Rotating Header Image


CPAC Shills for Islamic Terrorists

Frontpage interviews Pamella Geller, whose website is ATLAS SHRUGS:

Dot-Red Excerpt.

Geller: Our conference (during CPAC10) was designed to speak the truths that others will not speak…

FP: It’s a great sign that CPAC hosted an event like this, right?

Geller: Well Jamie, it’s not really what happened. The truth of the matter is that our event was at CPAC, but it was an independent event, not a CPAC event. And the truths that our speakers told were not aired at any other event at CPAC.

FP: Ok, just a second, let me get something straight: we are facing a deadly enemy in this current terror war, and that enemy is Islamic jihad — based on Islamic theology. CPAC had how many panels about it?

Geller: One.

And it was an exercise in misinformation.

FP: Are you kidding me?

Geller: Not at all. The single panel was:

“You’ve Been Lied To: Why Real Conservatives are Against the War on Terror Delaware Ballroom
Sponsored by Campaign for Liberty (60 minutes)
Speakers: Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Karen Kwiatkowski and Jacob Hornberger, President of FFF
Open to All CPAC Attendees”

The message there was that “real conservatives” don’t support the war on terror because it is a creation of the “Israeli lobby” — which coalesces with the left-wing’s new anti-Semitism against neoconservatives. Karen Kwiatkowski is a darling of both the leftist Huffington Post and the anti-Semitic paleocon site

FP: Tell us some more about Kwiatkowski.

Geller: Well, let’s put it this way: in a 2006 article, she described John Bolton as “that blubbering bundle of self-righteousness.” She also wrote:

“Many in America oppose the U.S. knee-jerk, unquestioning support for Israel. Many more worry that the Israeli lobby is unusually influential in Washington, while remaining hidden and unaccountable to average Americans. Still others are alarmed that Israel’s constant war mentality has become our new American model, and that Iraq and our own borders have become our own occupied territories, teeming with terror and constituting a never-ending threat to our lives, prosperity and value system.”

Kwiatkowski is a retired military officer. Is this really the type of thinking prevalent in the military? Me thinks not. So why on earth was she given a platform at CPAC? Doing so can only undermine those who are now serving. Having different points of view presented is one thing, but by hosting this event, CPAC explicitly endorsed this fringe, anti-American thinking.

That panel was, of course, a reflection of Ron Paul’s perspective. There were no counter-jihadists, no Robert Spencer, no Ibn Warraq on any CPAC panel, but they had room for this well-funded “Campaign for Liberty” presentation. The same group also had a co-sponsor booth. No expense was spared — they were everywhere. At the event Jacob Hornberger said that there were four reasons why real conservatives should be against the war on terror: because it is too costly, because it makes us less safe (he said Americans were less secure because American troops kill children and mothers and people who are simply defending their country against invaders, and have even, he said, killed a bride at her wedding), because it violates Constitutional principles, and because it is a threat to liberty.

Nothing was said about the Islamic doctrine that shows that jihadists would be waging war against the U.S. even if we did end all actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The panel agreed with Obama, that Muslims are angry with us because of our actions, and will stop being angry with us if we change our foreign policy. This view is naïve and reflects ignorance of Islamic doctrine. And consider this: if Ron Paul were as anti-Islam as he is anti-Israel, he would not have been in CPAC, and his perspective would not have been represented. Instead of coming together on our basic core values and circling the wagons on the fundamentals — national security, small government, low taxes, and the freedom of speech — the CPAC leadership had a circus of the fringe.

FP: This is mind-boggling. This is a conservative conference and one would think conservatives are interested in national security and protecting our liberties and American lives. Why do you think this happened?

Geller: I think CPAC’s agenda in 2010, as well as 2009 and before that, reflects the influence of Grover Norquist, the conservative powerhouse and kingmaker. He is a board member of the ACU, and from the looks of CPAC’s covered topics and omission of discussion of jihad, it looks as if he exerts enormous influence over David Keene, the ACU’s nominal leader. Norquist and his ally Suhail Khan seem to be in charge at CPAC — no CPAC event goes on that doesn’t reflect their perspective.

