|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What took the NRA so long!Reader comment on item: Is Grover Norquist an Islamist? Submitted by There is NO Santa Claus (United States), Apr 17, 2015 at 12:58 Your original article was written TEN YEARS AGO! Norquist's collaberation with Muslim terrorists have long been an embarassment to the NRA. What's different now? Oh! Wait! Hillary Cliinton just announced her candidacy for President of the United States. So far, she's unopposed. She's not "2nd Amendment friendly". As a former Sec. of State (CIA and all) she probably has the goods on Norquist and his friends. She could make a career out of messing up the NRA like no other Presidential candidate ever. She could do this even if she doesn't get the nomination or win the election. Even the greatest gun salesman of all time, President O'Bama did not frighten the NRA into ridding themselves of Norquist. That's because the President was a freshman Senator and too far away from the details. But Sec. Clinton had direct access to CIA intelligence on a daily basis. It was her job to know who the bad-guys were whether she called them out publicly or not. President O'Bama can whine about guns, but former Sec. of State Clinton has the teeth to chew the NRA up if they left Norquist on the board. She didn't have it in 2008. That's why this is happening now. Remember where you heard it first! Sincerely, There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC) Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments". Daniel Pipes replies: I rather think the answer to What's different now? is that the cumulative evidence against Norquist has reached the point where the NRA can no longer ignore it. Reader comments (32) on this item
|
Latest Articles |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes (The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998. For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.) |