Welllllllll ....... we're waiting?!
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.
Perhaps the only way the term “right wing” would come into play is if there were a large movement to reunite the USA with the British Crown.
Regardless, the terms left and right wing have no real bearing on the political process of America
“So basically this guy is just crying that he’s not getting awards and speaking fees?”
Good grief! READ. NO! He got the award...was voted by the attendees. Norquist, Cardenas, teaparty.net TOLD him NOT to show up to accept it, if he had any criticism of Norquist!
I can’t believe how many people simply cannot, or WILL not follow this story! It’s not difficult!
Not surprising to me, it really does fit with what they were trying to conserve in regards to culture- European culture which is very centralized authoritarian (but also anti-Islam) but also more ‘out’ in regards to homosexualism. The entire concept of the out ‘Bon Vivant’, Dandy, etc, is just accepted there as part of the cultural identity.
Unlike what some say, we do not have a European culture here. Just the opposite. Even the ‘Bon Vivant’ isn’t looked at as an individual there but part of a certain class and is defined by that class identity. It is pretty minor in the big picture of the differences but it gets down to a class based authoritarian culture.
Since I’m not a conservative or a Republican I don’t have a dog in this fight. That sentence just seemed to stand out.
“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.”
Yes he is. I’m glad SOME of you can actually follow this story! Also is Pam Geller, also banned by CPAC for speaking against Norquists radical Islamic ties. See the checks here, written to Norquist’s Islamic Institute by a convicted radical Islamist.
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2013/03/pam-geller-robert-spencer-take-on-cpacs.html
What are you then?
I was on to Norky back when Frank Gaffney started raising the alarm
Amen!
The irony covered in this article is spectacular. Looks as though many are missing it.
He’s Murrymon’s replacement.
Should be Murrymom’s replacement, the token liberal we keep around.
____________________________________________________________
Formerly there were conservative Democrats, not so now.
Conservatives must be strong and stand up to scathing criticism heaped on them by the press if they are well known or TV personalities, sports stars, Movie stars, etc., our candidates are besmirched and torn apart for being normal clean living citizens. It is devastating to endure. Ala Sarah Palin. She faced it bravely and was not shut down. Her decision to not run must have been as a result of threats toward her family, or too low an approval to continue. Who can stand up to that? NONE OF US! MO!
Let us Thank the LORD for his daily blessings ...
God help America, in Jesus name amen.
Welllllllll ....... we're waiting?!
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.
I am way nicer and more fun to hang out with than Murrymom. :foldarms:
If many are missing it, then it’s too obscure or perhaps does not really exist. The dismissive phrase “conservative movement such as it is” denies the existence of real conservatives.
And nobody likes the phrase “new movement” due to the implications.
I would classify myself as a progressive who’s a member of the Democratic party until something better comes along.
I think my progressive buddies and I feel the same way about the Democratic party that you and your conservative buddies feel about the Republican party so I can commiserate with you.
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).
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.