We call on you to rescind the Proclamation you signed declaring November 15,
2008 "COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS (CAIR) DAY." By signing the
document, you ignored a number of troubling facts regarding CAIR.
* CAIR
was founded in 1994 by operatives from the Islamic Association for Palestine
(IAP), which at the time was the American propaganda wing of Hamas, producing
terror training videos for Hamas and publishing the Hamas charter in different
languages.
* CAIR was created as being a part of the American Palestine
Committee, which at the time was led by the global head of Hamas, Mousa Abu
Marzook.
* CAIR has had a number of representatives involved in
terrorism, who were convicted and/or deported for various criminal activities.
* CAIR is currently named by the U.S. Justice Department as a
co-conspirator for a federal trial dealing with the financing of millions of
dollars to Hamas.
* CAIR-Florida representative Jawhar Sadallah Badran
was recently caught on video stating his support for Hamas. CAIR's National
Executive Director once did the same.
Keep in mind, Hamas is on the U.S.
State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). And while it is
not illegal to verbalize one’s support for Hamas, it is immoral and offensive to
do so, and it is as well immoral to legitimize any individual or group who does
so.
We understand that you have signed this Proclamation for "CAIR Day"
every year for at least the past four years. We ask that you take the
opportunity to end this trend immediately by withdrawing this most recent
Proclamation. To ignore this would be to ignore the worst of hatred and
extremism.
We urge you to rescind the Proclamation immediately.
Hating leaving CPAC yesterday but real life insists.
As for the CPAC experience there is nothing like being in a well established hotel, bar right, with thousands of like minded souls. The conservative movement is very much in sync. The palpable excitement and headiness of the convergence were quickly dashed when Romney exited stage right. He was almost too perfect - and the one thing that was less than perfect in the eyes of the evangelicals undid him. Mormon. The fact that Obama Hussein is half Muslim and has embraced the idea of capitulating to Islam is little mentioned. But Romney was a Mormon and well, you can't have that. Eh? I should also note that the media did not want Romney, gave him little coverage and what there was was poor. Even FOX bascially ignored him.
Even so, on a personal note, it was wonderful to see bloggers, writers, politicians (in that order) that I admire. I met long time Atlas readers and new ones (thanks to Steyn and Michelle) - I actually signed some autographs - which was sort of inexplicable. Moving, all of it. These folks are extraordinarily good people. Passionate and grounded in their love of America. I was in awe.
Erik Svane (Paris, France) who blogs much less frequently now at No Pasaran (he writes books instead) was my wing man and best bud securing front row seats and acting as liason between myself and various European conservative party members. Much arguing, all of it interesting. Even those Europeans who love the idea of America and conservative values still see our self confidence as "arrogance" and buy into many of the media memes (abu ghraib!) that the left use to club people into submission. The Euro brain, even Conservative ones, is soaked in that toxic media soup.
Svane, OTOH, flanked my arguments with Euro wisdom and was really dear, urging me to "write a book!" - something he appears to be very good at. He writes on subjects near and dear to me - particularly the double standard the media, the UN etc have for America and Israel vs the barbaric world.
The good news is his books (French) are currently being translated into English. His website here;
Pearl Harbor Day saw the publication of La Bannière Étalée.
A book (in French) describing the anti-Americanism prevalent in France,
it comes with a plethora of examples that demonstrate irrefutably that,
contrary to what the French think, it is not "only" Bush and American
foreign policy they are against, it is not only visionary tolerance and
boundless lucidity that runs their motivations, and their actions
towards (and thoughts regarding) their "amis américains" are often far
from friendly.
Double standards abound in French life,
policies, and conversations. From World War II and the Cold War to the
Iraqi crisis, from McDonald's to the Kyoto protocol, from "poverty" in
America to "savage" capitalism, from Latin America to the United
Nations, I conduct a minute examination of French claims regarding the
United States and those who oppose its policies. Here is an excerpt…
He loves the American idea, really gets it. He came to America for his first CPAC, a trend I noticed this year among many Europeans. And while many Americans may have given up on Europe, I, for one, have not. We need Europe. It will be much tougher to beat the global Islamic jihad without it.
