Conservatives propping up jihadist ally Grover Norquist

While we were still inhabiting IntenseDebate's bug-infested and rapidly dilapidating premises, the following discussion took place, occasioned by this particular article.

Here it is, for the record. I have added some editorial remarks, in places.

VIRGIL said - Grover Norquist is certainly a dhimmi and useful idiot of the Wahhabi lobby. He has deep connections to convicted jihadists Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian. He is also a big open borders advocate. Like his counterparts on the Left, Norquist has made a pack with the Islamic devil in order to achieve some short term political gain.

-ISLAMMACHTFREI added - I don't think he's a dhimmi at all - I think he's a flat-out Muslim. Evidence - his wife has been described as a "devout Muslim." If so, she can only marry a Muslim man. Norquist (as far as I know) has never admitted having joined the cult of Muhammad, but all you have to do is do the math.

Why would he do this? My best guess, and it's only a guess, is that he is a rabid anti-semite and since joining the Nazis or Klan is a career killer, he did the next best thing and became a Muslim.

-VIRGIL replied - Yes, he [Norquist] may indeed be a crypto-Muslim. It would be odd for an supposedly devout Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man, so he may indeed have embraced Islam, if only nominally. I still suspect his alliance with the Wahhabi lobby has more to do with political opportunism then some real Islamic devotion on Norquist's part, but the fact remains that he is a useful idiot and should be regarded as such.

-MICHAELTRAVIS said - I agree. Ol' Grover is a willing soldier in the Army of Islam. What sets Robert Spencer apart from the cadres of partisan 'Ditto-heads" is that he is able to be bluntly honest, even when it is politically unpopular to do so. Spencer is an "American", through and through

MORGANLR said - Guilt-by-association games are for fools, and no one, even those who delight in playing such games, will be charging that these speakers are jihad enablers because they appeared with Norquist.

Oh, I don't know; I could think of one.

IBNSANA (a Mohammedtroll, attempting some tu quoque)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/...

2:96 And thou wilt find them greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters. (Each) one of them would like to be allowed to live a thousand years. And to live (a thousand years) would be no means remove him from the doom. Allah is Seer of what they do.

-MRSJ told Ibnsana - Bet you've been waiting ages to indulge in a bit of tu quoque.

I'll also bet a Christian criminal is like hard-core porn to a Muslim like you. Do you get your jollies on such news items?

The Universal Church of the Kingdom of God is been in trouble before and has been declared a cult in some countries.

The difference is:
1. We don't defend or excuse crooks like the ones in the story
2. Our scriptures don't encourage us to commit criminal acts

-YANKEL told Ibnsana - Tu quoque

[LOGIC FAIL]

-VIRGIL told Ibnsana - Typical for Islamic apologists, change the subject in order to hide the truth about their religion. So some idiot evangelical leader swindled money, what does it have to do with Christian doctrine? Can your bishop friend cite Biblical support for his actions. Did Jesus or His apostles encourage church leaders to cheat and swindle their congregations? If so, you might have some sort of point, but since they never did so either overtly or covertly, you are just engaging in a lot of sound and fury for nothing.

Islamic doctrine on the other hand is quite clear about the obligation of armed offensive jihad to subdue infidels and extract the jizyah from the them (its all right there in the Qur'an). Islamic law is also quite clear about the obligation of executing those who apostate from Islam for other faiths. When we see the various jihad groups from Afghanistan to Gaza to Somalia to London, they make very sure to ground all their words and actions in the Qur'an, the saying of Muhammad, and the classical Muslim jurists.

-ALLAH told Ibnsana - "Isn't that verse supposed to refer to Jews? The article to which you linked is related to Evangelical Christians."

Part two of the original comment stream, as recorded by me (Dumbledoresarmy). (Feel free to refer to me as the intellectual equivalent of a pack rat).

TANSTAAFL said (of Norquist) - Facists [sic: Fascists] are Facists, no matter what side of the aisle.......

GRIMREAPER suggested (to Spencer) - Maybe you should give a call to Michelle Malkin and Joe the Plumber and express your concerns to them. Neither one of them strike me as shrinking violets that are afraid to stir up the pot.

Especially Malkin who has written the Invasion and In Defense of Internment books, on the very point of the threat that Islam posses to the US. I am sure she can give as good if not better than she takes. She is generally fearless.

