About a week ago, Ed Morrissey, who’s said some very stupid, bizarre things that have angered me before, went and wrote a post on Hot Air in which he praised Grover Norquist for tax reform. Robert Spencer was quite right to counter him, as he did, wh….

A week or so ago Ed Morrissey put up a post at Hot Air lauding Grover Norquist for his work for tax reform. I added this comment: Grover Norquist has been responsible, more than any other individual, for the infiltration……

Norquist will also be remembered as someone who has labored intensely to keep the southern border wide open and the cheap illegal labor flowing. So one monster question must be answered, “why would someone with close ties to radical Islam work so hard to keep the southern border porous and unprotected”? If you came to the same conclusion that I did you’re probably breaking out in a cold sweat about now. Here’s some more: (Link)
Darvin Dowdy

Put it to him, Ed.

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. (from the article provided by Dr. Spencer)

This is very disturbing. Actually I know nothing of Norquist except that his name comes up in conservative circles. Have conservatives been fooled again and allowed a wolf in sheep’s clothing into our midst? It sure sounds like it.

It’s a fair bet that Grover’s addressing this conservative bloggers’ conference is a good indication of why you and I were not.

Best
Robert

FYI, Grover got the NRA to disinvite me (they later re-invited me) from speaking at their convention because he was upset that I wrote about Sami Al-Arian’s Islamic Jihad activities. Again, Ed, sickening that you fawn over this pan-Islamist lout.

What the heck was he doing at a right-wing blogging conference? A jihadist blogging conference keynote address would be more appropriate for this bearded–in many ways– scumbag.

Islam cannot be dealt with…its founder was not a moderate. Its practices when followed are not moderate.

I don’t go around saying we need to deal with “moderate” muslims. I say we need to deal with those Muslims who are only muslim in name, like so many Christians. Though Christuians don’t have the example of thier founder to lead them astray.

Grover is a snake…

Islamists = bad
taxes = bad

Not that difficult, Grover!

Sure, it is great to reach out to moderate Muslims. It is also great not to be fooled by false moderates, as Norquist was — unless he knew what they were about all along.

What’s the point of reaching out to any Muslim if, by this statement, even the ones who are “moderate” are out to destroy the American political system?

I don’t read the statement that way. Where do you see it saying that every self-proclaimed moderate is out to do this? But do you deny, even after the careers of Alamoudi and Al-Arian, and the well-known record of CAIR, that many who are widely known as moderates are indeed engaged in such an effort?

The continuing general ignorance among conservatives of the political aspects of Islam, and of the efforts by Islamic jihadists to impose political Islam, piece by piece, over the West, can largely be attributed to the baneful influence of Norquist.

What’s the point of reaching out to any Muslim if, by this statement, even the ones who are “moderate” are out to destroy the American political system?

It’s unlikely that they would have shouted “Allahu akbar” and declared their thirst for jihad at the Weddnesday meetings. But Norquist’s record is clear: Alamoudi, Al-Arian, Khaled Saffuri, etc. etc. etc. If he had sponsored individuals and groups that had taken their place alongside other American political individuals and groups and worked within the political process, then one could say that opposition to his efforts was sheer bigotry and a foolish attempt to marginalize moderate Muslims. But his proteges haven’t exactly done that.

ConstantSorrow on July 19, 2008 at 2:51 PM

I interned at ATR and had regular contact with more than a few of the Muslims who he’d reached out to. They seemed just as conservative as anyone else at the Wednesday meetings, and usually far less crazy.

Precisely. His chief clients were Alamoudi, now serving 25 years in prison on terror-finance charges, and Al-Arian, who led Palestinian Islamic Jihad from the U. of South Florida.

While I would acknowledge the controversies to which Dr. Spencer refers (and would love to host a debate on that between Robert and Grover!)

There are indeed principles he and I could debate, but the Gaffney article to which I linked contains facts that are not in question. Nevertheless, I would be happy to debate him, but given what I referred to above about his influence in sidelining and marginalizing Islamorealistic voices, I would be very surprised if Grover Norquist ever agreed to such a debate.