7 months ago
I have discussed what I assess to be deep, troubling and dangerous character flaws in Alan Gottlieb before. In what is yet another manifestation of these character flaws, Gottlieb has endorsed Grover Norquist for the NRA board of directors. As reported by David Codrea:
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb sent out a March 3 email notice to members and supporters in which he endorsed the candidacy of Grover Norquist for director in this year’s National Rifle Association board election.
“My good friend Grover Norquist who is also on the NRA Board and up for reelection this year had an excellent interview with Newsmax that I want to call your attention to,” Gottlieb announced, directing readers to an interview on concealed carry decreasing crime. “He got my vote for the NRA Board and if you haven’t cast your vote yet I highly recommend that you also vote for him. A strong NRA helps us all.”
The problem with Gottlieb’s endorsement is that Norquist is what even “progressive” MSNBC acknowledges to be an “amnesty-loving immigration activist.”
As a stand-alone issue, this is enough to dismiss his candidacy outright, and it proves that Grover Norquist is a progressive collectivist who is merely looking for another board membership (presumably because his calendar is empty during the board meeting days and he wants something to do, or we can only guess – if Mr. Norquist would grace us with his presence here and tell us why he wants to be reelected as a member of the board we would know more than we do now).
Let’s again deal with where we are concerning Hispanic and Latino voters. “As to whether the GOP will ever be able to rely on votes from the Hispanics, that is a non-starter. “Hispanics are not historically and ideologically aligned with what the GOP is supposed to be. To point to Roman Catholicism and claim that Hispanics will vote GOP because of socially conservative viewpoints misses the bigger picture of the state of Catholicism in South and Central America. It is a synthesis, or a hybrid mixture, of Catholicism, superstition, Marxism, and in some cases evil “patron saints” for the cartel criminals.” They will not vote conservative or liberatarian, no matter what you’re being told by the elitists and chamber of commerce.
In order to understand why the state of Roman Catholicism in Mexico and Central America is what it is, one has to understand its roots.
“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”
One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished. South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology. Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build. This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.
Hispanics and Latinos will be among the most progressive and socialistic voters in the history of the country, which is why the progressives want amnesty for them. And there will indeed be a very large burden to shoulder for the presence of immigrants in America. “It helps the corporate bottom line by forcing the middle class to pick up the tab for medical care, which burden happens largely on the backs of nurses in emergency rooms (my daughter is a nurse in an ER), with medical insurance premiums escalating in order to pay for the service. Food stamps (so called SNAP) also factor into the calculus, as well as driver’s insurance (for uninsured motorists coverage).
It isn’t that there is no cost for low paid workers. It’s that the cost is borne by the middle class as welfare to corporations and the wealthy. The GOP is connected at the hip to such interests in terms of money, while the Democrats are connected in terms of future voters.
This all has to do with the middle class shouldering the cost for immigrants in general, but it does indeed go to show that pro-immigration candidates and politicians are progressive in their world view. But more specifically as it relates to gun rights, Hispanics and Latinos favor gun control rather than gun rights, and not just by a trivial fraction. Grover Norquist is a liar playing a game with NRA members. He favors immigration, including amnesty, but says he favors concealed firearm rights. Both cannot be true.
But just as disturbing about Grover Norquist is that he keeps company with terrorists and jihadists as we discussed before.
On September 11, 2001, Grover Norquist met in his office with a group of terrorists – “jihadis” if you prefer – to determine how to mend relations between Muslim leaders and American government officials, while the smoke was still rising after the attacks in which 3,000 of our citizens where murdered.
That alone should have put Mr. Norquist outside of the circle of trust among discerning and patriotic American leaders in the conservative movement, but it did not.
Mr. Norquist creating the Islamic Free Market Institute with money from Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi should be a red flag to rational thinking people in “conservative” circles, and should ostracize Mr. Norquist from any participation among patriots in matters of import – nope.
Grover Norquist – the founder of Americans for Tax Reform – continues to move within conservative circles with ease. and has support from some prominent Republicans. Not only are many leaders in the American conservative movement failing to raise serious questions about Norquist’s defense of easily identifiable terrorists, they defend him and call those who lay facts on the table “bigots” or other similarly absurd names.
Now, he is again up for election as one of the members of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Will the NRA allow a man who promotes and defends terrorists to be re-elected to their Board?
In February 2014, a group of prominent Americans prepared a report entitled “The Islamists and their Enablers Assault on the Right – The Case Against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.” The report contains facts surrounding Mr. Norquist’s history with and support for terrorists. Among those who signed the report were: the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, 81st Attorney General of the United States; and the Honorable R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence.
The facts detailed in this report include: Grover Norquist provided access to the White House for a number of terrorists during the Bush administration; Norquist is the registered agent for the Islamic Free Market Institute in Washington, D.C. which received money directly from terrorist/jihadi organizations including convicted Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi and the SAFA Trust; Alamoudi’s deputy at the American Muslim Council (AMC), Khalid Saffuri, was made the Director of the Islamic Institute with Norquist’s approval; Norquist promotes, works closely with, and defends a Muslim Brother/Jihadi named Suhail Khan, whose father, Mahboob Khan, was one of the most prominent Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the world prior to his death; and Suhail Khan served under two successive Secretaries of Transportation with a security clearance, and continues to be promoted and given access to positions of trust inside conservative circles by Grover Norquist.
Grover Norquist is a quisling and traitor, but as we return to Alan Gottlieb, he is a collaborator with quislings and traitors. What does this make Alan? NRA members should vote ‘no’ to Grover Norquist for NRA board, and smart men should stay as far away from Alan Gottlieb as they can get.