I would bet if you gave them the ball, they will run with it.

MRSJ said - Robert, (as I presume you have the references to hand) have you thought about editing his Wikipedia entry to show these alliances?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

HESPERADO remarked - I wonder what happened between Spencer and Michelle Malkin?

If one looks back over the years of their strong association with each other, and sees how Malkin is obviously knowledgeable of the whole anti-jihad movement and of Spencer's works (e.g., Spencer posted a 2-part interview Malkin did of Spencer in 2006, see link below), why would Spencer doubt that Malkin would do the right thing at this conference?

Whatever goes on behind the smoke-filled rooms of the Aristocracy of the Anti-Islam (woops! I mean Anti-Jihad) Movement I guess will remain a mystery to us hoi ochloi.

http://tiny.cc/vR4f5

WELLINGTON observed - Grover Norquist is troubling to be sure. Only uncertainty about him is whether he's deeply ignorant or deeply complicit. Not sure.

-SUSANP said to Wellington - He's an opportunist and he has found abundant opportunity lobbying for the Wahabbi savages. I consider him a traitor to his country and his civilization. One expects Marxists and "progressives" to grovel at the anti-Western altar but when a putative conservative does it, it is the ultimate betrayal. There is no excuse for this man and nothing he does to promote or advocate conservative values will exonerate his perfidy. He's not ignorant; he knows exactly what he is doing. He's not straddling the fence, he has joined the enemy.

MICHAELTRAVIS told WELLINGTON - Grover Norquist is deeply complicit.

2PACSHAKUR said - "When I see a bird that walks like a Muslim and swims like a Muslim and quacks like a Muslim, I call that bird a Muslim."

(Rest of discussion will follow).

And now for part three of the discussion as recorded.

Mr Hugh Fitzgerald re-posted one of his excellent essays from three years ago. It hadn't dated.

HUGH - 'Fitzgerald: Islam and capitalism' [June 13, 2006]

"A poster at Jihad Watch recently noted that "[Grover] Norquist, a former Executive Director of the College Republicans and current head of Americans for Tax Reform is, along with his devoutly Muslim new wife, Samah Al-Rayyes, the founder of the Islamic Institute, which advocates the compatibility of Islam with free enterprise and capitalism."

Islam is indeed compatible with "free enterprise" if by "free enterprise" one means the appropriation of economic power, and state money, by those who first inherit, or manage to acquire, political power. It has been noted before that in the Western world, those who first make money but then want something else -- fame, glory – ultimately enter politics. In the Muslim Middle East (and elsewhere as well) the only way to make money, real money, is to seize power, or be in the circle of those who have that power.

Mubarak's Friends-and-Family Plan distributes American Jizyah, taking a large cut for itself -- for the Godfather and company. In Jordan, long-suffering American taxpayers used to pay all sorts of bills for King Hussein, the "plucky little king' who drove around in his sports cars, flew around in his planes, and in the West, in the best hotels, had the most expensive call girls visit him, seriatim. American taxpayers pai, unknowingly, for all of it. In Qatar, there is the family that has taken to describing itself as the "royal" family -- as J. B. Kelly nas noted, these sheiklets of statelets were once called, by the British, simply sheikhs, or in some cases "The Ruler," as in "The Ruler of Bahrain," but now they keep giving themselves promotions so that they are almost all of them now "royalty." Very funny, but not so funny is the way that the Al-Thani family in Qatar, the Al-Sabah in Kuwait, the Maktoum (buying all that New York real estate, on enotes) of the United Arab Emirates, and all the others, including the late Sheikh Zayid and his descendants in Abu Dhabi, appropriate much of whatever statelet they pretend to be the head of through some presumed venerable dynasty.

Of course the most egregious and comical example is that of a country named after a single family by that family: Saudi Arabia, named after the Al-Saud. How much is raked off the top, bottom, and sides (and please, trim the eyebrows as well), by the princes and princelings and princelettes, and all their numerous courtiers and consorts (Khashoggis, Bin Ladens, the lot of "contractors" and "defense consultants" who serve the all-important role of being conduits for bribes to assorted Al-Saud family members, who don't want everything to be official).

"Compatible" with "free enterprise"? Not so far.

