Roll over, grover, let sharia take over, Norquist, has accepted the mark & he is no longer relevant to anyone who loves America. EASD, grover.[snip]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.
bkmk
>> “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.” <<
.
Anyone that has a modicum of understanding of politics knows that ‘Authoritarian government’ is a far left position, and that it is the leftists tha cherish racial issues.
You can count the true conservatives in Wasington on one hand. As far as Islam, I have since 9-12-2001 advocated that a modern crusade be waged. It’s basically kill or be killed. And these bastard muzzies want to eradicate anything non-moslem world wide. Our society is too PC to admit it, and it will be our undoing.
bookmark.
Looking for a new label...
Personal pet peeve of mine as this right-left paradigm is based on the old European standards that is almost the opposite of the US view. What they were 'conserving' in the 19th Century Europe when this right-left labeling came in style, was the old monocrachy, authoritarian system. The 'left' were those of the enlightenment promoting individual liberty.
In the US, it was opposite as we were founded on the enlightenment basis of individual liberty. That Constitutional foundation is what we were trying to 'conserve'. The left here want to move away from that foundation back to a centralized ruler class like Europe.
So basically this guy is just crying that he's not getting awards and speaking fees?
Spencer is a hero. God bless him. One of the few with courage to speak uncomfortable truths to his fellow man. He is hated, mocked, slandered, threatened and abused and still he stands.I wish I had a sliver of this man’s courage.
It appears that, in a nutshell, Robert Spencer is saying he is not a “conservative” according to how the Ministry of Truth applies the label.
In that case, I guess I’m not a “conservative” either.
I think the point of this article, apart from labels, is to wake up self-identified American "conservatives" to the fact that the spokesmen of the "conservative" movement don't share anything with us. In fact, they have it out for us.
That person’t conservative, so therefore I am not. Why not throw everybody out of the tent?
The labels "conservative" and "progressive" are becoming meaningless to ordinary citizens today, for political individuals under each set of labels focus on issues, avoiding the great principles of right and wrong, freedom and tyranny. Many who label themselves as "conservatives" have no idea just what they are supposed to be "conserving" and cannot articulate principled ideas.
The authors of America's Declaration of Independence and Framers of its Constitution were sorting out history's examples of those ideas which produced freedom and opportunity versus those which resulted in tyranny by government and oppression of the people.
Their documents reflected their focus on and passion for liberty among the people and strict limitations on any coercive power they would delegate to those who would serve them in government. Yet, today, when a former Congressman like Col. Allen West used the word "slavery" to describe the real human consequences of the government-over-people idea of so-called "progressives" and some self-described "conservatives," he is severely criticized and rebuked, even though he describes a concept which enslaves entire populations to the whims of petty tyrants and rulers.
The Founders of America used blunt and clear language to contrast the principles they embraced from previous examples of government-over-people ideas. Clearly, "politically correct" language did not stand in the way of their determination to produce outcomes favorable to freedom.
Examples:
"The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv'd them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas'd them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath'd to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. - Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that "if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom." It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." Samuel Adams - Essay in the Boston Gazette, October 14, 1771
"When designs are form'd to raze the very foundation of a free government, whose few who are to erect their grandeur and fortunes upon the general ruin, will employ every art to sooth the devoted people into a state of indolence, inattention and security, which is forever the fore-runner of slavery." - Article signed "Candidus," in Boston Gazette, December 9, 1771
"If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them." Samuel Adams- As Candidus in the Boston Gazette, January 20, 1772
"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave... These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament." Samuel Adams - Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772
"It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772
Why should freedom-loving Americans be cowered into refraining from using the word "slavery" to describe the condition which results as a consequence of coercive government power over the lives, rights, liberties, and pursuit of happiness of individual citizens in the society, right down to telling them what to eat and drink? The question is not new. It is as old as every arrogant petty tyrant with great ambition for power over people.
"To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39
Roll over, grover, let sharia take over, Norquist, has accepted the mark & he is no longer relevant to anyone who loves America. EASD, grover.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.
bookmark. a true liberal hates most what he cannot eat. a true conservative can’t be eaten.
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.
Great article AuntB - thanks for posting.
"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."
God love this man, and God love Pamela Geller. I couldn't agree with them more.
To Hades with the Republican, and so-called "conservative", dhimmis.
Spencer bump