[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.
Etch is a conservative? ROFLOL!! Only if conservatism is statism.
I think there is more than a bit of irony here. Not funny enough to be called satire, but definitely irony.
“So if Mitt Romney is a conservative, which he undoubtedly is, then I must not be one.”
Oh, yeah, sure.
And Grover Norquist. Well, perhaps he’s a fiscal conservative, but he sure isn’t a political conservative, unless you consider it conservative to be a friend and spokesman for Muslim terrorists. And somehow or other, he’s set up his fiscal conservatism in such a way that it never seems to actually accomplish anything—much like Ron Paul. Paul claimed to be a fiscal conservative, but he never accomplished anything in that line, while he constantly gobbled up pork for his constituents.
No question about it, Grover Norquist has to be exposed and broomed out. He is a big contributor to the constant splitting and division of conservatives that leads to the nomination and election of RINOs and liberals.
Mitt Romney defines what is a conservative? As does creating a Palestinian state? As does being hateful and racist? No thanks, Dr. Spencer; don’t define me that way.
Mitt Romney is a liberal and always has been a liberal. Norquist, at the very best, is a neo-con but is probably another liberal plant like Romney. The Republican party has a dearth of liberal RINOs but that doesn't mean that the party still doesn't have some conservatives in it. It certainly doesn't change the concept of conservatism. Conservatism is greater than party affiliation.
By my definition, Conservatism starts and ends with the written meaning of the constitution as explained by our founding fathers.
Watch the left as they cunningly label the rest of us as "right-wing." B/c in liberal-land, "right-wing" is code for horrid things like "judgementalism," "moral certitude," and, "religious piety."
That means we also lack the left's "enlightened values" — reason, tolerance, diversity, equality.
Quoting the left's intellectual mentor, author, Saul Alinsky: "They do not have a fixed truth -- truth to them is relative and changing..... they are free from the shackles of dogma." (from Rules for Radicals).
Grover was on the Sunday shows quite frequently but I havent seen him this year at all.
You would think he’d be upset about the drone program killing all those innocent Muslims who are on there way to Mosque with their kids to pray for peace, under orders from Obama of course.