Pierre Legrand’s Pink Flamingo Bar

R. Emmett Tyrrell is shocked, SHOCKED I tell you that Linda Chavez is not a big fan of Grover “Arabist” Norquist.  Here is a snippet from his Article over at the American Spectator. Course I am shocked that neither of them made any mention of Grover Norquist’s scary alliances with terrorists and their enablers. What a shame it is to see a magazine that I have absolutely loved get caught up in the adoration of a man whose loyalties must be suspect.

Linda Chavez, that perennial conservative talking head, was being interviewed about American politics, when, of a sudden, she did something quite jarring. She referred to conservative activist Grover Norquist in chill terms suggesting that this Grover Norquist is an obscure figure somewhere out on the margins of politics. Her condescension further suggested that Chavez does not approve of this fellow, Norquist. The American Spectator

Well gee Emmett there are quite a few people of the conservative bent who are not that enamored with Mr. Norquist. After all we are still just a bit upset about the downing of a couple of buildings in Downtown NY, the attack on the Pentagon and the lonely hole in the ground that marks the hallowed ground of hero’s in Shanksville. We don’t blame Grover but we do hold those he has always protected to be at fault. So even though he has forgotten and failed to follow through on his own words, we have remembered President Bush’s speech of 9/20/2001.

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.  Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.  (Applause.)  From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. (emphasis mine)

We are just a bit miffed that Grover Norquist gives aid and comfort to our enemies. If there were any justice in this world he would be at least disgraced if not arrested for his associations. Btw, we are not that pleased that President Bush seems unable to admit that Islam is the Problem…not the solution.

For instance this blog just published a post that links to a damning article by PJ Media regarding the Islamist infiltration into the Department of Defenses most secret programs. In that article we pointed out how hard it would be to weed these folks out of the Government when the President himself was “outreaching” to them while the buildings in NYC were still smoldering. Witness this picture taken just days afterwards with President Bush surrounded by terrorists and their enablers. The picture below is a little soiree arranged by Grover.

Here is a description of this lovefest from “GROVER NORQUIST’S STRANGE ALLIANCE WITH RADICAL ISLAM November 01, 2001 by Franklin Foer”. Hat tip to Powerline and Scott Johnson’s article The lies of Grover Norquist the same person that Tyrrell is so enamored by. Take it away Franklin Foer of the New Republic:

On the afternoon of September 26, George W. Bush gathered 15 prominent Muslim- and Arab-Americans at the White House. With cameras rolling, the president proclaimed that “the teachings of Islam are teachings of peace and good.” It was a critically important moment, a statement to the world that America’s Muslim leaders unambiguously reject the terror committed in Islam’s name.

Unfortunately, many of the leaders present hadn’t unambiguously rejected it. To the president’s left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas “freedom fighters.” Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that “we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.” And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans, “America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come.” Days later, after a conservative activist confronted Karl Rove with dossiers about some of Bush’s new friends, Rove replied, according to the activist, “I wish I had known before the event took place.”

If the administration was caught unaware, it may be because they placed their trust in one of the right’s most influential activists: Grover Norquist. As president of Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist is best known for his tireless crusades against big government. But one of Norquist’s lesser-known projects over the last few years has been bringing American Muslims into the Republican Party. (snipped for brevity)

Norquist denies being involved in “micromanaging the specifics” of White House meetings, but admits “I have been a long time advocate of outreach to the Muslim community.“  (emphasis mine)

Further down this excellent article:

Since September, not surprisingly, conservatives once willing to overlook Norquist’s alliances have more aggressively aired their grievances. Consider William Murray, head of the Religious Freedom Coalition. He had considered Norquist a comrade, but now makes no secret of his displeasure. “Grover has a very liberated view of Islamic nations,” says Murray, somewhat hyperbolically. “So they behead people in the public square. He thinks that’s their business. Hey, it’s no big deal to have people beheaded for religious crimes.” Weyrich, too, has made his unhappiness a matter of public record: “I’m afraid Grover’s woefully naive.” Even Norquist’s weekly confab has become the scene of internecine fighting. At a session earlier this month, Frank Gaffney questioned the presence of terrorist sympathizers at the White House. Norquist exploded, accusing Gaffney of smearing Muslims. Later he choked up as he addressed the meeting and asked Gaffney to stand up and join him in condemning anti-Muslim bigotry. (emphasis mine)

