Grover Norquist voluntarily suspended from NRA board.

[DeepSouth]

This is more of a follow up to an old thread a few weeks back. When Grover Norquist's possible ties to the Muslim Brotherhood came into question.

I followed the issue fairly closely, and honestly never settled on either side. Their were a lot of assumptions and charges made with little evidence but he also failed to have reasonable answers for a lot of legitimate questions asked of him in interviews.

The NRA launched an investigation into the allegations when Gleen Beck said on air he would leave the NRA if Grover remained on the board. Grover has denied all of the allagations from day one.

Well, Mr. Norquist has been relected to the board by NRA members, but has also “voluntarily suspended his board activities” honestly this is probably about the best outcome for the NRA. I think him steeping down was the right thing for him to do, or at least I believe he did what was in the best interest of the NRA and I as a life member appreciate that. He did however leave the option to eventually retake the posision but for now the issue has been settled.

I just wanted to let concerned NRA members know how this unfolded, I think I owe that them as well as Mr. Norquist since I later raised questions about him in a thread where I was referred to the one I linked earlier.

 

[alsaqr]

i voted to re-elect Grover Norquist to the NRA board.

This trash over NRA board member Norquist is being driven by Frank Gaffney.

i've throughly checked out this one. Frank Gaffney has distorted the facts and told outright lies about Grover Norquist. Gaffney attempted to get Norquist kicked out of CPAC but managed to get himself declared persona non grata by CPAC.

Not surprisingly, Gaffney managed to get Glen Beck and The Blaze on his side. This is a circular conspiracy theory that always comes back to NRA haters and Frank Gaffney.

This issue was discussed here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9811529

 

[hso]

The question is whether Mr. Norquist has suspended his board activities upon being reelected until this is sorted out in the best interest of not distracting from the NRA's work due to unfounded accusations.

Frank Gaffney's credibility factors into whether we find the accusations remotely believable or not.

It is admirable for Mr. Norquist to not want to distract from the important work ahead of the NRA, but it is also important for us to look at the people making the accusations and their motivations and credibility.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Good grief not this again!

Mike

 

[DeepSouth]

alsaqr

That is not the issue, one of the things that keeps me from siding with Grover Is that anytime he, or his supporters, are asked about the accusations they don't answer they just start talking about Gaffney. That makes me think that the questions can't be answered. Several other credible people (not that Gaffney is credible) have also had concerns, to put it nicely.

But that isn't the point, the point is that he did the respectable thing and essentialy steeped down.

Good grief not this again!

Again, the point is that he steeped down, so as far as it matters to NRA members Is should be over.


I just thought people should know, I'm starting to think I was wrong.

 

[hso]

You can't answer a question that is based on false information. That's the problem when people make accusations that can not be substantiated.

 

[DeepSouth]

That's very true HSO and the accusers haven't provided sufficent evidence, at least in my view they haven't. But with that said, Grover fails to adequately explain his (admitted) former connections to people that later became convicted terrorists, again in my view. I lean to his favor, but just barely.

The problem to me seems to be that neither side gives credible information.

I'm personally glad he stepped down voluntarily, if he's not "guilty" (for lack of a better word) then it's a shame he had to, but if your on the board of an organization you should be ready to put their needs above yours. Which is what he did, and that is very respectable.

I'm just hoping all NRA members, those on both sides, can view this as the end and move on to real issues.

I'll bow out now as I've said more than had to say to start with.
I really just wanted to give an update because I felt some would want it, and to some degree I feel like owe it because I was one of the people that raised the question to start with.

 

[Ash]

I think Joe Richards is a child molester. He doesn't prove he isn't. He must be one.



At some point, ole Joe would only sound more guilty if he protested his innocence often. A baseless charge is hard to defend against and often defending yourself against such charges when a simple proof you weren't at a certain place at a certain time is impossible simply makes the public believe you are guilty.

 

[hso]

And that's the cruz of the problem so there's not much to kick around on this now that Mr. Norquist has excused himself from the NRA Board.