Norquist Repudiates Romney-Ryan on Defense

On Monday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, were sharply criticized over their commitment to reverse massive budget cuts Team Obama is making at the expense of our military capabilities and national security.

What made this attack notable – and potentially very damaging to the GOP standard-bearers – is that it came, not from the Democrats, but from a prominent Republican political operative, Grover Norquist.  It is hard to see how his contention that Messrs. Romney and Ryan can’t be trusted to spend wisely on defense will help anybody but their opponents.

In remarks to the bipartisan Center for the National Interest, Norquist threw down the gauntlet to the Republican ticket. He declared he would fight defense spending increases, or even relief from the next, debilitating round of cuts.  These amount to a further half-a-trillion dollars in across-the-board cuts over ten years under what has been called a “doomsday mechanism” known on Capitol Hill as “sequestration.” What makes matters much worse is that these cuts come on top of nearly $800 billion in Pentagon budget reductions already in the pipeline – a fact the anti-tax activist studiously ignores.

For a guy whose ostensible expertise is domestic economic matters, it is doubly surprising that Grover Norquist fails to recognize another disastrous effect these enormous reductions in defense spending will have – on employment and communities all over the country.  Estimates run as high as 1 million jobs lost and $59 billion in direct lost earnings and $86.4 billion in gross state product in the first year alone.  (For a detailed analysis of the impact by congressional district, see the Defense Breakdown Reports at www.FortheCommonDefense.org/reports.)

What Norquist did do, however, is directly take on the GOP ticket by opining that “Other people need to lead the argument on how can conservatives lead a fight to have a serious national defense without wasting money,” Norquist said. “I wouldn’t ask Ryan to be the reformer of the defense establishment.”

The question occurs:  Just who does Grover Norquist think would be better suited to be stewards of the “defense establishment” and the national security it is charged with providing?  Having no expertise on these matters himself, in whom does he have more confidence than the people the Republican Party hopes will lead this nation for the next four years?

Based on Grover Norquist’s past history advising the last Republican administration (see www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), several candidates come to mind, as noted in this CSPAN interview with moderate Muslim Stephen Suleyman Schwartz:

  • Abdurahman Alamoudi:  Alamoudi is a top Muslim Brotherhood operative and al Qaeda financier with whom Grover Norquist joined forces in 1998 to launch a Brotherhood front called the Islamic Free Market Institute.  Alamoudi’s purpose was, with Norquist’s considerable help, to run influence operations inside the conservative movement and Republican circles, including notably the George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign.  Alamoudi should be available to help reorder our defenses as he is currently serving hard time in Supermax on terrorism-related charges.
  • Sami al-Arian:  Al-Arian also went to federal prison, in his case for running a designated terrorist organization, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, from his professor’s office at the University of South Florida.  But not before Grover Norquist helped him meet with Candidate Bush in March 2000 and subsequently extract from Mr. Bush a public commitment that, if elected, he would work to eliminate a key counter-terrorism tool: the confidential use of classified information in deportation proceedings against illegal aliens (like al-Arian’s brother-in-law, Mazen al-Najjar) so as to protect such intelligence from compromise.
  • Nihad Awad:  The co-founder of an aggressive Muslim Brotherhood front and Hamas fund-raising vehicle, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) also benefitted from Norquist’s help in gaining access to and running influence operations against the Bush ’43 team.  CAIR was listed in 2008 as an unindicted co-conspirator in the criminal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation on charges of providing material for terrorism.
  • Muzammil Siddiqi:  To conclude this partial listing, Grover Norquist could surely also call for assistance on Siddiqi, yet another top Muslim Brotherhood leader and an influential Islamist cleric.  After all, Siddiqi owes him: Norquist aided in securing for him the role of representative of the Muslim faith at the national ecumenical 9/11 memorial service on September 14, 2001.  The Norquist-Alamoudi team also arranged later that month for Siddiqi to present President Bush with a Quran on the occasion of a private meeting at the White House. Such legitimation advanced considerably the subversive agenda Siddiqi and his comrades pursued as part of what they call “civilization jihad” against America.

