This week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2018, my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), is partnering with the American Principles Project (APP), which is hosting our blockbuster panel discussion on the social media giants’ rapidly accelerating attempts to shut down conservatives and deny a voice to everyone who dissents from the hard-left agenda.
Yes, we’re back at CPAC, and, as always, with a panel that addresses one of the most urgent issues of the day:
Suppression of Conservative Views on Social Media: A First Amendment Issue
Major social media platforms such as Google, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube have created the new town square, having become the primary portals through which Americans receive news today. On these platform, the Left has a monopoly. The social media giants are moving actively to erase and hide any viewpoint or person that does not conform to the “progressive” values for which they stand.
This has resulted in massive losses of readership and revenue for conservative sites, and endangers the very freedom of our Republic by allowing only one point of view to be aired. The social media corporations today hold more power over the public discourse than any totalitarian regime ever held. They do not just target voices with whom they disagree, but they make sure that those voices are unable to sustain themselves.
This panel will discuss the magnitude of this phenomenon, and discuss ways that the power of these Leftist social media outlets can be limited, such that voices that dissent from the hard-Left agenda can again be freely heard.
February 23, 2018, 3:00 pm Chesapeake B-C
Panelists will include:
James Damore, Google whistleblower
Harmeet K. Dhillon, renowned free speech attorney
Dan Gainor, Vice President for Business and Culture, Media Research Center
Pamela Geller, Editor and Publisher, Geller Report, President, American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and author of Fatwa: Hunted in America
Jim Hoft, Editor-in-Chief, Gateway Pundit
James O’Keefe, Project Veritas
Marlene Jaeckel, Tech entrepreneur
America, the world’s first government based on individual rights and personal liberty, should be on the forefront of the defense of freedom of speech across the world, the light among nations, the “shining city on a hill.” Instead, social media giants, run by uniformly leftwing corporate managers, have become the new totalitarians. This evokes the worst totalitarian regimes in the history of the world. Never in modern history has such immense power been in the hands of so few.
Panelist James O’Keefe added: “Social media giants in Silicon Valley have quickly become the world’s most powerful media gatekeepers, even more powerful than the mainstream media. We exposed Twitter for silencing and shadow banning people they do not agree with, and propagated their preferred views for political and financial purposes.”
Panelist Dan Gainor said: “Tech/social media companies are vastly more powerful than their old media predecessors in print and TV ever were. We’ve already seen some of the dangers of what happens when that power is abused. This isn’t just a panel discussion about what might happen. This is a wake-up call for the entire conservative movement.”
Another panelist, Jim Hoft, observed: “2016 was the first election where conservatives fled the liberal mainstream media. After decades of smears and abuse they found the truth in conservative media online. Today there are forces working to make sure this does not happen again. It’s time to stand up before it’s too late.”
This groundbreaking panel discussion follows on the heels of Can’t We Talk About This? The Islamic Jihad Against Free Speech, our shocking new film detailing the concerted effort by international organizations to compel the U.S. and other Western countries to curtail the freedom of speech and criminalize criticism of Islam.
This issue — the suppression of the freedom of speech on social media — affects all of us on the right. In fact, it is the most critical issue of the day: if we are stripped of the means to communicate with one another, it’s all over. It was free people speaking freely on social media, outside of the reach of the media establishment, that got Donald Trump elected President of the United States. When the left lost the election, they lost their mind.
We must not allow the left to strip us of the weapons we used to win that victory. That’s what we’ll be fighting for at CPAC.
Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of The Geller Report and author of the bestselling book, FATWA: Hunted in America, as well as The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook.
Editor’s Note — This op-ed was originally submitted to the Daily Californian, the student newspaper of UC Berkeley, by Berkeley student and Vice President of the Berkeley College Republicans Nahweed Tahmas. When contacted by Breitbart News to determine why the Daily Californian refused to publish Tahmas’ op-ed, the Editor-in-Chief sent a link to the paper’s op-ed guidelines, which state that they reserve the right to not publish “libelous, racist, sexist, homophobic or highly offensive” content.
