CPAC 2014 – National “Insecurity” Conservative Conference

islamists

The Republican Party has long identified itself itself as the party of National Security.  When the conservative movement has agents of influence like Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan in their high level ranks it is a personal assault on the GOP.

By :

The buzz on the floor among CPAC 2014 attendees was the virtual absence of National Security issues being debated or discussed.  During the three day conference John Bolton was the only speaker to address national security in depth.  There were two breakout sessions that tested the perimeter of national security issues but that was it for CPAC.

CPAC 2014 had a total of 57  events on the schedule during the three day conference.  Only 3 of those events discussed some national security issues.

Perhaps, current events surrounding the Ukraine, Crimea, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Vladimir Putin, China, Russia, Venezuela, Islamic terrorism and expansionism, North Korea, Benghazi, Extortion 17, and our porous southern borders are not important enough national security issues for CPAC 2014 and the ACU Board of Directors.

Or, are there two or more individuals inside the American Conservative Union(ACU) successfully navigating the CPAC agenda away from national security issues – that will be for you to decide

khan_norquist-320x240

American Foreign Policy Ignored At CPAC 2014

The American Conservative Union(ACU) positions itself as the oracle for conservative ideological issues important to conservative voters via the CPAC agenda.  Why was CPAC not scheduling, at a minimum, one third of its agenda categorizing the failures of President Obama’s foreign policy and the threats to our nation.

This absurd notion floated by John Kerry that President Obama’s paralyzing weakness makes him strong while Putin’s takeover of the Crimea makes him weak is profoundly troubling.  Daniel Greenfield sums it up nicely, “ Invading countries is an act of weakness. Being unable to do anything about it is an inaction of strength.”

Now lets turn our eyes to four Middle Eastern failures by the Obama Administration that were spiked from the CPAC 2014 agenda.

Egypt – President Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi ousting long time U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak.  When the Egyptian people voted out Mr. Morsi,  President Obama stood and still stands with the Muslim Brotherhood, ceding most all of our past Egyptian influence into the hands of Vladimir Putin.

The new Egyptian government declared The Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, while Pres. Obama keeps political channels open with the Brotherhood further alienating the new Egyptian government.  The ACU should be demanding Pres. Obama declare The Muslim Brotherhood a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Syria – President Obama sides with the ‘Syrian Rebels’ who are populated by various Al-Qaeda tied groups and The Muslim Brotherhood.  Pres. Obama is backing the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists again.  Pres. Obama ultimate folly was his famous shifting red line nearly drawing the USA into another Islamic civil war.  Mr. Putin came to Pres. Obama’s rescue and brokered the ‘non-invasion’ and Syria is off the front pages.  Vladimir Putin was playing chess and secured the warm water Syrian port of Tartus and cemented Russians long term influence in Syria.  President Obama however, was playing checkers and America achieved nothing other than embarrassment on the world stage.

Iran – President Obama lifted partial sanctions on Iran if they open their nuclear production sites to inspections and stop their pursuit of weapons grade plutonium.  The Mullah’s of Iran say they will keep up construction on the Arak heavy water plant, when operational, will produce plutonium.  President Obama reacts by releasing hundreds of millions of dollars of Iranian assets.  If Iran builds or buys a tactical nuke and threatens the free world,  the dangerous geopolitical world as we know it, radically changes for the worse.

Israel – President Obama is pressuring Israel to recede to its 1967 borders and the formation of contiguous Palestinian State between the West Bank and Gaza. This two state option would leave Israel geographically incapable of defending her borders.  Pres. Obama should be demanding the Muslim Brotherhood Hamas Palestinians and the West Bank Palestinians accept Israel’s unconditional right to exist and take all references to Israel’s destruction out of their respective charters, as a starting point for negotiations.  However,  President Obama is siding with The Muslim Brotherhood again as he did in Egypt and Syria.

These four national security issues plus homegrown Islamic terrorism should have front and center on the CPAC 2014 agenda. Why weren’t they you ask?  For the answer to this question, all roads lead back to two individuals at the American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist and Suhail Kahn.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Florida Rep. Allen West, retired Army Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, former chief assistant U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy, and Frank Gaffney are putting their substantive knowledge of national security that this information on Norquist/Khan cannot be suppressed, ignored, or mischaracterized as it has been to date.  The information these experts above are referring to is Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan’s documented ties to The Muslim Brotherhood and other convicted Islamic terrorists.  (See Center For Security Policies 51 Page Report)

Suhail Kahn is an acting Board member of American Conservative Union.

Suhail Kahn, on video, declares that he has “devoted his life to the Ummah, the Muslim Nation’ ‘What are our oppressors going to do with people like us who love death more than they love life?”

Suhail Khan praises terrorists at 1999 ISNA conference from SuhailKhan Exposed on Vimeo.

Mr. Kahn has publicly acknowledged his parents’ leadership role in organizations that have been identified by the federal government as Muslim Brotherhood front groups, namely the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Student Association(MSA).

In June of 2001, at an American Muslim Council event Mr. Kahn personally thanked convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi as someone, “who have been helping me keep going…and for being very supportive of me.”

At CPAC 2011 Suhail Kahn denied on camera The Muslim Brotherhood exists.  At CPAC 2014 he admitted there is a Muslim Brotherhood but he doesn’t know much about them.

At CPAC 2011 David Horowitz said, “Suhail Khan’s failure to disassociate himself from his parents’ movement (The Muslim Brotherhood) is instructive:  Horowitz went on to say, “When an honest person has been a member of a destructive movement and leaves it, he will feel compelled to repudiate it publicly and to warn others of the dangers it poses.  This is a sure test of whether someone has left the Muslim Brotherhood or not.”

At a 1999 ISNA Convention Suhail Khan articulated his heartfelt identity which in and of itself should cause great concern to the ACU. Suhail Khan said, “Our freedoms, my dear brothers and sisters, are under attack…And those rights must be defended with all the determination, all the resources, all the unyielding vigilance of the believing mujahid.  That is the spirit of Islam.  The mark of the Muslim.”

Mujahid is singular for Mujahideen which translates as a follower of Islam who struggles in the path of Allah.  The word is from the same Arabic triliteral root as Jihad.  Mujahideen has been closely associated with radical Islam, encompassing several militant groups and struggles.

Grover Norquist

Grover Norquist also has documented ties to convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi.  Alamoudi provided seed money for Norquist’s Islamic Institute which shares space with his Americans For Tax Reform.  Norquist was instrumental in getting the terrorist Alamoudi access to a White House prayer service after the 9/11/2001 attacks.

Mr. Norquist “served as a key facilitator between Al-Arian, Alamoudi and the White House.  … In June 2001, Al-Arian was among the members of the American Muslim Council invited to the White House complex.  … The next month, the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom—a civil liberties group headed by Al-Arian—gave Norquist an award for his work to abolish the use of secret intelligence evidence in terrorism cases.” (Rep. Frank Wolf (R.-Va.)

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) agenda is determined by the American Conservative Union(ACU).”

Sami Al-Arian pled guilty in 2006 ‘to a charge of conspiring to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a specially designated terrorist organization, in violation of U.S. law.

For a window into Mr. Norquist’s core beliefs, he used Americans for Tax Reform to circulate a petition in support of the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’.  The Ground Zero Mosque was the failed multi million dollar mega Mosque project a block away from the fallen twin towers on 9/11/2001.

In 2004, at age 48, Mr. Norquist married a Palestinian Muslim name Samah Alrayyes.  Ms. Alrayyes-Norquist was the Director of the Islamic Free Market Institute which was connected financially to convicted terrorist Abduraham Alamoudi and founded by Grover Norquist.

Read more at Dr. Rich Swier’s blog

C-PAC’s Muslim Brotherhood Problem

suhailBy Diana West:

One of the hallmarks of the post-9/11 years is the Western democracies’ systematic failures to analyze and debate the issues of this era of aggressively ascendant Islam — their systematic failures to connect the Islamic terrorist war on the West with the colonization of Western countries through Islamic immigration, with the clashes between Islamic and Western law and custom that occur at every nexus. This failure marks this same era of ascendant Islam as an era of Western submission.

