A Troubling Influence - An Islamic Fifth Column penetrates the White House

FrontPageMagazine ^ | 12/09/03 | Frank J Gaffney Jr.

[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 nation’s 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 America’s 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 world’s “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 America’s 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 Norquist’s 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 Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.

As Frank Gaffney’s article recounts, Grover’s 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 Alamoudi’s 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 Norquist’s 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 one’s country. Grover’s 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.

 

[Sabertooth]

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.

Actually, Nick, you're being worse than weaselly with this little strawman.

This ploy has been tried before to stifle this debate in this forum.

Detailing the Islamist ties of Grover Norquist = accusing President Bush of treason?

What shameful, repugnant tripe.

Didn't work before; won't work now.

You're caught way short on facts and background on this case, but thought you could weigh in and bluster your way out of the Norquistian corner into which you've painted yourself with your series of fallacious posts running up and down this thread.

You know, the Grover Norquist about whom you said: "In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals."

You've failed, and badly, so now you're fabricating a charge of treason against the President by another poster. What a complete cop-out.

[Trollstomper]

See replies in brackets [[ ]]

Norquist, the conservative libertarian that he is, apparently doesn't like the "secret evidence" thingy. Neither does Bob Barr.

[[ Neither did Jim Woolsey but he's not taking money for terorist financiers and Saudi fronts, and then taking them into the debate, much less the White House. ]] Does that make them both terrorist sympathizers? I don't think so. Does that make Norquist anti-Israel? I don't think so although, I believe he is very naive to the dangers we face and to the compromises we must make in the war on terrorism -- during the war on terrorism.

[[ Secret evidence is only one, since 9/11 eclipsed, agenda item and the one that provides a the fig leaf for coaltion building and policy pretense. That Grover is effectively sympathetic to terrorists is amply demonstrated by hwo many of them are around him; that he says nice things like "stinkin' Jews" and accuses all opponets of being Likud Agents and Mossad agents, is also. What made him that way, I don't know or care. That he hangs out with, for several years, now, people who openly profess to want to destroy Israel and say 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' and that he takes awards and edits letters for a head of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or raises money for Nawash (see earlier posting on same) --these things may or may not mean he is anti-Israel. I'm sure some of his best friends are Jewish, right? ]]

Additionally, similar to the Islamic Institute, Norquist helped build and worked with the conservative Jewish organization Torward Tradition in the mid-ninties. His purpose was to organize conservative Jews. And before that, Grover Norquist worked with Ralph Reid [[Reed]] as they worked for Pat Roberson and Jerry Falwell to organize Christian conservatives. Now he attempts to do the same thing with the Islamic Institute and all hell breaks lose.

[[No, now he lobbies for a living and gets paid a lot and finds the old model to work well for a new trick, and it fools the fans. To state the obvious,in the previous projects, he did not bring terrorists and their apolgists, lawyers and funders around town and into the movement! Duh. ]]

So what we have here is a guy -- Norquist -- who believes that a good way to organize conservatives and to promote conservatism is through conservative religious organizations, whether it be Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

[[ HELLO!! Wahhabis and other Islamists are not "conservative" in the normative sense, remotely, and assuming you weren't disingenuously trying to pull a fast one by lining them up with the other two , I just urge you to study up a bit. You too can start with the USNEWS cover story for this week by Dave Kaplan on Saudi support for Global Terror. ]] And what we have here is a guy who believes in the strict adherence to the constitution --
[[ but not it's laws apparently; by the way, "secret evidence" is constitutional until the Supremes say otherwise, not Grover, thank you. ]] even during war times.

Thus his position on Muslims, secret evidence and immigrant [[ precision helps; "illegal alien" Kissinger was an immigrant. And, different legal rights apply]] deportation -- Al-Najjir -- and thus his seeming oblivious attitude torwards the gathering storm and the gathering evidence around him about a handful of extremists that have come into contact with him.