This was my first CPAC were I found a strong European presence. Rich Davis, great American and long time Atlas reader, discovered the gentlemen in the video below, just in from Spain. The man on the left, Eduardo was studying medicine , the other law. They came to America, just for CPAC - to, and I quote, "to breathe this air". To breath this "conservative air".
They lament their country is being overrun by Muslim immigrants. The immigrants arrive from Morocco (a 30 minute ferry) to Spain and immediately receive social security, welfare and medical. Thye don't work but traffic heavilyin drugs. The video quality is poor so you may not want to watch it but it's all I got and it tells their story.
I was fortunate Thursday night to run into Heather Smith who grabbed me (Heather is a film, radio, television producer and Richard Miniter's sexier half) and invited me to join her, Richard and their group of DC insiders for dinner at Mortons. So I skipped CPAC Novak dinner (I dislike Novak intensively, and I loved that I saw no one come up to him for his "book signing"). I jumped in their cab and joined them. The scene at Mortons, it seems, is old time (and modern) DC., it gave me a real first hand look at behind the scenes machinations. Lots of fat cats, fat cigars and fat steaks and chatter, chatter, chatter. Whoa, a lotta chatter. But frankly - all of it interesting, if that's your thing. And yeah, that's my thing. Folks that know me, know I don't engage in the tiny talk, have few friends. If I am not engaged, then I can't see the point in wasting time. But this was good, all of it.
It was all interesting. Miniter is thoroughly engaging. Always up for anything. Refusing to give in to the general malaise that had set in after the Romney blow, Miniter said we ought to forget the Presidential race and focus on the House. There are a large number of seats up for grabs (28 retiring) and we had to win them. Miniter contended that a House with a strong Republican presence would do well to battle any leftist program or legislation generated by a McCain or dhimmi President.
If the activists are looking for something to do and they really
can’t work for the McCain campaign, they can pick a contested House
race and volunteer there. In the thumbin’ of 2006, the GOP lost 30
seats in the House of Representatives. Eighteen of those were lost by
less than 5,000 votes each. Another six or so seats, were lost to
scandal (Foley, DeLay et al). If the GOP won back all of those—a big
“if”—it would be within six seats of majority control. Of course, the
math above does not account the 28 GOP retirements, which mean costly
defenses even in supposed “safe” seats.
So the House is an uphill battle with every single probability
against the conservative activists. Just the kind of struggle the Right
used to relish. More here
As I dug into my lobster tail , who should walk in but my MIA bud from The NY Sun, Eli Lake. Lake and I have the kind of relationship where we argue about everything and love it. You know, like family. He pulled me aside and we ate at a table to close by to discuss his latest book (which is why he has been a recluse), the NIE,the cut cables, moderate Muslims, McCain's approach to the war and the Middle East etc -- you know Atlas's idea of sexy conversation :)
Lake wrote an important piece: U.S. Spy Chief Retreats on Iran Estimate, which we discussed at length. It was enormously important (despite big media's big yawn) that the director of national intelligence has backed away from his agency's assessment late last year that Iran has halted its nuclear program, "saying he wished he had written the unclassified version of the document in a different manner".
At a hearing yesterday of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the intelligence director, Michael McConnell,
said, "If I had 'til now to think about it, I probably would change a
few things." He later added, "I would change the way we describe the
Iranian nuclear program. I would have included that there are the
component parts, that the portion of it, maybe the least significant,
had halted."
Mr. McConnell was referring to the specific Iranian program to
design potential nuclear warheads, which the December estimate said had
halted in 2003. But in his opening testimony, Mr. McConnell noted that
two other components of the nuclear program were moving ahead — the
enrichment of uranium, which he said was the most difficult part of
making a bomb, and the development of long-range missiles capable of
hitting North Africa and Europe.
McConnell's testimony (which I am watching on CSPAN as we speak) is hard to believe Could McConnell not have read it before it was released? (I think Bolton said that) No one document was so singularly responsible for a dangerous change of direction in American foreign policy. It was, in fact, a de facto coup against the White House, and has effectively rendered the Bush administration impotent in advancing the option of military intervention in defense of Iran's nuclear weaponry.
The timing of Mr. McConnell's
pivot is also significant. On January 22 in Berlin, all five permanent
veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council plus the Germans
agreed on a draft third resolution against Iran. Mr. McConnell
predicted that it would pass the council this month. At the same time,
other members of the Security Council, such as South Africa have
recently warned against a third resolution. The Russians last month
completed a deal to provide Iran with nuclear fuel for a separate
reactor in Bushehr.
