Norquist and Keene Join Baldwin and Neas

NRO ^ | 10/20/03 | Byron York

[Righty1]

Norquist is Rove's muslim left nut.

[Valin]

He's been working for CAIR for sometime now. To say I'm dissappointed in Grover is a REAL understatement.

[Torie]

The burden of proof in this instance is on those who decry the Patriot Act as an unacceptable and Unconstitutional truncation of personal liberatities, to demonstrate that going down another path sans the Patriot Act, is not akin to a suicide pact, and/or akin to facilitating the slaughter on innocent non combatent Americans. It IS a matter of a balancing test, and it up to the proponents to demonstrate that the balance is unbalanced.

If the Patriot is misapplied, or abused, I suggest that that those with a grievance sue. Let it all hang out.

You know something? I am not confident enough about American culture, and our legal system, and American good sense, to not be worried at all that the Patriot Act will be anything akin to a nose in the tent for tyranny, or anything remotely similar.

Call me an control freak statist in love with hating the Constitution, whatever. I have made my balancing act, you do yours, and let's just fight it out in the public square.

[NYC GOP Chick]

You know something? I am not confident enough about American culture, and our legal system, and American good sense, to not be worried at all that the Patriot Act will be anything akin to a nose in the tent for tyranny, or anything remotely similar.

Call me an control freak statist in love with hating the Constitution, whatever. I have made my balancing act, you do yours, and let's just fight it out in the public square.

As someone who narrowly survived the brutal 9/11 attacks, I don't particularly mind our government being a little less afraid of being called "un-P.C." or other names that the left hurls at it.

I watched my neighborhood literally explode in flames, because the FBI wasn't allowed to look at Zaccarias Moussaoui's laptop computer.

I was covered with tiny shards of glass from the north tower of the WTC and later (literally) ran for my life, because our law enforcement and intelligence agencies were not allowed to merely enter mosques to observe and listen for signs of impending terrorism attacks.

I watched helplessly and in horror as people plunged from 1/4 of a mile in the sky, because our government couldn't properly investigate known terrorists in this country, as that would be "too intrusive."

I can't tell you just how thrilled I am that that gasbag Norquist and others who spout off about this are so willing to risk *my* life for their ideals.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Don't hold back, Yehuda! Tell us how you *really* feel! ;)

[MeekOneGOP]

[Valin]

And another take.
Michelle Malkin: Alec Baldwin's new best friend
WorldNetDaily.com | Wednesday, October 22, 2003 | Michelle Malkin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005653/posts

[our constitution]

All this stuff is a bunch of hogwash and has either been reported on before or has been rejected by reasonable newssources.

First, Norquist was on board with the ACLU -- and most conservatives -- when Bill Clinton and Janet Reno asked for basically the same expansion of Justice Department power back in the 1990s. As conservatives, we should at least be suspicious of the government expanding its power. All Grover pushed for was that the Patriot Act should be sunsetted after a few years -- to make sure DOJ wasn't using anti-terrorism laws against private citizens -- like the RICO statutes have been used against pro-lifers.

As for all the Muslim connections, Norquist never worked for Alamoudi; the Islamic Institute never received any Saudi funding (checks written by Americans on Saudi banks do not constitute foreign funding); and Norquist has never received any money from Arab or Muslim groups or individuals. This is a lie that was pushed on the Washington Post, New York Times, Time, Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal. None of those papers reported on the allegations because all were found to be false -- the WSJ reported on them and *showed* that they were false. The only publications that have reported on them are basically discredited -- and once in a while a lazy columnist will write about it without doing any of their own reporting, like Malkin in the NY Post.

Grover is fighting the fight for smaller government. Don't start throwing away your liberties because a bunch of federal lawyers want to make their jobs eaiser.

[instaurare]

This piece from NR mostly blames Norquist and Keene for associating with the likes of Balwin and the People for the American Way--but it is possible that these clowns are actually right about some problems with Patriot. Just because the left is behaving like a bunch of abnoxious loud morons doesn't mean they're altogether wrong.

