I can’t believe how many people simply cannot, or WILL not follow this story! It’s not difficult!
Indeed.
Posted on 03/13/2013 9:14:53 AM PDT by AuntB
Over at Atlas Shrugs I discuss why the common categorization of me as "right-wing" is all wrong:
Many years ago, when I interviewed the great avant-garde saxophonist Charles Gayle, I asked him about bitter criticism he had received for his tendency to preach a pro-life message in the middle of his concerts. “Yeah,” he said with some amusement, “they always call me ‘right-wing.’ Man, I ain’t got no wings!” Neither do I. And as the events of the past week have shown, I am not “right-wing,” either; nor am I a conservative.
Throughout my public career, of course, the mainstream media has insisted that my colleagues and I are indeed “right-wing,” and often even “far right.” Since the “far right” is the label generally given to advocates of authoritarian government and racist discrimination, this label, as common as it is, is a sheer calumny, as we are not only opponents of both of those things, but foes of a system that advances both. If working to defend the principles of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law is “far right,” then we should all be “far rightists”; but in reality this label is just a tool of the enemies of those principles, used to discredit those who defend them.
But I am nonetheless generally considered to be a conservative. It is a label I have used myself, as a way of distinguishing my position from that of the liberals and Leftists who have generally sold out to the jihad, so blind in their hatred of Western civilization and the United States of America that they eagerly cast their lot with the foremost enemies of both. And on a practical level, that identification has been easy: Regnery Publishing, a foremost conservative publishing house, has published six of my twelve books. Many of my books have been endorsed by the late, lamented Conservative Book Club.
Nonetheless, for all that, I am not a conservative. You want a conservative? Mitt Romney is a conservative. He is still a key leader of the Republican Party, the party of conservatives, and he is addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this weekend. But during his presidential campaign, he called for the creation of a Palestinian state, which I oppose on the grounds that it will be used as a new base for jihad attacks against an Israel weakened by its creation. During his third debate with Barack Obama, he kept agreeing with Obama that the Syrian “rebels” and other forces of “democracy” in the Middle East had to be aided with our tax dollars – despite the fact that jihadis dominate the Syrian rebellion and that an Islamic state even more hostile to the U.S. than the Assad regime is likely to be the result of their victory. He has said that “jihadism” has nothing to do with Islam, which is just an absurd statement.
So if Mitt Romney is a conservative, which he undoubtedly is, then I must not be one. And then there is Grover Norquist, who is even more of a conservative than Mitt Romney. Norquist’s conservative bona fides are impeccable: as the leader of Americans for Tax Reform, he has a huge base of supporters among fiscal conservatives and the politicians who want their votes. But he also has extensive ties to Islamic supremacists. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) called Norquist out for this on the House floor in October 2011, saying of the anti-tax hero: “Documentation shows that he has deep ties to supporters of Hamas and other terrorist organizations that are sworn enemies of the United States and our ally Israel.” He pointed out that “around the years 2000 and 2001, Mr. Norquist’s firm represented Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was convicted two years later for his role in a terrorist plot and who is presently serving a 23-year sentence in federal prison.”
Despite this, however, Norquist remains such a powerful force among conservatives that he is a feared eminence gris at CPAC. Last year, his protege (and another conservative with extensive ties to Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood groups) Suhail Khan boasted to me that I had been barred from speaking at CPAC because I dared to question the Muslim Brotherhood ties of some of its foremost figures.
And just last week, after my website www.jihadwatch.org overwhelmingly won a vote for CPAC’s “People’s Choice Blog Award,” John Hawkins of Right Wing News (whether on his own initiative, as he now claims, or as the errand boy of shadowy and unnamed higher-ups, as he initially told me over the phone) told me that I was not to speak about the Muslim Brotherhood ties of Norquist and Khan when I received the award. Needless to say, I could not accept this gag order, and will not be receiving the award: the truth is more important than a trophy.
But that was the end of my identification as a conservative. Grover Norquist is a conservative. Suhail Khan is a conservative. John Hawkins is a conservative. Thus I must not be one. I am not acceptable either as a speaker or an award recipient at the nation’s foremost conservative gathering. I must not be a conservative.
So what am I? I am an advocate of freedom: of the freedom of speech, of the equal treatment of all people under the law. Consequently, I am a foe of the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, which are enemies of both those principles. I know that there are many others like me, but neither party seems interested in us right now, and neither does the conservative movement, such as it is.
It is time for a new movement, a genuine movement of freedom, one that is not compromised, not beholden, and not corrupted. Are there enough free Americans left to mount such a movement? That I do not know. But I do know that if there aren’t, all is lost, and the denouement will come quickly – more quickly than most people expect.
Grover Norquist Attempting to Smear Anti-Amnesty Groups as Leftist Eugenicists
February 15, 2013
[snip]At the heart of the attack is the accusation that the leading members of some groups critical of immigration policy were or still are environmentalists and liberals. This attack piggybacks on earlier work by the Southern Poverty Law Center that used some of the same information to accuse those groups of being tied to Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist groups.
There’s something rather strange when “conservative sites” not only begin advocating for illegal alien amnesty, but begin repeating the claims that the Center for American Progress, Mother Jones and the Southern Poverty Law Center were making about anti-immigration groups 5-10 years ago.
