CPAC and the Conservatives
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
The term “gay conservative” is being used by some news outlets in connection with the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and whether certain homosexual groups should be invited to appear. There is no such thing as a “gay conservative,” unless the term “conservative” has lost all meaning. But there is a homosexual movement that has its roots in Marxism and is characterized by anti-Americanism and hatred of Christian values.
Two of this movement’s members, Bradley Manning and Floyd Corkins, have recently been in the news. Manning betrayed his country in the WikiLeaks scandal, while Corkins has pleaded guilty to trying to kill conservative officials of the Christian Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.
Rather than debate whether “gay conservatives” exist or ought to have prominent speaking roles, CPAC should be sponsoring a panel on the dangers of the homosexual movement and why some of its members seem prone to violence, terror, and treason.
Since I started out in Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) in high school, I know something about the conservative movement. It seems clear that the homosexuals are trying to make inroads in the Republican Party through the conservative movement. No one can seriously dispute this. That is partly what the CPAC controversy is all about.
But the fate of a political party is not only what is in jeopardy. Historian Paul Johnson knows something about why nations fail, and he says one reason is the acceptance of homosexuality.
Johnson’s book, The Quest for God, laments that Western society made a huge mistake by decriminalizing homosexuality and thinking that acceptance of the lifestyle on a basic level would satisfy its practitioners. He wrote, “Decriminalization made it possible for homosexuals to organize openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched.” It became, he says, a “monster in our midst, powerful and clamoring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental—and to most of us horrifying—changes to civilized patterns of sexual behavior.”
Today, this monster wants to impose itself on our children in the schools and even the Boy Scouts of America.
I know something about this as well, since I spent several years in Scouting, became an Eagle Scout, and received merit badges in various skills. My wife and I became Scout leaders. Now, the homosexual movement is determined to overturn the ban on homosexual Scoutmasters and wants to teach young men in the Boy Scouts that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.
Such a campaign is objectionable on its face because the Boy Scout oath commits a young man to being “morally straight.” That “morally straight” can be considered compatible with homosexuality is a complete perversion of the English language.
Marxism lies at the heart of our moral troubles as a nation. Professor Paul Kengor notes that, in the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx wrote openly of the “abolition of the family” and of communism abolishing “eternal truths” and “all religion, and all morality.”
It should be no surprise to learn that Harry Hay, founder of the modern “gay rights” movement, was a member of the Communist Party USA and that the FBI maintained a file on him. Hay was also a vocal supporter of the North American Man/Boy Love Association. But the homosexuals constantly tell us, of course, that there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia.
In his report, “The Marxist Roots of ‘Gay Liberation,’” well-known conservative commentator Robert Knight explains what motivated Marx and his followers: “Families and the moral order stand firmly in the way of any socialist revolution. Families and religion inculcate independence and a strong set of values and personal responsibility.”
Marx’s partner Frederick Engels wrote The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, which argued in substantial detail for the abolition of the family. The family was always viewed by the communists as a target because it was a bulwark against state control of the individual and society.
What better way to destroy the family than to undermine the relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, and eliminate the need for children to have mothers and fathers?
Here, again, the homosexuals deliberately pervert the language, so that two women or two men have now become shacked-up “partners” or even “husband and wife” in “civil unions” or even “marriages.”
Hay’s contribution to communism in America was developing the idea that homosexuals, like the “workers” under capitalism, were being oppressed and had to assert their “rights.”
The donation of gay blood to the nation’s blood supply, despite the health risks, is the next “right” that the male homosexuals now are demanding the government grant to them.
As some alleged “conservatives” pretend that homosexuals are just like us, we are witnesses to a case of an openly homosexual soldier, Bradley Manning, recently admitting to leaking classified information to WikiLeaks. As Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC) has pointed out, Manning was politically motivated to do this damage to the United States. His anger over the military services’ homosexual policy is what led him to betray his country.
The FRC, a leading conservative Christian organization, was the target of gay rage when homosexual militant Floyd Corkins entered its Washington offices last summer and shot a security guard. Liberty Counsel points out that Corkins told the FBI after the shooting that he intended to “kill as many as possible” and smear the 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches he was carrying in the victims’ faces. Chick-fil-A had been in the news because its CEO spoke out in favor of traditional marriage.
An investigation found that Corkins identified his targets on the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which provides maps of locations of various alleged “hate groups” and names of their leaders and officials. I have been personally listed by them as a “radical right” leader and my “location” identified. I consider such targeting a personal threat to my family’s security and safety, and I have had to take precautions.
Incredibly, Judicial Watch discovered that SPLC head Morris Dees had appeared as the featured speaker at a “Diversity Training Event” on July 31, 2012 at the Department of Justice. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said emails obtained from DOJ gave the impression of Dees being treated like “a head of state.”
Rather than sympathize with phony “gay conservatives,” the conservative media should examine why the Obama Justice Department is honoring a group that inspired the FRC shooting and is putting more conservatives in thecrosshairs of radical homosexual activists. Such a listing also exposes conservatives to death threats from Islamists, who use the SPLC as a reliable guide to their political enemies.
In this context, CPAC’s refusal to let Pamela Geller speak at next week’s event is an absolute outrage. She has become a target of the Islamists and the SPLC because she has dared to take on such issues as opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque and Al Jazeera’s expansion in the U.S. I am proud to have shared the podium with her on several occasions.
Geller has responded to this controversy by noting the facts of the case and questioning why CPAC is operating in this curious fashion. She sees Islamist influences behind some big CPAC names. Real conservatives are rallying to her defense and are demanding answers. The fate of the real conservative movement hangs in the balance.
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at email@example.com.