Do you agree with Keene and Norquist’s views on national security and immigration enforcement?
Because in the name of “constitutional conservatism,” Keene and Norquist support the Obama/Democrat majority approach of civilian trials for terrorists. And in the name of “constitutional conservatism,” Norquist supports de facto open borders and dangerous pandering to Muslim grievance-mongers.
And Malkin's also pissed that these two agree with housing terrorists at the maximum security prison in Thompson, Illinois.
My, what a lovely Tea Party. Such great snack time entertainment.
Then Malkin forgets her boiling hatred for John McCain ( whom she constantly lambasts for his stance of immigration reform ) and points to her dreamboat Scott Brown as a voice of reason. Has she forgotten that Brown came right out after he was elected and stated he would not only campaign for McCain but that he was his model for what a conservative politicians should be? Uh, oh. Someone's not paying attention.
GOP MA Sen. Scott Brown opposes civilian trials for jihadists and made it a key campaign item. The Republican leadership on Capitol Hill opposes civilian trials for jihadists. A majority of Americans oppose civilian trials for jihadists. And it’s a sure bet that the vast majority of grass-roots activists at CPAC oppose civilian trials for jihadists.
Which makes them all “scaremongers” who oppose “constitutional conservatism,” I guess.
In the end, Malkin has her teeth in a twist over the predictably pathetic Mount Vernon Statement because it isn't wingnutty enough for her. The "constitutional conservative" meme will only get you so far. You've got to go full bore if you want Malkin to put on a metaphorical "ping-pong-ball" show for you. That's how you know you've won her heart.