And inshallah-fatalism does not exactly, as an attitude, encourage all that industry and enterprise that modern economies require.

But let's pretend. Let's pretend that Grover Norquist, almost certainly Muslim himself (for he cannot marry an observant Muslim woman and remain a non-Muslim) and friend of the Good and Great in Washington (that he is not looked upon with great suspicion, not shunned, is itself telling about official Washington, and its willful misunderstanding of Islam), is right. Let's pretend that "capitalism" and "Islam" go together.

So what?

The real question is: can Islam and non-Islam, can Believers and Infidels, "go together" or co-exist, in a spirit in which Muslims are not constantly striving to deny those Infidels their laws, their customs, their understandings, their ways of doing things, their pluralism? I don't mean the "pluralism" that Muslims exploit as long as they need to -- I mean "pluralism" everywhere, including the Muslim countries. Can Believers accept the Infidels in their relations between the sexes, their attention to the individual and abhorrence of the Muslim emphasis on the collective, their free speech, their freedom of conscience, their art, their music, their everything that makes them them?

Traditional Islam uncompromisingly divides the world between Believer and Infidel. The former are instructed "not to take" the latter as "friends" (Qur’an 5:51) but rather to show implacable hostility to them, and even to show murderous hostility to them. This is because, in the Muslim view, the world's land is also divided between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the Lands of the Believers and the Lands of the Infidels (the "House, Domain, Abode of War"). Muslims have a duty to strive in whatever way they can, using whatever instruments of Jihad prove most effective and are available, to make as much of Dar al-Harb part of Dar al-Islam, until Islam covers the globe and dominates everywhere, and Muslims rule.

This is not a fantasy. This can be found in the texts. This is taught. The fact that not all Muslims act upon it should be no consolation. Some are too busy making a living. Some wish to pretend those texts and teachings do not exist, for as residents of the West, they have no way to explain them, and just hope that they can keep on distracting Infidels, avoiding the real questions, and keep on reproducing at a rate that will eventually make the answering of such questions, or the pretense of answering them, unnecessary.

That this is not understood is a failure at least as colossal as that of the Western world in its unwillingness to confront Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, or to aid the Whites against the Bolsheviks in the period of the Russian Civil War, when those Bolsheviks might have been stopped."

END OF RE-POSTED ESSAY.

Part four of the thread we created on IntenseDebate.

-NAKAL said to HUGH - Norquist is NOT a Muslim (just a technical point) he is simply an anti-Semite fascist trying to masquerade as an acceptable Conservative. He is NOT. He is a Far Right fringe fanatic akin to Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Paul Vigurie, and others who seem to admire 1930s Germany more than they do 21st Century America. Opposing Obama (which I do
as a Truman or 'Joe Lieberman' Democrat) does not make me any less offended and disgusted by Norquist as I am by Obama who has runied the Party and the Nation.

Norquist, like Buchanan, hates Jews more than he does Muslims, so like others on the Far Right fringe he makes common cause with Muslims because of his viceral [sic: visceral] hatred of Israel.

This must be distinguished from honourable Republicans
like (I think still) John McCain, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch and others with whom I do sometimes disagree.

Congressman "I never met a Madrassa in Arlington, VA I didn't like" Moran is a Democrat (D-VA) and like 'Jimay' Carter and Fritz Hollings (former Senator from SC), is virulently anti-Israel and is given to southern populist Huey Long like speeches which remind me of a certain man name Goebbels. Thus, there is also
a fringe anti-Semitic wing of the Democratic Party (though less discussed in the media) which, in the case of Moran, sound strikingly like Norquist (both take payoffs from Saudi Arabia in massive amounts).

HUGH observed - Grover Norquist must have converted to Islam. It is impossible for him to have married a Muslim woman, one described as "devout" (is she, by any chance, a "Palestinian" Arab?), and remain non-Muslim. That would not be tolerated, not even by his Saudi and other Arab friends who know how valuable he is, and how much good work he is doing, not for the causes that he ostensibly works for, but for other, apparently still to many unobvious -- despite all the hints -- much more menacing goals as a Defender of the Faith.

-MRSJ said to Hugh - She [Norquist's wife] is reported as 'Palestinian' here:

"I then found out that Norquist has recently been married after many years of being single AND his new bride is Samah Alrayye of the Islamic Institute and a Palestianian muslim. "
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/16/92210/227...