Or perhaps Grover Norquist would turn to people like Trita Parsi, who even the state-controlled Iranian media have depicted as part of the “Iran Lobby” in America.  He certainly did before:  In 2007, Norquist created with the help of his Palestinian-American wife, Samah, an anti-defense group called the American Conservative Defense Alliance (ACDA). (Samah served on ACDA’s board of directors and as its corporate secretary).  And ACDA, in turn, was a founder of the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI). ACDA’s address was that of Norquist’s ATR group, where CNAPI meetings were also held.

By 2008, CNAPI’s coalition was made up of more than 40 groups including: Parsi’s National Iranian American Council (NIAC), CAIR and other Islamists; many George Soros-funded radical leftist groups; and the Norquists’ vehicle for undermining the conservative stance on national security, ACDA.  Their common goals: to eliminate U.S. support for  the democracy activists opposed to the Tehran regime, to block  economic sanctions and to prevent any military action.

All these Norquist allies could, of course, be relied upon to back him in pressing for substantial cuts in U.S. defense expenditures.  They would presumably be happy, as Norquist put it Monday night, to join him in getting “the Republican Party…[to] reexamine the actual defense needs and then work from there to determine how much to spend.”

To be sure, a reexamination of those requirements as defined by Barack Obama is in order.  And our defense needs should indeed determine the resources applied to meet them.  But the nation – and most especially the Romney-Ryan campaign – can ill-afford to take advice from Grover Norquist and his friends, especially as it would obviously be predicated on dramatically reducing such military requirements.  It would also have the practical effect of making Obama’s ravaging of the nation’s defenses seem responsible.

At issue is not so much whether this Islamist-tied libertarian trusts Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to manage the nation’s national security needs.  What we need to know is whether the GOP candidates trust Grover Norquist – and will they henceforth open their doors to him and the bad company he keeps?

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • delores

    Grover Norquist IS a muslim apologist . That favors everything he says and does.

    • Rachel

      And not the first time he's been outed as an Islamist sympathizer. What IS it with some of these guys and their crush on barbarianism? Deferred Millennial Lunacy?

    • BS77

      Speaking of defense, if you listened to the Barbara Simpson show on radio, you would have heard total outrage at what is happening to our troops in Afghanistan. Afghan "trainees" are shooting our troops as soon as they get a loaded weapon. Over two thousand of our troops have been killed….thousands more maimed or injured for life in this, the longest war in US history. Lately, have you heard ONE WORD from our administration, from a Senator or a Congressman? Just silence. When we finally pull out of that hell hole, will there be a victory parade? A "victory" parade for the terrible war in Iraq? No, nothing like that….just sweep the war under the rug. The conduct of this war, the chaotic and seemingly meaningless strategy is unacceptable. Our troops have made the ultimate sacrifice and are virtually ignored. It is outrageous.

    • SoCalMike

      Dolores,
      He’s an agent of the jihadis and their supremacist allies like the Mo Bros.
      Dems and Repubes both know this but for Dems the impulse to suffer from Stockholm syndrome trumps common sense and national security where as cowardly Repubes tremble in fear a Democrat might call them racist or something.
      So Sell Out Norquist goes on unimpeded and unmolested.

  • Schlomotion

    In Frank Gaffney's extremely bizarre Zionist worldview, Republicans should all move in lockstep toward collapsing the economy by overspending on security infrastructure. Should any Republican step out of the hard line, he shall be accused of being an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Gaffney has a lot of audacity to refer to a reduction in spending of American tax dollars as "direct lost earnings." Large defense contractors, in his view, are entitled to "earn" this unfree market money and hire a wailer if the first fruits of America's hard-earned wealth get squelched in the slightest. The wailer, in the person of Mr. Gaffney will then proceed to whip up a scare about the looming threat of Islamism, and make good with the blacklist. He is allegedly a political analyst, but even he plays the Manichean divide between with us or with the terrorists, with Romney or with Obama, with Israel or with Palestine, with Beginite fascists or with the dreaded forces of Libertarianism and accountable government.

