Tag Archives: David Horowitz

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER PROVIDES COVER FOR JIHAD APOLOGISTS

Posted on by
3

images (27)by LEE STRANAHAN:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has taken a lead role in the institutional left’s attempt to unilaterally intellectually disarm America on the issue of Islamic terrorism. In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, it’s worth looking at how the group has attempted to silence critics of Islamic extremism, often by poisoning the well to discredit any examination of the possible dangers posed by Islamists.

The SPLC was started over forty years ago as a legitimate civil rights organization to combat the violent racist actions of groups like the Ku Klux Klan, but has become part of the vast web of organizations–many funded by George Soros’s Open Society Institute–that work together to smear conservative voices in order to advance a leftist agenda.

One way to think of the institutional left is as a body where different organs perform different functions but all function together to form a whole; your stomach signals your brain that it wants food, so your feet walk you to the fridge, your hand opens the door, and so on. With the institutional left, many different groups work in concert to promote the wider agenda of radicals, such as diminishing America’s security.

The role that the Southern Poverty Law Center plays is to be an “objective” source to brand conservative entities as “hate groups” for the purpose of stopping debate and discussion on important issues. The well-heeled SPLC–with financial reserves of over$200 million–does this through their Hate Watch blog and a quarterly magazine but, more ominously, by also reporting their findings directly to the FBI.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has explicitly targeted people like Atlas Shrugs blogger Pam Geller, author Robert Spencer, 60s radical-turned-conservative David Horowitz, and the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney. By lumping these authors and speakers in with violent groups like the Aryan Brotherhood or Ku Klux Klan and then reporting them to law enforcement as “hate groups,” the SLPC is trying to create a chilling effect on investigation into what we’ve learned time and again are legitimate dangers.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s impact is magnified because other institutional left groups pick up on the SPLC’s reports and regurgitate them; these circular references are then used to give the reports legitimacy.

Read more at Breitbart

Horowitz on Benghazi: “Most Un-American Act By An American President”

Posted on by
Reply

images (11)Politichicks:

PolitiChick Ann-Marie Murrell talks to David Horowitz about the trend in DC to ignore the threat of Islam, the education system that has been “taken over by the Communist Left” and the stunning lack of help by the Obama administration in Benghazi.

Inside the Muslim Student Association Conference, Part 3

Posted on by
3

Untitled-3-450x336By Mark Tapson:

In Part 1 of this series on the recent 15th Annual Muslim Student Association (MSA) West Conference, which I attended at the University of California, Santa Barbara, I gave a general overview of the conference’s pro-Palestinian activism, its promotion of a sense of victimization at the mercy of an Islamophobic society and university system, its urgent appeal to political activism that goes hand-in-hand with its emphasis on strengthening one’s Muslim faith and community, and its support from top Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America. Part 2 focused on the biggest names who had been invited to speak there, radicals like Siraj Wahhaj, Edina Lekovich and Taher Herzallah of the infamous Irvine 11. Let’s look at some of the lesser-known speakers there whose presentations were even more political.

Ali Mir, Director of Muslim Student Life at the University of Southern California, whose bio was not included in the conference program booklet, lectured the crowd about “white privilege” in a session called “Perennial Spring,” probably intended to echo the disastrous “Arab Spring.” Mir identified cultural and economic “imperialism” as the basis of American foreign policy, and urged students to get politically involved in “social justice”: “As Muslims, we demonstrate our Islamic principles by working to empower all marginalized people, regardless of their faith,” reads his session description. Really? Like the marginalized Christians in Egypt and Nigeria and elsewhere where Muslim fundamentalists are slaughtering them openly? Like the marginalized Jews in Europe and elsewhere who are suffering increased violent persecution at the hands of Muslims? Mir neglected to address that contradiction.

As an example of how the organized Muslim students can effect meaningful change on campus, Mir told the audience that “your friend and mine, David Horowitz” delivered a talk at the University of Southern California three years ago in which “he said stupid things.” He didn’t specify what they were, but the plan he encouraged among his fellow students at that time was to “write down every racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic thing Horowitz said” and force the university to issue a statement denouncing him afterward – which Mir said it did, to the applause of his uncritical audience.

