Posted on 12/09/2003 1:37:45 AM PST by kattracks
Why We Are Publishing This Article by David Horowitz
The article you are about to read is the most disturbing that we at frontpagemag.com have ever published. As an Internet magazine, with a wide circulation, we have been in the forefront of the effort to expose the radical Fifth Column in this country, whose agendas are at odds with the nations security, and whose purposes are hostile to its own. In his first address to Congress after 9/11, the President noted that we are facing the same totalitarian enemies we faced in the preceding century. It is not surprising that their domestic supporters in the American Left should have continued their efforts to weaken this nation and tarnish its image. Just as there was a prominent internal Fifth Column during the Cold War, so there has been a prominent Fifth Column during the war on terror.
By no means do all the opponents of Americas war policies (or even a majority) fit this category. Disagreement among citizens is a core feature of any democracy and respect for that disagreement is a foundational value of our political system. The self-declared enemies of the nation are distinguished by the intemperate nature of their attacks on America and its President referring to the one as Adolf Hitler, for example, or the other as the worlds greatest terrorist state. They are known as well by their political choices and associations. Many leaders of the movement opposing the war in Iraq have worked for half a century with the agents of Americas communist enemies and with totalitarian states like Cuba and the former USSR.
We have had no compunction about identifying these individuals and groups. America is no longer protected by geographical barriers or by its unsurpassed military technologies. Today terrorists who can penetrate our borders with the help of Fifth Column networks will have access to weapons of mass destruction that can cause hundreds of thousands of American deaths. One slip in our security defenses can result in a catastrophe undreamed of before.
What is particularly disturbing, about the information in this article by former Reagan Defense official, Frank Gaffney, is that it concerns an individual who loves this country and would be the last person to wish it harm, and the first one would expect to defend it. I have known Grover Norquist for almost twenty years as a political ally. Long before I myself was cognizant of the Communist threat indeed when I was part of one of those Fifth Column networks Grover Norquist was mobilizing his countrymen to combat it. In the early 1980s, Grover was in the forefront of conservative efforts to get the Reagan Administration to support the liberation struggles of anti-Communists in Central America, Africa and Afghanistan.
It is with a heavy heart therefore, that I am posting this article, which is the most complete documentation extant of Grover Norquists activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column. I have confronted Grover about these issues and have talked to others who have done likewise. But it has been left to Frank Gaffney and a few others, including Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, to make the case and to suffer the inevitable recriminations that have followed earlier disclosures of some aspects of this story.
Up to now, the controversy over these charges has been dismissed or swept under the rug, as a clash of personalities or the product of one of those intra-bureaucratic feuds so familiar to the Washington scene. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. The reality is much more serious. No one reading this document to its bitter end will confuse its claims and confirming evidence with those of a political cat fight. On the basis of the evidence assembled here, it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grovers part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.
As Frank Gaffneys article recounts, Grovers own Islamic Institute was initially financed by one of the most notorious of these operatives, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah who told the Annual Convention of the Islamic Association of Palestine in 1996, If we are outside this country we can say Oh, Allah destroy America. But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it. Grover appointed Alamoudis deputy, Khaled Saffuri to head his own organization. Together they gained access to the White House for Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian and others with similar agendas who used their cachet to spread Islamist influence to the American military and the prison system and the universities and the political arena with untold consequences for the nation.
Parts of this story have been published before, but never in such detail and never with the full picture of Islamist influence in view. No doubt, that is partly because of Grover Norquists large (and therefore intimidating) presence in the Washington community. Many have been quite simply afraid to raise these issues and thus have allowed Grover to make them seem a matter of individual personality differences. This suits his agendas well, as it does those of his Islamist allies. If matters in dispute reflect personal animosity or racial prejudice, as Grover insists, then the true gravity of these charges is obscured. The fact remains that while Grover has denied the charges or sought to dismiss them with such arguments on many occasions, he has never answered them. If he wishes to do so now, the pages of frontpagemag.com are open to him.