As a conservative forum of American politics, C-PAC is no different. It may be the “mecca” of American patriots who want to defend their Constitution, but CPAC organizers have seen fit to enforce radio silence on these same issues, just as though they didn’t exist — just as though there were no threat to liberty posed by the expansion of Islam through the advance of sharia, Islam’s law. This is another feature of leadership’s abdication, cowardice and corruption — The Death of the Grown-Up and American Betrayal, both.

Read the following column, and ask yourself whether a chain of influence related to the Muslim Brotherhood might have something to do with it.

This week’s syndicated column

As thousands of conservatives from across the country gather outside Washington, D.C., this week for the annual CPAC conference, they get to see and cheer on their favorite conservative all-stars and presidential hopefuls in person – Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and many more. But something else is going on. Amid the hoopla, book signings, meet and greets, speeches, panels and bands, a tense, no-holds-barred fight is under way to try to rid CPAC of a pair of influential men with track records of working with America’s enemies – Islamic organizations the U.S. government has linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and larger world of jihad.

It sounds like the setup to a thriller: Here is the pre-eminent showcase of red-meat conservatism, and at its organizational heart are movers and shakers with links to the world jihadist movement. But these are the facts as laid out in a meticulous, 40-plus-page “Statement of Facts” solemnly signed last month by former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, former U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, former U.S. representative and retired Army Lt. Col. Allen B. West, retired U.S. Navy Adm. James A. Lyons, retired U.S. Army lieutenant general and former Pentagon intelligence official William G. Boykin, former Pentagon Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, former Ambassador Henry F. Cooper, former FBI Special Agent John Guandolo and former CIA officer Clare Lopez.

These nine men and one woman sent their dossier and a letter to Cleta Mitchell, counsel of the American Conservative Union (ACU), the organization that has staged CPAC for the past 40 years. They also sent it to every member of the ACU board.

Among these ACU board members is Suhail Khan. A former Bush administration appointee, now a member of a newly minted minority “engagement” council of the Republican National Committee, Khan is one of the two men under these former national security officials’ scrutiny. The other is Khan’s longtime ally Grover Norquist, the well-known anti-tax activist and ubiquitous presence at CPAC and other conservative power centers.

The case against Khan and Norquist is not new. Frank Gaffney, a national security expert and former Reagan Pentagon official (also a friend and colleague of mine), first began making it more than a decade ago. On behalf of ACU, Mitchell officially rejected a similar presentation by Gaffney in 2011, maintaining that it had “no basis” in fact, but rather constituted “continuing venom against Grover” – as if, for example, laying bare both Khan’s and Norquist’s troubling, past associations with such enemies of America as the later-convicted al-Qaida terrorist and Muslim Brotherhood member Abdulrahman “Oh Allah, destroy America” Alamoudi could be discounted as a personality clash.

As a personal aside, I would like to add that in all of my career in Washington, I have met no finer man nor greater patriot than Frank Gaffney, who has brought this case to light out of concern for America’s national security.

Then, of course, he has all those facts on his side. With Woolsey, Mukasey, West and the rest now attesting to them, ACU’s quite feeble and unbecoming excuses won’t wash. The central question remains, now anchored by the reputations of heavyweight public servants. That question is: How long will the ACU and CPAC both embrace and be guided by men who, as distilled by the executive summary of the group’s Statement of Facts, “have extensive ties to ‘various Muslim extremist organizations,’ individuals associated with them and their activities”?

The statement continues: “These include organizations established in federal court as prominent Muslim Brotherhood front organizations with ties to the designated terrorist organization, Hamas.”

Ties to groups avowed to America’s destruction are not usually seen as conservative movement resume enhancers. But that’s not the only bizarre aspect to this long struggle to reintroduce the survival reflex into conservative thinking. The ACU seems unable to recognize that people who build political careers associating with operatives from Muslim Brotherhood front groups and advancing their interests straight into the inner sanctum of the Bush White House are not the best candidates for conservative leadership.

All Americans, not just conservatives, should read the Statement of Facts. In concise and measured language, it lifts the curtain on the complex machinations of Islamic influence agents and operatives orbiting around the network of U.S. Muslim Brotherhood front organizations that have multiplied throughout the U.S. in the past 50 years. (Suhail Khan’s parents actually founded several of them.) The group’s goal? Nothing less than to destroy the United States and transform what is left into an Islamic-ruled land.

Read more

Center for Security Policy petitioning to remove Norquist, Khan from the ACU

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The Examiner, by Christopher Collins:

The Center for Security Policy on Tuesday sent notice through email communications that they are pursuing and petitioning the removal of American Conservative Union (ACU) members, Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, due to their influence from the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes.

On February 11, 2014, ten influential national security practitioners sent a letter to American Conservative Union board member Cleta Mitchell, urging her and her colleagues to take action against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, two ACU members who have influenced operations against conservatives, for several years, on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes.

Frank Gaffney, Jr. President of the Center for Security policy stated that as of March 4, 2014, ACU board member Cleta Mitchell has ignored their request.

“Both Norquist and Khan have had relationships with a bevy of individuals with strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood– including jailed al-Qaeda and Brotherhood member Abdurahman Alamoudi and onetime head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad Sami al-Arian– that make their participation in the American Conservative Union anathema to the organization’s supposed vision,” Gaffney said in his email.

“It behooves true conservatives, Republicans… and, indeed, the American people as a whole to resist such subversive operations and to expose and counter those who enable them.”

In statements released on February 18, 2014, ten influential national security practitioners that included:

Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Clinton Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former Congressman Allen West, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin and former Pentagon Inspector General Joseph Schmitz signed a letter to remove Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.

The signed letter addressed statements of facts sent to American Conservative Union board member Cleta Mitchell said in part:

“Grover Norquist served on the founding Board of Directors of the Islamic Free Market Institute and reportedly as its chairman. Norquist was identified as the registered agent for the Islamic Free Market Institute Foundation when its registration papers were filed in the District of Columbia on July 23, 1998.”

“Suhail Khan is the son of Mahboob and Malika Khan, Muslim immigrants from Pakistan and founders of numerous Muslim organizations in the United States. Suhail Khan has publicly acknowledged his parents’ leadership role in organizations that have been identified by the federal government as Muslim Brotherhood front groups.”

In July 1999, Khan told a conference sponsored by the largest of such groups, the very first mentioned in the attachment to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Islamic Society of North America in which he said, “It is a special honor for me to be here before you today because I am always reminded of the legacy of my father, Dr. Mahboob Khan, an early founder of the Muslim Students Association in the mid-60s and an active member of the organization through its growth and development in the Islamic Society of North America.”

Gaffney said, “The time has come for the American Conservative Union to disassociate itself from Norquist and Khan. Nothing less than the Board of Directors’ repudiation of these individuals will suffice. The coming together of thousands of conservative activists at this year’s CPAC offers an opportunity for mainstream conservatives to demand the ACU distance itself from Norquist and Khan.”

“Furthermore, by signing this petition and sending ACU Chairman Al Cardenas and Executive Director Dan Schneider emails, it will let them know that Norquist and Khan need to be removed out of the American Conservative Union.”

Gaffney also pointed out that a newly released monograph, “Agent of Influence: Grover Norquist and the Assault on the Right” reproduces the letter to Mitchell and the accompanying Statements of Facts she ignored and that it is also available at Amazon.com.

safe_image

Tell The ACU: Grover Norquist Must Go

CPAC AGAIN FAILS TO ADDRESS FOREIGN POLICY

soldiers_marching_APBreitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL:

Of the 27 confirmed panels at the Conservative Political Action Conference’s (CPAC) annual policy conference, only 1 is vaguely dedicated to foreign policy. The panel titled, “What Should be America’s Place in the World in 2017…After Obama?” leaves us with more questions than answers. Al Qaeda is on the rise, Iran’s race towards nuclear capacity remains unchecked, The Muslim Brotherhood’s influence is rapidly expanding throughout the globe, America’s alliances are deteriorating day by day, and the military is dissolving down to Pre-WWII levels. Shouldn’t the conservatives of America at their most prominent forum at least have the opportunity to discuss and debate the best course of action for America’s future in foreign affairs?