Reference on Wiki:
^ Glazov, Jamie (April 12, 2005). "Infiltration". FrontPage Magazine. David Horowitz. Retrieved on 2009-02-28. "GOP operative Grover Norquist [is] an agent of influence for Islamists...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.""

-HEROYALWHYNESS said - Curious that the only web pages displaying this identity brings you to Daily Kos or the Democratic Underground. However, if cultural allowances for spelling differences is considered, there are more clues provided in a variety of Facebook pages which openly link to 'friends'of "Al Rayyes": "Alrayyes","rayes","Elrayyes","El-Rayyes","Alraies","Elrayis","Rayyes","Alraiyes" . . .most expressing an affinity to Palestine, Jerusalem, Gaza &/or Islam.

-LAKEVIEWPAUL said - You might be entertained to learn that about a year ago as I recall Norquist was interviewd by 'reason' magazine, a libertarian magazine the editorial slant of which is, well, adolescent. (They are preoccupied with pot, porn, etc.)

There was a large picture of Grover holding a bottle of booze. The bottle was shaped like a Tommygun.

-NAKAL said - cAtually, Muslims break their own rules all the time-it is not necessarily the case he converted. In addition, Sufi and other 'softer' sects of Islam like Ismailiyah and Ahmaddiyah
don't require compulsory conversion of the non-Muslims spouse if it is a non-Muslim husband (probably why Sunnis and Shias are constantly attacking these Muslim sects).
His heart is already Islamic anyway....it is worse to be a Dhimmi slave of the Saudis (which Norquist is) than a converted Muslim who at least might be a real man and human being (which he isn't), even if not by much.

ISLAMMACHTFREI said - Beat you to it Hugh - see my reply to Virgil at the top of the thread :)

RUSLANT said - Both the Democratic and the Republican parties are rotten to the core and through the core. The horror of the Republican primary voters' rejection last year of the great Rudy Giuliani that led to the triumph of Obamus Carterus made me give up on the Republican Party for good. __Folks! Contact an American hero Paul Sperry at sperry@sperryfiles.com & suggest he contact Rudy to form the Center Party that will attract the frustrated sensible middle from both parties who have nowhere to go as of now.__Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Hugh, buddy, can you do me a favor?
You have a better chance of reaching Paul than I do. Can you bring us together? I want to explain to him my vision in detail, with Rudy running for prez, Paul as his running mate, and Steven Emerson with his owesome Investigative Project will take over the Department of Homeland Security.
I'll appreciate it even more than the threads of Russian music you have treated me to (=:
Ruslan Tokhchukov, StillEnragedSince1999, But Now Determined To Do Something About It."

And part the fifth, and last, of this lengthy conversation.

WILDJEW said - I respectfully disagree (in part) with Robert Spencer.

Mr. Spencer wrote: "Don't get me wrong: I am not saying that these people should not appear on a platform with Norquist. Guilt-by-association games are for fools, and no one, even those who delight in playing such games, will be charging that these speakers are jihad enablers because they appeared with Norquist. Indeed, I myself would not hesitate to appear on a platform with Grover Norquist -- although Grover Norquist himself would see to it that that would not happen. For if I ever were on a platform with Grover Norquist, I would make sure that the audience knew about his alliances with jihadists and activities on behalf of the jihad against America. (GOOD!)

Will any of the conservative speakers at the Right Online National Conference do that?

I doubt it. But they should." (They must!)

I came across another web site the other evening called " Naked Emperor News." The site bills itself as follows: "Naked Emperor News is a Video News site. We investigate news and gather video and audio evidence relevant to news stories, then present it in news videos." At the top of the page is the following quote and a good one:

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.
—Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Abraham Lincoln wrote: "To sin by silence when they know they should protest, makes cowards of men."

If Michelle Malkin, Joe the Plumber, the two writers for the Wall Street Journal and Ed Morrissey fail to explain to the audience who Mr. Norquist is and what he has done and is doing to this nation, I believe these two indictments will fit.

Someone tell me where I am wrong. I look forward to the dialogue.

-LAKEVIEWPAUL said - Indeed, the RONC ought to finger Grover for his dalliances with Islamists...provided that they are unsavory, motived by a desire to be an apologist for Islam, tending toward connivance of lesser jihadism, etc.