FP: Expand a bit on what perspective Norquist represents.

Geller: Jamie, Grover Norquist’s troubling ties to Islamic supremacists and jihadists have been known for years. (Continued.)

Dot-Red As reflected in numerous “tweets” from surprisingly embittered, unduly aggressive handlers/representatives of CPAC10 that I read as also experienced — which puzzled me at that time since I’m one individual voter as an American citizen — the ardent negativity I received on twitter from some who declared themselves associated with organizing CPAC10 in the weeks leading up to the convention itself (held earlier this month) has been later explained by the convention happenings (it was not a Conservative-friendly [or even tolerant] environment, it was a Leftwing, Libertarian event, and my Conservative perspectives were greatly maligned earlier this month by some of these CPACkers accordingly).

The one aspect I refer to as “puzzl(ing)” was that I was ill-prepared for the incoming word-bombs (lies/defammation, outrageously disturbed comments) that I received from total strangers (who were later revealed to be players in the exclusion of Conservatives from CPAC10, along with Conservative opinions, expressions, discussions — including tweets in that regard).

CPAC10 included a few Conservatives with bona fides — Marco Rubio, Rush Limbaugh, specifically, on most issues, and, I enjoyed Glenn Beck’s overall CPAC10 speech but he’s not one who I’d refer to as representational of what being a Conservative is, nor is Dick Cheney, who also spoke — but overall the convention was not only disappointing, it was…well…it was a spoiler.

Reading this interview with Pamela Geller, there’s more insight into what I verged on suspecting in my earlier, bad experiences on the internet with the various CPAC10-handlers (for lack of a better word, persons active on the internet who were working to organize the CPAC 2010 event and/or to present as being key-players in it, representatives or otherwise ego-involved), that the unduly negative, disturbed criticism lobbed my way over my own few and meager remarks about a few social issues (from a Conservative perspective, mine) were sentiments indicating a grievous insincerity of purpose and intent characterizing this year’s CPAC. What I suspected at that time, what I’m finding now to have been an accurate suspicion.

Conservatives were excluded from and by CPAC10 (handlers, organizers, promoters, the ego-involved in the event) as “purists” and that term was applied as a pejorative about Conservatives who were not of the Liberal or “faux conservative” kind on a number of issues, specifically, social issues and concerns (and those were banished, ridiculed). Never mind that the banishers were, indeed, exercising their own set of “social issue concerns/values” defined as being intolerant of Conservative social issue concerns/values.

Social issues, social “values” and concerns about such are what drive our support for or denial of support for primary political decisions. Wars are fought over “values” and so are lives made and lost accordingly, both internationally and domestically; abortion, pro-life, marriage, foreign and domestic aid, military funding, military readiness and deployments, all of these and much more are, indeed, determined by values and are, indeed, areas of “social issues”.

What CPAC10 was was a Libertarian promotion impinging upon language terms and insulting Conservative values. In this new twist, Liberal is now ‘conservative’ and anyone is that if they simply declare that “all government is bad.”

Real Conservatives don’t hold that opinion, if but for the primary reason that our government is created by our Constitution, and that that Constitution is worth protecting and defending and continues to be so.

The Left has once again crept into colloquial terms and ‘rebranded’ (or is attempting to do so) terms of civilization’s generalizations such that what you think one is referring to is now demanded to be the polar opposite of what one intended.

Dot-Red Earlier/Reference:


CPAC’s Lack of Foreign Policy Discussion

Host vs. Host: Limbaugh, Levin Pummel Beck

Rush Limbaugh rebukes Glenn Beck – for attacking Republicans

…someone among media needs to “pummel” CPAC10 and the associated Ron Paul Libertarians for attacking Conservatives, or, rather, for posing as them.

C O M M E N T S : now closed