Calling out Grover Norquist

Jihad Watch ^ | March 11, 2010 | Robert Spencer

[neverdem]

Last week Pamela Geller wrote this at [1] The American Thinker:

The Freedom Defense Initiative, a new organization I started with author and scholar Robert Spencer, hosted its inaugural event to an enthusiastic standing-room-only crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 19. But this event was at CPAC, not of CPAC. Could this be because of the influence of conservative kingmaker and power-broker Grover Norquist, who is a member of the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union, which hosts CPAC? The only event concerning the war on America at CPAC was worse than nothing at all: It was an Islamic propaganda (taqiyya) presentation entitled "You've Been Lied To: Why Real Conservatives are Against the War on Terror." Its message was that "real conservatives" don't support the war on terror because it is a creation of the "Israeli lobby."

She went on to detail Norquist's many ties to Islamic supremacists and jihadists. And now [2] Frank Gaffney has followed up on Geller's piece, writing in his latest column:

Then, there was the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in which, apart from several noteworthy addresses, the official agenda was largely bereft of any discussion of the threats to our nation, constitution and society arising from today's totalitarian ideology - what authoritative Islam calls "Shariah." [...]

Another explanation for the low-balling, or outright ignoring, of national security is the influence of some of the more libertarian members of the conservative movement. Their sentiments are exemplified and aggressively advanced, mostly behind the scenes, by Grover Norquist. Norquist is best known for his anti-tax activism as president of Americans for Tax Reform but, over the past 12 years, he has become increasingly associated with policies and initiatives that are strikingly at odds with the national security convictions and practices of the man he - and virtually all other conservatives - so admire: Ronald Reagan.

For example, Norquist recently wrote an open letter that charged with "scaremongering" those who opposed the Obama administration's efforts to close Guantanamo Bay, move terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 conspirators to trial in New York City and open a new Gitmo North in Illinois. He has inveighed for years against the Patriot Act, promoted "open borders" and sponsored a neo-isolationist organization called the American Conservative Defense Alliance. One of the Alliance's fellows, a disgruntled ex-CIA officer named Philip Giraldi, presented a paper at a 2010 CPAC panel entitled "Why Real Conservatives are Against the War on Terror." Giraldi told the audience that, "Fear has been the key to the door for expansion of government and government powers and the people in charge in Washington have seized the opportunity. It has also eroded the liberties that have defined us as a nation."

As...Pamela Geller, among others, have noted, Norquist has also been a sponsor of efforts to promote in the name of GOP "inclusion" individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. He seems indifferent to the Brotherhood's self-declared mission to "destroy Western civilization from within" or the close alignment between many of his policy recommendations and the interests of the Brothers and other Shariah adherents who seek such an outcome....

Indifferent at best. Anyway, Gaffney goes on to explain that Norquist has been involved in organizing some debates of late, so he sent him this challenge:

8 March 2010

Mr. Grover Norquist
President
Americans for Tax Reform
722 12th Street, NW Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Grover:

For some time, you have been promoting a number of national security-related policy positions and initiatives as the appropriate ones for conservatives and Republicans to adopt. These have included:

· Your strenuous opposition to the enactment and subsequent reenactment of the Patriot Act;
· Your support for President Obama's decision to close Guantanamo Bay;
· Your support for his administration's bid to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court in New York City;
· Your support for transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay to a prison in Thomson, Illinois.
· Your advocacy of what amount to open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens;
· And your outreach to individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in the name of GOP "inclusiveness."

You have claimed that those who disagreed with you on these recommendations were "scaremongering," "racists" and "bigots."

It has been troubling to me that your policy preferences and efforts to advance them may have contributed to a serious diminution of the amount and quality of attention given to these and related subjects in the Conservative Action Project's Mount Vernon Statement, the Conservative Political Action Conference's program and the choices available to respondents as part of the development of the Contract From America.

It was, therefore, heartening to me to learn of the enthusiasm you have expressed together with The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel for the idea of debate as a means whereby arguments can be "tested and honed." Rarely has it been more necessary than now, in the run-up to a potentially pivotal national election, to have a rigorous evaluation of the sorts of ideas you espouse and promote with respect to our national security and their suitability for American conservatives and Republicans.

Accordingly, I formally challenge you to a public debate about those arguments in a mutually agreeable forum. I believe this should take place at the earliest possible moment, given the importance of sorting out whether your policy recommendations should be adopted or rejected by the Republican Party and/or the conservative movement.

Knowing of your commitment to public debate, I hope you will promptly accept this invitation.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
President & CEO
Center for Security Policy

While Grover is setting up that debate with Gaffney, he can also finally answer the challenge to debate that I sent him back in July 2008, and wrote about [3] here. But somehow I suspect that neither Gaffney nor I will hear from him.

Nonetheless, it is good to see Gaffney picking up and furthering Geller's calling-out of Norquist. Pamela has even more on Norquist [4] here.

---

Article printed from Jihad Watch: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/calling-out-grover-norquist.html

URLs in this post:

[1] http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/grover_norquists_jihad.html

[2] http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankGaffney/2010/03/09/gops_job_1

[3] http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/07/grover-norquist-spencer-hates-muslims.html

[4] http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/03/grover-norquist-hiss.html

Click here to print.

[Czar]

Agree on Grover Norquist. I’ve seen enough on him to convince me he’s a two-faced weasel and no conservative.

[panaxanax]

Why does the NRA allow this skunk to sit on the Board of Directors?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[AuntB]

BTT

[Czar]

Wish I had an answer for you—I don’t. Best I can do is speculate. In the past, the NRA Washington lobbyists have gained a reputation for supporting certain candidates and legislation that some (perhaps many) conservative NRA members oppose. The NRA is notorious for being narrowly focused on the Second Amendment, hunting and guns to the extent of overlooking or ignoring just about everything else. Because Norquist has a conservative reputation (or did) and has always been a strong Second Amendment advocate, I would guess that has been good enough for the NRA brass.

[panaxanax]

Thanks for your input.

I think the NRA of which I am a life-long member, should widen their scope and look at the big picture. That being a Muslim takeover of our country where nobody will have a gun except the muzzies (0bama’s brown shirts).

[AmishDude]

I do not mean to defend Norquist, I am always glad that Gaffney is constantly calling him out, but I disagree with your interpretation of the quote:

“I started out as a right-winger, and when I retire I want to be a squishy middle-of-the-roader,” he jokes, chortling at the thought.

I interpret that to mean that he will not change his views, but that the center of the political spectrum will move to accommodate his views. I would be curious as to when he made this quote, though.