[[ No! Not "a handful," several handfulls --it is only "a handful" that have to date been arrested. Some Administrations manage to get well into the second term before even one WH visitor gets arrested for a felony, let alone terrorism! And they didn't "come into contact with him" he went out and hired, recruited, rallied and brought them to Austin and thence to the White House. And he's gone around the country speaking with them, etc.]]

Does this make him a terrorist sympathizer, a traitor to this country and somebody who is anti-Israel.

IMV -- NO, but it does make him any enemy of those who wish to see conservatives of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions not organize.

[[ I don't no what this is to mean, but the basic point is what the "it" is and the passive tone; he wasn't "made" something, he's been busy making himself this mess.]]

That IMV is the reason behind the attempted infiltration of Al-Arian and Awad and the others into the AMC. And their attempts to infiltrate the Islamic Institute.

[[ WHOA! Alamoudi CREATED the AMC, his deputy, Saffuri created the Islamic Institute using Alamoud's money and that of other Saudi-funded entitites and the other offiically Wahhabi state, and using another Alamudi eptuy as his , Alkebsi (now placed at the National Endowment for Democracy, deciding who gets govt. money to go on Mideast & N. African training junkets.) Al Arian's group are not the AMC/ AMF; and AWAD created CAIR out of a previous Hamas front. So First, you don't have any of these facts straight,

Second, that gets to another point: these orgs and groups have been together for years in a network of entities all orginally spun out of the Saudi Muslim World League and the Muslim Students Association beginning in 1963 in the US and Canada. Their purpose: control Islam in America in the Saudi salafi mold. They control more mosques, schools and organizations, and virtually every related PAC and political shop in America. The "attempted inflitration" is a long-accomplished fact.

Long before Pipes, Emerson, Timmerman, Schwarts, US NEWS, Senator Kly's terrorism hearings, the sting of related affadavits, or Gaffney --al these groups were well-known, had extensive webstie and evetns, clear radcial language, gave awards to terrorists at their annual dinners, for decades. H Rap Brown ran the AMC, twice, in fact. Now one of the cause celebres among most all opf these grousp who web pages dedicated to freeing him from his life sentences for cop killing. Twice on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list. Any idiot could have figured this stuff out, even an idiot savant as some apparently now want to call Grover to excuplate him.]]

It is an attempt to discredit those organization to stop religious conservatism of all types from organizing and gaining power and by the looks of this thread they may have succeeded.

[[No, it is a misguided attempt to play domestic votes and money counting games with foreign policy and national security using a groups of people who have no interest in domestic tranquility or our constitution but rather,and clearly want to abuse and then blow up each. The Arab and Muslim voter population that actually voted in the 2000 election turns out to be about 1%. (kinda shows why they could't even carry Spencer Abraham to victory in their most concentrated state). So, Let's GO FOR IT, What a cleverling idea that Grover had. Or was he a naif. I can't recall......

678 posted on 12/16/2003 10:09:21 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: Sabertooth
That IMV is the reason behind the attempted infiltration of Al-Arian and Awad and the others into the AMC and their attempts to infiltrate the Islamic Institute. It is an attempt to discredit those organization to stop religious conservatism of all types from organizing and gaining power and by the looks of this thread they may have succeeded.
I might add, the current president who is after all the one in charge here doesn't back down from attempted dsitruptions of his foreign policy. Whether it be Israel/Palistine, whether it be the resistance fighting of a few in Iraq or whether it be the attempted infiltration of his attempted puny little outreach program to conservative Muslims.

Expect to see Grover and this outreach to continue and expect to see any terrorists who may try to infiltrate their way in, get shown the legal options.

[Trollstomper]

My post 682 is a cut and paste error and not my message or work. Disregard

[A Navy Vet]

"We cannot win the war on terrorism without the help of the moderate Muslim community."

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...

[A Navy Vet]

"... their are two sides to every issue."

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.

[Trollstomper]

The Arab and Muslim voter population that actually voted in the 2000 election turns out to be about 1%. (kinda shows why they could't even carry Spencer Abraham to victory in their most concentrated state). So, Let's GO FOR IT, What a cleverling idea that Grover had. Or was he a naif. I can't recall......

