This column is about the
ongoing leftward turn of CPAC.
something that the anti-Trumpers and the Left are likely tittering about now,
which is the major slide to the Left of CPAC, or the Conservative
Political Action Conference. And how
are conservatives leaning Left when the Left has proven to be conservatives’
have a panel at CPAC sponsored by her ADFI, but
since September, after expressing interest, the show-runners of CPAC at the
last minute, cancelled Geller even holding a panel in a spare room because it
refused to allow Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit on
the panel. The Wikipedia link to Gateway
reveals the author’s bias and hostility by asserting, “The website is
known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.” Which is a lie, as much
of one that accused Pamela Geller of dropping out of the latest CPAC synod. Robert
Spencer has the whole story of CPAC’s dhimmitude over the jihad threat.
describe the whirligigs, chiefly by APP’s Terry Schilling, put Geller through
Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has never been much interested
in hosting honest discussion of the jihad terror threat.
only has CPAC consistently dissembled about the nature and magnitude of the
jihad threat, but it has also shown a disturbing tendency to dance to the tune
of the Left. Saul Alinsky’s 13th Rule for Radicals is “‘Pick the target, freeze
it, personalize it, and polarize it.‘ Cut off the support network and
isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people
hurt faster than institutions.” The Left consistently does this; in the case of
counter-jihadis (including me), it presents our statements, however correct and
demonstrable, as egregious and individual to us — that’s freezing and
personalizing the target. Then Leftists move to “cut off the support network
and isolate the target from sympathy,” demanding that others on the Right
disavow and condemn, or at very least shun, the target.
Kan, a Muslim, who denied to an audience during CPAC-2014 that the Muslim Brotherhood existed in the U.S.
clearinghouse of enemedia articles that reflect the propaganda spin that it
wants to put on news events. In this edition, it links to the Forward’s ridiculous hit piece on me that tries to make something of
a few retweets supposedly by Russian bots, as well as to the CNN story in which
ACU board member Terry
Schilling lies about the panel I conceptualized and proposed to CPAC, and
which now has been taken over by Schilling without my authorization.
proposed a panel and list of speakers to CPAC. Then CPAC demanded I drop Jim
Hoft, as he had offended leftists. When I refused, they canceled the panel. Now
CPAC is claiming that I was
they’re presenting a panel of the same title, with same speakers, minus Jim
Hoft (who they demanded be removed) and me.
CPAC, which has announced
its intention to “destroy” the individuals and groups that it deems “hate
groups” because they dissent from its far-left agenda. CPAC, like RINOs
everywhere, always jump to do the left’s bidding, and act as its tools. That’s
what’s happening here. Does CPAC leadership think the left will spare them if
they jump to its tune and drop Hoft when they demand it, and sing along with
the SPLC? They are in for a surprise.
|CPAC’s Terry Schilling: Snake in the grass.|
Schilling of the American Principles Project (APP) says he is holding the
panel anyway, without either me or Hoft, and that it was his panel to which he
invited me. In reality, neither Schilling nor the APP nor anyone at CPAC had
any hand in the conception or organization of this panel. CPAC’s claim that I
was “invited” to this panel that I originated and that I then bowed out is a
lie; their running with this panel that I conceived and organized without my
authorization or consent is intellectual theft.
speech from which not one, but two speakers have been banned. How can they
claim to stand for free speech after dropping a speaker because of pressure
from the authoritarian left? What value can a free speech panel have when two
free speech leaders were banned from that panel? And if I am so toxic, having
been shunned at CPAC for years, why are they stealing my work?
media censorship discussed at a heavily censored event. CPAC should be inviting
us, not banning us. To bow to the left by dropping Jim Hoft of Gateway because
the left is targeting him only reinforces our weakness and shows why we are
losing this great war.
at CPAC, the American
Conservative Union, and in other “conservative”
burrows of obsequious deference to Islam – “Carry a twig,” not “big stick” – to the effect that many
conservatives regard Islam is a “religion of peace,” regardless of the number
of attacks in the West and on Westerners committed by the murderous sycophants
of Islam. It is likely significant to his mindset that Norquist is married to a
Palestinian Muslim, and has become a
|CPAC’s Grover Norquist: Muslim leader|
Muslim.. He claims that Islam’s beliefs and practices
with the U.S. Constitution.
|Will not Surrender to Norquist’s “lions” of Islam|
Potomac Tea Party Report in 2011 suggested this dollop of honesty from Norquist:
Muslim goals (Sharia!) and our Constitution were perfectly compatible, he would
quit calling those who disagree with him names. He would stand up and
tell the truth about his involvement since before 9/11 with Islamists. He would
explain how and when he himself became a Muslim. He would put it all out
on the table and urge debate on his apparent belief that the Republican Party
should embrace all Muslims and frankly
he should agree to debate someone like Frank Gaffney in a public forum for us
all to hear all the facts so that we can each decide for ourselves who we agree
with. That is what he should do if he REALLY cares about the Republican
That is not going to happen. If the powers
behind CPAC are not only unwilling to debate knowledgeable authorities on the
peril of Islam, but go out of their way to smear and denigrate those authorities
and censor them when they can, one must ask what kind of leadership governs
CPAC. Norquist cares about the Republican Party only insofar as it becomes
hostile to freedom of speech.
And there you have it. The conservative cave
is populated with fork-tongued snakes like Grover Norquist and Terry Schilling,
more than willing to duct tape and silence crusaders for freedom like Pamela
Geller and Jim Hoft and so many others.
left, Alinsky-style? Does the rank-and-file conservative realize what a
bill-of-goods he is being sold? Does he know where he is going?