Last year, partially due to CPAC’s failure to address the critical issues in foreign policy discourse, Breitbart hosted “The Uninvited” panel. The panel consisted of subject matters largely deemed “inappropriate” by the powers that be at CPAC. The panel was inspired by the late Andrew Breitbart and his fundamental philosophy that more voices is always better than less, and more voices leads to greater accountability and citizen engagement. The topics discussed during the “Uninvited” panel included crony capitalism, illegal immigration, global jihad and radical Islam, the persecution of Christians across the globe, and the gutting of the American military. Alarmingly, these issues among many others regarding foreign policy remain more important than ever.

It is not as if the President hasn’t had his fair share of Foreign Policy blunders under his watch. There is a plethora of material suggesting conservatives have plenty to discuss regarding the failures of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy.

Insurmountable evidence is suggesting Al Qaeda, once almost subdued following an aggressive campaign in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, has rapidly expanded its influence throughout the globe. Al Qaeda affiliates and supporters are attributed as being directly responsible for the 9/11/2012 attacks on Benghazi, Libya, that ended in the death of four Americans. Al Qaeda linked groups have developed strongholds in Iraq Syria, and Pakistan, along with much of North and East Africa.

Iran remains unchecked in its rapid ascent towards nuclear weaponization. Under President Obama’s watch, Iran’s centrifuges have expanded from an estimated 5,000 to 19,000. A Bipartisan initiative in the Senate meant to check the Iranian regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was met with the threat of a veto from President Obama in his recent State of the Union Address. Afterwards, support for the bill quietly died down.

Some argue President Obama’s public insistence upon supporting the overthrow of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak devolved Egypt into a state of indefinite turmoil. With Mubarak gone, Obama proceeded to support Muslim Brotherhood-backed candidate Mohamed Morsi, whose overall incompetence lead to a military coup d’etat shortly thereafter. In the aftermath of Egypt’s military takeover, mobs of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood supporters engaged in a campaign of violence and destruction towards Egypt’s Coptic Christians, burning their Churches and killing innocent civillians.

According to a recent Gallup poll, America’s relationship with its allies under the current administration has devolved to the lowest level thus far on record. According to the poll, only 41% of Americans believe other countries around the world have respect for President Obama.

The Pentagon revealed on Monday that it would shrink the size of the US Military to pre-WW2 levels. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said the Pentagon plans both a quantitative reduction in overall army size and a massive monetary deduction in defense spending. Hagel’s plan suggests an active Army of 450,000 troops, along with slashing defense expenditures in addition to the already $487 billion, 10 year defense cuts required under the sequester.

It is not difficult to highlight the many missteps, blunders and overall incompetence of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy. With the United States’ rapidly dissolving prowess throughout the world become more and more apparent, it remains unclear why CPAC continuously disallows Conservative leaders from offering their prescription for reversing America’s downward trajectory in world affairs.

***************

The answer is here:

183770806 (2)

strategic-goal-for-the-North-American-operation-of-the-extremist-Muslim-Brotherhood-

‘Conservative’ Attorney called out for Denial of Muslim Brotherhood Infiltration

By Walid Shoebat:

It never ceases to amaze how blind people can be when it comes to the tactics of Muslim Brotherhood operatives and sympathizers in the U.S. The latest example comes courtesy of Attorney Cleta Mitchell, an otherwise incredibly intelligent woman, who represents American patriot and True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht in the latter’s battle with the IRS.Nonetheless, she has apparently constructed a firewall in her mind that fends off uncomfortable facts regarding Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.

Mitchell: Insists Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan are clean.

Mitchell: Insists Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan are clean.

The inability or unwillingness of Mitchell to see these realities may extend to the tax-exempt status received by Malik Obama’s foundation. We have provided Mitchell’s office with our work on this matter and walked them through many of the details. Contrasting the treatment received by the President’s brother with that received by Engelbrecht provides an excellent opportunity for Mitchell to go on offense for her client. Then again, if she cannot acknowledge the uncomfortable yet simple truths about Norquist and Khan, it’s quite possible she’ll stand down. Unfortunately, it’s her client who would suffer in that case.

Like Norquist and Khan, Mitchell has served on the Board of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which is the umbrella organization for the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). She used to be the ACU Chairman but no longer holds that position. Khan is still listed as a Board member; Norquist is not.

In 2011, the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney sent a letter to then ACU Chairman Mitchell, requesting an investigation of Norquist and Khan. The evidence against these men is overwhelming.

Both Norquist and Khan are closely linked to convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi.

The 2011 letter sent to ACU’s Board of Directors by Mitchell in response to the Center for Security Policy’s claims smacked of someone in denial. When someone is presented with truths they don’t want to face, said person often lashes out at the messenger, which is what Mitchell did. Here are some excerpts from her 2 1/2 page letter:

Mr. Gaffney has… persistently attacked Grover over a period of many years… there was absolutely nothing contained in any of the materials that in any way linked Suhail (or Grover) to such organizations or their activities… With respect to Mr. Gaffney’s allegations against Grover, those are purely and simply character assassination… Mr. Gaffney simply has some personal animosity toward Grover and, because he cannot wage any winning battle with Grover, Mr. Gaffney has turned his attention to Suhail and has mercilessly attacked Suhail with no basis in fact to do so – while continuing to wage a rumor battle against Grover… I have tried to talk Mr.Gaffney into ceasing these attacks – but to no avail… Mr. Gaffney’s baseless attacks… Grover Norquist and Suhail Kahn, against Mr.Gaffney’s ceaseless war against them. It is reprehensible and simply has no place in the conservative movement.

There are two paragraphs in Mitchell’s 2011 letter that go a long way in explaining her denial of very painful truths. They are based on faulty premise, that individuals granted security clearances could not possibly have nefarious motives:

I have specifically pointed out to Mr. Gaffney (repeatedly) thatafter 9/11, Suhail was on the staff of the White House, in the Executive Office of the President, with a security clearance. I asked Mr. Gaffney (repeatedly), “How do you account for the fact that Suhail was subject to FBI background checks and cleared to work directly for the President and Vice-President? How would the FBI have ‘missed’ ties to such groups if those ties existed?” I have never received any reasoned response to this crucial question.

Perhaps one of the most consequential results of Khan getting a security clearance was his becoming a White House ‘gatekeeper’ for Muslim Brotherhood leaders. In one of the most revealing articles on the subject, New Republic’s Franklin Foer explained – just two months after the 9/11 attacks – how Khan brought in Muslim Brotherhood leaders to meet with the President. This must have shaped a very flawed policy relative to Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S.

Instead of considering that the security clearance process may have been compromised or corrupted, Mitchell assumed it is airtight and impenetrable. Big mistake. How does one explainHuma Abedin’s case or, for that matter, Malik Obama’s?

Mitchell makes a similar mistake when talking about Norquist’s wife. That mistake is assuming that the security clearance process has not been corrupted:

And I’m certain that Mr. Gaffney’s hatred is further fueled by the fact that Grover is married to a Muslim-American woman (who also has worked for the United States government in very responsible positions, I might add!)

In much the same way that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) smacked down Rep. Keith Ellison’s two-page letter in defense of Abedin in 2012 with a 16-page letter, Gaffney’s group has now responded to Mitchell’s three-page letter with 51 pages, signed by some prominent figures to include a former CIA Director, a former Attorney General, a former 3-Star General, a 4-Star Admiral, and several others.

We encourage you to visit the hyperlinks embedded above to view the evidence against both Khan and Norquist but here are two videos of Khan at CPAC, 2011 and 2012 respectively.The first is Khan being asked about the Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S. Keep in mind that his father helped to found the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA), both Muslim Brotherhood front groups. His mother sat on the Board of a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chapter. Watch as Khan issues a bald-faced lie, saying there are ‘no Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States’. He denied his parents’ work:

 

At CPAC one year later (2012), Khan was approached by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. This video says it all. In response to claims that he’s tied to Alamoudi, Khan accuses Geller of being tied to… Barack Obama’s hero, Saul Alinksy?