    Even John Bolton and the NRA have denounced Mr. Gaffney's tripe:
    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/02/12/4229

    • traeh

      Schlomotion, even if there is anything to your claims and the article you linked, what can you say about the Muslim writer Stephen Suleiman Schwartz, who in <a href="http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/173871-1/Stephen+Schwartz.aspx">this interview said

      Well, Grover Norquist is a very prominent fund-raiser, and what can I say, wheeler-dealer and fixer in the Republican Party, Republican circles and in the conservative movement. And Mr. Norquist is someone who had — prior to September 11, had cultivated the Muslim leadership in the United States, the Arab-American leadership in the United States, and had attempted to bring the American Muslim and Arab-American communities into the Republican camp, kind of as a parallel, I think, to the role of Jews in the Democratic Party. And he had formed an alliance which still he maintains with, essentially, the same group of people, the same Wahhabi, Saudi-backed radical Muslim figures who have had and had taken over and continue to exercise great influence in the leadership of the American Muslim community.

      Schwartz puts Norquist as an ally of Wahhabi Islam! That's Saudi Arabian style Islam. If that's not being allied with evil, nothing is. In the same interview, Schwartz also puts CAIR and ISNA as Wahhabist organizations! Something is not right with your position, Schlomo.

      • BS61

        Sorry – I mistakenly thumbs downed you for Schlomotion!

    • traeh

      The article you linked claims Bolton signed the document — but the article does not provide proof of that. It's certainly possible Bolton did sign it. Do you have proof though?

      • WildJew

        traeh, let me say something about former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. I am just now reading this Think Progress piece. One ACU letter Think Progress (TP) linked to was written September 21, 2011, signed by Cleta Mitchell, esq. The other, a resolution condemning Gaffney's charges was apparently adopted by the entire board of the American Conservative Union the same day, September 21, 2011. If Bolton was a member of the board then, I guess he signed on.

        Lots of folks in the conservative movement see Bolton as a hero. I've got his book on audio, "Surrender Is Not An Opition." During the 2006 (July – August) second Lebanon war, President Bush and his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice wanted to end hostilities by means of a United Nations resolution. Bush wanted Israel to retreat in the face of an on-going battle which began when Hezbollah did a cross border raid, capturing and then murdering two of Israel's soldiers. Hezbollah proceeded to fire rockets on Israel's northern cities. Rice and Bolton authored United Nations Resolution 1701, thereby handing a victory to Iran and her proxy Hezbollah. Bolton, since then defends his part in sponsoring the resolution.

        For John Bolton, surrender is apparently an option in some circumstances.

        One of the questions Cleta Mitchell ponders is this. If Suhail Kahn were a potential national security threat, why would he be given security clearance by none other than the George W. Bush administration, and more importantly by the FBI? Good question. If Huma Abedin posed any kind of a national security threat because of her and her family's long term ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, why would the FBI give Abedin security clearance?

    • Ghostwriter

      You never give up your vile anti-Jewish tirades,do you,Schlomoron?

    • BS61

      We are thinkers here – not like the group think of Think Progress – please provide a more credible source.

    • Andy Lewis

      Phuque off, ShlocKKKo.

    • PaulRevereNow

      So, why isn't this document–the resolution condemning Frank Gaffney, on the Amer. Conservative Union's web site? This alleged "document", a resolution condemning Gaffney, is a made-up phony document. Don't believe anythiing from thinkprogress.org says; they engage in the worst sort of lies and yellow journalism. JUST LAUGH!!

    • BS77

      Your extremely bizarre worldview is a pile of festering leftist garbage.

    • Choi

      Now that you mention it SCHLO TROLL, YOU CERTAINLY seem to be an Agent of the Muslim Brotherhood,a CYBER-AGENT TROLL specifically.

  • stevefraser

    Please tell me Mitt is not a hawk and won't ramp up the US Military with a bunch of crap they'll don't need and will never use….Please tell me Mitt will get us out of Korea, Okinawa, Iraq, Afganistan, Germany, and ….etc….And I'm a conservative that detests O.

    • Indioviejo

      If we would have wanted Ron Paul we would have voted for him and his lunacy.

      • stevefraser

        'Cept he's an ugly old man who could never get elected.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Moron Paul?

