I must have hit some raw nerves. Your continuing remarks about Farah and your generalizing broad conclusions about him and his influence almost makes me believe that you ostracize him from the conservative playing field because of his commitment to Biblical Christianity. [I say this, knowing where Frontpgagemag is coming from -- attempting to trumpet morality apart from the Christ of the Scriptures. That is your and David Horowitz's choice -- as much respect as I have for Mr. Horowitz and his wonderful stand against anti-Semitism and terrorism].

I think that you are jumping to emotional conclusions when you suggest that I disrespect you and David Horowitz. You simply find it difficult to be criticized -- face it. If you want to threaten me with explosion from frontpagemag.com and contributing -- that is your pleasure. But, be that as it may -- I think that you would be acting rather infantile.

I can tell from your defensive reply that I must have hit some raw nerves. Your continuing remarks about Farah and your generalizing broad conclusions about him and his influence almost makes me believe that you ostracize him from the conservative playing field because of his commitment to Biblical Christianity. [I say this, knowing where Frontpgagemag is coming from -- attempting to trumpet morality apart from the Christ of the Scriptures. That is your and David Horowitz's choice -- as much respect as I have for Mr. Horowitz and his wonderful stand against anti-Semitism and terrorism].

I think that you are jumping to emotional conclusions when you suggest that I disrespect you and David Horowitz. You simply find it difficult to be criticized -- face it. If you want to threaten me with explosion from frontpagemag.com and contributing -- that is your pleasure. But, be that as it may -- I think that you would be acting rather infantile.

I cannot agree with your generalizing and sweeping conclusions about Farah. Without substantiating your wild claims -- you go on with your comment. [And, please don't tell me to refer to past commentaries by Frontpagemag that supposedly refute what you would consider, "nonsense." If, at all, you should be open to more possibilities than what you are closing yourself off, to.........]

I've now read the rest of Mr. Swindle's hatchet piece and I am even more convinced of its trashy "quality." From the "git-go" he is off to the races in condemning Farah, utilizing inflammatory words such as suggesting that Farah would like to "excommunicate everyone" that does not agree with him. Words such as "radical" pointed to Farah and insinuating that he would like a Christian Theocracy are commentary words of desperation on Mr. Swindle's part to unjustly and unfairly paint an American conservative media person. Your comment isn't much better.........

Calvin Freiburger,

I cannot agree with your generalizing and sweeping conclusions about Farah. Here is what you say:

.......Farah has been peddling conspiratorial nonsense like Birtherism and the North American Union too long to be taken seriously by any conservative."

Without substantiating your wild claim -- you go on with your comment. [And, please don't tell me to refer to past commentaries by Frontpagemag that supposedly refute what you would consider, "nonsense." If, at all, you should be open to more possibilities than what you are closing yourself off, to.........]

Remainder of the comment, to follow:

David Swindle,

I cannot agree with your distorted logic. If I smell a skunk, I don't need to locate it to know that its smell is putrid and that it is in the neighborhood. If I am at sea and spot the tip of an iceberg, I don't need to plunge myself underneath the cold waters to understand the danger. Your personal propaganda piece from the title and beginning had the traits of a hit piece with which I cared not to waste my time. Not only did you appear to vilify Farah for his commitment to Biblical Christianity but you unfairly attempted to compare Farah in the process, to Coulter . In my opinion your commentary had the smackings of a shameful piece. Maybe you've been reading too many liberal / extremist hit pieces.....???

Furthermore, if you were genuinely committed to American [traditional] conservatism, you would not take occasion to write what you did, slamming Farah. [Farah is not a vestigial political organ to toss away] Conservatism can be a big tent if one has the smarts to realize that there are varying degrees. But to split hairs is a foolish thing to do.

Finally, just because Farah axed Coulter from her planned speaking engagement -- that is no [just] occasion for you to do a hatchet job on Farah. Farah knows along with other committed Christians that American conservatism and the GOP must guard against the encroachment of homosexual activism. Once homosexual activists get a firm foothold on conservatism and the GOP -- that is the GOP'S death sentence. It will no longer be a political force to be reckoned with...............

Jon Rowe:

Maybe no credible statistics that your mind will allow. But there are credible stats. The homosexual lifestyle is not beneficial on many "fronts:"

"Help for Homosexuals, Lesbians, Etc." http://www.moralmatters.org/Help-for-homosexuals.html

What is so holy with the word, "conservative?" Perhaps, Farah, when he made this comment, did not care to "label" himself a "conservative." What is wrong with that? The reality remains, Swindle's piece was of a trashy sort -- attempting to elevate the often controversial Coulter by comparing her to someone out of her league.