 

Also see:

 

 

 

Grover Norquist, Who has Ties to Actual Terrorists, Calls Tea Party “Terrorists”

image-1873-450x209By :

It’s funny how Grover Norquist and his employees and the left are on the same page despite their supposed commitment to tax reform.

In an email reviewed by The Daily Beast and dated October 17, Ryan Ellis, the director of tax policy for Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, declared, “the Repeal Coalition was hijacked by Defund terrorists. They flew the plane in a new direction and assured us that x, y, and z would follow. Not only did they not follow, but in fact a, b, and c happened.”

When more liberal voices, such as Chris Matthews and Al Gore, have compared Cruz and his cohorts to terrorists, they’ve come under attack from conservatives.

Speaking of terrorists, there’s Grover Norquist. Who is in bed with actual terrorists, not metaphorical terrorists.

In 1998, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a self-described “supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah,” took an interest in Norquist, whom he knew to be one of the Republican Party’s most influential networkers.

The Treasury Department later identified Alamoudi as one of Al-Qaeda’s top North American fundraisers.

One of the organizations that Alamoudi funded was Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute, which was also funded by the Saudis and the governments of Qatar and Kuwait.

Alamoudi even spoke at an anti-Israel hatefest in October 2000 co-sponsored and promoted by Norquist’s Islamic Institute, where Alamoudi led the crowd gathered in Lafayette Park across from the White House making his support for terrorists crystal clear, saying:

“I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas,” Alamoudi told a crowd of about 3,000 people in Washington’s Lafayette Park on Saturday who were protesting U.S. Mideast policies. “Anybody support Hamas here?” Alamoudi asked three times, as the crowd roared its approval.

“Hear that, Bill Clinton?” he continued. “We are all supporters of Hamas. I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah.”

And yet Norquist continued to push Alamoudi, even arranging for the Al-Qaeda financier (who was funneling money for Osama bin Laden since as early as 1993) to appear with President Bush just days after the 9/11 attacks.

It’s like Grover Norquist is a terrorist who hijacked tax policy… to promote actual terrorism. But don’t worry. Americans for Tax Reform and Ryan Ellis are laser focused on the issues that really matter.

Read more at Front Page

 

Grover Norquist Hides Treason by Attacking Ted Cruz

by :

It was once said that Politics and War make for strange bedfellows. When it comes to the Republican Party establishment, one such example is Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). Norquist’s prominence today very much includes a ride on Ronald Reagan’s coattails. The 40th President’s name is invoked in the very first sentence of Grover’s bio on ATR’s website.

Grover Norquist: Wants Cruz to be quiet.

Grover Norquist: Wants Cruz to be quiet.

Like Senator John McCain (RINO-AZ), when it comes to the fight waged by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) over Obamacare recently, Norquist would rather fight Cruz than the Democrats, despite the fact that Cruz has been fighting against what the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice said was a tax. In an interview with Nora Caplan-Bricker of the left-wing New Republic, Norquist mocked Cruz with analogies that put him on the side of the Republican establishment.

The establishment’s disgust for Cruz is not about disagreeing with his strategy; it’s about Cruz’s ability to unleash the power of the conservative base. It’s an engaged contingent of America that the establishment – including Norquist – fears. There are many reasons why the Republican establishment wants to defeat this group – many reasons. One such reason is what it doesn’t want to be exposed about itself.

That something very much includes Norquist.

While the New Republic’s Caplan-Bricker provided the ATR President a platform to attack Cruz in 2013, that publication’s Franklin Foer published an article entitled “Fevered Pitch” two months after 9/11 in 2001 that – in hindsight – demonstrates that Norquist was a major player in granting Muslim Brotherhood access to the Bush White House.

Franklin Foer: Time bomb article in 2001 implicates Norquist.

Franklin Foer: Time bomb article in 2001 implicates Norquist.

You see, Norquist was the man perhaps most responsible for the George W. Bush administration’s decision to engage the Muslim Brotherhood’s front groups in the U.S. instead of exposing them.

Foer wrote:

ON THE AFTERNOON of September 26, George W. Bush gathered 15 prominent Muslim- and Arab-Americans at the White House. With cameras rolling, the president proclaimed that “the teachings of Islam are teachings of peace and good.” It was a critically important moment, a statement to the world that America’s Muslim leaders unambiguously reject the terror committed in Islam’s name.

Unfortunately, many of the leaders present hadn’t unambiguously rejected it. To the president’s left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas “freedom fighters.” Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that “we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.” And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans, “America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come.” Days later, after a conservative activist confronted Karl Rove with dossiers about some of Bush’s new friends, Rove replied, according to the activist, “I wish I had known before the event took place.” {emphasis ours}

As mentioned previously, there are many reasons why the Republican establishment – arguably run by Rove today – wants Cruz defeated but all of this history becoming part of the American consciousness has definitely got to be one of them.

This Grover has nothing to hide.

This Grover has nothing to hide.

When is the last time you heard anyone from the Republican establishment in general or the Bush administration in particular, warn about Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S.?

There is much more at Shoebat.com

 

Glenn Beck Takes on Grover Norquist

Beck-Gaffney-Greenfield-620x310-450x225FPM, By Daniel Greenfield:

Beck made headlines when he took on George Soros. Now he’s taking on a puppetmaster closer to home. I joined Beck and Frank Gaffney yesterday in the first of a number of shows that Glenn Beck plans to do on Grover Norquist and his agenda.

Glenn Beck on Monday began what he said is “just the beginning” of his work to reveal the background and motivations of Grover Norquist, the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Beck began by playing recent clips of Norquist calling out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for his efforts to derail Obamacare, noting that while he used to joke about the left’s portrayal of Norquist as a “big power player,” he’s since revised his dismissive opinion in light of the warnings that you “don’t ever take this guy on unless you’re prepared.”

Beck’s show Monday primarily concentrated on Norquist’s alleged connections to Islamists. He invited Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy, and Daniel Greenfield of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, to weigh in…

Greenfield later added: “If you were a freedom guy, then why would he be backing an ideology associated with a complete totalitarian regime? Why would he be backing the…misfortunes of the conservative movement? And why would he be doing everything possible to undermine the possibility that the Republican Party can back a freedom-based agenda?”

You can see the full segment and more quotes at the Blaze.

 

Grover Norquist’s Ongoing Influence Operation:

 

Much more here:

Islamism’s No-Show at CPAC

cpac4-450x243

To watch Robert Spencer’s and Pamela Geller’s speeches on the “Uninvited Panel,” click here.

By :

At the fortieth annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this past March 14-16, 2013 at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center just outside of Washington, DC, the Center for Security Policy’s (CSP) Christine Brim complained of an “amateurish view” of national security “unworthy of CPAC.”   Brim and other CPAC attendees charged CPAC’s organizers, the American Conservative Union (ACU), with neglecting national security issues, particularly those involving multiple interrelated global Islamist threats.   This national security component, which along with economic freedom and family values comprises conservatism’s traditionally-defined “three-legged stool,” did not receive the attention merited by a still dangerous world.

Interviewed at CSP’s booth in the exhibit hall, Brim attributed to CPAC 2013 a “deeply dangerous” outlook of living in the “best of all possible worlds” famously manifested by Voltaire’s thinker Pangloss in Candide.  Some CPAC panels even had “whether or not we should defend America” as a theme, something that before was “not a conservative question.”  In contrast, Brim wanted CPAC to return to discussing the “broader issue of US leadership in the world” according to Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” formula.

In particular, Brim complained of a “token number” of national security discussions at CPAC.  Indeed, the CPAC schedule reveals that only six panels (3% of the total, including one about military voting) had any relevance to national security, while 68 other panels covered assorted social, economic, and political organizing issues.  Brim wished for 2014 a “much greater number” of national security panels on topics such as border control, asymmetric warfare, cyber security, transnational movements (e.g. Hezbollah), and legal efforts “to de-legitimate drones.”