Yet bear in mind that the modern conservative movement is "a daisy chain of epicene dissemblers and vampiric chickenhawks". The quote is courtesy of a regular contributor to The American Conservative, a magazine which editors are confused about Islam. Buchanan thinks that if you just leave the Muhammadan alone, then he'll pay you back with nonmolestation.

Further, we should be wary of playing "[g]uilt-by-association games" when discussing Norquest. Could it be that he fanices hisself a kind of double agent for liberty who pretends to be tolerant of Islam around his wife, Islamic friends and relatives, the arrested ones, etc....and yet who is Islam's inveterate enemy? who is working his way into the masjid's black hearts to help expose the Islamic conspiracy of crimes?

Well, maybe not.

-WILDJEW added - Please read this excerpt from Kenneth Timmerman's "Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35...

I would like to read your considered opinion. Pay close attention to the seventh paragraph down, beginning with: "Arabs living in the West expressed similar "comprehension" of the attacks and the motives of the attackers. In the Washington, D.C., suburb of Fairfax, Va., public-school officials ordered high-school students to return home by noontime on the day of the attacks. ____"They closed the schools not out of fear of a terrorist attack, but because Muslim students were shouting for joy," said David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union. Keene told the story at a highly charged session of conservative activist Grover Norquist's weekly "coalitions" meeting in Washington the next day......" __

If only it read there, "Muslims living in the West also expressed a 'comprehension' of the attacks and their motivations, namely that the attacks and their motivations were consistent with what is prescribed by Islam and regularly preached in the masjids throughout the world, including those in the West, and in Fairfax, VA, in particular."

Another statement was revealing: "Norquist, whose Islamic Institute....."

I wasn't aware that he had such an institute. It didn't show up in the reason article I mentioned in response to MrsJ's comment in a thread begun by Hugh. ("Grover Norquist must have converted to Islam."

"Norquist, whose Islamic Institute..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Free_Market_...

LULU said - I think Norquist is married to a RoP wife and therefore a RoPer himself? and refused to answer questions regarding his religion?

WILDJEW said - We may need to be careful about making firm judgments because of associations.

'My late father (who was our Republican party chairman and state committeeman) used to caution me for instance that 'candidates for office cannot chose all of their supporters'. I have found during my years of political activism, that long term associations "can" be an indicator.

'For instance, Mr. Obama's long term associations with bigots, racists, anti-Semites, jihad sympathizers, etc., for me was indicative of Obama's own disposition toward the Jews, the Middle East, Islam and the jihad.

'The fact that these conservatives will be given a platform along with Mr. Norquist may not be definitive in and of itself.

'On the other hand, if they refuse to expose Mr. Norquist or are told they may not expose Mr. Norquist by their Right Online National Conference hosts and they speak anyway, I would consider it a form of complicity or "silence in the face of evil."

'In 2004, I wrote a letter to our editorial page editor, criticizing President Bush's anti-Israel, pro-Muslim-Arab policies which I believe served to undermine America's national security. The officers of our local Republican Executive Committee sought my removal from the Committee for this act of disloyalty to the party. So be it.

'It came to my attention that Grover Norquist was to be our annual Lincoln Day Dinner speaker this year. When the officers learned of Norquist's unsavory activities, he was dis-invited. I made it clear to a couple of committeewomen, if Mr. Norquist were going to be the speaker, I would not be silent on the radio or in our newspaper, even as they advertised the event.

'Norquist should be shunned by conservatives and Republicans. He is bad news. I would no more want my party to associate with Grover Norquist than I would want it to be associated with David Duke. Would Michelle Malkin speak on the same platform as David Duke? I wonder.'

-VIRGIL said - And what do you know, both Grover Norquist and David Duke are chummy with Islamic supremacy advocates.

MAXPUBLIUS said - Norquist is obviously p-wiped [sic: p-whipped] by his Islamofascist wife and her anti-Israel drivel.

It helps that he doesn't intend on learning anything about Islam's hateful doctrines (since he must think daily eyeball evidence of Islamic evil is "just a phase"). He'd then have to then decide between human decency or his wife and wallet.

TSCOTTME said - There is a difference between someone innocently associating with people on one cause not knowing some in league with him on that cause are unsavory.

