Are Arizona Conservatives that naive about Grover Norquist?

Plenty of political unrest brewing over an event scheduled Thursday night featuring the President of Americans for Tax Reform and founder of the Islamic Free Market Institute, Grover Norquist.

National security advocates including Pamela Geller, David Horowitz and Frank Gaffney have all been very vocal in their opposition to Norquist’s standing in the conservative movement.

In March, 2010, Pamela Geller wrote an article for American Thinker:

Grover Norquist’s ties to Islamic supremacists and jihadists have been known for years. He and his Palestinian wife, Samah Alrayyes — who was director of communications for his Islamic Free Market Institute until they married in 2005 — are very active in “Muslim outreach.” Just six weeks after 9/11, TheNew Republic ran an exposé explaining how Norquist arranged for George W. Bush to meet with fifteen Islamic supremacists at the White House on September 26, 2001 — to show how Muslims rejected terrorism. (read entire article, “Grover Norquist Jihad.”)

Over a year ago, Founder and President of The Center for Security Policy, Frank Gaffney, issued the following video warning and challenge:

And here is what David Horowitz had to say about Norquist as recent as February 12th of this year during his keynote at CPAC 2011:

Arizona advocates for strong national security and border security policy should be more than a little concerned about Norquist’s appearance at this casual Republican event tomorrow night. Friends of Israel should be even more alarmed that the Norquist soiree will hoodwink more conservatives into a false sense of peace and security regarding our single most important ally in the Middle East.

Those Arizona conservatives who venture to show at tomorrow night’s Norquist event should ask Mr. Norquist the hard questions. At at time when the country is debating the proper burial treatment by the Obama Administration of the most notorious terrorist in history, someone ought to press Mr. Norquist on his sensitivities and sensibilities in the battle against Islamic terrorism.



  1. Tiny Elvis says

    And let’s not forget Grover’s ties to Jack Abramoff:

    There’s actually a pretty interesting examination of Abramoff, Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist and how they all came through the College Republicans at the same time in the documentary “Casino Jack.”

  2. He’s also on the board of GOProud, the gay, lesbian and transsexual group.

  3. Anti-Jihad Arizona Mom says
  4. Head Clouter says

    Keep in mind that Grover endorsed McCain over Hayworth. He also holds weekly center-right coalition meetings in D.C. That’s not a conservative coalition meeting, but it does include squishy moderates.

  5. John Adams says

    Grover Norquist is becoming very ‘squishy’ with the Ron Paul campaign, cozying up to them at the 2011 CPAC Conference.. NumbersUSA’s President Roy Beck recently rated Paul an ‘F’ due to his very public 180 degree turn from protecting our borders and controlling illegal immigration to embracing the Libertarian Party platform which promotes unlimited immigration of people across our borders into the US.. Here is a quote from Part 3.4 Free Trade and Migration:

    “Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.”

    But the real issue of Grover Norquist is his unabashed support of all things Sharia in America via his support for radical Islamists who, under cloak of deception preach ‘peace’, all the while waging war against the very freedoms granted to us by the “Creator”. The former Communist and now conservative David Horowitz has endorsed Frank Gaffney’s repudiation of Grover.

    It is extremely easy to make the connenction between the ‘open borders’ libertarians and the Sharia in America movement, that Norquist’s associates promote. In both, the goal is to demolish our national sovereignty and identity, in favor of either a ‘global economy’ and ‘global governance, OR Sharia Law.

  6. If the “big tent” of the Republican party is too small for the guy who said he wanted to shrink government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub”, then the Republican Party is irrelevant.

    Gaffney, Horowitz and Geller are crusading neo-cons who constantly agitate for bigger government and international expansion and intervention, i.e. they have a non-conservative foreign policy and they advocate for increasingly larger police states at home.

    There’s room for them in the Repubican party and in polite conservative circles … but they are more and more teetering toward the Police State (Big Government) loving nutty fringe.

    So Grover is working hard to moderate Islam, and raising the profile of moderate Muslims so that they, and not the hard-liners, are the ones defining the future of the middle east, and you have a problem with that?

    I’ll stick with Grover, thanks …

  7. @John Adams … you are on the wrong side of History. NumbersUSA is a neo-Malthusian cult. Ron Paul realized the error of his ways. Good for him.

    Free markets means free markets in labor. It doesn’t mean amnesty, but it should mean we have a policy of inbound migration and letting labor migrate to where it’s most needed. Build the fence so that it lets more of the right people in, not keep everyone out.

    It constantly amazes me how the unions have hoodwinked “conservatives” on this issue.

  8. Phillip the Great says

    Let me ignore the side story and say that labor and capital move away from uncertainty. Capital is easier to move than labor. Poor people have no capital and can choose instead to move their labor elsewhere. Mexico has much uncertainty. If they could figure out how to import capital they could stop exporting labor and thrive. Until then others, like the US, will import their labor and thrive instead, with much less risk to their capital.

  9. I like how you guys trash one of liberty’s fiercest defenders, and then give your adoration to white supremacists and defenders of Serbian national genocide.

  10. JackHammer says

    Not particularly wild about Grover regarding his Open Borders stance (perhaps responsible for the McCain endorsement)

    But along with Robert Novak, Pat Buichanan, Sam Francis, Paul Craig Robers, Jude Wanniski and shortly thereafter William Buckley he rightfully declined to support a mindless Interventionist foreign policy which has not benefitted the interests of this country abroad or at home.

    The current group of critics seem to be nothing more than shills for the American Enterprise Institute and Project for the New American Century. The “muscular Wilsonianism” which they push in their publications has turned into a pathetic farce.

    “Neo-Conservatism” has delivered very little to America’s well-being and is little more than a drain which strengthens our enemies abroad and bankrupts us at home.

    You don’t defeat “nanny” statism at home by dumping it on others abroad.

    If Grover has recognized this fact, he’s a much wiser and therefore more solidly patriotic individual than his critics, especially the gaggle presented in the above article.

Leave a Reply