Pam Geller & Robert Spencer take on CPAC's banning of conservatives
All Tea Party groups are NOT created equal! BEWARE!
First Pam Geller's article:
Monday, March 11, 2013 ATLAS Shrugs
CPAC's Al Cardenas Lies: Meeting? What Meeting? I want that meeting! @CPACNews @AlCardenasACU @seanandfrank
"...this year we decided not to invite Pamela Geller for comments she made at CPAC critical of our officers. In each of these cases, their ad hominem attacks denigrate the debate and distract from the real point of CPAC....."But in his response to Sean Casey this morning, he out and out lies, contradicting his previous statement. This morning he said this:
"As I have said publicly, I plan to get together with Pam. I know she does good work on a very important topic. And I plan to meet with her and see how we can collaborate in the future."He said this publicly? He has never contacted me, nor is there any meeting planned. What a bold-faced lie. I want that meeting! Listen here: Download CardinasOnPamSandFWCBM031113
Oh and BTW, these checks made out to ACU board member and influence peddler Grover Norquist's organization, The Islamic Institute, are not "ad hominem attacks." They are from Abdurahman Alamoudi, who is serving a 23-year prison sentence for terror-related crimes. Alamoudi was also found to be a longtime secret financial courier for Al Qaeda.
From Jihad Watch:
CPAC's demand that Robert Spencer not speak about Muslim Brotherhood influence at CPAC when accepting the CPAC People's Choice blog award: "A huge miscalculation"
"CPAC Update Spencer/Hawkins," by Datechguy, March 8 (thanks to iOwntheWorld):
...Looking at the two statements and counter statements there are three basic facts that are in agreement: 1. Robert Spencer is the winner of the People’s Choice award
2. John Hawkins asked (or demanded) Robert not to bring up the CPAC/Norquist/Kahn when accepting it
3. Robert Declined that demand (or request).
Where the worm turns to me is this
A: “Did John ask Robert Spencer to not bring up any issues when accepting the award on his own initiative as a favor (as he said to me) or
B: was John asked/told to give that condition to Robert (as would be consistent which what Robert said to me about “checking with his superiors”) by TeaParty.net or someone at CPAC to keep Robert from speaking?
If it’s A, then John made a well meaning but foolish mistake, if it’s B then then it’s a much more insidious because that means John went along with the idea.
I understand the argument. People much more important that Teaparty.net are out. (Chris Christie) and they need CPAC more than CPAC needs them. Either John on his own or the Tea Party.net wanted to avoid trouble.
But while I understand the argument, my reaction is still: Are you kidding me?
Robert just lost a speaking gig at the Catholic Men’s Conference (coincidentally scheduled at the same time as CPAC this year) due to outside groups putting pressure on the church. There was absolutely no chance that he was going to agree to such a thing, it would be totally inconsistent with all he’s done to agree to be silent and as he said, it would be inconsistent with his honor and honorable behavior to say he would shut up and then speak.
Regardless of A or B this was a huge miscalculation. If Robert was just allowed to say whatever he was going to say it would have been one speech at one event at CPAC and that would be it. In fact even if he did say something stronger that what TeaParty.net or CPAC wanted they could have simply have pointed to the speech and contrasted it with the move to stop him speaking in Worcester as something to their credit.
Instead keeping him from speaking simply highlights divisions and sends the wrong message and makes this a story worth covering as opposed to just another CPAC event.
Once can argue CPAC is our host and we should respect that and if this was a dinner party or a college graduation that would be an excellent point. But this is a gathering of conservatives who are defenders of the Bill of Rights. It is impossible and incredible that a conservative group should do this....
It’s not by accident that Grover Norquist, who wrote the Bush amnesty and destroyed every immigration reform ever made is in league with CPAC, ACU who is headed by Cuban born Al Cardenas, another AMNESTY pusher.
Would you like to know what Al Cardenas, the head of the ACU (American Conservative Union) and one of the powers that be at CPAC think about the Gang of 8’s Amnesty??
“Statement from ACU Chairman Al Cardenas on Immigration Legislation
Published: January 28, 2013
Contact: Laura Rigas, (202) 347-9388, firstname.lastname@example.org
“It seems that a growing number of Democrats & Republicans in Congress have found common ground on agreed-upon principles for immigration reform.
Congratulations to both sides of the aisle in forging a responsible framework today. Difficult days lay ahead in working out specifics on the legislation itself, but the Senate is off to a good start and I encourage the House to follow suit.”[snip]
This is NOT the position of legitimate, grass roots Tea Party groups!
Contention at CPAC 2013: The Counterjihad vs. Grover Norquist, et. al.
[snip]Ooooh, looky here:
This page lists board of directors of the American Conservative Union, which hosts CPAC. The page isn’t easy to find, most likely because it shows both Grover Norquist and fellow mole Suhail Khan. Grover is keeping a low profile; as of this writing, I don’t see him on the speakers’ roster.
The ACU chairman is Al Cardenas,********** who has been pushing for another amnesty for illegal aliens.************* He actually expects us to believe that giving eleven million illegal aliens (including a large number of Muslim infiltrators) will “stimulate the conservative electorate.”