In their pursuit of replacing culture with anti-culture, the spanking new 21st Century culture Reformers are going to be very busy. Rather than nailing 95 theses on a church door, they’re going to tear down 950,000 monuments and place names honoring imperfect and altogether yucky colorless people and replace them I guess with the names of perfect colorful people. This provides yet more evidence of the silliness of Barack Obama’s out-of-context quote, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” It also provides evidence of the truth of Dr. Martin Luther King‘s use of the quote, first spoken by 19th Century pastor Theodore Parker:

Evil may so shape events that Caesar will occupy a palace and Christ a cross, but that same Christ will rise up and split history into A.D. and B.C., so that even the life of Caesar must be dated with [Christ’s] name. Yes, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Neither Theodore Parker nor Dr. King was making the point that history moves always and ineluctably toward justice. They were making the point that ultimately Christ will redeem history. Christ has already won. It’s interesting that leftists have adopted BCE and CE in order to no longer refer to Christ. No matter, Christ still wins.

In the meantime, the devil roams the earth lying and destroying.

Now, after decades of canceling conservatives through a thousand tiny cuts and an occasional deep slash, the Reformers smell all that yummy human blood and are mercilessly cannibalizing their own.

The cannibals at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art forced out their curator, Gary Garrels, “[c]onsidered one of the country’s most prominent curators,” for the sin of saying he “would not stop collecting work by white men lest the institution take part in ‘reverse discrimination.’” The cannibals leapt on him. First, he tried futilely to stop the attack by groveling, saying,

I want to offer my personal and sincere apology to every one of you. I realized almost as soon as I used the term ‘reverse discrimination’ that this is an offensive term and was an extremely poor choice of words on my part.

His groveling delayed their devouring by seconds. The Cannibal Reformers responded, yum yum eat ‘im up. He’s gone, baby, gone.

The Cannibal Reformers have been noshing on Lin-Manuel Miranda, the beloved leftist author of the beloved musical Hamilton, for being insufficiently Reformed.

Homosexual, slightly conservative and now former New York magazine writer Andrew Sullivan was nibbled on for writing in ways about the protests that “triggered” “sensitive junior editors.” He resigned before being eaten alive.

And on social media and in her former place of business, writer Bari Weiss, who describes herself as  “center left on most things … and … socially liberal,” was gnawed on mercilessly. When the Cannibal Reformers, with blood dripping from their ghoulish mouths, paused to catch their breath, Weiss fled and used her best weapon to try to stop the cannibalization. She wrote and posted a resignation letter that exposes the intolerant, bigoted, ideologically non-diverse work environment at the New York Times:

[T]he lessons that ought to have followed the [2016] election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. …

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist. … Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned. …  [S]ome coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are. …

[T]he truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. … Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Weiss’s resignation echoes what leftist journalist Matt Taibbi wrote in June:

It feels liberating to say after years of tiptoeing around the fact, but the American left has lost its mind. It’s become a cowardly mob of upper-class social media addicts, Twitter Robespierres who move from discipline to discipline torching reputations and jobs with breathtaking casualness.

I worked with such Robespierres and experienced firsthand their bigotry and hypocrisy at Deerfield High School on Chicago’s North Shore. Ironically, some of the most vicious bullies were those who most vigorously claimed to honor all voices and to value diversity even as they promoted only one set of assumptions on how to think about race, sex, and erotic attraction. All views with which district oppressors disagreed were designated “hateful” and  their imperious judgments justified silencing—through bullying if necessary—all dissenting voices. While proclaiming that everyone should “Speak” their “Truth,” they ostracized anyone who expressed truths they hated.

Seeing the cannibals eating their own, ethics (or panic) seized 153 men and women who work in journalism, academia, and the arts—mostly leftists—and penned an open letter in Harpers in which they “raise their voices against” the “new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity.” The signatories include Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky, Todd Gitlin, Garry Kasparov, Damon Linker, Steven Pinker, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Jonathan Rauch, J.K. Rowling, Salman Rushdie, Gloria Steinem, Randi Weingarten, Garry Wills, Matthew Yglesias, and Fareed Zakaria.

After first taking potshots at conservatives, as is their wont to do, they wrote this:

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. … [C]ensoriousness is … spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.

But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. … the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation.