The reason I have a problem with Patriot is because of my fear of the left. W's not going to be in office forever. Does anybody think that under another Clinton-style administration there WOULDN'T be abuses? Just wait until some future Leftist administration collects information to prevent non-violent "hate crimes," i.e. thought crimes instead of what we consider terrorism

[Righty1]

Karl is actually worse. I was hoping that mint tea Joe was going to get him for us.

[Righty1]

I agree to an extent but, losing this war i.e. ending up in a state of siege ala Israel is posiible so what choice do we have but to trust the dims to really make the sun set on this law?

[browardchad]

First, Norquist was on board with the ACLU -- and most conservatives -- when Bill Clinton and Janet Reno asked for basically the same expansion of Justice Department power back in the 1990s.

And that argument was phrased in terms of Sami Al-Arian, accused leader of Islamic Jihad in the U.S.

Norquist never worked for Alamoudi; the Islamic Institute never received any Saudi funding (checks written by Americans on Saudi banks do not constitute foreign funding); and Norquist has never received any money from Arab or Muslim groups or individuals.

You're really splitting hairs here. In early 1999, the Islamic Institute (founded by Norquist and Saffuri) accepted a $10,000 contribution and a $10,000 loan from Abdurahman Alamoudi, a founder of the American Muslim Council (and Khaled Saffuri's former boss). Can you say with a straight face that Alamoudi has no ties to terrorism?

Grover is fighting the fight for smaller government.

That may be true, but he is also loudly fighting for the GOP to recognize highly questionable Muslim groups and leaders as legitimate political partners.

If Norquist wasn't so vehement in his support of the afore mentioned leaders and groups, his opposition to the Patriot Act might be a little more convincing. Why does he cling to this fantasy that Muslims will support Bush? It may have been an honest mistake pre-9/11, but in spite of all the evidence uncovered since 9/11, in spite of polls that clearly show Muslims do not now support the Republican party (surprise!), he continues in his crusade.

It's obvious that there's something more than the quest for smaller government at work with Norquist.

[our constitution]

Men: Do you all realize that Hillary Clinton will someday be Attorney General? Are you not worried a *little* that once prosecutors become accustomed to all their new Patriot Act power that they may end up coming after you? Or your guns? Aren't supposed to be suspicious of the government lobbying to expand its own power?

Two major problems with the Patriot Act: First, it doesn't just pertain to suspects of terrorism; the new powers can be used to investigate all Americans. Second, it is permanent; most opponents of the legislation chiefly sought to sunset the damned thing, to determine after time whether the new powers were being used in a correct way.

Now, I was never a fan of Bob Barr -- paying for the abortions of your mistress is not a way to get this Christian man's support. But in my eyes he completely redeemed his career by leading the charge against *the permanance* of the Patriot Act, which is the main thing that Norquist, and even Paul Weyrich, Phylis Schlaffly and David Keene, sought as well. I don't see any of those people called "islamicists," fellas.

As for Norquist, the definitive piece on his muslim ties was published in the Wall Street Journal this summer. Can't link to it because the WSJ charges for its archives, but the reporters worked for months on the story.

As for Alamoudi, now it's becoming clear that he was involved in something, sure. But you say the Institute got the money from Alamoudi in 1999 -- that was *before* anybody knew anything bad about him! Alamoudi was visiting Clinton's White House constantly around that time. And the Institute says they broke off all ties when he said all that crazy stuff in front of the White House.

I'm with Norquist on this one. The other side is peppered with a bunch of "big government conservatives" who don't seem to value my constitutional liberties. Would the new Justice Department powers have stopped 9-11? Probably not. Will arming the pilots stop another 9-11? You bet.

[Bob J]

As I understood it, the Patriot Act basically extended the provisions of RICO to terrorism, but everything still has to be signed off by a Judge?

Second, if the Patriot is so bad that it needs to be sunseted, why should it be allowed at all?

[our constitution]

From the WSJ, 11 June 2003:

In Washington, the Islamic Institute has helped furnish Muslim support for various Bush administration causes. After Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Saffuri, wrote a paper justifying U.S. military action during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Mr. Norquist passed along the document to the White House National Security Council. A senior administration official says it was used in developing talking points by U.S. officials defending the U.S. attack on Afghanistan.

You call this a Wahabbi lobby?