Unfortunately, for the last couple of years, there seems to be some groups that want to create controversy over not being asked to sponsor the event. I don't want to get into all those details, never mind that some of those groups are fringe groups who've sponsored once or twice, or others who have been rejected as a sponsor partially because they have personally attacked members of the American Conservative Union (ACU), who put on the annual event.
I was stunned to find out today from a tweet and posting from my friend Donald Douglas at American Power that Pamela Geller, who blogs at Atlas Shrugs and leads the American Freedom Defensive Initiative (AFDI), is not being allowed to organize an event, as she has for the last few years She wrote the following.
I won't be at CPAC this year. Every year AFDI organizes a must-see event, addressing issues that the Grover Norquist/Suhail Khan cabal refuse to address (jihad, sharia, the war on freedom in the West).
This year, I applied to speak and was ignored. I tried to get a room for an AFDI event, "The War on Free Speech," and was ignored. So, for the first time in five years, I won't be at CPAC. Last year Suhail Khan bragged out loud that he (and his other operatives) had successfully kept Robert Spencer and me from being invited to speak. He went so far as to warn people not to attend our events or read our books.
In several articles I took on Grover Norquist and his powerful influence over CPAC, most notably here and here. As soon as I published my Newsmax column concerning his perfidious influence at CPAC, my Newsmax column was taken down and my name and picture were removed from the Newsmax page..... it was two slots away from Grover's. My weekly column never appeared at Newsmax again. It was axed.
Now this. I might add, every AFDI event at CPAC was standing room only. We turned people away every year.
Check out this Breitbart article -- and read the comments.
"CPAC Turns Away Pamela Geller" Breitbart, March 2, 2013
For the last four years, Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com and the American Freedom Defense Initiative have held events at CPAC featuring guests she invites to discuss the influence of Islamism on America. But this year, the American Conservative Union (ACU) has no room for Geller or her message.
I'm sorry to see that this has happened to Pamela. I've been a fan of her work even before I started blogging. I've met her a couple of times and in fact she was very complimentary to me of this blog when we spoke at CPAC last year, for which I was extremely humbled to receive from her. She and Robert Spencer, among others, have been doing very necessary work to inform and educate America about the threat of radical Islamists in this nation, and their influence in various aspects of our society, when so many others are afraid to tackle this subject. Certainly, the threat of radical Islamists is real, and as conservatives, it is something that should be talked about.In 2009, she brought Geert Wilders, who is the head of the third largest party in the Netherlands and has spoken out against the Islamization of his country.In 2010 she held an event that her organization, The American Freedom Defense Initiative, hosted, titled "Jihad: The Political Third Rail", with speakers like Allen West, Wafa Sultan, Simon Deng, Anders Gravers, and Steve Coughlin.In 2011, she hosted an event discussing the Ground Zero Mosque with 9/11 families. In 2012, the event was titled "Islamic Law in America."In years past, the events were standing room only thanks to their popularity, but that apparently was not enough to counter pressure brought to bear from somewhere to exclude Geller’s message.
Unfortunately, it appears that there is an influence of some, including the aforementioned Suhail Kahn and Grover Norquist (who also leads Americans for Tax Reform) to minimize or ignore the real threat of radical Islamists. At CPAC 2011, Kahn led a discussion that was sympathetic of Nation of Islam and La Raza, and also claimed "there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States." But that is not true. During the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorist funding trial, a 1991 document was found that was a Muslim Brotherhood memorandum on the "General Strategic Goal for North America."
Written sometime in 1987 but not formally published until May 22, 1991, (Mohamed) Akram's 18-page document listed the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded "organizations of our friends" that shared the common goal of dismantling American institutions and turning the U.S. into a Muslim nation. These "friends" were identified by Akram and the Brotherhood as groups that could help convince Muslims "that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands ... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions."
Akram was well aware that in the U.S., it would be extremely difficult to promote Islam by means of terror attacks. Thus the “grand jihad” that he and his Brotherhood comrades envisioned was not a violent one involving bombings and shootings, but rather a stealth (or “soft”) jihad aiming to impose Islamic law (Sharia) over every region of the earth by incremental, non-confrontational means, such as working to “expand the observant Muslim base”; to “unif[y] and direc[t] Muslims' efforts”; and to “present Islam as a civilization alternative.” At its heart, Akram's document details a plan to conquer and Islamize the United States – not as an ultimate objective, but merely as a stepping stone toward the larger goal of one day creating “the global Islamic state.”That same year, former 1960s Leftist radical turned conservative David Horowitz spoke at CPAC about this influence and remarked how similar it was to when, as a practicing communist, he knew of front organizations that were founded to spread communism in the United States.
Javier Manjarres of The Shark Tank, who (very deservedly) was named CPAC 2011 Blogger of the Year, also commented on this.
What I find troubling is the attempt to silence or marginalize Geller and others who speak out about radical Islamism, which is a national security issue. Aren't conservatives supposed to be discussing various topics that revolve around social, economic and national security issues? Especially at a conference that is supposed to bring top conservative thinkers and leaders together? If we're not willing to discuss similarities and differences of opinion, then that is acting like the liberals we criticize for their blind acceptance of ideas without question or debate, while attacking the dissenters with various slurs and insults.