Some of the most bloodthirsty cancel culture cannibals live and move and have their anti-being in the “trans” cult, and when Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling said men can’t be women, the Cannibal Reformers came for her with bared fangs and unsheathed drag queen talons. Fortunately, Rowling has an impenetrable armor made of gold bricks. Unfortunately, few Americans have such armor. Maybe AOC, Bernie, and Biden can provide some to each and every American—oh, and while they’re providing free stuff, I’d like my fair share: a Martha’s Vineyard mansion just like the Obamas’.

While this letter is a good start in undoing the damage done to the Republic by leftists, seeing the name of the president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, undermines trust in the sincerity of the signatories in that teachers’ unions are at the forefront of leftist politicking, including using schools to advance their leftist ideology.

Not surprisingly, when the letter was published, the Cannibal Reformers lost what was left of their minds, beginning with Todd VanDerWerff, whose “trans” alter ego is “Emily” VanDerWerff. To be clear in the miasmic ontological fog created by the noxious exhalations of the “trans” cult, “Emily” is a biological man—forever.

He, like Harper’s letter signatory Matthew Yglesias, is a writer at Vox, and VanDerWerff laughably claimed that upon seeing Yglesias’ signature near the signature of J.K. Rowling, he felt “less safe working at Vox.” And the Cannibal Reformers were off and terrorizing.

Leftist stormtroopers unaccustomed to pushback kicked up a Twitter storm, and fearing for their professional lives, a handful of Harper’s letter signatories bailed. Three days later, a racist counter letter appeared, griping that many of the Harper’s letter signatories were “white, wealthy, and endowed with massive platforms.” Of course many were wealthy and endowed with massive platforms because only those with wealth and massive platforms can survive the Cannibal Reformers’ Purges.

What we need now is massive pushback against ideological Robespierres, storm troopers, and Cannibal Reformers. Don’t let their tactics intimidate you. Don’t be manipulated. Don’t be deceived. Don’t hold your fire. And don’t send your kids to their re-education camps.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Leftists-Canceling-and-Cannibalizing-Their-Own_audio.mp3

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute. As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Written by Peter Heck

Let’s stop the pretense. Let’s break down the façade. Let’s retire the con.

Whatever it once was, the current LGBT political lobby has nothing to do with equal rights, has nothing to do with basic legal protections, and has nothing to do with the advancement and normalization of so-called “sexual minorities.” Instead, it has devolved into a fanatical fascist sect intent on wielding the gun of government to compel the cultural adulation and glorification of every aspect of their lives.

Any reticence and you will be bullied. Any resistance and you will be harassed. Any refusal and you will be punished.

Even if you’re gay.

Anyone who reads my work knows that I’m not one to defend South Bend Mayor and Democrat presidential candidate, Pete Buttigieg. His politics are regrettable, and his galling effort to co-opt the language of Christianity to feign justification for those politics is repugnant.

Still, it’s merely a statement of obvious fact that his ascension to the presidency would represent a jaw-dropping affirmation of gay normalization and acceptance in mainstream American society. Anyone whose primary motivation was the advancement of the LGBT experience would be elated at such a prospect. Pete Buttigieg, in the realest sense, is the embodiment of everything such a person could desire: he is young, in a committed gay marriage, articulate, is disarming and mild-mannered, boasting a high quotient of electability.

But he’s not gay enough.

Don’t misunderstand – no one is accusing Mayor Pete of being a closet heterosexual. But remember, this modern LGBT political movement, one that liberal comedian Bill Maher once dubbed the “gay mafia,” isn’t impressed that a person checks even a majority of the boxes. You’re either all-in with their demands, or you’re out. That’s why this just happened:

2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg was rebuked by LGBT advocates after a two-year-old photo surfaced of the South Bend mayor volunteering as a Salvation Army Christmas Kettle bell-ringer to collect money for the needy.

The LGBT website Out published the photo Tuesday, along with some angry reactions.

And those angry reactions spanned anywhere from “you ought to be ashamed of yourself” to “you’re dead to me.” So here you have an absolutely viable, openly gay presidential candidate, and yet the gay political lobby wants to destroy him because he doesn’t hate the Salvation Army enough? That’s crazy. Scary crazy, to be precise.

It defies logic until you understand that what drives this movement is not tolerance. It’s hate. Atlantic columnist Andrew Sullivan, a gay man who married his male partner over a decade ago, put it succinctly:

There’s no doubting the fact that Sullivan is right. And here’s why that should be so alarming to the sane among us. In 1932, the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini outlined his doctrine of fascism, stating,

“The Fascist conception of the state is all-embracing; outside of it, no human or spiritual values can exist…the Fascist State…interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.”