Many have been reluctant to support these charges or to make them public because they involve a prominent conservative. I am familiar with these attitudes from my years on the Left. Loyalty is an important political value, but there comes a point where loyalty to friends or to parties comes into conflict with loyalty to fundamental principles and ultimately to ones country. Grovers activities have reached that point. E.M. Forster, a weak-spirited liberal, once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and his friends, he hoped [he] would have the guts to betray his country.
No such sentiment motivates this journal. In our war with the Islamo-fascists we are all engaged in a battle with evil on a scale that affects the lives and freedoms of hundreds of millions people outside this nation as well as within it. America is on the front line of this battle and there is no replacement waiting in the wings if it fails, or if its will to fight is sapped from within. This makes our individual battles to keep our country vigilant and strong the most important responsibilities we have. That is why we could not in good conscience do otherwise, than to bring this story to light.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Are you paying attention? This guy is accusing the President of the United States of treason. He's being really weasely about it, but that's what he's doing.
|
Wrong. If you bothered to read the Qur'an and the Hadith you would understand that Islam theocracy comes before all else in their lives, even with the so-called moderates.
We are findly weekly that those we considered "moderates" are actually promoting fanaticism. It's being proven in worldwide Mosques; it's being proven in Islamic teachings; it's being proven by the number of Islamic criminals we are currently trying our courts; it's being proven by the infiltration in our Armed Services; it's being proven by their own written doctrines, etc. Islam is simply facism in another form. Read up, Bob. Islam (and not just Wahibbism)is in a facist war against Western civilization. Norquist is an enabler...intentionally or not.
That said, I do appreciate the foreign policy of the Bush administration to encourage and "force" democracy in the Islamic culture. Bush and Co. realized from 9/11 that force and re-education is our chance to change things in the Islamic world.
BTW, at the very least, Islam is mysoginistic and treat their women like chattel...which I abhor. I don't trust a Muslim and far as I could...
Wrong again. There is right and there is wrong. There is freedom and there is tyranny. There is rightousness and there is evil. There were no "two sides" to horrors of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Tojo, and there is no "two sides" to Islamic totalitarianism.
BTW, just how much outcry from the Muslim world community did you see after the massacre of 9/11? How much? Read the Hadith from the blood-thirsty self-appointed prophet called Mohammed. His ravings are still be taught in schools around the world.
Any so-called "moderate" Muslim is not a Muslim. Personally, I don't believe there are that many of them. Their theocracy comes first before their allegiance to a benevolent and compassionate nation like the US. You're backing the wrong horse here.
No sir, and stop being disingenuous about it. Here we are talking about detailing the Islamist ties, not of Grover Norquist, but of George W. Bush. Perhaps you have heard of him. He currently serves as President of the United States. He is not the head Americans for Tax Reform; that's a different guy.
Our mystery correspondent is detailing precisely the same sort of "Islamist ties" with George W. Bush that he been detailing with Mr. Norquist. The only difference is that, when I call him on it, he lies about it. And then he sends you over to lie about it some more.
Let's stop lying about what this guy is doing, OK? Here is a quote from his note, not mine:
Who is this guy? He's an old Bush family friend. Not a Norquist family friend, a Bush family friend. A man who was on the board, not of Grover Norquist's oil company, because Grover Norquist never had an oil company. It was George W. Bush's oil company. Let me repeat that so even you can't screw this up: We are here detailing the terrorist connections of one George W. Bush, not to be confused with Mr. Grover Norquist, who never had an oil company, and whose name is not "Bush," as in "old Bush family friend."
When Norquist has friends like this, he's a fifth columnist working for the enemy. Suddenly, when Bush has friends like this, "No, again, it's about Rove and Grover and Muslims and Arabs with previously known and subsequently increasingly proven and prosecuted terrorist connections..."
Let's the crap here, OK? This guy is a fruitcake of some kind who doesn't know what hell he's talking about himself. He's so busy pouring little tiny details in your face that he doesn't know that he's talking about Bush instead of Norquist. Call him on it, and he says "No, it's all about Norquist and proven this and proven that." Except that it wasn't about Norquist, it was about Bush.