ALL:
I made a mistake here. The Muslims who actually voted number should have been estimated, as the 2002 congressional elections figure from the Roper Center, "as about .3 percent." This makes the point stronger of course, additional to showing that it is so small as to be difficult to reliably measure, and too far below the margin of error for survey research/polling which is normally expressed as + or - 3. to 5.% Even then assuming that this is a 'block' -- one with common views on something fancied as "Muslim issues" shared across Pakistanis, Black Americans converts and Iranians -- the GOP could only expect to do as well as it does with, say White women, and get around half of this 'block.'

Wow.

[Nick Danger]

Detailing the Islamist ties of Grover Norquist = accusing President Bush of treason?

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:

...in another one of those darned coincidences, Othman just happens to be on the Board on at least one of Yaqub Mirza's investment funds (other Mirza funds you might have heard of include MENA Invesments, MarJac--both raided -- and a little thing called the Ptech Investment Fund, which funded, along with designated global terrorist Yasin Qadi, the software company Ptech raided and closed last year in Boston for a variety of terrorism charges. see endnote.) Now might it bother someone that this Othman guy joins the Board of a fund run by a terrorist finance wiz, who also funded Norquist buddy Al Arian and Grover's Institute (Institute took at least $46,000 before 9/11 from this source).

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:

why did you leave out Salem from you rewite of my posting? Is it b/c he really was the lawyer for a terrorist fund, and he really did deliver $250k for the campaign,and he really is an old Bush 1 person and he really was head of Arab-Americans for Bush...

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:

and he really did give a little money to Grover and all that is a little harder for you to dismiss than b/c you don't know as much about Mirza?

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.

[bvw]

Well you didn't answer my question. And I asked it, because you had asked it of another, and in my opinion, it is always a *bad* question.

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.

[Sabertooth]

*Detailing the Islamist ties of Grover Norquist = accusing President Bush of treason?

No sir, and stop being disingenuous about it.

Heal thyself. That's exactly the false simile you're cobbling together...

"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."
-- Nick Danger

...and you're about to prove it, with a false analogy...

Our mystery correspondent is detailing precisely the same sort of "Islamist ties" with George W. Bush that he been detailing with Mr. Norquist.

Did you notice your use of the word "ties?" It's plural. More on that in a bit, among other things.

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.

How quaintly conspiratorial.

No one sends me anywhere. If you'd done your homework (and there's really no excuse for your omission, given that we're approaching post #700), and clicked on FR keywords like NORQUIST, GROVERNORQUIST, ENEMYWITHIN, KAHLEDSAFFURI, SIDDIQI, SUHAILKHAN, ALITULBAH, GAFFNEY, ISLAMICINSTITUTE, AMC, MPAC, NCPPF, and not a few others, you'd know that I've been all over these threads, with hundreds of posts, articles, excerpts, and links. I was doing this long before Trollstomper ever even registered on this site, and long before you showed much of an interest in the material.

By the way, you've accused me of lying. Have you been able to refute a thing that's been posted?

I suggest you put up or shut up, Nick. Show where I've "lied."

Let's stop lying about what this guy is doing, OK? Here is a quote from his note, not mine:

...in another one of those darned coincidences, Othman just happens to be on the Board on at least one of Yaqub Mirza's investment funds (other Mirza funds you might have heard of include MENA Invesments, MarJac--both raided -- and a little thing called the Ptech Investment Fund, which funded, along with designated global terrorist Yasin Qadi, the software company Ptech raided and closed last year in Boston for a variety of terrorism charges. see endnote.) Now might it bother someone that this Othman guy joins the Board of a fund run by a terrorist finance wiz, who also funded Norquist buddy Al Arian and Grover's Institute (Institute took at least $46,000 before 9/11 from this source).

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.

That's it?

You said: "Our mystery correspondent is detailing precisely the same sort of "Islamist ties" with George W. Bush that he been detailing with Mr. Norquist."

