It all started for me last year about this time.
Fresh from sponsoring CPAC in 2009 and addressing the group on multiple occasions dating back to the 1980s, I thought I would plant a seed in the minds of the organizers for the 2010 affair.
So I sent a brief e-mail to event director Lisa De Pasquale suggesting that if CPAC 2010 were planning to do anything on the constitutional eligibility issue, I would like to be the speaker on that subject – what are the facts, why it’s important.
I never heard back from her and didn’t really give it another thought, until September – eight months later – when suddenly that innocent, private e-mail between a sponsor of CPAC and the director suddenly became “news.”
It began when Republican blogger Jon Henke declared an ill-fated boycott of WND. I say ill-fated because WND had a banner year for revenues and traffic. That should tell you something about his level of influence in the world of politics and news. Henke did his best to get the Republican Party to withhold advertising from WND, never thinking, of course, to suggest the same to the Democrats, who outspent Republicans nationally and in WND in the election year 2008.
Nevertheless, Henke was rewarded with multiple appearances on MSNBC and became a darling of the George Soros-backed slime machine Media Matters as a result of his attack on WND.
His next step was calling CPAC to ensure that I would be banned from speaking there in 2010.
Henke quoted De Pasquale as saying: “Farah asked if he could speak on the issue (birther movement), but that isn’t something we’re interested in.”
Now, remember, De Pasquale never bothered to provide the courtesy of an answer to my private and, I had presumed, confidential letter. But, here she was disclosing it to a guy not pushing the Republican Party in a “conservative” direction, but one who is pushing it in the opposite direction.
Still, I held my tongue – even though CPAC was obviously giving aid and support to a guy actively trying to discredit and boycott one of the group’s sponsors.
But, it got worse.
About a week later, she gave another interview to the Los Angeles Times about my public banishment from CPAC, ridiculing not only me but even CPAC’s constituency, the people who attend the conferences.
She told the paper I had asked to discuss the eligibility issue, but was turned down.
“It would fill a room,” she was quoted by the Times as saying. “But so would a two-headed monkey. There really are so many more important issues, and it’s only a three-day conference.”
Do you get the picture? CPAC knows the topic would be popular among attendees – maybe even a draw for the conference. In other words, that’s the level of contempt she has for the CPAC attendees.
I decided right there and then that WND would no longer sponsor CPAC as long as an arrogant, know-it-all wannabe like De Pasquale was running it. When others confronted De Pasquale on her ill manners, unprofessionalism and condescension, she finally wrote me an e-mail. But it was hardly the letter of apology one might expect under the circumstances. She explained that she was “just answering questions from the media.”
Apparently, De Pasquale and the CPAC leadership are more concerned about pleasing the media than their long-time sponsors and speakers – even people like me who are under siege from the left, the soft-right and the media establishment.
It didn’t surprise me later, therefore, when this same leadership made the conscious decision to include in its sponsors for 2010 a group promoting same-sex marriage.
How stupid is that?
Officially, not even Barack Obama supports same-sex marriage. Officially, not even Hillary Clinton supports same-sex marriage. That’s how unpopular this fringe movement is. It has been rejected by voters in America every time it has been put to the test. Some polls show opposition to same-sex marriage as high as 90 percent. Yet, there was CPAC catering to the same-sex marriage movement at America’s most well-known “conservative” conference.
That’s why today I pronounce CPAC dead.
It’s one of the reasons I am organizing a conference this September called “Taking America Back.” This one is about the ultimate issues of God, the Constitution, the tea-party uprising, freedom and justice.
There will be no two-headed monkeys.
There will be no same-sex marriage sponsors.
But there will be free and open discussion of issues like the constitutional eligibility of the man occupying the White House.