In modern parlance that means they will determine where you can eat a chicken sandwich, what companies you’re allowed to patronize, whom you’re allowed to help raise money for, and whom you’re not allowed to associate with, even in goodwill. It means that there is no more goodwill.

In its place there is only force and intimidation, and a nefarious, painfully transparent attempt to harness the power of the state to demand we all think, act and believe like them. Even if, as in the case of Pete Buttigieg, we literally are them.

This article was originally published at Disrn.com.

A cursory look at recent words from prominent homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan who self-identifies as Catholic illustrates the ways homosexual Christians attempt to remake Scripture in their own image to serve their own desires.

Catholic revisionist Sullivan, a well-known cultural commentator, offered a fanciful and childish reinterpretation of Scripture when he wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court case involving Colorado baker Jack Phillips. It should be noted from the outset that Sullivan hopes Phillips wins, but also hopes he wins based on expressive speech arguments—not religious free exercise grounds.

Sullivan not-so-carefully constructed an ugly straw man that he then went about pummeling with weak, floppy punches that couldn’t knock down a thin man of straw let alone God’s enduring Word:

Sealing yourself off from those you consider sinners is, in my reading of the Gospels, the reverse of what Jesus taught. It was precisely this tendency of the religious to place themselves above others, to create clear boundaries to avoid ‘contamination’ from ‘evildoers’ that Jesus uniquely violated and profoundly opposed. If Jesus is your guide, why is this kind of boundary observance such an important part of your faith? Are you afraid your own faith will be weakened by decorating a cake? Would you have ever had dinner with prostitutes or imperial tax collectors as Jesus famously did? What is this Christianity you are so dedicated to? Somewhere, the fundamental Christian imperative to love others and be humble before them has been lost.

Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a type of union that is the antithesis of marriage in no way constitutes “sealing oneself off,” placing oneself “above others,” or avoiding “contamination” from “evil doers.” Nor is such a refusal impelled by fear of having one’s faith weakened. In reality, such refusal both reflects deep faith and strengthens faith through the trials (both figurative and literal) that ensue.

For Christians marriage is first and foremost a picture of Christ and the church. Its essence is complementarity. Christ the bridegroom and his bride the church are different in nature and role. Therefore, a union of two people of the same sex would suggest that there is no difference in nature and role between Christ and the church. In addition, Christ himself explicitly defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Moreover, God detests homosexual activity. A ceremony that solemnizes and celebrates an intrinsically non-marital union that is “consummated” by activity that God abhors is heretical. Those, like Jack Phillips, who own businesses that serve only sinners—including homosexuals—everyday, aren’t sealing themselves off by refusing to serve a heretical celebration that mocks marriage. They are serving and honoring God.

Nor is such a refusal indicative of lack of humility as Sullivan claims it is. Humility does not require Christians to refrain from making distinctions between right and wrong. And making distinctions between right and wrong actions does not constitute or reflect pride, arrogance, or a sinful sense of superiority. When Sullivan decries actions that he believes are wrong or when he refuses to be a part of some activity that he believes is wrong, is he guilty of unbiblical lack of humility?

Pastor and theologian John Piper writes this:

Humility begins with a sense of subordination to God in Christ.… Humility asserts truth not to bolster ego with control or with triumphs in debate, but as service to Christ and love to the adversary.

Truth is integral to biblical humility.

Sullivan then makes the tiresome claim that because Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, there should be no boundaries regarding the types of events that Christians serve, facilitate, or celebrate. This criticism implies that Christians who refuse to be part of homosexual faux-wedding celebrations also refuse to eat with homosexuals. Does Sullivan have any evidence for such an ugly claim?

Jesus did, indeed, eat with prostitutes and tax collectors. He did not, however, serve, facilitate, celebrate, or participate in celebrations of prostitution or of the exploitation of the poor through excessive, unjust taxation. Nor did he just hang out chewing the fat with prostitutes, tax collectors, and people who favored other forms of sin.

Rather, he told them to “go and sin no more,” to repent and follow him. He told the sinners he spent time with that “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me,” and “whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”

At the feast with tax collectors, Jesus described them like this:

Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.  I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.

Jesus broke bread with tax collectors, calling them sick and in need of healing and sinners in need of repentance. Sullivan left out those inconvenient details about the time Jesus spent with sinners.

