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
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.