Anyone since Sept 11 who refuses to seriously investigate if they are being used by the jihadist is willfully ignorant and a tool of the jihad. Any conservative that doesn't confront Norquist, when they have the opportunity, is complicit in letting the fifth column get deeper in to our defenses.

Come on Michelle Malkin, do the right thing, one more time.

DGENE said - Grover, married ti a "palestinean", is a stinker from the last movie.

In his case, sleeping with the enemy is sleeping with himself.

NAKAL said - Norquist, like Pat Buchanan, hates Israel and Jews more than he hates Islam and Muslim
("The enemy of my enemy....").

There are responsible Conservatives and then there are fascists masquerading as Conservatives-Pat Buchanan, Grover Norquist, ex-Senator Paul Findley, Ron Paul, Paul Viguerie, Congressman and lowest IQ politician Dana Rohrbacher (he is very pro-Saudi which many people don't know), etc. All these people have an abnormal fascination for German history circa 1930s and 1940s (and have said so openly), any guesses as to why ?

Norquist is NOT a Muslim (just a technical point) he is simply an anti-Semite fascist trying to masquerade as an acceptable Conservative. He is NOT. He is a Far Right fringe fanatic
akin to Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Paul Vigurie, and others who seem to admire 1930s Germany more than they do 21st Century America.
'Opposing Obama (which I do as a Truman or 'Joe Lieberman' Democrat) does not make me any less offended and disgusted by Norquist as I am by Obama who has runied the Party and the Nation.

'Norquist, like Buchanan, hates Jews more than he does Muslims, so like others on the Far Right fringe he makes common cause with Muslims because of his viceral [visceral] hatred of Israel.

This must be distinguished from honourable Republicans.'

LAKEVIEWPAUL said - I submitted the following message at http://www.rightonline.com/contactus.htm:

"Please address this:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027194.php

(1) Is Norquist a Quisling for the Muhammadans as believed by David Horowitz and suspected by Robert Spencer?
(2) Is Norquist personally involved in the Muhammadans' conspiracy to menace and threaten, to assault, to extort, to batter, to falsely imprison, and to kill?
(3) If "yes" to either (1) or (2), will you still permit him to speak at RONC so that he can explain hisself? If "yes" will you embarass him?
(4) Will any of the speakers at RONC cross examine him to find out?

Thanks,

Paul

DUMBLEDORESARMY said - Comment to article, 'Conservatives propping up jihadist ally Grover Norquist'.

I hope all American jihadwatchers have compiled, or are compiling, by now, a 'little black book' with the names of all current Senators and Congresspersons. It should have three sections - an 'A list' - those who appear to have grasped at least part of the truth about the Global Jihad, and to be able to grasp the rest, if educated and encouraged; a 'B' list - those who might be educable; and a 'C' list - those who by their words and deeds, whether knowingly or unknowingly, appear to be janissaries for the Jihad. I would place Rep Sue Myrick in the 'A' list. In the 'B' list I would place such senators and congresspeople who have been consistent in public support for Israel, especially during the Battle of Gaza in January this year - let that be the litmus test.

Keep an eye open for those aspiring to public office; observe their words and deeds, and classify them accordingly. If they look like a candidate for your 'A' or 'B' list, make contact, and attempt to educate. You have to convince them that there are *Votes!* in them thar hills.

Jihadwatchers in every majority-kafir country should be doing something similar as regards their own politicians. For example, here in Australia I know for a fact that there is one Federal Senator who is aware of 'sharia creep', and fears it. I don't give a damn what his political party affiliation is; all I care is that on this most vital topic, he is exhibiting common sense. I have written him letters of support...with 'further information you may find useful'. His name is on my A list.

'On my 'B' list - potentially educable - are the names of those who, during the Battle of Gaza, publicly supported Israel's right of self-defence; and the names of those politicians who actively campaigned for Australia to boycott 'Durban II' in Geneva.

'So is the name of a Federal Labor backbencher who recently brought down the sky upon his head by 1. publicly stating that he thought that we should drastically reduce immigration numbers because of security concerns and 2. taking note of the abominable contempt for Australian laws and legal system, exhibited by our latest batch of newly-arrested-and-charged Muslim jihad plotters."

And that is where the discussion ended.