        The crazy uncle who live in the basement with WW2 SHlTler paraphernalia.

    • stevefraser

      Why the high negatives…OK, i'd suggest we just get out of Korea, Germany and Afganistan….and cut from the budget those weapons systems that are NOT robotic….Satisfied?

      • BS61

        I would first determine ff it costs less to have them stationed somewhere closer for flights. And personally, I'd not be backing off North Korea as all Presidents have been ignoring their nucliear threats.

        • Reason_For_Life

          We sell the South Koreans two nukes for every one that the North has. Problem solved for less than half a billion dollars.

    • Mike Nelson

      The US will not leave Okinawa or Korea they are foreard deployment areas that allow the US military to project force in the Pacific. We should leave Afganistan asap the country is filled with nutjobs that want to kill any one that is not like them. We are mostly out of germany we mostly use oir bases in Gerany as foward resuly bases and training areas and medical evacuation area for wounded troops from the middle east. Landstuck is one of the finest hospitals that the military has and has saved many service members lives.

      • Reason_For_Life

        "We are mostly out of germany "

        The only place that has more American troops deployed than Germany (52,000) is Afghanistan (107,000). Germany can easily take care of itself, if not, they can pay us for protection.

    • SKIP

      He won't do anything of the sort. And as far as that military equipment you think the military will not need or use! Well, there are and will be plenty of opportunities for the use of such stuff when the SHTF in the U.S. and the U.S. citizens become the defacto enemy of da gubment.

      • stevefraser

        But the Barbarians are already inside the gates of our Republic…..don't believe me? Come to California for a visit.

    • warpmine

      Haven't used those nuclear tipped ICBM's yet either. Should we have never built them.
      Nonsense, deterrence is a fact of life especially on this planet that is unless you relish enslavement.

    • BS61

      Why would we desert our allies? Hopefully Mitt is not like our current hateful, misinformed leader.

    • Reason_For_Life

      I can't lie to you, Mitt will spend more than anyone else even proposes to spend.
      http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/an-update-on-diffe

      In a few minutes we will hear that the Cato Institute consists of vicious Islamist anti-Semites because that's the charge against anyone who suggests a smaller defense budget could still keep America safe.

      If South Korea, Japan and Germany are under such enormous threats then they should be willing to pay to keep our troops there. Everyone knows if we even suggested that they pay us those governments would send our troops packing because they don't need us for defense. They want us there to support their economies and free them from the cost of defending themselves.

  • traeh

    Bernard Lewis, eminent historian of Islam and the Middle East, says Islam imposes, without limit of time or space, the duty to subjugate non-Muslims

    In The Political Language of Islam, p. 73:

    "…it is the duty of those who have accepted them [Allah's word and message] to strive unceasingly to convert or at least to subjugate those who have not. This obligation is without limit of time or space. It must continue until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the Islamic state.”

    • mlcblog

      Interesting.

    • BS61

      Unfortunately, Ron Paul supporters read only our history, not Islamic history!

  • cynthia curran

    Well, Grover is defended because of the tax cutting and NRA membership. Grover can be as bad as Ron Paul.

  • Jack Cramer

    Norquist lost my confidence completely when he climbed in bed with a number radical Muslims.

    • WildJew

      Norquist reportedly married a Palestinian Muslim woman. Is it possible Norquist converted to Islam?

      • Choi

        VERY POSSIBLE and even LIKELY.
        Note his BEARD which has been there SINCE he married her.
        Incidentally,she is the FIRST Palestinian Arab BLONDE woman most have ever seen.
        Something tells me she is NOT a NATURAL Blonde ,but is camoflauged look like an American "conservative".

    • SKIP

      He is also the one on the bottom!

  • Azzajews

    Not to make this personal, but Grover is married to a Muslim and when asked refuses to say whether he is a Muslim convert.

    • WildJew

      Woops. I just made it personal above.

    • SKIP

      A true muslim observant woman CANNOT MARRY a non muslim unless he converts to islam, what does that tell you. Of course, in that arena, one must take into account that it is permissable for muslims to lie to non muslims to further the muslim agenda.