Lake thinks McCain will be strong on foreign policy. I am not so sure but I do concede that Bolton is right. What a jagged little pill to swallow. AmSpec said here;
John Bolton used his speech at CPAC to pursaude restive conservatives that the
stakes in the world (the Iranian and North Korean nuclear threats, the prospect
of nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic terrorists) were too great to sit
this election out because of their disagreements with John McCain, and allow the
Democrats to gain control of foreign policy.
Bolton said it was now
clear that he would be the nominee, and specifically addressed those who argue
that conservatives would be better off in the long run if Democrats win and mess
things up than if mistakes are associated with a Republican. He compared this
logic to Vladimir Lenin's declaration that "worse is better" and said that
"tactical domestic considerations" shouldn't be allowed to harm our national
security.
Clearly, McCain would make a difference in SCOTUS picks, though he thought Alito too conservative but OTOH another Ginsburg we don't need.
I headed back to the Omni to get to Robert's party (I promised) and encountered Erik and a cadre of Danes. Hence, more arguing :)
Watch her video here. But she's wrong. We can't vote for Obama (and it's going to be Obama). We've got to vote for the Republican. That's a fact.
We are still mopping up after Dhimmi Carter - actually it's worse now because the fruit from his poison tree is in full flower. Four bad Presidential years can wreak untold horror - ask the beheaded and the dead in Iran.
But Ann makes salient points and I love her moxie.
UPDATE: Four bad Presidential years under a Democrat president does incalculable damage. We are still in mop up mode for dhimmi Carter's abandonment of the Shah. Carter ushered in the era of the Islamic Republic headed by Ayatollah Khomeini. It was the kick off of the world war in are currently engaged in.
Do not underestimate the damage a Democrat President can do on our nation and its future. Don't get me started on Clinton.
I despise McCain but you've got to go with what you've got.
Bolton is on. Welcomed by enormous applause. Expressing reservations over some of McCain's positions and hoping McCain will have a change of heart over his remarks on the international court.
But Bolton tells us McCain strongly lobbied for Bolton's nominations
Lenin said "Worse is better" "Not a position the conservatives should take especially at a time when our country is at war. WORSE IS NOT BETTER"
"We cannot have a President that needs on-the-job training or one that has problems dealing with a little bit of stress".
"I'll be supporting John McCain in this election and I hope you will be as well"
On December 3, when the director of national intelligence released an estimate of Iran's nuclear program that said the Mullahs had suspended its bomb making in 2003, the left could barely contain its glee. The New York Times
featured a front page analysis that said, "Rarely, if ever, has a
single intelligence report so completely, so suddenly, and so
surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate here." The Majority
Leader, Senator Reid took the opportunity of its release to call again
for a "surge of diplomacy with Iran." Senator Obama said, "The
juxtaposition of this NIE with the president's suggestion of World War
III serves as an important reminder of what we learned with the 2002
National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq: members of Congress must
carefully read the intelligence before giving the President any
justification to use military force."
Careful, indeed. It turns out that on Tuesday, as our Eli Lake
reported on page one of yesterday's Sun, the director of national
intelligence, Mr. McConnell says he now regrets the phrasing of the
unclassified estimate that so stirred America's enthusiasts of
diplomacy. In testimony before the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, Mr. McConnell went further. He noted that Iran is
developing both the long range ballistic missiles and the nuclear fuel
for a potential weapon. What had halted, it turns out, was work to
design the actual warhead and secret enrichment activity. The Iranians
continued to enrich uranium in the open in Natanz in defiance of two
Security Council resolutions.
As for the secret enrichment and weapons design, Mr. McConnell is
not even sure as of mid-2007 whether the Iranians have restarted this
work. "We assess with moderate confidence that Tehran
had not restarted these activities as of mid-2007, but since they
comprised an unannounced secret effort which Iran attempted to hide, we
do not know if these activities have been restarted," he told the
assembled senators. So why then did the opening sentence of the
December 3 assessment state with no equivocation, "We judge with high
confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
program"? Mr. McConnell said that it was because he had to assemble
quickly a declassified estimate in late November and that it did not
occur to him that this kind of declarative statement would confuse the
issue.