So was this:
One marvels at the level of detail this guy knows off the top of his head. If only he knew what he was talking about. But he doesn't, and we know that because he goes on to say this:
Dismiss? Why would I want to dismiss that? It's more damning evidence against Grover Norquist, right? After all, Salem was a lawyer for a terrorist fund and an old Bush I person and came up with $250K for the (presumably Bush) campaign (I am not aware of a Norquist campaign), and for some reason the one tidbit we are supposed to pay attention to there is that he gave money to Norquist, even though the whole damned thing screams "Bush."
There's no strawman here. This guy is actually saying this stuff. It's just that after saying it, he claims he didn't. Or he claims that sentences that refer to someone named "Bush" are about Norquist, or Rove, or Santa Claus. Well, who are you going to believe, him or your own lying eyes? If he has a case against Bush, let's hear it. He won't talk about that, because everybody would know he's a nut. Hello? He is a nut. He's a veritable fountain of little tiny details and absolutely no context to put them in except his own personal hatred of Grover Norquist. He's like the Rainman of terrorism. He can tell you how many matches were left on the table after some meeting three years ago, but he can't tell you that he just linked Bush with terrorists five seconds after doing it. Either that or he doesn't have the guts to come right out and say it. And I don't blame him, because if he did, people would laugh him off the stage.
George Washington had the greatest respect for Thomas Paine. That was because Paine had wrtitten some broadsides that were extremely effective in improving morale and recruiting to the Patriot cause. Washington, likely, very much agreed himself with the sentiments expresssed in them. Just before the Crossing of the Delaware, in that dark moment -- General;Washington assembled his remaining troopers and read them Thomas Paine's "Summer Soldier".
Washington's motto for that evening -- the next few days of the Crossing and the first Battle of Trenton were "Victory or Death.".
That is how Washington lived, many years the commander in a dangerous and dark time, throught which he DID lead us. By honor and resolute demeanor, he would never have asked such a ridiculous, demeaning, dishonorable question.
Thomas Paine was a Private in Washington's Army, not an officer. He was far below Washington's pay grade. He was, it turned out later in his life, a complainer, a whiner, a drunkard. Yet never once did Washington ever disrespect him.
To a great man like Washington, a truly great man -- no other man is "below his pay grade". Every man deserves a fair hearing and respect.
*Detailing the Islamist ties of Grover Norquist = accusing President Bush of treason? No sir, and stop being disingenuous about it. Our mystery correspondent is detailing precisely the same sort of "Islamist ties" with George W. Bush that he been detailing with Mr. Norquist. The only difference is that, when I call him on it, he lies about it. And then he sends you over to lie about it some more.
Let's stop lying about what this guy is doing, OK? Here is a quote from his note, not mine:
Who is this guy? He's an old Bush family friend. Not a Norquist family friend, a Bush family friend. A man who was on the board, not of Grover Norquist's oil company, because Grover Norquist never had an oil company. It was George W. Bush's oil company. Let me repeat that so even you can't screw this up: We are here detailing the terrorist connections of one George W. Bush, not to be confused with Mr. Grover Norquist, who never had an oil company, and whose name is not "Bush," as in "old Bush family friend. Let's the crap here, OK? This guy is a fruitcake of some kind who doesn't know what hell he's talking about himself. Or he claims that sentences that refer to someone named "Bush" are about Norquist, or Rove, or Santa Claus. Well, who are you going to believe, him or your own lying eyes? If he has a case against Bush, let's hear it. He won't talk about that, because everybody would know he's a nut. Hello? He is a nut. He's a veritable fountain of little tiny details and absolutely no context to put them in except his own personal hatred of Grover Norquist. He's like the Rainman of terrorism. He can tell you how many matches were left on the table after some meeting three years ago, but he can't tell you that he just linked Bush with terrorists five seconds after doing it. Either that or he doesn't have the guts to come right out and say it. And I don't blame him, because if he did, people would laugh him off the stage.
|
Assuming you don't advocate prejudging, I'm sure what you meant was this: "Members of minorities often act against the long term interest of society and themselves because of short-term decisions."