Almost completely missing from CPAC’s schedule was any discussion of a global authoritarian and aggressive Islamist threat, something disappointing many CPAC attendees.  Ann-Marie Murrell of Politichicks, for example, considered this to be a “real travesty” concerning “our number one enemy.” Questioned after his appearance on the panel “Religious Freedom:  A Winning Issue for Conservatives,” Rabbi Aryeh Spero also felt that CPAC was neglecting “one of the most important issues facing Western Civilization and America.”  Briefly questioned in the hallways, Phyllis Schlafly commented that Islamism is “neglected everywhere.”  Representative Allen West claimed to have not examined the CPAC schedule, but warned that this topic deserved examination because of a “slight, little infiltration” of Islamists in the United States.

Read more at Front Page

CPAC Turns Away Pamela Geller #STANDWITHPAMELAGELLER

pam-gellerby Breitbart News: For the last four years, Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com and the American Freedom Defense Initiative have held events at CPAC featuring guests she invites to discuss the influence of Islamism on America. But this year, the American Conservative Union (ACU) has no room for Geller or her message.

In 2009, she brought Geert Wilders, who is the head of the third largest party in the Netherlands and has spoken out against the Islamization of his country.

In 2010 she held an event that her organization, The American Freedom Defense Initiative, hosted, titled “Jihad: The Political Third Rail”, with speakers like Allen West, Wafa Sultan, Simon Deng, Anders Gravers, and Steve Coughlin.

In 2011, she hosted an event discussing the Ground Zero Mosque with 9/11 families. In 2012, the event was titled “Islamic Law in America.”

More at Breitbart

via #STANDWITHPAMELAGELLER

Huge thanks to Michelle Malkin, who took to twitter and really stepped up to support me in the wake of the Breitbart article: “CPAC Turns Away Pamela Geller”. Joining Malkin are Mark Levin, The Right ScoopMaggie’s NotebookRobert SpencerInstapunditDonald Douglas, Theo Spark, Patrick over at T&RLucianne,IOTWTim at Freedom PostMarooned in Marin, and many others.

Every year I organize a critical event covering issues CPAC won’t touch, like jihad and sharia. Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan wield enormous influence and have kept Robert Spencer and me and so many of our colleagues off the CPAC schedule for years.

“Michelle Malkin, others #StandWithPamelaGeller after CPAC snub” March 2, 2013 by Twitchy Staff

However edifying this year’s CPAC gathering will be for attendees, its organizers have provided plenty of entertainment value to the public in the run-up to the event. Who will appear — Mitt RomneySarah Palin, and Dr. Ben Carson, for example — hasn’t caused as much of a stir as who won’t be in attendance. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie wasn’t invitedGOProud has been excluded, and today Pamela Geller of the American Freedom Defense Initiative announced that her application to speak has been ignored.

Check out all these tweets. If you are on twitter, please use the hashtags #standwithpamelageller and #CPAC and #CPAC2013.

Read the rest at Atlas Shrugs

6a00d8341c60bf53ef017d416ee9f0970c-600wi

Suhail Khan, A Case Study In Influence Operations:

 

Organizations Grover Norquist is Using To Subvert The Right:

 

Grover Norquist’s Ongoing Influence Operation:

Related articles

Pro-Islamist Losing Grip on Republican Party

Grover Norquist

by: Arnold Ahlert

Anti-tax promoter Grover Norquist is losing his vice-like grip on the Republican party. The head of Americans for Tax Reform, who as recently as last year counted 238 members of the House and 41 members of the Senate among those who had signed his anti-tax pledge, has seen those numbers decline to 217 in the House, one shy of the 218 needed for a majority, and 39 in the Senate.

Both totals represent an all-time low. Last Wednesday, Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) disavowed his pledge not to raise taxes, even as he acknowledged doing so could hurt his reelection chances in 2014. ”I don’t worry about that because I care too much about my country,” he said. “I care a lot more about it than I do Grover Norquist.” Americans might not like seeing their taxes go up, but Grover Norquist’s fall from grace has its benefits: As he goes down, so goes his pro-Islamist agenda.

That agenda was laid bare by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) in a speech on the House floor, October 4, 2011. “My conscience has compelled me to come to the floor today to voice concerns I have with the influence Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, has on the political process in Washington,” said Wolf. “My issue is not with ATR’s goal of keeping taxes low … My concern is with the other individuals, groups and causes with whom Mr. Norquist is associated that have nothing to do with keeping taxes low.”

Wolf mentioned Norquist’s “association and representation” of terrorist financier and vocal Hamas supporter Abdurahman Alamoudi and terrorist financier Sami Al-Arian.

In 2004, Alamoudi, one of the most prominent and influential Muslim Brothers in the United States, was sentenced to 23 years in prison for supporting terror. Alamoudi, a self-described supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, had cultivated ties with the Clinton White House that eventually enabled him and his associates to select, train and certify Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military.

Fearing a loss by Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election, Alamoudi befriended Norquist to ensure his access to senior levels of the U.S. government would be maintained if Republicans took charge. He gave Norquist $20,000 to establish the Islamic Free Market Institute and Alamoudi’s longtime deputy, Khaled Saffuri, became the founding director.

Norquist and Saffuri eventually became an integral part of the Bush administration’s Muslim outreach efforts during the 2000 campaign, with Saffuri named as Muslim Outreach Coordinator. During that campaign, Bush was also introduced to Sami Al-Arian. In 2006, Al-Arian was sentenced to 57 months in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to provide support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).

Wolf illuminated the bigger picture of that relationship, noting that Norquist was an “outspoken supporter of Al-Arian’s effort to end the use of classified evidence in terror trials.”

Al-Arian ran the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), and Norquist supported their efforts to weaken or repeal the Patriot Act as well, despite the terrorist atrocities perpetrated on 9/11.

Wolf also revealed that Norquist “was scheduled to lead a delegation to the White House on September 11, 2001, that included a convicted felon and some who would later be identified by federal law enforcement as suspected terrorist financiers.” One of the members of that delegation was Omar Ahmed, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR was named an un-indicted co-conspirator when the Holy Land Foundation was convicted of sending million of dollars in funding to Hamas and other Islamic terrorist organizations.

Another relationship Norquist cultivated was with Suhail Khan, who has ties to a variety of Islamist movements. Khan’s father, the late Mahboob Khan, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and one of the founders of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), whose anti-Semitic activities at American colleges has been documented on numerous occasions, including their latest attempt to organize a divestment campaign against Israel at the University of California, Irvine.

In 2007, Norquist promoted Suhail Khan’s candidacy for election to the American Conservative Union’s (ACU) board of directors. He was subsequently appointed. In 2012, at an irregular meeting of that organization, the board voted to dismiss accusations made against both Khan and Norquist by Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy and a former defense official in the Reagan administration.

Gaffney has been hammered by the ACU and others for suggesting that the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood reached the highest levels of the U.S. government despite the reality that it was Gaffney who drew attention to Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian, both of whom ended up as convicted felons for their terrorist activity. Yet it is Gaffney’s credibility that has been called into question for daring to draw attention to Norquist’s unseemly activity.

Read more at Radical Islam

Grover Norquist is the problem with Washington DC, not the solution

By Patrick Poole

One of the bigger political stories of the past few days has been the backlash by some members of the GOP to the manner in which Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform wields some legislators’ tax pledges as a bludgeon to Grover’s own agenda.

Some of the criticism of these lawmakers is on target as they lose their nerve following Obama’s reelection and are contemplating various “revenue enhancements” or “tax reform” schemes as mechanisms to raise taxes on American citizens. Fair enough.

But that in no way makes Grover Norquist the guy in the white hat as a review of his record shows. Not only did Norquist endorse increases in government spending (which we now have to pay for), but his record shows that Grover Norquist’s primary interest in DC is not the taxpayers but no one other than Grover Norquist and whomever is paying for his time (and it sure ain’t the taxpayers).

Let’s review some data points:

In Sept 2003, Norquist was the main cheerleader and defender of the increases in government spending under President Bush and the GOP-controlled US House and Senate, claiming that these spending increases were to “make government more effective“:

Some other conservatives see it differently. Grover Norquist, founder of the Americans for Tax Reform, says much of the growth is short-term and aimed at programs to make government more effective, helping conservatives to meet long-term goals of shrinking government. He cited Mr. Bush’s education initiative requiring more student testing as an example that could eventually bring school costs down. “We are going to find that there are failures in the public-school system. Are we building the case for school choice, for defeating teacher’s unions? I think you can argue that we are, that we are investing in order to reform.”