For the unelected intelligence bureaucrats who pushed through
December's distortion and the newspapers that cheered them on, the walk
back from the director is a serious blow. It's hard to recall a
situation quite like it. Only a few lines about Mr. McConnell's
testimony on this point appeared in yesterday's New York Times, and
that was buried in a story that focused on the improvements Al Qaeda
has been making in its ability to strike the home front. Yet for a
brief moment the unclassified assessment about which Mr. McConnell now
has regrets ended political debate about the urgency of stopping the
world's leading sponsor of Islamic terror from obtaining an apocalyptic
arsenal.
To Mark Steyn's point in his post, Packing CPAC (here,) and as I previously mentioned here- let me say unequivocally that those "cheers" were staged. Someone who would know in the CPAC organization has told me that McCain took 500 tickets for his speech. 500 tickets ......... and he filled them.
And anecdotally, I know that people were literally thrown out of there seats, asked to move. to accommodate McCain's manufactured cheerleaders.
CPAC attendees were not cheering, they were booing but they were relegated to the sides of the ballroom, no the middle where the mics and the plants were. And no one was wearing McCain pins or stickers except folks that worked for him.
UPDATED: The thing is no one is happy. The air has been sucked out of this conference. Those applauding during his speech were McCain's people. Brought in, positioned in the middle of the room.
The din in the crowd as I walk around is folks don't want to vote for McCain. The only saving grace, I hear, is that he'll be tough on Isalmothugs. On this , I vehemently disagree. McCain does what's politically expedient. If it's politically expedient to talk to Assad, he will. If it's politically expedient to talk to Ahmadinejad , he will. If he could make a deal with "Splash" Kennedy on immigration, he could make a deal devil.
Brian Faughnan blogging for the Weekly Standard is on my right. Lovely fellow. Great coverage of all things McCain. His speech was an attempt to "reach out" ......I am unmoved. McCain's selling point here is Obama ... he will be the Democratic nominee.
John
McCain's speech seems to be going over pretty well with the portion of
the audience that's open to being swayed. There's at least one McCain
opponent here at Blogger's Corner who confessed that the speech didn't
matter; he just hates McCain. Among the rest, the response seems pretty
positive.
Jim Geraghty says it seemed to get a warm reception. Kathryn Jean Lopez says he did what he needed to do. Erick Erickson calls it the 'best speech' that McCain has given this season and Ed Morrissey says it was an excellent speech that reached out to conservatives 'in a heartfelt manner.'
I tend to agree. Overall, I think he came across as somewhat humble
and respectful of his conservative critics -- which represents an
important change. A key passage (as far as I'm concerned) is this:
Surely, I have held other positions that have not met with
widespread agreement from conservatives. I won't pretend otherwise nor
would you permit me to forget it. On the issue of illegal immigration,
a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many
conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil
my campaign. I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And
while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our
intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and
understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept
that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to
secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread
consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects
of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not
encourage another wave of illegal immigration.
McCain's biggest problem with conservatives so far seems to have
been his style -- the way he flaunted his differences with them, and
impugned their motives. The tack he took today will serve him well.
Over time, it might be sufficient to quiet the doubts and fears that he
has provoked to date.
I think the speech overall showed why McCain can be a very strong
candidate in the general election. When the mood strikes him, he can
mount a strong appeal to conservatives -- on national security,
spending, taxes, judges, and other issues. On spending in particular,
he and Ron Paul are probably the only elected officials who come across
as even remotely credible in promising to reduce federal spending.
Did Congressional Quarterly time this piece
so that conservatives would be reading it the day that John McCain
effectively became the nominee of the Republican party? They consider
what President McCain's domestic agenda might look like next year, if
there's a Democratic Congress:
But when he is with the Democrats, he is really with them. McCain is
not someone who simply reaches across the aisle to form coalitions with
the other side. He walks across the aisle, puts on the other team’s
uniform and sings the other team’s fight song...
This will be a full partnership of the president and the Congress, who just happen to be of different parties.
'A full partnership' is clearly an exaggeration; John McCain
disagrees with Democrats on too many domestic policy issues -- from
judge, to taxes, to spending -- to enter into any kind of partnership
with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Furthermore, Congressional Democrats
will spend the next 8 months savaging John McCain, and trying to
convince the American people that McCain is more conservative and out
of touch than George Bush. And if he is sworn in, from day one they'll
be working to ensure that he's a one-term president.
