The casual observer might think nothing of the candidacy of a fellow named Suhail Khan for election to one of two open seats on the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union – the political Right’s largest and most influential grassroots umbrella organization.  Certainly, for most Americans, the man’s faith would be of no interest.  If the fact that Khan is an adherent to Islam were even known, it probably would be seen as an asset ­– another Muslim-American seeking to become more involved in the political process just like, for example, Rep. Keith Ellison, the Muslim convert who recently won a Minnesota seat in the House of Representatives. --Frank Gaffney writing in Frontpage 

It is not just Suhail Khan. The person who is to be looked into, or about whom we already know quite enough from Gaffney's article and from other sources, is Grover Norquist. How can anyone conceivably continue to have dealings with him, much less serve with him, give him support, or even -- like Karl Rove -- apparently be his friend?

Do those doing this think such behavior is legitimate because "they are on the same side on some things" and "we don't get into that with Grover Norquist"? Do they? Do they think pushing for still fewer and fewer taxes on themselves (what their insensate personal greed has to do with "conservative" causes would be entirely unclear to such conservatives as Burke, D'Israeli, and Churchill) means it is okay to overlook what Norquist has been doing in the placement of Muslim operatives here and there and everywhere, with the results, in the policy we all see of spending $750 billion to make things nice for Muslims in Iraq the Model, in spending tens of billions more in Afghanistan, and $27.5 billion since 9/11/2001 on Pakistan, a completely meretricious "ally" in the incorrectly-named "war on terrorism," and the $60 billion so far to Egypt and billions more to the "Palestinians" -- and all this is made possible because the Administration, riddled with Norquist's friends, and at the top with Bush, the friend of Rove who is the friend of Norquist, and that Bush who is a friend of Rove, who is a friend of Norquist, not only sets the tone by insisting that we are fighting only a "war on terrorism" which is a tactic only, that Islam is a "great religion" that "means peace," a man who selectively quotes from the Qur'an (522 but not 523) and in so doing misleads the public and, no doubt, himself, and with Grover Norquist still not shunned, still perceived as powerful, with Muslims allowed into the very positions where, in transportation safety, or in the Pentagon planning (what a nice touch it is to show that there is no suspicion by going out of one's way to have Muslims in the highest positions making policy involving the Muslim world, while their very presence inhibits frank discussion of how Islam, Islam tout court, must be divided, must be demoralized, must be weakened, and attempts made to widen the ethnic, sectarian, and economic divides among Muslims -- can you imagine policy-planners saying this in front of Zalmay Khalilzad, or any other Muslim, no matter how "moderate" or even "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, he might be?

Someone in Norquist's group needs to contact the others. They need either to resign en masse, or to demand that Norquist resign. His activities and obvious sympathies have put him beyond the political, and other kinds, of pale.