You plucked a single paragraph about President Bush's contact with Othman some years ago, and how Othman later went on to have pro-terror affiliations. Then you compared that to the yards of column inches that have been posted about Norquist's activities with several indicted terrorists (Al Arian and Alamoudi, for starters), terror symps, and terror orgs, and you concluded that means that President Bush and Grover Norquist have "precisely the same sort of 'Islamist ties.'"

To you, one is "precisely the same" as the other?

As you jump off the ledge of logic, I hope your bungie cord stretches as far. There is no equating what's known about Norquist with your attempt to stage a little "gotcha" against a new poster who makes you uncomfortable.

Additionally, what we have in Norquist are not only Islamist ties that are flagrant, and in many cases ongoing, and in the context of September 11th, but also a clear lack of contrition, dissembling, and race-baiting.

We have none of that in President Bush, nor is anyone suggesting that we will.

Finally, who has accused Norquist of treason? No one.

Yet you have the cheek to say:

"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."

Sheesh.

You've been drawing from the same bag-o-nothing the entire thread. You don't address facts, or substance; you attack the messenger, and you're doing it in just the same way the Norquist has, equating criticism of him with criticism of President Bush.

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.

If you want to cut the crap, then cut it.

If you think other people are posting crap, then demonstrate it.

You're months behind the curve on this, but go ahead, work the search engine a bit, see what you can do. The obvious conclusion from the totality of your posts on this thread, Nick, is that you, in point of fact, don't know what you're talking about with regard to this subject.

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.

This is just an ad hominem rant. You're out of your depth here, and swimming with a tinfoil scuba tank.

You're usually a sharp poster. This thread has not been your finest hour. You need to do the homework, get up to speed on this story, and try again.

You entered this thread because of the Free Republic Network's connections to Grover Norquist. You reflexively wanted to defend him, which is not unadmirable on it's own. He's done right by you, and you feel grateful.

Soon, however, you were singing from the Rahm Emmanuel Tactical Hymnal.

You want to play attack the messenger?

Fair enough. Here's the lense through which every one of your posts on this thread ought to be viewed:

"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

Or, if you like, you can get in the real game, and post something of substance.

[EverFree]

(Norquist) refuses to judge minorities by objective standards.
Minorities often act against the long term interest of society and themselves because of short-term decisions.

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.

[EverFree]

Norquist is no tranzi

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.

[diotima]

Fair enough. Here's the lense through which every one of your posts on this thread ought to be viewed:

"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.

[EverFree]

"He is ignorant of the charges because he refuses to see them."
the human ability of self-deception is astounding.

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.

[EverFree]

The average Paleoconservative has as much disdain for Reason Magazine as they do for the Weekly Standard.
Paleos support tariffs.
You seem rather ignorant of Paleoconservatism. May I suggest that you look up the "Chronicle" symposium on the history and ideological underpinnings of paleoconservatism?

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.

[EverFree]

So we have an unsubstantiated claim of a conspiracy that occurred sometime in a decade.

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*)

[EverFree]

It's like Ivy Blizzard up in here. Ping.

[JohnGalt]

LOL, 600+ posts on this thread, and Perle gets richer.

BTW, You both butchered us paleocons.

We prefer tariffs to direct taxation, though some support protective tariffs and others support simply charging foreigners for the enforcement of contracts. Most of us have given up on our system of government, but most of us still recognize the importance of having 'good men' in the Executive office-- we are patriots after all.

[EverFree]

Sorry for the butchery, and thanks for standing up for them.
The tariff and open border issues are not small, but don't libertarians tend to be more Paleo, with respect to Sovereignty, than RMlew would suggest?

[JohnGalt]

There is a right and left amongst libertarians as well, but that is entirely different discussion.

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.

[EverFree]

l's and p's both subscribe to the state/antistate dichotomy; I noticed RMlew trying to bog down that main point in details. He seems to be a 3rd camper, in hchutch's trichotomy

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