So there's not going to be any partnership.
That said, there are clearly plenty of conservatives that think CQ has it exactly right. A major task for McCain over the next 8 months is to convince them that Congressional Quarterly has got it exactly wrong.
If I didn't impress upon you how honored I was to have been invited to introduce Mark Steyn, forgive me. He is illuminating and unabashedly clear. Of all that I heard and saw, Mark Steyn was the most brilliant. He so gets it and articulates it with such force and passion.
I kicked off my intro with a little limerick:
There once was a kafir named Steyn Muslims said wrote an offending line Twas an imam he quoted Now he's being swiftboated But his battle is yours and its mine.
Steyn's speech ought to be reproduced and be mandatory reading for every . American that cares about what's happening to this country. He excoriates the Republicans for moving to the left and abandoning the very tenets of our political philosophy.
Speaking with him prior to the event he expressed my concerns and distress over Romney's withdrawal. He, too, thought Romney was a great candidate.
Random points he made but watch the video:
He wouldn't use the word "small government" because it buys into the liberal narrative - that big government is the norm.
He took out the Republicans for refusing to enforce the border. Here we cop out to the impossibility of securing our own borders. We claim to be unable to keep people from sneaking over our sovereign borders but we will attempt (at least McCain will) to "change the heavens". We will expend untold treausure to address "global warming" to cool things down a degree but we can't control . He also pointed out that the greatest increase in illegal immigration has come post 9/11.
The default mode of the culture is liberal; the key levers of society
are liberal. The
defects of that approach seem increasingly apparent.
I can't write all my thoughts, I really hope Steyn runs his speech in full on his site.
Great American Rich Davis, Skye from Midnight Blue, Sharon Hyland whose husband is a Maine in Afghanistan and gave up a six figure job to start "A Hero's Welcome" and STEYN.
UPDATE: Here's a really clean copy (why townhall cut me out I'll never know)
11:20 - On the war policy of the Bush administration: "Would I
support those same decisions today? You're damned right I would." The
war won't be on the defensive, Cheney says.
11:18 - Iraq will remain a tough job, as Petraeus has said. He is
highlighting the gains from the surge, nothing terribly surprising.
11:14 - Defends the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which
gets a rousing cheer from the audience. "They are in full compliance
with the nation's laws and our treaty obligations." It has saved
thousands of lives, Cheney tells the audience. "We do not torture," but
do not shrink from aggressively working to protect the nation.
11:12 - Emphasizing that terrorism is not a law-enforcement issue,
but a national-defense and intelligence issue. The US needs to ensure
that the front line of our defenses has the tools it needs to protect
us. Cheney wants to make sure that the FISA laws passed last year get
extended for a lengthy period, and "those who helped secure this nation
do not get harassed with lawsuits".
11:10 - "The absence of another 9/11 is not an accident -- it is an
achievement." That gets by far the biggest response. Everyone is on
their feet.
11:08 - A better reaction on Bush's work on pro-life and judicial nominations. Will McCain take a cue from that?
11:06 - Repeats Bush's pledge to veto budgets that don't reduce
earmarks by 50%. He also talks about the EO on non-legislative
earmarks. That gets a bigger cheer, but I suspect that many may wonder
why the number can't be 90% or better, and why the EO couldn't have
applied to this year's budget. I'm not hearing a huge reaction to this.
11:04 - Demands permanence for the Bush tax cuts and outlines the
impact of them. He also calls for lower spending, and explains how that
works in a $3.1 trillion budget. Well, that doesn't get much more than
golf claps.
11:03 - Cheney is emphasizing economics, and the need to keep taxes
low. "Put more tax money back into the hands of those who earned it."
He promises no new regulations for "meddling" with the economy.
11:00 am ET - He's underscoring the support that he has for the
candidates who will speak here. That may carry some weight with the
conservatives, although it was somewhat subtle.