That’s not quite the whole story. In fact, David Horowitz was invited by the USC College Republicans to come on campus and protest an Islamic hadith which appeared on an official USC website, calling for the genocide of Jews. His speech was attacked in advance by Students for Justice in Palestine and the USC Progressive Alliance, who made up quotes and attributed them to Horowitz to paint him as an Islamophobe and a racist. Nonetheless, Horowitz was allowed to speak at USC on November 4, 2009.

Later, the USC Vice President of Student Affairs, Michael Jackson, published an open letter in the campus newspaper, attacking the College Republicans for inviting Horowitz. He claimed that Horowitz’s presence “led members of our community, our Muslim students, to feel threatened, unsafe, and betrayed.” This letter was also sent to every official USC student, faculty, and staff email address and was published as an ad in the Daily Trojan, which Jackson controlled. Horowitz responded with a rebuttal, which the Trojan ultimately and reluctantly printed.

In his MSA West conference presentation, Mir didn’t offer specifics about objectionable Horowitz statements. He didn’t need to; it was enough for him to simply use unsubstantiated, demonizing labels: “racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic.” Because for radicals like Mir (and his allies in the unholy alliance of the left and Muslim fundamentalists), those labels suppress debate and misrepresent the substance and philosophy of their opponents like Horowitz.

Mir went on to condemn the atheist anti-Islam writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali as “as much an extremist as Osama bin Laden,” because of her assertion that Muslims would be better off converting to Christianity. That’s right – he considers Hirsi Ali as much of an extremist as the man who ordered the World Trade Center massacre and other acts of terrorism. The man who was the living inspiration for violent jihadists worldwide. No student in the auditorium raised an objection.

Read more at Front Page

Mark Tapson, a Hollywood-based writer and screenwriter, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. He focuses on the politics of popular culture.

Why Israel Is the Victim

Posted on by
Reply

hereBy :

Order your physical copy by clicking here.

Introduction

Israel, the only democracy and tolerant society in the Middle East, is surrounded by Muslim states that have sworn to destroy it and have conducted a genocidal propaganda campaign against the Jews, promising to “finish the job that Hitler started.” A global wave of Jew-hatred, fomented by Muslim propaganda and left-wing anti-Semitism, has spread through Europe and the United Nations and made Israel a pariah nation. David Horowitz’s classic Why Israel Is the Victim, now updated in the pamphlet below, sets the record straight about the Middle East conflict. In addition to restoring the historical record —  a chronicle  of obsessive aggressions first by Arab nationalists and then by Muslim jihadists, this pamphlet brings the story up to date by showing the systematic way in which the fanatical Islamic parties, Hamas and Hezbollah, sponsored by Iran, have subverted peace in the Middle East.

As Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield notes in his insightful Foreword, this pamphlet “tells us why we should reject the ‘Blame Israel First’ narrative that has so thoroughly saturated the mainstream media… It confronts the myth of Palestinian victimhood… and it delivers a rousing restatement of the true history of the hate that led us to all this.”  America needs to be Israel’s protector, for as George Gilder has observed, “If the United States cannot defend Israel, it cannot defend itself.”  Instead, under the leadership of Barack Obama, it has become Israel’s prosecutor with ominous portents for the future.

Foreword

In “Why Israel is the Victim” David Horowitz tells the ugly tale of the war against Israel, laying bare the sordid hypocrisies and deceits behind its campaign of violence. No volume can contain the full story of Islamic terrorism or the courageous ways in which the ordinary Israeli confronts it in the streets of his cities. What this essay does tell is the story of the lies behind that terror.