Sullivan is wrong again. God did, indeed, establish boundaries for his followers. In Ephesians 5:11, the apostle Paul commands Christians to:

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

Sullivan is right too. We should go to sinners. We should eat with them. And we should to the best of our ability and in humility emulate Christ by sharing the gospel message.

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Homosexual-Catholic-Gets-Scripture-and-Jack-Phillips-Wrong-2.mp3

Editor’s note: Laurie is the featured guest on this week’s Illinois Family Spotlight podcast.  Check it out HERE.

End-of-Year Challenge

As you may know, IFI has a year-end matching challenge to raise $160,000. That’s right, a great group of IFI supporters are colluding with us to provide an $80,000 matching challenge to help support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal!  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2018!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 876
Tinley Park, Illinois 60477

Who’d a thunk it? Well-known homosexual writer and activist Andrew Sullivan responded to the Arizona debacle in a surprising blog post in which he makes two critical points rarely heard from the Left: First, he acknowledges that there is a difference between sincere religious belief and bigoted hatred. Second, he argues that compelling people to do something that violates their religious beliefs suppresses liberty and turns homosexuals into the intolerant bigots they routinely condemn. Here is an excerpt from that post:

As for the case for allowing fundamentalists to discriminate against anyone associated with what they regard as sin, I’m much more sympathetic. I favor maximal liberty in these cases. The idea that you should respond to a hurtful refusal to bake a wedding cake by suing the bakers is a real stretch to me.

Yes, they may simply be homophobic, rather than attached to a coherent religious worldview. But so what? There are plenty of non-homophobic bakers in Arizona. If we decide that our only response to discrimination is a lawsuit, we gays are ratcheting up a culture war we would do better to leave alone. We run the risk of becoming just as intolerant as the anti-gay bigots, if we seek to coerce people into tolerance. If we value our freedom as gay people in living our lives the way we wish, we should defend that same freedom to sincere religious believers and also, yes, to bigots and haters. You do not conquer intolerance with intolerance. As a gay Christian, I’m particularly horrified by the attempt to force anyone to do anything they really feel violates their conscience, sense of self, or even just comfort.

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of Illinois Family Institute.

Kathleen Parker is the “conservative” columnist liberals can count on to bash conservative personalities and causes. This is why her column is syndicated by the Washington Post and why she is featured on the Chris Matthews show.

Now, Parker has done her best imitation of lesbian MSNBC-TV commentator Rachel Maddow by writing a column bashing Uganda’s Christian majority for considering passage of a bill to toughen laws against homosexuality. This has been a Maddow cause for months, and Parker is now on the bandwagon.

When the MSNBC-TV host isn’t attacking Christians here and abroad for opposing homosexuality, she is promoting homosexuality in the U.S. military, as Post media critic Howard Kurtz was recently forced to acknowledge in a story about her preoccupation with this matter. But it’s really not surprising. Maddow’s show is an extension of her lesbian lifestyle. She is gay and proud and given free rein at MSNBC because of her role as the first “out” lesbian to host a show on a national cable news network.

It’s another “first” for the homosexual lobby and the media, which seem to go together.

Parker’s interest in the issue is not as clear but it may stem from her eagerness to please those who syndicate her column and quote her approvingly in the liberal press. This is how “conservatives” become mainstream media stars. However, her column is even worse in its accusations and charges than what we can find in the hysterical gay press. Parker finds those Christians opposed to homosexuality in Uganda and who base their opposition on the Bible to be in favor of “genocide.”

Losing complete control of her senses, Parker states that a proposed law against homosexuality constitutes “state genocide of a minority [that] is proposed in the name of Christianity…”

Once again, as we have documented on so many occasions, the death penalty in the bill is only one provision and is for “aggravated homosexuality” or serious crimes mostly involving homosexual behavior targeting children and spreading disease and death.

The potential genocide in Uganda is the AIDS epidemic that the government and Christian leaders are successfully combating. They understand, although Parker apparently does not, that homosexual behavior promotes the spread of AIDS.

There is a myth that AIDS in Africa has been spread exclusively through heterosexual conduct. But the internationally acclaimed medical journal The Lancet last August published the first scientific study showing that male homosexuals are more often than not infected with HIV than the general adult population in sub-Saharan Africa. The study is titled, “Men who have sex with men and HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.”

