*Caution: Reader Discretion Highly Advised*

The obscene, sodomy-celebrating, and nasty provocateur; rising GOP star; and Breitbart contributor Milo Yiannopoulos was recently invited to be the keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Fortunately, his invitation was quickly rescinded when an interview with Joe Rogan from ten months ago came to light in which Yiannopoulos gleefully recounted performing a sex act on a Catholic priest when Yiannopoulos was 14 years old–a sexual act that Yiannopoulos insisted did not constitute pedophilia.

The CPAC invitation and dis-invitation to Yiannopoulos are signs of how corrupt and feckless the conservative movement is becoming. The fact that conservatives would invite Yiannopoulos in the first place is repugnant. His repeated perverse and scatological comments should have rendered him an unsuitable speaker no matter what conservative positions he espouses on issues. It’s dispiriting to know that it took his glib defense of sex between adults and adolescents to compel feckless CPAC leaders to rescind his invitation. This provides yet more evidence that appeasement of homosexuals and acceptance of Leftist positions on homosexuality will only corrupt conservatism.

Two days before he was forced to disinvite Yiannopoulos, Matt Schlapp, president of the American Conservative Union which sponsors CPAC, tried to defend the invitation tweeting, “We think free speech includes hearing Milo’s important perspective.” Seriously? Is Yiannopoulos’ perspective on policy issues so  unique? Surely there are some conservatives who can offer compelling defenses of religious liberty, the rights of the unborn, capitalism, a strong national defense, and free speech without hearty endorsements of homoeroticism and promiscuity.

Yiannopoulos is trying to clean up the mess he created (including losing a book contract) when he said that he doesn’t view his sexual encounter with an adult man as an incidence of pedophilia. He claims that he views molestation as a particularly heinous crime:

“I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim. I would like to restate my utter disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers.”

Yiannopoulos’ wounds are evident, and we should grieve and pray for him as we should grieve and pray for all victims of childhood abuse, but his public words and actions are harmful to the cause of conservatism and merit criticism.

If his claim that he has exposed child abusers is true, kudos to him. But then why did he say this in his interview with Joe Rogan:

I lived in Hollywood a while ago. I went to… [parties of] people who I won’t name, of a similar stature [to Bryan Singer] in Hollywood. I went to their boat parties and their house parties….some of the things I have seen beggars belief….I don’t want to be indiscreet about specific people because I think it’s going to be dangerous. But I can tell you the truth without dropping anyone in it: Some of the boys there were very young, very young….There was a lot of drugs and a lot of twinks taking drugs and having unsafe sex with older men and some of these boys were very young.

Perhaps some intrepid journalist can ask Yiannopoulos if he reported this child sexual abuse to authorities.

This current Yiannopoulos dust-up confirms what I wrote months ago following his appearance at a  “Gays for Trump” event during which he spoke in front of photographs of hairless, shirtless, skinny young men who look like minors and repeatedly made sexually suggestive comments to off-camera men:

Those within the GOP who understandably seek a bigger tent should stop fawning over the indecent Yiannopoulos simply because he holds some conservative positions and attacks liberals and liberalism. A person who delights in sodomy cannot possibly strengthen a party committed to conservatism. Republicans need to stop being so desperate for the cool kids to like them. The enemy of our enemy is sometimes our enemy.

Exulting in promiscuous homosex is not a sign of conservatism. While Yiannopoulos may expand the Republican tent, he cannot and will not strengthen the Republican Party. He will corrupt it from within like a cancer.

Yiannopoulos is more dangerous to conservatism than is “progressivism.” He especially appeals to Millennials who have already drunk too deeply at the poisoned well that spews forth Leftist dogma on sexuality. Millennials who are becoming more pro-life are at the same time becoming more pro-homosexual. The witty, rebellious, promiscuous, flaming flame-thrower Yiannopoulos will make conservatism “safe” for Millennials who want to preserve their liberal beliefs about sexuality while embracing conservative positions on fiscal issues and defense.

The problem is that a country that no longer recognizes that children need and deserve mothers and fathers, that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation, and that sexual boundaries matter (including a social taboo against homoeroticism) is a society that cannot and will not long endure. We are a decaying culture, and the left sees our social decay as social justice and progress.

Do I agree with any cultural or political opinions of Yiannopoulos? Yes.

Are his conservative positions exculpatory with regard to the obscene and vicious comments he makes or his giddy endorsement of sodomy? Absolutely not.

Are his conservative sentiments sufficient to justify his invitation to speak at conservative events? Absolutely not.

Matt Schlapp and any other CPAC leaders who supported the invitation to Yiannopoulos should lose their positions within CPAC leadership.

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.