  • WildJew

    What I do not understand is this. How can otherwise sensible people in the conservative movement sidle up to this enemy of America, to this friend of America's enemies? I think I read folks like Michele Bachmann, Allen West, Newt Gingrich and others, signed on to Norquist's tax pledge. Someone tell me I am wrong. Isn't there someone who is NOT an enemy of America who can champion an anti-tax pledge other than this friend of the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda? Why does anyone with integrity have anything to do with this evil man?

    • Arius

      I have also asked the same question.

    • stevefraser

      Because we are terrified the Fed Gov will tax us back to the Stone Age.,….Didn't Lenin say the best way to destroy the middle class is with taxes and inflation?

    • WilliamJamesWard

      "Why does anyone with integrity have anything to do with this evil man?, well WildJew we are
      talking about politicians and that is most of the answer as they look only to what is said and
      act on it as the voters are short on attention span. Ideas that sell to the voter are capital
      and that the coin is tainted is not a concern for the majority of players, I think like you I am
      thoroughly disgusted with most in government but hope for a better day and a true revolution
      of the voter against those who are become overlords rather than public servants.
      William

    • Choi

      Norquist has them BS'ed.
      Taxes are his TOOL to influence.
      If he was told he could have his way on ONE ISSUE ONLY,it would NOT be Taxes,but the Jihadist Agenda.
      One can be sure that Norquist's Anti-Tax BS is just that, BS .
      He certainly is NOT against Infidels PAYING JIZIYA

  • Jerry

    Read, 'THE COMING: A TRUE STORY OF HORROR' @ amazon.com. This book shows exactly what we are facing, and people like Norquist are filling their pockets with money from these oil rich nations while betraying the 'Real' Americans!

  • davarino

    I dont understand why Norq still has any influence in the Republican party. He is clearly a MB and Alkada shill. We all understand why he is so adamant about cutting military spending, and it aint to save money. I'm sure he and Huma Abadin give a big high five when ever they run into each other in the halls of congress or the WH.

    • EthanP

      It's nice to see, from other comments, that I'm not the only one who knows about Grovers Islamist ties.

      • davarin

        For some reason its not big news in the conservative camp. Its a real mystery why the republicans are so shy of outing these people, like Norq and Huma. Why would they demonize Michelle Bachman for questioning Huma's allegiance? Have the Repubs been infiltrated as well?

        • Arius

          Have the Republicans been infiltrated: yes.

        • BS61

          Obviously they only care about keeping their jobs and not being called out by the MSM! Disgusting!

      • Choi

        Far from it.
        It's COMMON KNOWLEDGE

  • jppc

    Grover is ok on tax issues but ………he has Mooooooslim sympathies and that just doesn't cut it in my book. Islam IS the problem and preventing more Mooooslims from immigrating to our country is one part of the solution.

  • cynthia curran

    Grover is even bad on tax issues. He is so much for tax cutting in the extreme that he will destroy the national defense by opposing closing loopholes. No conservative should have signed anything with Grover.

  • EthanP

    Norquist is an extreamist with a slash and burn attitude more like a leftist. He is a one issue demigog who attacks anyone that doesn't parrot his views. According to several outlets he also has close ties with a number of radical islamists.

  • Asher

    Only Idiots would cut National Defense in a time of extreme chaos, financial unrest, and violence everywhere. People get your heads out of the Sand…this administration has been gutting defense and national security since they got into office….They bring change alright….Total Catastrophe is more like it!

    • BS61

      Not an idiot – this is intentional!

  • Indioviejo

    Grover Norquist is an undercover Muslim, and this has been his game from the beginning. He uses his stand on taxes to infiltrate his political views in the arena. His real agenda is the destruction of America from within. To what end would an American wish to degrade our military power at the time we are engaged in a long war against an ideological Totalitarian enemy? Islam has been in expansion since Mohamed united the bloodthirsty dessert tribes.

  • mlcblog

    Great expose of the twerp. Thank you.

  • bry4321

    According to this author there are considerations of $500 bil in defense cuts on top of another $800 billion in already-planned cuts. If these numbers were accurate — and they're not — that would bring our defense budget to zero, I think. Please leave the phony baseline budgeting and "spending cuts destroy jobs" arguments to the Democrats!