But that is meaningless; observe: "(Members of) majorities often act against the long term interest of society and themselves because of short-term decisions.
calling for the freedom of Jonathan Pollard will clear up the problem of his disproportionate sentence.
Oh no! You're a Free Pollardite? There goes the thread! 8*)
Pollard will rot until he fingers MEGA.
The "Disproportionate Sentence" whiners never mention that Pollard remains in possession of info we I want. Why don't you all want Mega-Mole identified, HMMM?
"Disprotionate Sentence" whiners also insult American's intelligence by painting their whines about sentence length as a greater issue than Pollard.
Those whiners only care about Pollard, and have never cared about any other disproportionate sentence "victims," proving them slimy liars.
Where were the Free Pollardists when thousands of people caught with rock cocaine were getting much more jailtime than those caught with powdered cocaine? Did they help get the USSC to strike that "law" down? Hell NO! (Maybe they would have, IF only Prince Pollard had been caught with rock instead of powder.)
it undermines America by lessening the punishment of traitors.
Now you are implying that disproportionate sentencing helps America and traitors should be over-punished. That's wrong, too.
calling for the freedom of Jonathan Pollard...hurt Jews in America by making us look disloyal.
Now you have discovered why "judging minorities by objective standards" is ludicris!
Only individuals of the Free Pollardist type are open to charges of dual loyalty; to blame Jews in general is pre-judgement, puffy "objective standards" notwithstanding.
It hurts Israel by wasting political capital on a traitor rather than on the actual threats to Israel.
I find the amount of resources spent on Free Pollardry *very* telling. Israel must perceive some threat; otherwise they doth protest too much. That means he still has big beans to spill, justifying his long sentence as well as his continued metabolic activity.
Well of course not, seeing how it's the Tranzi Right now trying to purge him.
(Norquist) does not care for the sovereignty of the US because he is a libertarian, not a traditionalist.
Wrong, libertarians support the sovereignty of the US.
You seem rather ignorant of libertarianism...but thank you for showing us your (IMO ugly) Nationalist basis for prejudice against Norquist as a libertarian force.
"In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals." -- Nick Danger
I have to wonder if this snip above is indicative of all your other posts on this issue. It has been made clear that the FRN is invited and does attend the Wed. meetings, ALONG WITH 120+ OTHER PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON DC.
Here are Nick's exact statements on this issue:
Allow me to answer that. Grover Norquist is one of several people who informally advises FRN on a number of issues. By 'informally' I mean that none of these people has any authority over anything we do; they just give us ideas or advice when we ask for it.
As you may know, Norquist's office is host every Wednesday to a meeting that is attended by representives from practically every conservative organization on the planet. The White House, Senator Frist's office, and Speaker Hastert's office also send representatives, and they tell us about the legislative agenda or other policy topics. Conservative candidates from around the country come there to introduce themselves. Virtually any group that has something going on can get a minute or two on the agenda, and I have done so numerous times to promote things the FRN was doing, such as the "Rally for America" events we did back in March. This is also how I was able to arrange for Angelwood to attend a speech given by President Bush. It is how we met Jeff Gannon of Talon News, who now hosts a program on Radio FR. In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals.#283
And
I should probably also tell you that if Grover Norquist and I passed on the street, he might recognize me as someone he has seen around, but if he remembered my name, it would surprise me. That is the succinct description of where I am in the world of Grover Norquist. For me, this isn't really about Grover Norquist; nor is it about taking anybody's "side." I have a private business that has nothing to do with any of this. My whole involvement in politics is a very part-time volunteer deal. I'm a Freeper, not a Washington Creature. #367
and
Be careful here. I am not "defending Norquist" from things he actually did, if in fact they were wrong. I am not on some mission here to claim that he is pure in all of this. I don't claim to know. What I do know is that this document which has been presented to us as containing "documented facts" contains a whole bunch of documented facts that don't tell us anything, but are being presented as if they are some sort of damning indictment. HERE
Please stop implying that Nick's objections and arguments are on account of some "debt to Grover" because I might start to think this is your modus operandi, to take one statement out of context (which you just did) and attempt to make it appear nefarious. It isn't. No one is in a position to defend Grover, except Grover. You may not like that Nick is questioning this issue, but don't make this into some obligation to defend Grover. I can bet you that Grover Norquist doesn't know who "Nick Danger" is.