Support for “undocumented immigrants” is a quasi-religion here at UC Berkeley.
Students regularly protest on behalf of “Dreamers,” and our school has an entire department of its bureaucracy, the Undocumented Student Program, dedicated to aiding students who were brought to the United States illegally. For many in the Cal community, it is difficult to imagine why anyone would not support granting citizenship to undocumented students.
In this piece I will argue that it is in fact a perfectly reasonably position to be wary of immigration, and one which many extremely sensible people have taken.
To understand immigration, we have to first understand why it matters. To do this, we must familiarize ourselves with the basic philosophy behind the nation-state.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a nation as “a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.” The campus left, it appears, would remove everything but the last six words of this definition.
Nations, including the United States, are forged by their own sets of unique ideologies and historical circumstances. In the case of the United States, our foundational ideals are rooted in the British Enlightenment, which found its most complete expression in the United States Constitution.
Many of our Founding Fathers were extremely wary about immigrants who did not share their values coming to the United States. Hamilton on Broadway might be best-known for such zingers as “Immigrants… we get the job done!” but if the campus left knew Alexander Hamilton’s real views on immigration, they might not be so quick to sing his praises.
In 1802 Hamilton wrote that, “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits.
“Foreigners,” Hamilton believed, “will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners,” and that this “has often been likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”
Hamilton considered this dangerous because “In times of great public danger there is always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone weakens the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”
In other words, immigrants have the power to subvert a nation to the interests of their own home country. Do you doubt it? Just look at how often certain Hispanic student groups wave the Mexican flag on our campus.
Hamilton’s political rival, Thomas Jefferson, shared Hamilton’s concerns about immigration. Jefferson wrote in “Notes on the State of Virginia” that immigrants “will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth… In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation.
Jefferson went on to ask, “Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
Jefferson loved France; he was certainly not “racist” towards the French. But he recognized that even two populations as ethnically similar as the French and Americans would have difficulty mingling without conflict.
Even Benjamin Franklin expressed concerns about large numbers of German immigrants settling in the colonies and failing to assimilate to English culture and values.
Nor were his concerns unfounded. They are backed up by modern social science, including the research of Robert Putnam, which shows that increased ethnic diversity has detrimental effects on social trust.
Does this mean that immigrants have no place in the United States? Hardly. In the long term, the Germans did assimilate, as did many other immigrant groups.
But this was not an easy process, and immigration must be carefully controlled in order to preserve and safeguard our country’s basic cultural norms. To further this end, our government should rigorously enforce our immigration laws. Indeed, as President Clinton once said, “We are a nation of laws.” We cannot provide special exemptions to law breakers for this would corrode our legal system.
We are fortunate to live in the United States, and we should do everything we can to prevent the sort of poverty and violence characteristic of most of the world outside the West from being transplanted here.
Thus America must commit itself to being a nation of laws, no matter how sympathetic some individual stories may be.
The typical Cal student would likely support ending racial bias in our law enforcement system, on the basis of equality. This is a noble aim, and I do not see why any other law, including our immigration laws, should not be executed with the same level of evenhandedness.
The left may point to Emma Lazarus’ poem “The New Colossus,” inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty, as their strongest emotional argument for immigration, but it is worth mentioning that poem was tacked onto the statue 17 years after it was built in order to co-opt its original meaning and essentially turn it into a pro-immigration propaganda piece.
It is also worth mentioning that the counterpart to Liberty, in our Pledge of Allegiance, is Justice, and there is a reason why Lady Justice wears a blindfold.
Some may say that undocumented students share our values. If they do, then they should have no problem demonstrating their commitment to respecting American rule of law by following our nation’s legal immigration process, as millions of others before them have done.
Naweed Tahmas is a senior studying Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, and is the Vice President of the UC Berkeley College Republicans.