Propaganda precedes war; it digs the graves and waits for them to be filled. The war against the Jews has never been limited to bullets and swords; it has always, first and foremost, been a war of words. When bombs explode on buses and rockets rain down on Israel homes, when mobs chant “Death to the Jews” and Iran races toward the construction of its genocidal bomb; the propaganda lies to cover up these crimes must be bold enough to contain not only the murders of individuals, but the prospective massacre of millions.

The lie big enough to fill a million graves is that Israel has no right to exist, that the Jewish State is an illegitimate entity,  an occupier, a warmonger and a conqueror. The big lie is that Israel has sought out the wars that have given it no peace and that the outcomes of those wars make the atrocities of its enemies understandable and even justifiable. That is the big lie that David Horowitz confronts in “Why Israel is the Victim”.

From the latest outburst of violence to its earliest antecedents under the Palestine Mandate, “Why Israel is the Victim” exposes the true nature of the war and wipes away the lies used by the killers and their collaborators to lend moral authority to their crimes. It shows not only why Israel must exist, but also why its existence has been besieged by war and terror.

“Why Israel is the Victim” tells us why we should reject the “Blame Israel First” narrative that has so thoroughly saturated the mainstream media. It challenges the false hope of the Two State Solution in sections such as “Self-Determination Is Not the Agenda” and “Refugees: Jewish and Arab”. It confronts the myth of Palestinian victimhood in “The Policy of Resentment and Hate” and delivers a rousing restatement of the true history of the hate that led us to all this in “The Jewish Problem and Its ‘Solution’”.

Recent history shows us that it was not an Israeli refusal to grant the Palestinian Arabs the right of self-determination that led to their campaigns of terror, but that Palestinian self-determination empowered a people steeped in the hatred of Jews to engage in terrorism.

Continue reading at Front Page where the entire pamphlet has been published

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine,Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.”

Also see: Reading Horowitz

 

 

The Heart of the Unholy Alliance’s Darkness

Posted on by
1

dtnBy

To know everything you ever wanted to know about the Left’s Islamist odyssey, visit DiscoverTheNetworks.org, the website that describes and exposes the networks and agendas of the political Left.

As Islamic Jihad, including its “stealth” variety, is rapidly succeeding in destroying our civilization, the Left continues its shameless and bizarre denial — not only about the threat of Islamic Jihad, but also about its own complicity with our enemy and its war on our society.

The latest example of the Left’s Jihad-Denial concerns me personally: it involves an intriguing post, written by Brian Tashman in RightWingWatch.org, titled: Beware: Human-Hating Liberals and Islamic Extremists Seek to Build Shariommunism. The post ridicules my recent appearance on CBN’s “Stackelbeck on Terror” in which I discuss the Unholy Alliance between the radical Left and radical Islam, which David Horowitz has masterfully documented in his masterpiece Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left and that I have analyzed in United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.

Unholy Alliance book

United in Hate book

The ingredients of Right Wing Watch’s attack on me are pathological not just in how they deny blatant reality, but also in how they in and of themselves substantiate the very realities they are denying.

Below, I will demonstrate and deconstruct the pathology in these assaults. It is more crucial than ever to expose the nature of the Left’s duplicity, lies and inner contradictions, since the Unholy Alliance’s malicious and destructive war on our civilization is now making more dangerous inroads than at any previous time.

Read it all at Front Page

See also:

“It Is High Noon For America”

Posted on by
6

imagesCABV4RXIShoebat.com:

By Drew Zahn

His parents were dissidents in the Soviet Union who braved gulags to voice the cry for freedom in a totalitarian state.

When he was five years old, his family fled to the West.

Now Jamie Glazov, editor of FrontPageMag.com, is following his parents’ footsteps, speaking out against the biggest issues threatening the freedom he found in America. And according to Glazov, the threat has never been more real or more urgent.

“It is high noon for America,” Glazov claimed in an interview with Josh Brewster of The Glazov Gang. “There’s a jihadist enemy that’s coming at the West and at America and at Israel. There’s the threat of stealth jihad and also violent, physical jihad. And … political correctness and the leftist ideology has completely blinded the West and handcuffed us behind our back, and we’ve got a media as well as people in our White House that are sabotaging us from within.”