    • BS61

      Actually – baseline budget talk is the way to go – however, it's clear to this former Dem, that it needs to be somewhere besides protecting us. The Pentagon is full of wasted tax payer bucks, but I don't support eliminating it – reform it. I oppose the Patriot Act, I oppose war's that Congress doesn't declare. But I'm all for fighting Muslims who want to kill us infidels, much like Thomas Jefferson.

  • Reason_For_Life

    "Estimates run as high as 1 million jobs lost and $59 billion in direct lost earnings and $86.4 billion in gross state product in the first year alone."

    Keynesian BS of the highest order. I think that it's hilarious that Keynesian multipliers are used by Republicans when trying to justify defense spending just like Democrats use them to justify "clean energy". Both parties accept Keynesian nonsense when it suits their purposes. That's one of the reasons that the upcoming election won't change much.

    The defense cuts are hardly a "doomsday mechanism" if all they amount to is reducing spending to 2007 levels. Don't you remember the triumphant Iranian armies marching through the Capitol back in '07? I don't either.

  • redwine

    Norquist is the one who needs to be repudiated by the Romney/Ryan team. He is a dangerous quisling and an apologist for islamofascist terror..

    • Arius

      You are correct.

  • C.R.

    Grover Norquist—-is not a conservative–he is married to a devout Muslim–which means he had to at least fain a conversion to Islam!

    • Lady_Dr

      Well, it is either personal or because he already agreed with the Muslim perspective it was easy for him to marry one. This association should automatically disqualify him from ANY consideration by the right.

  • Vespo08

    It's all hysteria by Norquist and Company. It makes you wonder who Norquist is really in bed with? Associates / Friends by the name of Alamoudi, Al-Arian, Souliman and Siddiqui should give pause to every American. It was Alamoudi who crafted the Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum – which said in part it's goal was to destroy the West from within and watch it's miserable house crumble.
    There are several billion dollars in cuts to the Sheik Obama State Dept alone earmarked to build and rebuild mosques in the Middle East and global climate change initiatives given to the U.N. you can stop immediately.
    Romney and Ryan are the perfect individuals to be budget hawks to stop the wasteful spending and show some fiduciary responsibility with taxpayer money.
    Islam is a threat to the U.S. and the Western Democracies. We should watch Norquist very closely and who he aligns himself with. It is very telling!

  • Jakareh

    Norquist is a liar and a traitor. Conservatives should write politicians requesting they have no dealings with Norquist. Whichever one persist in associating with him should be denied any form of support, whether votes or financial contribution.

    • BS61

      Shaming and mocking work for me!

  • WilliamJamesWard

    The debilitating effects of RHINO leftists can be very surprising but it has been with us for a long
    time. Norquist is a traitor to America and it amazes me that such a false individual could rise to
    prominence but he and they, leftist do because of a compromised media and government agencies
    that should have put a stop to him long ago. Leftist plants in Republican ranks are showing
    themselves as foils and blocks to leftist aggression towards our government, society and liberty.
    The question comes up, just how far must Americans go to rid ourselves of his ilk, one of the
    bywords of the sellouts is bipartisanship, a word that stinks to the high heavens of duplicity.
    ……..William

  • Hank Rearden

    We are not overspending on defense. Defense is running at about 5% of GDP, which is a norm for us. It is well below the level of defense spending during the Cold War, for instance. And, as Milton Friedman observed, it would be one thing if cuts in defense spending were returned to the public as a reduction in overall federal spending. But that will never happen, and is certainly not being proposed here. The world is a relatively safe place only because we patrol it. Where we do not patrol – Rwanda/Burundi; Darfur; Syria – there is out and out slaughter. I am not saying we should intervene in those cases, just illustrating what happens when we are not in charge.

    Norquist is not a spokesman for the Republican Party nor for conservatives. He has sailed off into the Muslim sunset and who knows what he is doing out there?

    We need to maintain a slice of the GDP for defense and 5% is about right. Lower than that and all our equipment starts to deteriorate. We could eliminate defense entirely and still not be close to balancing the budget.

