Frank poses a strong challenge to the Conservative movement to consider the role on national security in its priorities. Chris Holton of the Center for Security Policy weighs in from the front lines of the war against the financing of terror supporting regimes. Peter Pham gives us the story and the context of the tragic conflict in Nigeria. Aaron Harison of Keep America Safe responds to the controversy of the ‘Al Qaeda 7′ commercial. All this plus more from Frank.
MONOLOGUE — March 9, 2010
First, I’d like to talk to you a little bit about the struggle underway today for the soul, and more to the point for the direction of what I guess is oddly defined as the ‘conservative movement’ in America. Some call it the Republican Party; they may or may not be the same thing, but some certainly, especially with the upsurge of interest in and support for the ‘tea parties,’ there is now a lot of ferment, a lot of people who are engaging in the political process, again broadly under the banner of modern conservativism.
And interestingly, one of the most prominent and influential figures of that movement today, and I’m not at liberty at the moment to say his name, although you’ll certainly be hearing a great deal shortly form him and about a new book he was written about the new republican party. I was at a meeting where this individual spoke on the condition that his comments were off the record in which he said, explicitly: national security must be job one for the new republican party for conservatives. And unfortunately, despite that eminently sensible recommendation now reinforced by a new poll that Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard has written up, which makes clear that Republicans are now decidedly preferred by the public because of the recognition that they have been more responsible about national security for years – going back at least to Ronald Reagan’s days.
And now amazingly enough, there are those within this conservative movement, mostly operating, to be sure, behind the scenes, but who nonetheless are working assiduously to try to change the priority given by conservatives to national security, to try to change most especially the principles that American conservatives had basically adhered to since Reagan’s days, he called it peace through strength! And he was speaking specifically of eschewing, avoiding, denying efforts, particularly those espoused by loopy democrats and others, generally on the left, although there are some in the libertarian camp to be fair, who think that if America simply lays down its interest in foreign affairs, disengages, comes home America, leaves everybody else alone, that all will be well; they won’t hate us, they’ll leave us alone and so on. Well this is utter claptrap of course. History has shown it again and again; do we really need to have it demonstrated to us again that unfortunately when we try to lay down our burden, when we try to ignore the world and hope that they will do the same to us, that it is anything other than an invitation to our enemies to behave aggressively towards us, to attack us, to murder our people, to try to destroy our interests and even if they can, our country?
Well, despite this historical experience, there are those, and I want to focus specifically on one individual because I believe he has exercised considerable influence in this regard, and that is Grover Norquist, a man who is better known for his role as the President of Americans for Tax Reform, a champion of lower taxes, but has in recent years taken up a number of, I think, not only wrongheaded but deplorably, recklessly, dangerous ideas. Let me give you a couple of examples, he has strenuously opposed in the first place the enactment and subsequently reenactment of the patriot act, an incredibly important tool in our national security arsenal during a time of war. He has supported President Barack Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo Bay, he has supported the Obama administration’s efforts to try to put Khalid Sheik Mohammad on trial in New York City, he has supported transferring the detainees that are still in Guantanamo Bay to a prison in Illinois. By the way, on those three counts, he has specifically and explicitly said that anyone who opposes his position is, “scare-mongering.” Well I guess that would apply to essentially the entire Republican Party, wouldn’t it? He has incessantly advocated for open boarders and amnesty for illegal aliens and most worrying to me, he has reached out to individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization, which as you know as a listener of Secure Freedom Radio, is dedicated by its own words to the destruction of western civilization from within – all this in the name of GOP inclusiveness.
Well, I think it’s time to challenge Mr. Norquist and those like him over their recommendations for the future of the Republican Party. I’ve thrown down a challenge; I’ve invited him to join me in a debate here at Secure Freedom Radio or elsewhere in a public forum where we can talk about whether this kind of policy direction, to say nothing of generally dismissing the importance of national security from conservative and Republican parties all together, is advisable or desirable. Is it consistent with the national interest or even the partisans of this party? I think it is not. Now Mr. Norquist has lately gotten a lot of attention for being in favor of debates, he has joined forces with the leftist editor and publisher of The Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel among others to promote this idea, well I suggest to him this is the time, if not now, when Mr. Norquist? Stay tuned folks; we will be following this story and Mr. Norquist’s response to the challenge closely and hopefully bringing to you in the very near future the fruits of a very interesting and informative debate.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Dear Mr. Gaffney,
I always enjoy your broadcasts, but this show knocked it out of the park. Regarding the issue of Mr. Norquist, it’s not his craven pandering towards ethnocentric groups that is troubling. It is enabling of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. I realize what will follow may be considered vulgar, but Alexander Dumas once said, ‘ Cherchez la femme, pardieu ! cherchez la femme !’ In Mr. Norquist’s case, one only need look towards his Kuwaiti-Palestinian wife to question where his loyalties really lay. It’s well known that Muslims may only marry non-Muslims under specific conditions for it to be recognized under Islamic law-in this case for a non-Muslim man to marry a Muslim woman he must convert to Islam. I have a suspicion where this leaves Mr. Norquist. Thank you for all of your efforts.