Posted on 05/09/2005 7:38:49 AM PDT by Tree of Liberty
Is Grover Norquist an Islamist? Paul Sperry, author of the new book, Infiltration, in an interview calls Grover Norquist "an agent of influence for Islamists in Washington." When asked by FrontPageMag.com why a Republican anti-tax lobbyist should so passionately promote Islamist causes, Sperry implied that Norquist has converted to Islam: "He's marrying a Muslim, and when I asked Norquist if he himself has converted to Islam, he brushed the question off as too ‘personal.'" As Lawrence Auster comments on this exchange, "Clearly, if Norquist hadn't converted to Islam, or weren't in the process of doing so, he would simply have answered no."
Indeed, Norquist married Samah Alrayyes, a Palestinian Muslim, on April 2, 2005, and Islamic law limits a Muslim woman to marrying a man who is Muslim. This is not an abstract dictum but a very serious imperative, with many "honor" killings having resulted from a woman ignoring her family's wishes.
Alrayyes has radical Islamic credentials of her own; she served as communications director at the Islamic Free Market Institute, the Islamist organization Norquist helped found. Now, she is employed as a public affairs officer at the U.S. Agency for International Development – and so it appears that yet another Islamist finds employment in a branch of the U.S. government.
Norquist has for some years now been promoting Islamist organizations, including even the Council on American-Islamic Relations; for example, he spoke at CAIR's conference, "A Better America in a Better World" on October 5, 2004. Frank Gaffney has researched Norquist's ties to Islamists in his exhaustive, careful, and convincing study, "Agent of Influence" and concludes that Norquist is enabling "a political influence operation to advance the causes of radical Islamists, and targeted most particularly at the Bush Administration."
But if Norquist is indeed a convert to Islam, it could be that he is not just enabling the Islamist causes but is himself an Islamist. (April 14, 2005)
bttt
Interesting.
Grover Norquist will carry water for anyone who's willing to pay him. It's no big secret (it has been reported in the Wall Street Journal) that for years he has been snugly in the pocket of Frank Sherry, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum, which represents immigration lawyers, advocates open borders and has been scheming for more than a decade to ensure that no stricter immigration laws get passed, and that another amnesty bill does. I would like to know how much money Frank Sherry has provided ol' Grover with since the beginning of their collaboration.
** Is Grover Norquist an Islamist? **
Yes.
One slight modification here: Another Islamofascist Mole
Creepy.
It's like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Is the Pope Cath.....
Oh, I forgot, that's no longer a rhetorical question.
Send him to Gitmo.
I used to respect Norquist for his efforts to reform the income tax, but he's lost ALL credibility with me by becoming one of the Devil's own.
Yes. Next question.
He is also a member of the NRA Board of Directors. Re-elected in 2003 for another 3 year term...
Now now, there's no need to sneak anti-Catholic bigotry onto EVERY thread.
Do you have any info on why that was allowed to happen?
Interesting.
Lately most every time I hear Bush on domestic policy I hear the influence of Norquist.
However, in the post Sept. 11,2001 environ, his statements on the various TV shows made me sick. He seemed to be almost trying to justify actions of Islamokazies.
In Spring, 2003, he was re-elected to NRA Board (sans my vote) and will run again in 2006. Unfortunately, many NRA members don't vote, or don't pay attention to whom they vote for...Only Life members and those with 5 years continuous membership are eligible to vote in NRA elections.
He turned out to be a profound disappointment...
I wonder what his Islamic name is?
You know, after I posted that I realized that someone would come along and completely miss the point.
The joke goes (since you've been under a rock since Benedict was elected) that, seeing how suprised the liberals were that the Cardinals actually had the temerity to elect a REAL Catholic as Pope, the old joke "Is the Pope Catholic?" wasn't really a rhetorical question.
Feel free to ping me if you need any more jokes deciphered.
I wondered later how you had meant that comment. But the meaning was unclear at best IMO, with the most direct interpretation being that "Is the Pope Catholic?" is a question to be taken seriously. There is hardly a rhetorical question out there that wouldn't have "confused" people taking it seriously -- to govern your humor by what those folks consider rhetorical only makes for confusion when presented to right-thinking people.
If you really think that, you need to get out more often. It is a common meme.
Here's a hint for next time Sparky, if someone asks you "Does a bear s*#t in the woods?", PLEASE don't attempt to actually follow one to find out.
But as I said earlier, if you have any more trouble with these difficult questions, let me know.
LOL! It's good to be able to give a fully affirmative answer to that question (about the Pope, that is).
As for Grover, I suspect it's an affirmative answer, too, although considering the power he has in DC, this is not a good thing.
Fully affirmative and emphatic!
Top Vatican Cardinal: Gay Marriage is "A Crime Which represents the Destruction of the World"
Nice to see not everyone around here is humor-impaired.
;-)
Apparently you don't understand that that is precisely my point -- the rhetorical is NOT something to be taken seriously, and your comment seemed to say that you thought "Is the Pope Catholic" SHOULD be taken seriously. If you had a little more skill at communication you would possibly have managed to write something funny and perhaps even may not have been an ass about it when your poorly constructed comment was misconstrued.
If you need any more lessons on writing, humor, and manners, I'm here for ya bub.
Only for the hyper-sensitive humor-impaired who have been living under a rock for the past month. For the rest of us, it's already an old joke.
If you had a little more skill at communication you would possibly have managed to write something funny and perhaps even may not have been an ass about it when your poorly constructed comment was misconstrued.
Oh yes, I can see the irate posts just littering the thread.
Look around Sparky, you're the only one who didn't get it.
You know, most of the people around here have the good sense to stop digging once the hole they've dug is over their head.
Here's some advice, STOP DIGGING.
I guess for some people being an ass is a point of pride. G'night :)
Sherry-Norquist
Islam- Norquist
Very interesting!
Frabj Gaffney has been saying this for quite a while.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002145.html
Lawrence Auster has a great blog!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/986542/posts
An oldie but goodie.
Heh, I was just watching this question being asked of Paul Sperry author of "Infiltration" on C-Span2. Interesting. President Bush should be given the heads up.
Sperry just said the Muslim leaders always condemn killing "innocent civilians". He said that's the catch. They don't consider non-Muslims innocent. He said you'll never hear them saying that they condemn killing non-Muslims.
LOL I'm watching Paul Sperry too! Great program that makes CSPAN worthwhile
AS Don Adams would say --> It's the old innocent civilians trick!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.