Clearly, those spending increases haven’t made government more effective or lowered spending in the long-term as Grover promised.

In June 2011, Norquist was battling with Sen. Tom Coburn, who wanted to end ethanol subsidies. But Norquist said he considered ending billions in government handouts without cutting the same amount as a violation of the ATR tax pledge. Again, fair enough, but just a few weeks later Norquist was telling the Washington Post editorial board that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would not be considered a tax increase:

WITH A HANDFUL of exceptions, every Republican member of Congress has signed a pledge against increasing taxes. Would allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled in 2012 violate this vow? We posed this question to Grover Norquist, its author and enforcer,and his answer was both surprising and encouraging: No.

In other words, according to Mr. Norquist’s interpretation of the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, lawmakers have the technical leeway to bring in as much as $4 trillion in new tax revenue — the cost of extending President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for another decade — without being accused of breaking their promise. “Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase,” Mr. Norquist told us. So it doesn’t violate the pledge? “We wouldn’t hold it that way,” he said.

It does seem at times that Norquist’s interpretation of the ATR pledge has frequently coincided with whomever his lobbying clients are at the time.

His record also shows that he has no real regard for the conservative movement he tries to wrap himself up in, as demonstrated following the investigation, arrest and conviction of his pal Jack Abramoff, where the investigation showed that Norquist whored out the conservative movement to a wide variety of interests, including Indian casinos, Marianas Island sweat shops and nefarious foreign governments.

Let’s also not forget Norquist’s lobbying on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to continue the homeownership tax credit, which as Erick Erickson noted directly contributed to the housing bubble and collapse at the expense of billions to the American taxpayers.

But in October 2010, Norquist was on CNN blaming the collapse on Freddie and Fannie:

NORQUIST: You may have missed this, but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac brought us this collapse. Those were the two things the Democrats refused to fix.

SPITZER: No, no, I agree with you that they were…

(CROSSTALK)

NORQUIST: This was criminal negligence on the part of Barney Frank and Dodd.

SPITZER: They were huge participants, but there were multiple parties involved. I think everybody was…

NORQUIST: No Fannie Mae, no Freddie Mac, we wouldn’t have the collapse.

SPITZER: No, that’s not quite the case. Fannie and Freddie contributed in a very significant way as did…

NORQUIST: With trillions. You keep — I give you trillions and you tell me that’s not a big enough number.

SPITZER: This was multiple links in the chain. And that’s why if you want to say just Fannie and Freddie, you’re wrong. If you want to say they’re part of it along with the mortgage banks and the brokers and the people who actually were taking out mortgages improperly, then you have the full picture.

NORQUIST: And Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton’s laws which forced your bank to lend to people who can’t afford to, so that everybody got screwed by the misdirection of capital.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Norquist.

Speaking of hypocrisy, in the late 1990s, Norquist teamed with Christian Coalition executive director Randy Tate to help sell social conservatives on the Defense of Marriage Act. In fact, I was in some of those meetings, including one where Norquist and Tate publicly browbeat a female intern for the Eagle Forum for raising the objections of her organization to using the Commerce Clause as the basis for the legislation and how that might undermine federalism and states rights. Yet now Norquist sits on the advisory board of GOProud, which is working to overturn the same act claiming it should be a states rights issue.

Norquist’s record gets worse.

Not only has he sold his influence to the highest bidder, some of those that Norquist gave entry to the GOP corridors of power were downright dangerous.

Take for instance Norquist escorting Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror leader Sami al-Arian into the White House for a meeting with Karl Rove. During Al-Arian’s terror support trial, his attorney specifically cited the top Republican government officials that Al-Arian had met with courtesy of Norquist’s introductions as a defense that his client couldn’t possibly be a terrorist leader. When Al-Arian plead guilty to terror support, the federal judge noted that Al-Arian had been “an active leader” in the terror group.

Where were the apologies by Norquist for exposing Republicans to such a dangerous individual? In fact there were none. Rather, he attacked as racists, bigots and Islamophobes anyone who dared raise issue for his new-found terrorist friends.

Read more at Front Page

See also:

Is Grover Norquist Losing His Grip on the GOP? (counterjihadreport.com)

A Disturbing Event: The American Conservative Union Embraces an Islamist

by Raymond Ibrahim

The conservative movement appears to be at a crossroads in its approach to the threat of Islamic supremacism—not only abroad but at home. Does the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood as the dominant force of the “Arab Spring” bode ill for America? Or is the Brotherhood merely another “political actor” as the Obama administration would have us believe? Is Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, a potential security risk worth investigating, as Representative Michele Bachmann and four conservative congressmen have suggested? Or is the mere raising of this question a witch-hunt, as Senator John McCain and Speaker John Boehner and numerous Democrats maintain?

A few months ago, these questions reached another flashpoint in an unlikely setting. The incident took place at an irregular board meeting of the American Conservative Union, an organization usually intent on keeping wobbly Republicans honest. The rump group in attendance — several key board members told Frontpage they were not even aware the meeting had been called – voted “unanimously” to dismiss long-standing accusations against two ACU board members. The accusations had been made by Center for Security Policy head, Frank Gaffney. Their focus was on the activities of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, two prominent ACU board members, whom Gaffney claims are influential agents of Islamist agendas. The ACU’s dismissal of Gaffney’s claims was contained in a memo written by attorney Cleta Mitchell, who called them “reprehensible” — terms no less damning than McCain’s slap down of Michele Bachmann.

Frank Gaffney is a former defense official in the Reagan administration and first made these claims public in 2003 in an article, “A Troubling Influence,” which was published on this site. In introducing the article, Frontpage editor David Horowitz acknowledged that Norquist had played an important role in the conservative movement, but also described Gaffney’s claims as “the most disturbing that we at frontpagemag.com have ever published.” He further characterized them as “the most complete documentation extant of Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column.”

The Frontpage article documented Norquist’s links to supporters of Hamas and other Islamist organizations dedicated to “destroying the American civilization from within” in the words of a Muslim Brotherhood document, and its Israeli ally. These figures included Abdurahman Alamoudi—who is currently serving a lengthy sentence for his involvement in a terrorist plot—and Sami Al-Arian, who was the finance head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a terrorist organization responsible for over a hundred suicide bombings in the Middle East. Before Alamoudi and Al-Arian were arrested, Norquist and Khan served as key facilitators between them and the Bush White House. Now that both have been convicted of terrorist activities, there can no longer be any doubt that they were working on behalf of America’s terrorist enemies.

Among the Norquist-sponsored initiatives furthering the Islamist agenda, according to Gaffney, was his effort to abolish the use of classified national defense intelligence evidence in terrorism cases. Islamist organizations and Norquist himself typically refer to this as “secret” evidence and suggest that the use of it offends the Constitution. But as former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy explains, the cases in which it is normally used are immigration proceedings, not criminal prosecutions. Unlike American citizens, aliens do not have the right to be in the United States in the first place, and should not be able to force disclosure of the nation’s defense secrets as the price tag for demanding that they leave. Sami Al-Arian was the prime-mover of the “secret evidence” campaign, which he launched to protect his brother-in-law, a member of his terror network, from a pending deportation.

In addition, Gaffney charges, Norquist used his own organization, Americans for Tax Reform, to circulate and promote a letter from Republican Muslims attacking conservatives opposed to the controversial “Ground Zero Mosque.” He also campaigned to protect the Iranian regime from sanctions, from its domestic opposition, and from military action against its nuclear program – all the while demanding draconian cuts in U.S. defense spending.

The other subject of Gaffney’s concerns is Suhail Khan, a Norquist protégé with longstanding personal and professional ties to a variety of Islamist movements. Khan’s father, the late Mahboob Khan, was a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood and one of the founders, in the 1960s, of the Muslim Students Association, the cornerstone of the Brotherhood’s American infrastructure. As Daniel Greenfield documents in his pamphlet, Muslim Hate Groups on Campus, the Muslim Students Association has been instrumental in indoctrinating young Muslims in Islamist ideology, and has an alarming legacy of senior members – Anwar Awlaki most prominent among them – graduating to positions of prominence in al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. In the 1980s, Mahboob Khan was instrumental in creating an MSA spinoff, the Islamic Society of North America or ISNA. ISNA became so deeply enmeshed in the funding of Hamas that it was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. [For more information on how the Muslim Brotherhood has targeted the United States for subversion, see Robert Spencer’s pamphlet, Muslim Brotherhood in America.]