Stephen Hayes on the dais
BTW, the panel discussion that was thankfully interrupted by Cheney's early arrival was more of an attempt to soften us for more moves to the left. Bob Novak (ugh) lead a discussion on a new book about Bush arguing that Reagen would not have gone into Iraq (nor, according to them would Woodrow (League of Nations) Wilson (as if Reagen and Wilson could be interchangeable.)The book, Reagen's Disciple: George W. Bush's Troubled Quest for a Presidential Legacy, was presented by father and son author, Lou and Carl cannon. Like I said, thankfully it was interrupted. I can't imagine many stayed for it after Cheney's remarks.
Will Breazeale (pronounced Brazil) is running for District 7 North Carolina. He is a three tour Iraq war veteran and the kind of leadership this country needs. Check out my quickie interview. He's a good man. If you;ve got friends, family, ex-lovers in the 7th district, send them the vid :)
Backed away from the keyboard to go grab a bite .... and Eric, No Pasaran is here! Imagine we immediately gravitate towards each other only to discover we are blog buds from way baclk It's old home week. Excellent.
Little Miss Attila and Wendy for Girl on the Rightl were there. Very cool. We'll be on bloggers row together. Cheney in the morning. So we are hobnobbing
Robett Stacey McCain, like a true veteran blogger is blogging from the bar. We love that. Here's an excerpt of Robert's post.
Blogging from the lobby bar, where I've just been greeted by the lovely Pamela of Atlas Shrugs.
Clockwise from top left (click pic to enlarge): The Other McCain (note clever product placement); Matthew Vadum of Capital Research Center; the lovely Pamela; Eric of No Pasaran.
Ill update my with photos as soon as I get back to my room.
Enroute to DC. Hanging at the airport with (/not!) Cyntohis Mckinney Sheila Jackson Lee(forgive me , it was the braids and the politics that threw me - thanks Geoff!) who is yelling on her phone about universal healthcare. I kid you not. You can't make this stuff up.
CPAC! Romney! McCain! Bush! Cheney! Bolton! Check all the conservative giants to be at CPAC here. I am introducing the Steynmeister!
Yeah ...... baby. Posting will be sporadic until I hit bloggers row. . Robert Stacy McCain has the list of all the bloggers on bloggers row here.
The raging epidemic of CPAC Fever continues spreading across the blogophere. If you haven't caught it, it's not too late to sign up now.
Every conservative voice will be there. Check out the speakers here: CPAC 2008 on
2/7/08
New panel:
“A New
Generation of Valor:
Decorated
Heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan”
The American Veterans Center isproud to
present a panel of true American heroes this year at CPAC. On Thursday February 7th at 2 PM
in the Ambassador Ballroom The American Veterans Center will be
presenting “A New Generation of Valor: Decorated Veterans of Iraq and
Afghanistan”. This panel is the
only one of it’s kind at CPAC and will prove to be a truly incredible experience
for anyone in attendance.
This historic panel includes three men who’s stories have been immortalized in three riveting books. Each of these men have exemplified courage and heroism under fire, and the American Veterans Center is honored to present these men at CPAC. The men featured in this Panel are: Staff Sergeant David Bellavia, author of “House to House: An Epic Memoir of War” and recipient of the Silver Star who has been recommended for the Medal of Honor; Leading Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell, author of the NY Times Bestseller “Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10” and recipient of the Navy Cross; and Marco Martinez, author of “Hard Corps: From Gangster to Marine Hero” and recipient of the Navy Cross.
You guys remember the Coulter Vlog (march 2007). I defended her. So why am I being invited to introduce Mark Steyn at CPAC (Thursday the 8th 1pm) while Coulter was uninvited. Are they nookin futz? Thank G-d for the YAF, You can guarantee I'll be at the YAF lunch. Join me! SIGN UP HERE!
She's always been outrageous, but when conservative Ann Coulter talked of 9/11 "rag heads" at the 2006 Conservative Political Action Conference and linked the slur "faggot" to Sen. John Edwards in a 2007 speech, CPAC's organizers decided to cut her from the list of speakers at the February 7-9 conference expected to draw 6,000. But that doesn't mean she won't speak there. "It's unfortunate that Ann Coulter is not speaking at CPAC," says Ron Robinson, president of Young America's Foundation. "She's a powerhouse for young people," he adds, and "one major reason that CPAC is so successful." So guess what? YAF and its supporters also attending CPAC will host Coulter at the same hotel as CPAC. "This way," says one host, "CPAC isn't technically having Coulter speak."
