Cliff Kincaid Defends The Conservative Movement’s Good Name

Every time I write a post about something Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid as written (which seems to be happening quite frequently lately) I marvel at his consistency.  While most of the people we write about frequently occasionally write uninteresting or irrelevant things that don’t really warrant any sort of coverage, Kincaid seems able to produce pieces so chock-full of craziness that they are impossible to ignore.

Case in point is his latest column, which is built around refuting this Politico article by Kenneth Vogel claiming that the conservative establishment is finally trying to distance itself from the “movement’s extremist elements.”

Now, I don’t buy Vogel’s claims for a minute … and neither does Kincaid, but for completely different reasons.  For instance, Vogel cites as evidence of his premise the fact that Ryan Sorba was jeered at CPAC for attacking GOProud from the stage, but Kincaid sees it differently, claiming that it was those who were booing Sorba who are extremists who don’t represent the conservative movement:

What he ignores is the evidence that the “jeering” came mostly from non-conservatives, many of them libertarians, and that the “anti-gay activist,” Ryan Sorba of Young Americans for Freedom, was rebutting a pro-gay speaker, a leader of a group who told me he wasn’t a conservative in the first place.

To clear things up for Kenneth Vogel and others in the media, let us make it clear that a true conservative like Howard Phillips, who has been a leader in the conservative movement for several decades, understands that conservatism means traditional moral and religious values, a strong national defense, and economic freedom. There is nothing complicated or confusing about it. The homosexual movement, founded by a member of the Communist Party by the name of Harry Hay, simply doesn’t qualify for admission, no matter how many libertarians in the CPAC audience may applaud for GOProud or jeer Ryan Sorba.

In order to purge the conservative movement of its extremists, CPAC will have to remove its own organizers who let them in.

The story ignores the real problem of how the “conservative establishment”-in the form of the CPAC organizers–picked actual and real extremists to co-sponsor their event. And those were the self-described “gay conservatives” who reject the social conservatism that has been an essential part of the conservative movement. The well-established and well-known Family Research Council pulled out of CPAC because CPAC organizer David Keene decided to allow GOProud, a relatively new organization that works for the election of “centrist” and liberal Republicans, into the event. But this mistake is overlooked by Vogel.

[Does anybody have any idea what Kincaid is talking about when he says that the Family Research Council pulled out of CPAC?  I know the Liberty University Law School did so, but I don’t recall FRC ever following suit.]

Kincaid then goes on to dispute Vogel’s claim that some conservatives were uneasy about the fact that the John Birch Society was allowed to co-host CPAC … and does so by defending the John Birch Society:

Communism was and is a conspiracy. Without commenting on every charge made by the JBS or its leaders over the years, its central claim–that U.S. leaders are working with the communists and others to lay the groundwork for world government–cannot be dismissed out of hand. Objectively speaking, one has to admit that talk of global taxes and world government is frequently in the news and cannot be said to be the fantasies of the “black helicopter” crowd. Even the Pope has stated his belief in a “World Political Authority.” His own Vatican newspaper published a favorable review of Marxist theory.

At this late date, no one can seriously doubt that a “New World Order” of some kind is coming into being. The real questions are to what extent it is being deliberately designed to subvert America’s standing in the world and the American way of life, and what role President Obama is playing in it.

Critics of the JBS have to concede the organization has been on the right track about an emerging world government.

Kincaid finally wraps up his piece by defending the Birthers and attacking the “so-called ‘conservatives'” who spoke to Vogel for his Politico piece, accusing them of giving the conservative movement a bad name.

I can hardly wait for Part II of Kincaid’s piece, which he promises will focus on the conservative movement’s relationship with “Alex Jones, Russian Television, and the Oath Keepers.”