**********

On September 21, 2011, the ACU finally took up the issue of Frank’s charges. The occasion was an unusual meeting of the ACU board, which normally meets only twice a year – in Washington and via teleconference. This particular meeting took place in Orlando, Florida, where an ACU event was being held. Because of the unusual venue, far away from ACU headquarters, most of the ACU board members did not attend, including several whom Frontpage talked to who had not been informed of the meeting and who were not in sympathy with its result. When the rump board met, they voted unanimously to adopt a resolution that dismissed Gaffney’s charges out of hand, and declared their “complete confidence in the loyalty of Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist to the United States,” and “welcome[d] their continued participation in the work of ACU and of the American conservative movement.” In adopting this resolution, the board members also declared that they “profoundly regret and reject as unwarranted the past and on-going attacks upon their patriotism and character.”

In making its decision, the board appears to have relied entirely on a memorandum provided by one of its members, Cleta Mitchell, a well-known and widely admired conservative lawyer. In her memorandum, and despite its sweeping conclusions, Mitchell addressed the specifics of only one of Gaffney’s many findings, while categorically dismissing them all: “There is absolutely nothing contained in any of the materials” presented by Gaffney, she wrote, “that in any way linked Suhail (or Grover) to such [‘Muslim extremist’] organizations or their activities.”

The one specific that Mitchell took issue with was an unlikely one given her categorical statement there was absolutely nothing that in any way linked Suhail to Islamist organizations or their activities. This was the video of Khan’s 1999 address to the Islamic Society of North America featured in Gaffney’s video course. ISNA is the principal Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States; it was founded by Suhail Khan’s own parents; and before this audience Khan spoke in the ritualistic language of the Muslim Brotherhood about how Muslim warriors love death more than their opponents love life, about his devotion to the Muslim nation, and his readiness to die for Allah. Mitchell dismissed his comments in these words: “Yet, even in that speech, there is nothing that suggests Suhail is unpatriotic or subversive.  The clip from the speech is simply (in my view) rhetoric that is, quite frankly, meaningless in terms of substantiating any of Mr. Gaffney’s allegations.” But is it meaningless to paraphrase the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood to a meeting of the most important Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States, and embrace it as one’s own aspiration?

Mitchell rests her case against Gaffney and in behalf of Khan on a single point: “Suhail was subject to FBI background checks and cleared to work directly for the President and Vice-President? How would the FBI have ‘missed’ ties to such groups if those ties existed?”

In fact, as Gaffney observes — under the right circumstances, and with the right sponsors — it would have overlooked them quite easily. “The fact that Suhail Khan received a security clearance during his time in government is an indictment of the clearance process, not evidence that his background is problem-free: Ali Mohammad—Osama bin Laden’s ‘first trainer’ and longtime al Qaeda operative—also went through a background check and received a security clearance to work with the federal government. Major Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood killer, not only obtained a clearance, he was even promoted from captain to major despite his monitored communications with al Qaeda leader Anwar Awlaki, and the fact that in the course of his military education, he announced during a lecture that it was the duty of Muslims under shariah to kill infidels preparing to attack other Muslims (i.e., U.S. soldiers awaiting deployment to Afghanistan).

Horowitz agrees. He points to the fact that Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, has a top security clearance, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that her closest family members have been Muslim Brotherhood leaders and that for twelve years prior to being hired by the State Department, she worked for an Islamist organization founded and run by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a top funder of Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network, and a Muslim Brotherhood eminence.

Given these well-known facts, Khan’s security clearance seems a pretty thin reed on which to base so sweeping a dismissal of Gaffney’s concerns, let alone refer to them as “reprehensible.” To understand her position better, I tried to interview Mitchell, but she declined to comment, saying by email “I am precluded from talking to anyone about this because of the confidentiality provisions of the boards on which I serve which have been dealing with Frank Gaffney issues.”

That confidentiality, however, had been already breached when someone on the ACU board leaked the details of its Orlando meeting and the contents of Mitchell’s letter – and leaked them not to conservatives but to the left-wing organization “ThinkProgress.” One of the things I wanted to ask Mitchell was how she thought this letter might have been leaked and by whom (Norquist? Khan?). Accompanying ThinkProgress’s release of the Mitchell letter was this summary on its website of what had transpired:

Gaffney … was unanimously condemned by the one of the most powerful conservative organizations in America, as two documents obtained exclusively by ThinkProgress this week show.  Last September, the board of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which puts on CPAC and includes top leaders of various factions of the conservative movement, unanimously passed a resolution (read it here) condemning the “false and unfounded” attacks Gaffney had made against Norquist and Khan, both board members, after having another board member, Cleta Mitchell, look into Gaffney’s serious charges of sedition and abetting an enemy.  In a letter to the ACU board (read it here), Mitchell, a prominent and very conservative attorney, said that after reviewing the “evidence” Gaffney presented (including a lengthy PowerPoint presentation and DVDs video laying out the case against Norquist and Khan), she found his “ceaseless war” to be “reprehensible.”

Another issue I wanted to ask Mitchell about was what she thought of the fact that her sweeping memo along with the leak had given powerful ammunition to the Brotherhood and its agents in their campaign to silence critics of Islamism. ThinkProgress had previously published a “report” on “Islamophobia” (following an earlier one by CAIR on the same subject). As David Horowitz and Robert Spencer demonstrate in their pamphlet, Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future, Islamophobia is a term actually invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to silence its critics. The ThinkProgress report on Islamophobia attacked a dozen leading conservative critics of the Islamic jihad (also singled out by CAIR), including Frank Gaffney, as “bigots” and “racists.” Future editions of the report and future left-wing attacks will undoubtedly draw on the testimony of ACU board.

When asked about these events, Gaffney noted the irregular nature of the board meeting that condemned him, and deplored its lack of due-diligence that led to its categorical dismissal of the readily available evidence. He stated:

By acting solely on the basis of Mitchell’s defamatory and superficial memorandum, and then through the deliberate leak to a Soros-funded leftwing organization, the leadership of the American Conservative Union has discredited itself and given ammunition to those who want to prevent legitimate inquiries into Islamist influences in Washington.

This seems a more than reasonable concern. Since many prominent ACU board members were not present to conduct this auto-da-fé, there appears to be ample basis for it to seek a second opinion in regard to the case of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.  Should it fail to do so, the ACU board will simply reinforce suspicions that it has been successfully infiltrated and subjected to an influence operation by those opposed to everything for which the conservative movement stands.

Read the whole article for detailed background on Suhail Kahn and Grover Norquist. This is more than just disturbing. This a threat to our national security from within the Republican Party.

Norquist Repudiates Romney-Ryan on Defense

by Frank Gaffney at Front Page:

On Monday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, were sharply criticized over their commitment to reverse massive budget cuts Team Obama is making at the expense of our military capabilities and national security.

What made this attack notable – and potentially very damaging to the GOP standard-bearers – is that it came, not from the Democrats, but from a prominent Republican political operative, Grover Norquist.  It is hard to see how his contention that Messrs. Romney and Ryan can’t be trusted to spend wisely on defense will help anybody but their opponents.

In remarks to the bipartisan Center for the National Interest, Norquist threw down the gauntlet to the Republican ticket. He declared he would fight defense spending increases, or even relief from the next, debilitating round of cuts.  These amount to a further half-a-trillion dollars in across-the-board cuts over ten years under what has been called a “doomsday mechanism” known on Capitol Hill as “sequestration.” What makes matters much worse is that these cuts come on top of nearly $800 billion in Pentagon budget reductions already in the pipeline – a fact the anti-tax activist studiously ignores.

