Thursday, March 07, 2013

How CPAC Has Been Completely Corrupted By Islamists

Scare headline? Overstated? Nope.

I was wondering why the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)had banned Pamela Geller, AFDI and conservative gay groups like GOProud from hosting events or even setting up booths this year. Now, I have an answer.

Reknowned author and Islam scholar Robert Spencer's blog Jihad Watch won CPAC's People's Choice Award this year by a wide margin and was notified that he'd won:


As Robert reveals, he was sent this e-mail to confirm:

Subject: Re: You've Been Nominated For A People's Choice Award At the CPAC Blogger Awards
Date: March 2, 2013 2:58:26 AM EST
To: Robert Spencer


It officially ended at midnight. You won!

But he is not going to be allowed to attend the conference to receive the award,let alone address the attendees. I'll let him tell you why in his own words:

But as time went by and no announcement was made of this victory, and the voting continued despite my having been told that it officially ended last Friday night and that I had won, and the promised links and other placement promised to the winning blog didn't materialize, I started to wonder. So I contacted the organizer who had written me telling me I won and asked him what was going on.

He told me that there was a slight problem: the Tea Party group, which co-sponsored this People's Choice Blog Award, didn't want to allow me to receive it at CPAC next week unless I promised not to criticize Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan as I accepted the award.

I told the organizer that I couldn't agree to that. He asked me if I had planned to talk about Grover and Suhail. I said no, I hadn't, but I had to now.

So that's that. The People's Choice Blog Award is now the Grover's Choice Blog Award. I will not be going to CPAC and will not be receiving this award.

And since I will not be allowed to receive this award at CPAC, I will talk about Norquist and Khan here.

Regular readers of this site know about Norquist's deep involvement with Islamists and Muslim Brotherhood supporters, of whom Suhail Khan is one. Although he's refused to discuss it or answer questions about it, Norquist is widely supposed to have converted to Islam himself, since he's married to a very devout (and anti-Israel} Palestinian and such a marriage to an infidel would be haram (forbidden) otherwise. His ties with the Muslim Brotherhood are deep and long lasting, and include Hamas and Hezbollah supporter Abdulrahman Alamoudi, who was later revealed as a top Brotherhood leader in the U.S. and convicted terrorist supporter Sami-al Arian, Islamic Jihad's man in America, who was also a close associate of Khan's. In fact, it was Norquist who introduced al-Arian to Karl Rove and the Bushes.

Robert Spencer has an excellent rundown on these characters and their long standing Islamist ties here.

So CPAC is apparently now under the control of Norquist, and anyone not willing to bow down to (or at least ignore) The Muslim Brotherhood and it's agenda is no longer welcome, including Robert Spencer, AFDI, gay homosexual groups or anyone else who doesn;t fit into the agenda.

Who gets banned next when it's conveneient? Jews? Pro-Israel conservatives? Anyone else who thinks the tender mercies of sharia law have no place in America?

CPAC is a joke, but unfortunately, it's on us.


Anonymous said...

Norquist is widely supposed to have converted to Islam himself

Is this like when you reported that Brennan was a convert to Islam? You were wrong (and refused to retract it of course) and you're wrong about this one too. Makes me wish we had tougher libel laws in this country. You'd be serving a life sentence at this point. Seriously, do you even have a conscience? You must have raised some racist children.

louielouie said...

while i'm just a commenter, and not a blogger, with all the inside information that goes along.
i always thought there was something that smelled like fish at CPAC.
i just couldn't put my finger on it, and didn't have the background to express it.
all of the "real" conservative were there.
rub is, i didn't agree with half of them.
now i know why.

Sara Noble said...

Norquist is a nobody with nothing but a tax schtick. The fact that people keep quoting him like he is some kind of authority is mystifying to me. He's a BS artist, really.

That tax pledge was absurd. Repubs signing that was moronic.It made them look foolish and child-like, catering to a nobody with a big mouth.

If CPAC is now Norquist-Libertarian, they will be relevant to about .01% of the population. Good for them, they will make themselves completely irrelevant.

Repubs should stop catering to people like Norquist. If Norquist is the face of Conservatism, pity us.

Rob said...

Ah, that ol' debbil reading comprehension strikes again Anonymous.

I presented the information on Brennan as an allegation. As I said in the article dimwit, his being a or not isn't a problem to me per se. His appeasement, enabling and hearting of Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood is. And speaking of racism, Bubba, it doesn't get much more racist and bigoted than Islamists.

No one has eever asked Brennan if he's a Muslim, but they have asked Norquist, who refuses to confirm or deny it. But the facts on the people he's hooked up with make whether he's a Muslim pretty much irrelevent anyway...just like Brennan.