The same Norquist tactics being used to attack the anti-immigration movement can and will be used to attack the Counterjihadist camp.
The real question that we should be discussing is whether the United States and the conservative movement will benefit from the mass legalizing of illegal aliens.
The pro-Amnesty camp is attempting to equate anti-amnesty with pro-abortion and urging pro-life groups to avoid challenging illegal immigration amnesty. But if 11 million illegal aliens are legalized, will this help or harm the legislative agenda of the pro-life movement? The math on the added Democratic legislative power is easy enough to do.
How can anyone who supports turning red states blue really claim to be the true voice of conservatism?
The context of this writing is CPAC banning speakers against violent totalitarian islam.
The leadership of CPAC has been infiltrated and taken over
.
You can talk at the conservative conference as long as you’re not trying to defend civilization from overthrow by savages with a wicked ideology.
Huge scandal.
“he context of this writing is CPAC banning speakers against violent totalitarian islam.
The leadership of CPAC has been infiltrated and taken over
.
You can talk at the conservative conference as long as you’re not trying to defend civilization from overthrow by savages with a wicked ideology.
Huge scandal.”
EXACTLY!!!!
Also, see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2996456/posts?page=12#12
Thanks.
bookmark. a true liberal hates most what he cannot eat. a true conservative can’t be eaten.
While we’re at it, what has Karl Rove got to do with this? Well, Karl Rove and Grover Norquist go WAY back. Karl’s big PAC gives MILLIONS to Grover....
“And he’s [Norquist] personally doing fine: Lee Fang at the Nation revealed this week that he gets two-thirds of his funding from two big corporate billionaire-backed nonprofits: the Center to Protect Patients Rights, which donated $4,189,000 to Americans for Tax Reform in 2010, and Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, which gave him $4 million.”
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=Karl+Rove
Now....Norquist has co-oped the Tea Party label, while Rove is trying to destroy it....
Headline: Karl Rove takes on the Tea Party with new Super PAC
So, what do you suppose is going on here????
Thank you!!! The word is getting out! About time.
SEE: Conservatives/Tea Party..Clean out your own ranks first!!
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/
esteemed auntb, what you are really asking is what motivates the GOP ruling elite?
i would postulate that it is the fear of losing power to true conservatives.
“i would postulate that it is the fear of losing power to true conservatives.”
Agreed!
thanks for the post about rove and norquist. it was almost predictable. talk about an alliance of convenience.
That’s why I’ve always been a GOA guy... :-)
Say "If [insert doubtful, or inappropriate, or ridiculously wrong-headed name here] is a conservative, I am not a conservative."
Then watch as people say:
A) "They're not conservatives! You Robert Spencer, are the true conservative!"
or B) "If they are conservatives, I'm not one either! I stand with you, Robert Spencer, whatever you want to call yourself!"
Like Grover Norquist or Steven Moore, Robert Spencer is as much trying to influence his own side as fighting against the other side.
I can’t believe how many people simply cannot, or WILL not follow this story! It’s not difficult!
Indeed.
Read more, please.
PPP of mine too. You've got it almost but not quite right.
The term originated in 18th century Europe, albeit very late in the century.
The Right was indeed the party of the Ancien Regime, the defenders of aristocracy, Crown and Church.
However, the Left, while opposed to the Right, was not anything American conservatives would recognize. They believed not in the rights of individuals, but in the rights of The People, acting through its General Will, a mysterious decision made by The People as a whole, interpreted of course by the spokesmen.
No individual had any rights as against The People, which of course in practice meant the State and those in control of it.
The Left was actually much closer to modern totalitarianism than the Ancien Regime, which recognized religious and customary limits on what the King had a right to do.
Meanwhile, in America our Revolution was based on the rights of individuals to live their lives as they saw fit, an ideology descended from Magna Carta and the Whig tradition in English politics. This right to freedom originally applied only to aristocrats, but gradually expanded to include more and more people, till by the time of our Revolution it included most if not perhaps all white men.
There had been a similar tradition in France and other European countries, but it was utterly destroyed as a force in political life by Louis XIV and other monarchs. Lafayette and others tried to promote it at the time of the Revolution, but the ideal was so eroded they could get no traction with The People and were quickly forced into exile or executed. (Same thing happened in the Russian Revolution, BTW.)
That's why the European Right is very different from the American Right, while the two Lefts are the same.
In actual fact, our conservatism descends from a political tradition utterly separate from the European Right/Left dichotomy.
Are you aware that calling yourself progressive is circular thinking?
Most Americans automatically assume “progress” is a good thing, although all it means is advancement towards a goal. Thus advancement towards Nazi, Communist or Islamist domination of the world is perfectly progressive in the real meaning of the term. As would a movement in America to return to the original principles of the Founders.
However, the way it is used in America begs the question of the goal. It is automatically assumed that “progress” consists of movement towards the goals believed in by “progressives.” Which is why the reasoning is circular.
Liberal in the actual meaning of the word (though not in the American political sense) means a goal of freedom. Socialist means a goal of economic as well as political equality.
But Progressive begs the question of what constitutes Progress, which makes it a meaningless term.
YMMV
Bump
Always love a good improvement in my discourse. Thanks.
Great article AuntB - thanks for posting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.