Here, all of this is out in the open and well-known. Indeed, the Cato Institute held an event on Wednesday in which HIV-positive writer Andrew Sullivan strode to the podium during a conference on “gay conservatives” with ashes on his forehead from having attended a Catholic Church Ash Wednesday service. Sullivan was caught soliciting a partner for dangerous “bare-backing” sexual practices and has since “married” another man. This is “conservative?”

Like Kathleen Parker, he is still considered a “conservative” by some and was introduced by Cato executive David Boaz, a member of the Independent Gay Forum and pro-marijuana activist. Like Sullivan, Cato is also misleadingly described in the media as “conservative” too many times to mention.

Today, as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) gets underway in Washington, D.C., participants will find a literature table established under official CPAC auspices from a homosexual Republican group calling itself GOProud. CPAC organizer David Keene, whose lobbying activities have been an embarrassment to the conservative movement, approved letting the gay rights organization officially attend the conference, despite complaints from traditional conservative groups such as Catholic Families for America.

Talk of tolerance and diversity aside, male homosexuals constitute most of the HIV-AIDS cases and they are still prohibited from donating blood because of their propensity to come down with various life-threatening diseases. Facts are facts. But don’t expect to see this information analyzed and reviewed by the mainstream media when considering such issues as allowing active and open homosexuals into the Armed Forces and into close quarters with normal heterosexuals.

Gay activists complain that thousands have been forced out of the military because of their homosexuality. The evidence, in the form of opinion polls and letters from former military officers, suggests that many thousands more will leave if the military brass force acceptance of homosexuality-and the diversity training that will inevitably go along with it-on the military rank and file.

The purpose of the Ugandan bill, quite clearly, is to keep homosexuality in the closet, where it used to be in this country. The country’s literal survival may depend on passage of this legislation, after it undergoes hearings and some revisions.

The bill will likely have more of a deterrent effect than anything else. Some of the controversial passages, such as restrictions on “touching,” are included for the purpose of defining homosexual behavior. It may sound strange to Americans who are accustomed to in-your-face homosexuality on national television and almost everywhere else in society, but Uganda is serious about avoiding a return to the time when a notorious homosexual king was ruling the country and tortured and killed young Christian men who resisted his homosexual advances.

Ironically, Parker makes reference to this terrible period, but only to contrast it with a frightening future in which she speculates that gays will be offered up by authorities in Uganda as martyrs for the gay rights cause. To drive the point home, a gay rights group recently held a news conference in Washington, D.C. featuring an alleged gay rights activist from Uganda wearing a paper sack over his head. It was a good publicity stunt, designed to generate sympathy and attention for people who only want the “right” to celebrate a behavior that is a documented public health hazard.

Hedge fund manager George Soros, who is behind the campaign to homosexualize Uganda, doesn’t wear a bag over his face and doesn’t need to. He operates mostly out in the open, in the name of promoting his version of an “open society” here and abroad. The problem is that most of the liberal media agree with his policies and proposals and therefore don’t shed light on what he is doing in terms of interfering in the affairs of not only the U.S. but other nations of the world.

In fact, the Ugandan legislation seems designed to send a message to Soros and his minions in the foreign homosexual lobby to keep their hands off Uganda’s families and kids. Soros funds efforts to legalize homosexual behavior and prostitution in Uganda and other African nations. It’s too bad Parker didn’t notice and condemn that. But such a reference might provoke criticism from the left, and she wants to avoid that so she can keep going on the Matthews show.

The eminent historian Paul Johnson, who was recently on C-SPAN taking questions from viewers, has something to say about this. His 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. Instead, 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 makes even more demands and inroads, especially into our government, as President Obama appoints subversives such as homosexual activist Kevin Jennings to the Education Department, and some poor mixed-up “transgendered” person to a post at Commerce. Plus, adding to our health care problems, he has lifted the ban on AIDS-infected foreigners from traveling to and living in the U.S.

His gays-in-the-military proposal would not only make the Armed Forces a laughingstock but would end its value as a fighting force capable of defending us against foreign threats. Indeed, a homosexualized military could itself become a threat, just like it was in the Nazi period.

Instead of finding a “monster” in a gay rights movement that wants to impose itself on all of us, including our children in the schools, Kathleen Parker finds the monster to be the Christians in Uganda who want to spare their children from a lifestyle that too frequently ends in premature death. She accuses them of “genocide” for being patriots and good parents. Shame on her.

Parker’s “conservatism” is a farce and a fraud. But it seems to be in fashion at CPAC this year.