Glazov spoke with Brewster about his family’s struggle for freedom, their run-ins with KGB interrogators, their escape to the West, the influence of David Horowitz, founder and president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and about the release of his newest book, “High Noon for America: The Coming Showdown.”

Glazov’s earlier book, “United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror,” shows how the radical left, even in America, is willing to cover for and partner with radical Islam, because the two groups share common values: namely, a hatred for Western culture, capitalism and the Judeo-Christian heritage of the U.S., and a desire to establish a new world order in their own image.

In the interview, Glazov explains how his newest book, “High Noon for America,” was formed from years of symposia on the detrimental influence of communism, Islam, the Obama administration and more on the foundations of American freedom.

“This is a collection of the brightest minds and what they have to say about the threat we face,” Glazov said.

The interview, which has been divided into two parts, can be seen below:

Defending Homeland

Posted on by
Reply

By Mark Tapson:

No matter how far backward Hollywood bends over to placate Islam,  its foot soldiers among the leftist media still complain it isn’t far enough. Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor at Britain’s left-leaning The Guardian and The Observer, wrote an editorial this weekend about Showtime’s terrorism drama Homeland entitled, “Homeland is brilliant drama. But does it present a crude image of Muslims?” Guess how he answers his own question.

The show centers on a U.S. Marine, missing and presumed dead in Iraq since 2003, who is rescued and brought home to Washington D.C. where he rides his war hero popularity all the way into a Congressional seat and a possible vice presidential nomination. The twist? This supposed patriot is a Muslim convert here to carry out a plot spawned by a terrorist mastermind.

As readers of FrontPage know well, political correctness and moral equivalence reign in Hollywood, and Homeland is no exception. The show suggests, as Hollywood always does, that the root cause of Islamic terrorism is “blowback” – justifiable retribution for America’s imperialist foreign policy and CIA ruthlessness. Hollywood never acknowledges that our enemy might be motivated, as it has been for 1400 years, by the supremacist imperatives of Islam itself.

I’ve written about Homeland before for FrontPage, when its first season finale proved it to be disappointingly typical of Hollywood’s blame-America-first, post-9/11 perspective on our clash of civilization versus barbarism. At that time, I’d been encouraged by the fact that the show at least didn’t shy away from presenting Islamic terrorists. But in the long run Homeland, like Hollywood in general and the Obama administration itself, simply refuses to put forth a narrative truthfully identifying who the white hats and black hats are in this global conflict.

Thus it’s odd to find myself in the position of defending the show, but Peter Beaumont’s piece is so typical of the left’s complicity with Islamic fundamentalists (the unholy alliance, as David Horowitz calls it) in their agenda to criminalize the defamation of Islam, that a response was necessary.

Why is the show worth writing about at all? For the same reason Beaumont himself devoted a lengthy column denouncing it: it’s an important cultural marker. Homeland just brought home the Emmy for Outstanding Drama Series, and Best Actor and Best Actress Emmys for its two leads. It is currently the most highly regarded drama on television, and perhaps the only show that is even addressing what used to be called “the war on terror.” Its messages matter.

“I find the depictions not only crude and childish but offensive,” Beaumont says, and God knows the left has elevated “offending someone” to the level of violent crime, so you know he’s serious. He complains that on Homeland, it doesn’t matter whether Arabs/Muslims are “rich, smart, discreetly enjoying a western lifestyle or attractive” – all are suspect. But the fact is, not all jihadists are backward, bearded bombers; some are affluent, educated, slick and Westernized subversives, like CAIR spokesmen or celebrity academics like Reza Aslan and Tariq Ramadan. So yes, those qualities do not exempt one from suspicion – far from it. This is the reality, not bigotry or the mythical Islamophobia.

Beaumont goes on to complain that “Arabs and Islamists have been portrayed thus far [in Homeland] as violent fanatics, some of whom are powerful and influential infiltrators.” Why, that’s outrageous! Where could that offensive stereotype possibly have come from? The real-world fanatics and infiltrators themselves, perhaps? Beaumont should be directing his ire at them for establishing and perpetuating the stereotype he blames on Hollywood.

