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 aint 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. Norquists 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. Norquists 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 CPACs Peoples 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 nations 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 arent, all is lost, and the denouement will come quickly more quickly than most people expect.
[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. Norquists 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. Norquists 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.
Etch is a conservative? ROFLOL!! Only if conservatism is statism.
Leftists and RINOs (statists).
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.
Not just conservative, but “severely” conservative.
“Mitt Romney defines what is a conservative? As does creating a Palestinian state? As does being hateful and racist? No thanks, Dr. Spencer; dont define me that way.”
THAT is exactly Spencer’s point.
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...
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.
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.
I have to admit I had no idea that Grover Norquist was a muzzie supporter. Just knew about His fiscal thoughts.
But thats why I come here.
So basically this guy is just crying that he's not getting awards and speaking fees?
He’s also an NRA board member which gives me pause.
http://www.meetthenra.org/nra-member/Grover%20Norquist
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.
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.