This report is generally good, but with some serious inaccuracies. Bannon actually asked that we not engage in "personal attacks" not before my talk, but in a meeting of the speakers before the event. I mentioned what he had told me as I began speaking, and explained that when I was talking about how the conservative movement has been compromised, it was not a personal attack in the sense of some factionalism or personal feud, but a matter of pressing moment for the future direction of CPAC and much more than CPAC. And regarding the Breitbart headline, I asked as I began: Why is any of this controversial? Why are we "The Uninvited" for speaking about issues of national security and national survival? And the questions remain.
"'More Voices': House Packed for Breitbart's Controversial 'The Uninvited' Panel," by Alexander Marlow for Breitbart News, March 16 (thanks to Andrew Bostom):
...The final portion of the panel, and of “The Uninvited,” proved to be the most electric. Robert Spencer took the name of the session to heart, clearly outraged that the issues being discussed in this session were not featured on the main CPAC stage. Before Spencer began his talk, Breitbart’s Bannon reinforced that the panel was not the time or place for personal attacks. This, however, did not deter Spencer from calling out several people in the conservative movement by name. Spencer’s Jihad Watch website won the People’s Choice blog honor this year at CPAC, but he was barred from receiving the award when he refused to promise not to attack Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan in his acceptance speech. Spencer used the platform at “The Uninvited” to do just that, despite Bannon's request. He took direct aim at Norquist, the founder of Americans for Tax Reform, for being “in bed” with "the same people as Obama" (presumably the Muslim Brotherhood).
“Obama has aligned this country with the Muslim Brotherhood,” Spencer said, but the conservative movement is not sufficiently engaged in the fight against the proliferation of Sharia at home and abroad. This suggestion caused the room to erupt in applause.
Pamela Geller picked up right where Spencer left off, accusing CPAC’s Suhail Khan of being worse than Anwar al-Awlaki for what she described as secret ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. “The right sanctions a truth-crushing device,” Geller said of CPAC. She asserted that the group behind the conference is guilty of the same politically correct censorship that has caused the mainstream media to draw conservative ire over the years. “The media is self-enforcing the Sharia,” Geller said, and “the biggest threat to mankind, the biggest threat to freedom is the spread of this totalitarian philosophy.” According to the "Freedom or Submission" author, “you are a racist, Islamophobic, anti-Muslim bigot if you touch this subject," and most of the country is content to keep it that way, even many who describe themselves as conservative.
Spencer piled on. “People are very anxious not to appear bigoted or racist,” but “there are many groups that have the same goals as those who wage violent jihad.” “Infiltration is very great and very sophisticated and those with the best of intentions are falling for it,” Spencer cautioned the room.
During the question and answer portion at the very end, Gaffney reinforced the importance of the fight against radical Islam.“You'll be canon fodder for the next war if you don't take these issues seriously,” he said.
Later on, Bannon asked the panel to address detractors that say some of the speakers are radicals and have marginalized themselves to the point where they are ineffective. The panelists responded by reinforcing the seriousness that the War on Terror and the threat of Sharia are to America and our allies abroad.
Toward the end of the Q and A, “Birther” leader Orly Taitz piped up and took the discussion off course with a question about Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States. Bannon—along with a chorus of booing audience members—shut her down, but the Breitbart Executive Chairman offered to have it out with her after the session came to a close.
Finally, Solov closed the session with the truly “Breitbartian” message of inclusion. He noted that everyone in the room likely disagrees with one another on many fundamental issues, but so long as speech is free and debate is open, the world will be better off. “Andrew preached the message of ‘more voices,’” Solov reminded the audience, and that’s certainly what attendees heard from this eclectic and informative CPAC panel.