Homeland presents “an odd and unbelievable image of relationships,” Beaumont claims, “between countries and identities in the Middle East, where Palestinians, Iraqis, Saudis all share an agenda regardless of background, culture and history.” It’s not odd or unbelievable at all – that agenda is the annihilation of Western civilization and the establishment of a worldwide caliphate, and it is shared by Muslim fundamentalists regardless of national background, culture and history. This is something Hollywood and the left refuse to acknowledge.

Then Beaumont lets his own bias slip. Referring to the fact that Homeland originally spun off of an Israeli TV show, he notes that “what Homeland portrays is a peculiar view of the Islamic world, one rooted, perhaps, in its genesis as an Israeli drama, where the view of the surrounding neighbourhood is more paranoid and defensive.” Paranoid and defensive? Israelis’ wariness about the Islamic world’s open determination to exterminate them is not “a peculiar view”; as the saying goes, it’s not paranoia if they’re really trying to kill you.

Read more at Front Page

The Progressive-Islamist Alliance

Posted on by
2

By J.T. Hatter:

The  affinity between radical Islamists and the progressive left derives from a shared belief that America  is the Great Satan and must be destroyed.

The  esteemed writer and lecturer David Horowitz has crafted a book entitled Unholy  Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, in which he reveals that  common cause.  The progressive left — which also embraces  socialism/communism as a means to destroy America — has now allied  ideologically with the Islamists, who despise modernity itself and especially  detest the sexual agenda of the left.

This  alliance is growing and extends deep into the Obama administration, the  mainstream media, and academia.  The Democratic Party and the mainstream  media have been protecting and supporting radical Islamists for decades.   And where you once saw fashionably leftist young college students wearing Che Guevara t-shirts, it is now common to  see them wearing Palestinian colors and sporting radical anti-Zionist  themes.

The  leader of the progressive left, President Barack Hussein Obama, proclaimed  recently at the United Nations (emphasis added):

The  future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be  credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when  the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the  Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite  pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form  of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic  spirit.”

Like  most Obama oratory, this is filled with deception and hidden meanings.  In  this statement, Obama delivers a virulent attack against those who “slander the  prophet of Islam.”  This is followed by a backhanded token (“to be  credible”) to the effect that Christianity, Judaism, and minority sects of Islam  should also receive a modicum of respect.  The implication is that the  rights of other faiths are secondary to those of Islam.

Then,  in typical Obamaic oratory fashion, he turns Gandhi’s famous quote about  tolerance on its head, delivering a meaning that is the opposite of what its  author intended.  Only the worst kind of propagandist or hypocrite can use  the term “tolerance” in the context of a nonexistent Islamic pretense to a “true  democratic spirit.”   There is no such spirit anywhere in Islam.   Islam abjures democracy.  In this reprehensively deceptive and devious  statement, Obama masks the offensive depredations of Islamic intolerance and  terrorism with the noble veneer of religious tolerance.

Obama  went on to specifically denounce the Nakoula YouTube video and continue his cover for the latest Islamic  terrorist attacks in Egypt and Libya and the murders of the American  ambassadorial staff.  Yet he curiously failed to specifically mention the  return engagement of the Piss Christ ”artwork” on display less than two  miles away at the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery on 57th  Street.

The  progressive left — the liberals in our society — almost always side with  Muslims against American ideas and laws and, in particular, against Christian  beliefs and practices.  It is a curiosity, to say the least.  You  would think that Islam and liberalism had nothing in common and were  diametrically opposed to one another.  But the two belief systems actually  have much in common.  Liberals and Muslims despise most of what patriotic,  religious Americans cherish and revere.  This makes them common enemies of  the American enterprise: comrades de guerre, so to  speak.