You must have raised some really stupid children Anon. Heredity, y'know.

louielouie said...

i think anon is slipping a cog.
he didn't call you or anyone a nazi.
isn't that what nazis do?

Anonymous said...

Wow. Wow. Um, you should look at your post again before calling anyone a dimwit. The headline you use (that's the big bold thing that you cynically employ to draw traffic to your site) clearly says:


Your headline does not imply any sort of report of allegation. It was stating a falsehood as a flat-out fact. You don't open a story about the moon landing with a headline that says MAN LANDS ON MARS. This is called lying. You're good at it, I'll admit. But it's not kosher.

I've given up trying to figure out if you're just stupid or deceitful or a collection of both. JOHN BRENNAN IS A CONVERT TO ISLAM, you state. You can try redefining what the meaning of is is, Slick Willy, but I doubt even your regular louielouie-esque readers would fall for that.

I've been looking at your blog long enough to figure out your modus operandi. It is simply impossible for you to justify your headline with your revisionism. So what do you do? You could be a man and come clean or could you be a coward and not let this post go through. The latter is why you have the moderation system in the first place. You're so determined you're right, that when you inevitably find out you're wrong, your ego can't handle it. That's really really sad.

It's why I'm enjoying the thought of you crying at your keyboard and throwing this mail in the trash. It's not like your sycophants will actually side against you, so what's there to lose? Go ahead and post it, or do a Bill O'Reilly and stick to your guns even in the face of all evidence.

Then again, though I might be interested in reading your pretzel logic as to how your headline does not actually call Brennan a convert to Islam, it would just make me sad to think of the dimwits that you brought into the world. Heredity, y'know.

Rob said...

Oh. I just couldn't let this one linger in the spam filter.

Crying at my keyboard? Actually, I'm laughing my ass off at you. It's the only reason to even post your comments, let alone respond.

As for your main point, my 'dishonesty' in the article you mentioned, I qualified this at the every beginning of the article, not towards the end or 'below the fold' like your soulmates at the New York Times and similar propaganda organs.

And who are you anyway to talk about anyone when you're too gutless to even identify yourself?

Finally, let's talk about ..YOUR ISLAMOPHOBIA AND RACISM, Bubba

If Brennan is a convert to Islam, how am I or anyone else 'racist' by mentioning it? Our Constitution is pretty adamant that there's no test of faith for public office and I approve of that, as I've written before.

On the other hand, aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamists and their agenda is something very different.

You're the one who considers naming someone as a Muslim a smear, and calls that 'racist'.

So why should I or anyone else cater to YOUR bigotry? Or could it be that you actually have qualms yourself about the head of our CIA possibly being a convert to Islam?

Not that I care, of course. You see, Anon, I could care less what you think, because stupid people generally are a real waste of time except for the possible amusement factor, and even that wears thin after awhile.

I not only don't care what you think of me or about anything else in this world, I honestly don't care if you wake up tomorrow morning, and it's fifty fifty whether I would bother to urinate on you to extinguish the flames if you were on fire..although I probably would, nice guy that I am.


Anonymous said...

No surprise here. And the level of anger you're at now that all your readers can see you were caught in a lie is the icing on the cake.

Oh, and disregard the headline. It doesn't count. And don't ask me about it or expect me to justify it or I'll change the subject and call you a racist.

Well, you are an idiot. And a pretty vitriolic one at that.

PS. Your response to me was mostly name-calling and hatred (I particularly love the urination part; that's classy!). Would you care to actually say something about the headline? I'm sure it hasn't escaped the readers of this back-and-forth that you're seriously evading the issue and thus have already lost the argument. It's pretty simple - answer the question.

Rob said...

Now to me Anon, an idiot is somebody who is clueless about the obvious, even when I tried to make it as plain as I could.

'Anger'? Hatred? You flatter yourself.Like you're important enough to 'hate'? LOL!

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, so I'll repeat it..this time, take notes: I not only don't care what you think of me or about anything else in this world, I honestly don't care if you wake up tomorrow morning. You don't matter.

Read it several times so the message sinks in.Do you really think some silly anonymous troll is something to get anything more than amused over? You're the comedy relief, Anon. Get the joke? It's you.

I feel like I addressed your main point, and could care less about whether you found that sufficient or not. Again, study it, ponder it for awhile and it may come to you.

Speaking of evasion though, I do notice that you avoided telling me twice why YOU consider labeling someone a convert to Islam a smear.

Again, not that I need or even want to know,( please see paragraph 3 of this comment) but just pointing it out.

Buh Bye! *flush*

Joe said...

Trolls like Anonymous are pathetic. Thanks for the post on Robert Spencer and CPAC. And thanks for exposing the idiocy of people like Anonymous - it's insightful to see how pitiful some people are.


My faith in the Tea Party has been fading and now I must say Tea Party...Rest In Peace