For a guy whose ostensible expertise is domestic economic matters, it is doubly surprising that Grover Norquist fails to recognize another disastrous effect these enormous reductions in defense spending will have – on employment and communities all over the country.  Estimates run as high as 1 million jobs lost and $59 billion in direct lost earnings and $86.4 billion in gross state product in the first year alone.  (For a detailed analysis of the impact by congressional district, see the Defense Breakdown Reports at www.FortheCommonDefense.org/reports.)

What Norquist did do, however, is directly take on the GOP ticket by opining that “Other people need to lead the argument on how can conservatives lead a fight to have a serious national defense without wasting money,” Norquist said. “I wouldn’t ask Ryan to be the reformer of the defense establishment.”

The question occurs:  Just who does Grover Norquist think would be better suited to be stewards of the “defense establishment” and the national security it is charged with providing?  Having no expertise on these matters himself, in whom does he have more confidence than the people the Republican Party hopes will lead this nation for the next four years?

Based on Grover Norquist’s past history advising the last Republican administration (see www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), several candidates come to mind, as noted in this CSPAN interview with moderate Muslim Stephen Suleyman Schwartz:

  • Abdurahman Alamoudi:  Alamoudi is a top Muslim Brotherhood operative and al Qaeda financier with whom Grover Norquist joined forces in 1998 to launch a Brotherhood front called the Islamic Free Market Institute.  Alamoudi’s purpose was, with Norquist’s considerable help, to run influence operations inside the conservative movement and Republican circles, including notably the George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign.  Alamoudi should be available to help reorder our defenses as he is currently serving hard time in Supermax on terrorism-related charges.
  • Sami al-Arian:  Al-Arian also went to federal prison, in his case for running a designated terrorist organization, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, from his professor’s office at the University of South Florida.  But not before Grover Norquist helped him meet with Candidate Bush in March 2000 and subsequently extract from Mr. Bush a public commitment that, if elected, he would work to eliminate a key counter-terrorism tool: the confidential use of classified information in deportation proceedings against illegal aliens (like al-Arian’s brother-in-law, Mazen al-Najjar) so as to protect such intelligence from compromise.
  • Nihad Awad:  The co-founder of an aggressive Muslim Brotherhood front and Hamas fund-raising vehicle, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) also benefitted from Norquist’s help in gaining access to and running influence operations against the Bush ’43 team.  CAIR was listed in 2008 as an unindicted co-conspirator in the criminal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation on charges of providing material for terrorism.
  • Muzammil Siddiqi:  To conclude this partial listing, Grover Norquist could surely also call for assistance on Siddiqi, yet another top Muslim Brotherhood leader and an influential Islamist cleric.  After all, Siddiqi owes him: Norquist aided in securing for him the role of representative of the Muslim faith at the national ecumenical 9/11 memorial service on September 14, 2001.  The Norquist-Alamoudi team also arranged later that month for Siddiqi to present President Bush with a Quran on the occasion of a private meeting at the White House. Such legitimation advanced considerably the subversive agenda Siddiqi and his comrades pursued as part of what they call “civilization jihad” against America.

Or perhaps Grover Norquist would turn to people like Trita Parsi, who even the state-controlled Iranian media have depicted as part of the “Iran Lobby” in America.  He certainly did before:  In 2007, Norquist created with the help of his Palestinian-American wife, Samah, an anti-defense group called the American Conservative Defense Alliance (ACDA). (Samah served on ACDA’s board of directors and as its corporate secretary).  And ACDA, in turn, was a founder of the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI). ACDA’s address was that of Norquist’s ATR group, where CNAPI meetings were also held.

By 2008, CNAPI’s coalition was made up of more than 40 groups including: Parsi’s National Iranian American Council (NIAC), CAIR and other Islamists; many George Soros-funded radical leftist groups; and the Norquists’ vehicle for undermining the conservative stance on national security, ACDA.  Their common goals: to eliminate U.S. support for  the democracy activists opposed to the Tehran regime, to block  economic sanctions and to prevent any military action.

All these Norquist allies could, of course, be relied upon to back him in pressing for substantial cuts in U.S. defense expenditures.  They would presumably be happy, as Norquist put it Monday night, to join him in getting “the Republican Party…[to] reexamine the actual defense needs and then work from there to determine how much to spend.”

To be sure, a reexamination of those requirements as defined by Barack Obama is in order.  And our defense needs should indeed determine the resources applied to meet them.  But the nation – and most especially the Romney-Ryan campaign – can ill-afford to take advice from Grover Norquist and his friends, especially as it would obviously be predicated on dramatically reducing such military requirements.  It would also have the practical effect of making Obama’s ravaging of the nation’s defenses seem responsible.

At issue is not so much whether this Islamist-tied libertarian trusts Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to manage the nation’s national security needs.  What we need to know is whether the GOP candidates trust Grover Norquist – and will they henceforth open their doors to him and the bad company he keeps?

Advice for Paul Ryan: stay away from Grover Norquist

Grover Norquist

By Walid Shoebat:

Grover Norquist has, for years, sidled up to Republican establishment leadership. As the president of a group known as Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), he hits many a resonant note with conservatives. There is another, far more disconcerting side to Norquist, however, that sidles up to individuals with ties to Muslim Brotherhood groups, according to Discover the Networks.

Today, in an op-ed that appeared in the Washington Times, Norquist is clearly attempting to win favor with Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, by employing the charm offensive. Says Norquist:

Mitt Romney defined and took command of the 2012 presidential election by selecting Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate.

The November election will focus like a laser on Barack Obama’s accumulation of 5 trillion dollars of debt, his massive “stimulus” spending, the 20 tax increases to pay for his budget-breaking new entitlement program, Obamacare’s growing costs, and the unemployment and slow growth that Mr. Obama’s failed economic policies have wrought.

Adding Paul Ryan to the ticket highlights all the painful failures of the Obama administration and adds one final rebuke: The Republicans have a real plan — a written plan — to reform entitlement spending, reform all welfare programs and enact a Ronald Reagan-style tax reform that lowers tax rates for all Americans.

Regular readers to our site – especially lately – are familiar with the name Abdurahman Alamoudi. Norquist is quite familiar with him too. Here is an excerpt from DTN about a relationship the two had:

In 1998, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a self-described “supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah,” took an interest in Norquist, whom he knew to be one of the Republican Party’s most influential networkers. For years prior, Alamoudi had cultivated ties with the Democratic Party and had contributed significant amounts of money to its candidates. These donations had given Alamoudi access to the Clinton White House and enabled him and his associates to secure the right to select, train and certify Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military. Eager to retain this influential role even if the Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, were to lose the upcoming election, Alamoudi wrote two personal checks (a $10,000 loan and what appears to have been a $10,000 gift) that enabled Norquist to establish, and to become the founding chairman of, the Islamic Free Market Institute. Better known as the Islamic Institute, this entity’s stated purpose was to cultivate political support (for Republicans) from Muslim and Arab Americans who embraced conservative family values and free-market economics. In addition, Alamoudi in 2000 and 2001 made payments totaling $50,000 to Janus-Merritt Strategies, a lobbying firm with which Norquist was associated at the time.

In the days after 9/11, Norquist helped a man named Suhail Khan usher Muslim Brotherhood leaders into the White House. The former also helped the latter, Khan, gain increased visibility with the Bush administration.

At CPAC in 2011, David Horowitz called out both Norquist and Khan. Fast forward and watch from 6:40 – 9:00 to see Horowitz talk about Suhail Khan’s father, Mahboob Khan, who co-founded the Muslim Students Association:

In 2006, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) had been in Congress for seven years. He penned an op-ed entitled, “Defining the Threat We Face”. He did so after George W. Bush used the term, “Islamic fascists” for the first (and last) time publicly.

******

What will Ryan do?

Will he learn from recent history? Will he learn from the mistakes of Bush, Cheney, and Rove, that their cozying up to Muslim Brotherhood front groups has taken the United States to a much more dangerous place? Grover Norquist aided the Bush administration in furthering those ill-advised relationships when he embraced Suhail Khan, who gave the red carpet treatment to Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

Norquist appears to be attempting to implement a similar strategy with Paul Ryan.

Mr. Ryan, take our advice (we give it freely and with unadulterated conviction):

Reject Grover Norquist’s influence or your legacy will be less than what it should be.