Where  there is conflict between the Islamic and leftist ideologies, the Muslims always  prevail.  Progressives will never confront the Islamists, in the fear that  to do so would weaken their ally, or that it could produce a backlash so violent  and devastating that the beneficial alliance would be destroyed  forever.

Still,  it is amazing to watch progressives  continue to defend and support their Muslim allies in light of the latter’s  historical and continuing offenses against the most hallowed tenets of  liberalism: hanging homosexuals; stoning adulterers; maiming criminals; abusing  and raping women and children; beheading and crucifying non-believers; killing,  dismembering, and having sex with the corpses of women; invading embassies and  torturing and killing Americans and raping the body of the ambassador.   Instead of getting tough with the Islamists for their horrors, the president and  his leftist followers cover for them.

The  horrific crimes and depredations committed by Islamists are endless, yet  liberals manage to “tolerate” them.  You would think that people with any  kind of claim to a moral mantle would not be able to tolerate so much  evil.  Such is liberalism.

Liberals  cope with these contradictions by denying that they exist or by convincing  themselves that Islamic practices are justified and the  result of cultural differences, poverty, Zionism, or something George Bush  did.

The  more you compare the beliefs of Islamists and liberals, the more similarities  you find.  David Horowitz was right: it is an unholy  alliance.

Read more at American Thinker

Is Grover Norquist Losing His Grip on the GOP?

Posted on by
1

By  , Bloomberg:

Most Republican members of Congress—279 of them—have signed Grover Norquist’s antitax pledge and sworn never to raise taxes. But there are signs that his legendary sway over GOP lawmakers may be on the wane.

Last week, Congressman Allen West, a Tea Party favorite from Florida, told Politico: ”I signed that thing in the desert of Afghanistan. I got home and they wanted me to sign again during my campaign, and I wouldn’t, and Grover started yelling at my campaign manager. Grover is a nice guy, but I think he’s a little misguided.” (Norquist says he never yelled at anyone who worked for West.)

West joins Wisconsin Congressman Reid Ribble, a fellow signee of the pledge, in speaking out against it. And Scott Rigell, of Virginia, who changed his mind and said he could no longer abide by it. Also: Jeff Fortenberry, of Nebraska, who flat-out refused to sign the pledge last year and explained in a recent interview that he wasn’t opposed to increasing certain taxes. “Removing special-interest loopholes,” Fortenberry told the American Conservative, ”could potentially increase revenues and allow for lower rates.”

So is Norquist concerned about the defectors? Norquist told me on Wednesday that he has spoken with members of Congress who expressed doubts about the pledge—but left feeling committed that none of them would vote for a tax increase. “The pledge is stronger than ever,” he says.

Lets refresh our memory on the Islamist mole Grover Norquist:

The Norquist Cell: Operation GroverKhan, (by GARY H.  JOHNSON, JR, FSM, 6/11/11)

Grover Norquist Exposed on House Floor Today (Atlas Shrugs, 10/4/11)

Grover Norquist’s New Muslim Protégé (Frontpage, 9/26/11)

A Troubling Influence,(Frank Gaffney, Frontpage, 12/09/03

David Horowitz at CPAC warning of the dangers posed by the infiltration of the conservative movement by the Muslim Brotherhood in the person of Suhail Khan and his sponsor Grover Norquist:

 

 

Savaging Shariah Critic Gaffney:What Is the ACU Up To?

Posted on by
Reply

Blue Ridge Forum:

Alex Seitz-Wald of the left-leaning Think Progress in his post today “EXCLUSIVE: Conservative Board Unanimously Condemned Gaffney’s ‘Reprehensible’ And ‘Unfounded’ Attacks” — also tells us of two revealing  American Conservative Union (ACU) documents of  September 21, 2011 here and here.

(Seitz-Wald notes: “Asa Hutchison and Carly Fiorina were not [Board] members at the time of the letter”).

The first document “welcomes their [Grover Norquist's and Suhail Kahn's] continued participation in the work of ACU and of the American conservative movement.” The second, authored by Washington insider Cleta Mitchell — “board member of and/or counsel to several leading conservative groups” –purports to remove all questions about any association of Mr. Norquist and Mr. Kahn with “extremist Muslim organizations.”

