Skip to comments.Pure deliciousness! 'Uninvited' at CPAC
Posted on 03/18/2013 10:45:38 AM PDT by Perseverando
It was particularly delicious that I was invited to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, at the invitation of the Breitbart organization. The Breitbart event, The Uninvited, was a special two-hour session of hot-button issues, including global jihad, the ongoing global persecution of Christians and the gutting of the American military. Breitbart is here, indeed.
The event was standing room only. And I was overwhelmed by the rush of applause and folks who stood up when I walked into the room for the event. It was mind-blowing. These people get it.
The theme of my remarks was The War on Free Speech. Truth is, the new hate speech according to our betters the enemedia and political elites. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is attempting to intimidate the West into criminalizing criticism of Islam, and what is shameful is the eagerness of the Western mainstream media, the left and even many conservatives to do their bidding by censoring themselves when speaking about Islam and demonizing and marginalizing those who dare to speak the truth about the jihad and Islamic supremacism. By their silence and weak response to the attacks, defamation and libel of voices of freedom, the right has sanctioned this speech-crushing device of the left and Islamic supremacists. Silence is sanction.
Suhail Khan is a foremost instrument of this demonization of voices of freedom. The enemedia got into an uproar when I said, Am I saying that Suhail Kahn is as bad as [Anwar] Al-Alwaki? Hes worse. I knew when I said it that the media tools would jump all over it as a gotcha quote, and the hopeless Alex Seitz-Wald at Salon again and BuzzFeed got right on it. And just to show you what dishonest merchants they are, Matthew Boyle reports at Breitbart News
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Anti-Jihadist dittos to Pamela Geller!!
I snipped 2 words ("Exclusive: Pamela") from the original WND article title and subtitle due to 100 character limits:
Pure deliciousness! 'Uninvited' at CPAC
Exclusive: Pamela Geller shares exceptional debate of hot-button issues
What's up with the mods today?
Some freepers asked for video of Geller & Spencer. And it’s GOOD.
Totally ironic, Pamela that your topic was The War on Free Speech and then you turn around and were one of the ones to shut Orly Taitz down when she tried to bring up 0bama’s documentation - or lack thereof.
To paraphrase a few lines from Pam’s comments:
The left and “many conservatives” are attempting to intimidate the ‘birthers’ or “constitutionalists” into criminalizing criticism of 0bama’s documentation. What is shameful is the eagerness of the Western mainstream media, the left and even many conservatives to do their bidding by censoring themselves by not speaking about 0bama’s forged documents, and demonizing and marginalizing those who dare to speak the truth about the forged, missing and doctored documents. By their silence and weak response to the attacks, defamation and libel of voices of freedom, the right has sanctioned this speech-crushing device of the after-birthers. Silence is sanction.
Cuts both ways, Pam. While I applaud your efforts to expose the demon that is islam, don’t become what you bemoan in the process.
It seems to me that Pamela and the Breitbart organization would have been justified in quoting Ronald Reagan to Taitz:
“I paid for this microphone.”
Whether or not you’re a “birther”, you should recognize that your freedom of speech does not entitle you to interrupt someone else’s speech.
Why is this?.
Suhail Khan, moderator of a small CPAC panel was asked about his previous years statement at CPAC, There is no Muslim Brotherhood in America. It was pointed out to Khan, the Muslim Brotherhood via CAIR had said, Yes, we are here in America, along with four federal U.S. judges who also declared the same. When asked if he desired to retract his statement; the questioner was asked to leave the conference room and was ridiculed by Khan and his followers.
Was not this a legitimate question? Why was it not answered?
What is the purpose of CPAC? If Khans denial of the Muslim Brotherhood, in America, position is acceptable, then an individuals principles are no bar to CPAC membership. If an individuals principles are not important, then CPAC is a fraud!
Would Ronald Reagan approve of CPACs direction?