Posted on 12/09/2003 1:37:45 AM PST by kattracks
In a religion of over one billion, you could find millions who go either way on an issue. This latest link is from Hindus, who have not exactly been tolerant of Moslems in India. I'm inclined to take their claims with more than a few grains of salt. I am far more inclined to belive at this point that Mr. Norquist's ties are being used as a weapon against him by people from three camps that I can identify. The first camp consists of those who are envious of Mr. Norquist's success and influence and seek to bring him down. The second camp comes from those who seem to think that some religions are more equal than others, to paraphrase George Orwell. The third camp are those who view Norquist's brand of conservatism (particularly his "Leave Us Alone" coalition) as a form of heresy. They also do not seem to like the fact that he seems to have put forth an effort to create a political coalition that can win elections, which entails some compromises. In short, their sense of ideological purity is affected. As Bob J has said elsewhere - the system ultimately worked, even if it was not as fast as some would desire.
|
I'm not talking Moslems. I'm talking about the folks who seem to have difficulty comprehending Article VI, Clause 3 and Amendment One of the Constitution. Look at some of the posts on this very thread.
I'm also talking about those who claim that Moslems have conflicting loyalties, the same slurs that were used in the past against Catholics and Jews with no basis in fact whatsoever.
Yeah, I confess, at the point where the coalition seeks to include Jew-haters and terror sympathizers, I find that kinda heretical.
Actually, I was thinking more of the folks who might disagree with his views on immigration or other issues or who take exception to the fact that he dared to reach out to certain segments of the population on a message of individual liberty. Segments like Moslems.
It is also undeniable that there is considerable friction and disagreement between cultural conservatives and the more libertarian wing of the conservative movement. I admittedly trend towards the latter on most cultural issues. For the most part, Norquist seems to do the same, and he also is a bit more libertarian on civil liberties issues. So are Bob Barr and Dick Armey.
Yet Norquist is the only targeted as a "Fifth Columnist", and there seems to be a constant effort by Gaffney to portray him as such. It is only fair to ask cui bono (who benefits) if Norquist is taken down, and to try to ascertain possible motives.
There are those who have questioned the Patriot Act in the same terms Norquist has - see Armey and Barr. There are those who do not think Islam is what we are fighting - see President Bush. The difference between those two and Norquist is the fact that Norquist has a LOT of influence through his Wednesday meetings, which are now being replicated in various states.
This is a variation of the Clintonian "it's time to move on."
The system hasn't begun to work.
A bunch of arrests and military operations disprove that assertion. Where is the demonstrable harm to the war against the terrorist groups?
It was PRESENT with the Chinagate situation, but there is no evidence that such a cover-up is in the works here.
There has been an effort, prior to and during wartime, by Islamic Fifth Columnists to use Grover Norquist to influence the Bush Administration. This needs to be fully investigated, damge needs to be assessed, and the Fifth Columnists need to be rooted out. Then and only then will the system have worked.
But did that effort compromise the War on Terror? The answer appears to be a big fat negative.
There is far too much at risk in the War on Terror to sweep this under a rug, just because it's a Republican named Grover Norquist who's culpable.
Do you have any proof that none of that is being done? Do you have any proof that there have been impediments to the system working? Unless you can produce the proof of either of those, then Bob J is correct in his take on the situation.
Norquist made mistakes. But there is nothing to indicate he is guilty of anything more than making mistakes. And I dare you to find ANY conservative that hasn't come back to bite them on the rear. The only difference here is that some people are trying to make this Chinagate II and use it to whittle away the influence of a person who there may have been long-standing disagreements with.
2. The word "Christian" does not exist in the Constitution. However, we were founded as an expressly non-denominational Christian country.
Check out the following quotes:
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -Benjamin Franklin, deist.
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports. -- In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. -- The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. -- A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. -- Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. -- Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure -- reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."--George Washington, from his Farewell Address
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." John Adams, Letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams
{John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, June 21, 1776.}
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781
"Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the Foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" James Madison
I have many others.
We are not at war with all terrorists. We have not declared war on communist groups like th IRA, FARC, or Shining Path. The US funds the PLO!
We are fighting Islamist terrorists.
Bush dare not speak the name because it would offend both the Saudis, the Wahabbi influenced Muslim block, and those infected by the cultural relativism of the left.
I'm not talking Moslems. I'm talking about the folks who seem to have difficulty comprehending Article VI, Clause 3 and Amendment One of the Constitution. Actually, I was thinking more of the folks who might disagree with his views on immigration or other issues or who take exception to the fact that he dared to reach out to certain segments of the population on a message of individual liberty. Segments like Moslems. I'm also talking about those who claim that Moslems have conflicting loyalties, the same slurs that were used in the past against Catholics and Jews with no basis in fact whatsoever. Yet Norquist is the only targeted as a "Fifth Columnist", and there seems to be a constant effort by Gaffney to portray him as such. It is only fair to ask cui bono (who benefits) if Norquist is taken down, and to try to ascertain possible motives. There are those who have questioned the Patriot Act in the same terms Norquist has - see Armey and Barr. There are those who do not think Islam is what we are fighting - see President Bush. The difference between those two and Norquist is the fact that Norquist has a LOT of influence through his Wednesday meetings, which are now being replicated in various states. A bunch of arrests and military operations disprove that assertion. Where is the demonstrable harm to the war against the terrorist groups? It was PRESENT with the Chinagate situation, but there is no evidence that such a cover-up is in the works here. But did that effort compromise the War on Terror? The answer appears to be a big fat negative. Do you have any proof that none of that is being done? Do you have any proof that there have been impediments to the system working? Unless you can produce the proof of either of those, then Bob J is correct in his take on the situation.
|
I suggest you have a look at Gerber's To Secure These Rights. You might learn a thing or two.
ML/NJ
Boy, have you got that one wrong. The OTM's (other than Mexican) illegal immigrants from Middle Eastern countries is increasing alarmingly. Not to mention a number of the 9/11 perps had overstayed their visas.
Evidence of what? Where is the demonstrable harm to America's national security? The illegal transfers to the People's republic of China were proven to my satisfaction and to a Congressional Committee's satisfaction.
C'mon, look at how silly your argument is:
"We don't know that steps aren't being taken, therefore maybe they are, therefore we shouldn't worry about whether or not steps are being taken."
Right now, there is NO evidence of harm to nationals ecurity or the prosecution of the war. Only very serious charges being laid out.
And what strikes me as suspicious is that in the ABSENCE of any evidence of a crime on the part of Grover Norquist, you demand a full investigation. Do you know what your position sounds like to me? It sounds like Tom Foley saying that the charges that Reagan-Bush campaign officials met with Iranian officials to sabotage negotiations to release the hostages held by Iran - baseless charges leveled by Carter Administration Gary Sick needed to be investigated BECAUSE there was no evidence of wrongdoing. "We need to investigate for evidence of wrongdoing BECAUSE there is no evidence of wrongdoing."
Where is the evidence of criminal wrongdoing? I have seen NONE. I have seen nothing that indicates that at all. So that leads me to believe this is more about settling some sort of score that some people have with Norquist than it is about national security, and using the same type of smear tactics that were used against George Bush Sr.
ML/NJ
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.