Speaking of Frank Gaffney he launched a devastating attack against Grover, published in David Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine site, after which there can be no more excuse for considering this Norquist person a part of anything important inside of conservativism. So devastating an attack is it that one must wonder if Tyrrell may be afflicted with Alzheimer’s how else to explain how he could miss all of the conservatives that have lined up against his hero. David Horowitz has a long explanation of why Front Page ran this article. One of the more telling parts is this one:

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. (emphasis mine)

Then Frank Gaffney himself launches. Here are some snippets to give you a taste but by all means read the entire article. Did Tyrrell miss this?

Most in the audience were surely unaware that the effect of their tribute – if not its organizers’ intended purpose – was to provide urgently needed political cover for a man who has been active on another, far less laudable and, in fact, deeply problematic front: Enabling a political influence operation to advance the causes of radical Islamists, and targeted most particularly at the Bush Administration. The growing influence of this operation – and the larger Islamist enterprise principally funded by Saudia Arabia – has created a strategic vulnerability for the nation, and a political liability for its President.

Mr. Gaffney outlines the financial ties that bind Grover to the terror enablers, then he details Grover’s efforts to disable key laws used to track and prosecute terrorists and their enablers. For instance:

Obstructing Justice

Al-Arian’s arrest was made possible by the USA-PATRIOT Act. With this legislation’s enactment after 9/11, it became possible for the first time in decades, for U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share sensitive information – such as the voluminous wiretaps of Sami al-Arian coordinating Palestinian Islamic Jihad operations from his professor’s office in Tampa.

Not surprisingly, the Islamist front recognizes the threat this and other provisions of the PATRIOT Act represent to their operations in America. They are determined to rescind it and, if possible, remove its principal architect and most effective defender, Attorney General John Ashcroft. Accordingly, they have become an integral part of the left-wing coalition, which includes the ACLU, the pro-Castro National Lawyers Guild and many Islamic “solidarity” groups, in waging a national campaign against the PATRIOT Act. It seems hardly coincidental that the preeminent conservative figure to join the campaign and lead the recruitment of other conservatives is Grover Norquist.

In fact, Norquist was also a prime-mover behind efforts to secure one of the Islamists’ top pre-9/11 agenda items: the abolition of a section of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act that permits authorities to use what critics call “secret evidence.” This is a rarely employed practice whereby prosecutors can withhold classified information from foreign suspects. To do so, however, the authorities must have reason to believe the disclosure of such information could compromise – and, thereby, eliminate – the sensitive intelligence “sources and methods” by which it was obtained.

Did Emmett Tyrrell disagree with these terrible accusations? If so in what fashion? What in particular is untrue or inaccurate and does it explain the terrible ties of this supposed friend of the United States. Hasn’t our war discredited the arguments of the so-called Arabists inside of Government? Haven’t the actions of those who support Islam explained themselves in enough detail that we should know they mean us no good? Why for instance does the President of the United States still find it a good idea to hold hands with a Saudi King?

At which point do we start holding true to those words of President Bush that I quoted in the first part of this article?  

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.  Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.  (Applause.)  From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. (emphasis mine)

When do we start holding to account, not only those who commit terror but also those folks who support the results of terror, not only with money, training, and haven but with the most important support of all in an ideological war, moral support. We are in an ideological war, our bullets are not as important as our will to continue the fight. Folks like Grover Norquist are working to destroy that will and that is far more dangerous than many sorts of terror attacks. We lose when trying to stop a terror attack and we tragically lose perhaps thousands of lives, but the attack steels our resolve to fight back. Lose our will and we lose the country and because we are the last man standing in the world, we lose the world. Gee Emmett that seems to be somewhat more important than mere taxes.

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

Stumble It!