You are still using the circular logic of your "Disagreement is (Willfull) Blindness" metaphor.
Take a look at the spouses of criminals.
I will not. We're discussing Norquist, and not your inflammatory, emotionally loaded counterexample of criminals' spouses!
Norquist clearly repeats and refutes the exact charges against him, that's why you must try to muddy the waters by bringing up totally unrelated red herrings:
Ranter writes that I want to "bring Islamic fundamentalists into the Republican Party without regard to how they feel about terrorism or Americans, let alone Republicans." This is not true. And it is silly. It is, however, a sad lie that a handful of bigots have tried to spread to attack President Bush and others.A yes "bigots"! Hiding behind the charge of racism is liberal trait.
Norquist is talking about anti-Muslim religious bigots, not racial bigots.
Thank you for one again demonstrating the liberal trait of bringing up an unrelated but touchy issue (liberal charges of conservative racism) in a lame attempt to explode the debate.
I'm not "ignorant of Paleoconservatism," but thanks for at least getting halfway through your post without the previously well-mocked puffery.
I prefer the terms crustycon or crunchycon to Paleo. Calling the left-behind crusties "Paleo" gives them too much historical credibility for sticking by old fashioned ideas now inapplicable in an interdependent world economy.
The "Oh piffle, it's all just crazy talk" defense won't work here. The objective truth in this claim is not subject to who happens to be saying it. EG: For all we know, Lind could be just repeating what the Pope told him.
"The modern conservative brain trust originated in a scheme hatched in the 1970s by William E. Simon, Irving Kristol, and others." The plan was to make conservative intellectuals, hitherto an independent-minded, quirky, and diverse community, a controlled monolith that would function as the reliable tool of the Republican Party. "By the early 1990s, thanks to the success of the Simon-Kristol initiative, almost all major conservative magazines, think tanks, and even individual scholars had become dependent on money from a small number of conservative foundations."
That borders on LaRouches veracity.
Ah yes the larouche red herring, released only in times of great distress. 8*) Let me refute your insinuation:
The veracity is hardly questionable, given publicly known facts you may verify.
Please note that Lind uses the words "scheme" and "initiative" not your sarcastically dismissive term, "conspiracy."
Further note that Lind says that the 1970s scheme became a successful initiative in the early 1990s; this belies your strawman that "we have an unsubstantiated claim of a conspiracy that occurred sometime in a decade. "
PS I think the Linds are both metrosexual. 8*)
In the paleo perspective, the DC-tax regime is an unnatural leviathan, blessed with too much power, and power corrupts. It is hard to support its wars and its policies (read:welfare) because it is simply so corrupt; even the currency is sold abroad to finance the present. It's straight from Gibbon's Decline of the Roman Empire.
rmlnew, God Bless 'em, tends to present a convenient caricature of paleo positions that self-justify his own position-- and I don't fault anyone for doing such so long as they are honest about their own views, which he is. However, he interchanges what he knows about left libertarians and ascribes their position to paleo's.
Rather than R's and D's paleo's have adopted a separate dichotomy of statists and anti-statists. The statists are the enemies of civil society, and the anti-statists of all stripes are allies in a common struggle to radically reduce the role of the DC-tax regime in our lives. You can see the natural alliance with home rule types in New England and so-called Southern neo-Confederates.
Immigration, to the paleos, is simply a means by which the states collects new clients--thus its easy to be against both legal and, naturally, illegal immigration.
Chronicles and LewRockwell.com represent the gambit of Old Right (or paleo) commentary; Ron Paul and perhaps to a lesser extent 4 or 5 others (Duncan, Tancredo come to mind) represent the voice of the paleo's in office.
Reason and Cato are considered corrupted by corporate money more interested in a corporate agenda rather than American theories on liberty.
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
94 posted on 12/09/2003 11:19:19 AM PST by hchutch
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.