  • Aaron Lester

    Grover Norquist is a major problem for us conservatives. On the one hand I agree with all his views on tax and defense policy. I am all for sequestration and against Mitt Romney’s call for even more spending. On the other hand, there is no denying his support for Islamic terrorist front groups and anti-Israel hate groups. He manages very nicely to swim the conservative waters and befriend every major conservative in America without these pro-Islamlic sentiments of his giving any pause to every Republican who signs his pledge. He is a major problem for us.

  • SKIP

    Of course Grover would complain about the possibility of reinstating military funding since he is a total advocate of islamic supremacy and would have the U.S. become sharia compliant just as Mayor Bloomberg of NYC would. See more info on this traitor on Pamela Geller's site www,atlasshrugs.com which, BTW is blocked to the military and contractors in the muddled east but NOT blocked on internet bootlegged from Iran! Go figure!

  • Kevin Bjornson

    If the charges against Norquist are true, as I believe they are, then clearly Norquist is more of a poseur than a libertarian. Because sharia law and natural law are polar opposites, they are competing universal systems. The world will choose one or the other, as they are not compatible.

    Neither Norquist, nor his more intellectual counterpart, Dean Ahmad, are true libertarians. They are first and foremost Islamists, and libertarians only to the extent that Islam was able to assimilate western civilization (Borg-like).
    To them, the intellectual treasures of the west are just so much war booty, like slaves or gold. They wear it like a mask and twist it to use against us.

    But what Gaffney ignores, is that national defense, like all other legitimate enterprises, is best served by free enterprise. The US military should be a major profit center, not a money-loser as now. Surely a respectable living could be made, "privatizing" the oil infrastructure (so destructively gifted to the fake Islamist nations we build with our blood and treasure) and guarding the mines and crops in Afghanistan.

    Let us not forget this republican critique of Caesarism:
    "What conquest brings he home?
    What tributaries follow him to Rome,"

    • BS61

      Unfortunately – Libertarians I know believe that we should let others be what ever they want, and they are ignorant of Sharia and Islam. They have all the education they need from Ron Paul. At this point – I suggest we stop trying to teach them, and try to teach me, a former Dem who was not a progressive. We love this country and hate radical Islam.

  • Rachel

    Yeah, Norquist. Great idea cutting back on our defense spending while China and Russia and Iran are ramping UP theirs. Just exactly whose side are you ON? I can understand spending more wisely and efficiently, but the cuts propsed are insane.

  • cynthia curran

    The worst case of sequestration is to have what happen to California in the early 1990's. La believe it or not was more of a purple county in the early 1990's, the valley as the La times reported still have Republicans mostly white in parts of La because of Aerospace. The Aerospace defunding because of George H and Clinton and other states becoming more competitive like Texas or Alabama sent the white Republicans to other states. Also, in around 1990 Orange and San Diego had white Republican aerospace workers and they voted in 1988 over 60 percent for George H and they too left California.. La went from an aerospace hub employing native born to a garment industry hub employing illegal Hispanics and Asians. If a lot of jobs are lost Democratic can blame the Republicans that refused to avoid sequestration

  • Endyr

    Declare this hack as an enemy of the United States, strip him of his citizenship and pack him out to the caliphate where he belongs.

  • Grampa

    Question. Where are most of the defense budget spent?
    In the USA so cutting defense budgets is going to cut WHO?
    The first thing is spending will get more competitive.
    The small business does not have the luxury of cutting, for they usually bid tight to start with.
    Guess who owns the small businesses? Minority's for one and they will be cut in disproportionate numbers
    Who then does it benefit? THE RICH
    The ones who donate to the Obama campaign fund.
    Government never does anything for the citizen, is always for reelection.
    God bless America.
    (GRAMPA)

  • http://twitter.com/sheikyermami @sheikyermami

    Grover Norquist is a MuBro operative just like Huma Abedin.

    There needs to be a complete purge in congress, in the senate and in the white house.

    Infiltration by commies and muslims has reached absurd levels.

    The enemies of America control the media and the universities, if nothing is done, America is cooked.