One wonders why the ACU — but perhaps because of its recently controversial history  (click here for Jim Lampe’s RedState report yesterday) – failed to release these documents at the time for full discussion by the conservative community.

For the conservative rank and file will want to come to their own judgment on Mr. Norquist and Mr. Kahn.

There will likely be many comments from a vastly different perspective on the ACU’s position, comments which we shall endeavor to track.

In the interim, faithful readers will recall northern Virginia Representative Frank Wolf’s October 4, 2011 statement to the House entitled “Grover Norquist’s Relationships Should Give People Pause.” Readers should scroll down in this link to see what Mr. Wolf terms “Terrorist Connections.”

Moreover we call readers attention to David Horowitz’s address to CPAC on February 13 of last year entitled  “The Muslim Brotherhood Inside the Conservative Movement.”

FrontPageMag publisher Horowitz counseled –

“Frank Gaffney has been the courageous bringer of the bad news about Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan to the board of the American Conservative Union. Many good conservatives on the board have refused to believe the evidence of Suhail Khan’s Brotherhood allegiances and agendas. They are of the opinion that Suhail’s public appearances with Alamoudi and the Muslim Brotherhood fronts took place a decade ago, and that he doesn’t promote violent agendas. I understand this. My parents were Communists in the heyday of Stalin. The Party’s slogan was not ‘Bring on the dictatorship of the Proletariat’ or ‘Revolution Now.’ But that is what they believed. The slogan of the Communist Party was ‘Peace, Jobs and Democracy.’

As for the question of whether Suhail Khan believes now what he openly said then, my answer is this. 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. “  (Underscoring Forum’s.)

We need a robust national discussion  among conservatives on all of this — not back-room resolutions. Blue Ridge Forum looks forward to comments from long-time experts on how free societies cope with Shariah.

Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. The Center is a not-for-profit, non-partisan educational corporation established in 1988. Under Mr. Gaffney’s leadership, the Center has been nationally and internationally recognized as a resource for timely, informed and penetrating analyses of foreign and defense policy matters.

Mr. Gaffney is the host of Secure Freedom Radio, a nationally-syndicated radio program heard weeknights throughout the country. On Secure Freedom Radio, Mr. Gaffney addresses current and emerging threats to national security, sovereignty and our ways of life. Featured guests have included Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld and many current and former policymakers and elected officials.

Mr. Gaffney is the publisher and associate author of Shariah: The Threat to America (Center for Security Policy Press, 2010).  With an introduction by former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, New York Times bestseller Andrew C. McCarthy and Lt. General Harry Soyster as well as contributions from the 19-member Team B II, this highly acclaimed report provides a comprehensive and articulate “second opinion” on the official characterizations and assessments of the threat of political Islam as put forward by the US Government. Shariah: The Threat draws upon the work of the Center for Security Policy and offers practical steps for mobilizing the our law enforcement, our elected officials and the American public to defend out country from those who would do us harm. 

Mr. Gaffney also contributes actively to the security policy debate in his capacity as a weekly columnist for the Washington Times, TownHall.com, and Newsmax.com. He is a contributor to BigPeace.com and his columns also appear periodically in WorldNetDaily.com, and FrontPageMagazine.com. He is a featured weekly contributor to Lars Larson’s syndicated radio program as well as Greg Garrison’s show and a frequent guest on syndicated programs with hosts like: Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Janet Parshall, and Jim Bohannan. In addition, he appears often on national and international television networks such as Fox News, CNN and BBC.  Over the years, his op.ed. articles have appeared in such publications as: The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angeles Times, National Review, Newsday, American Legion Magazine, and Commentary.

In April 1987, Mr. Gaffney was nominated by President Reagan to become the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, the senior position in the Defense Department with responsibility for policies involving nuclear forces, arms control and U.S.-European defense relations. He acted in that capacity for seven months during which time, he was the Chairman of the prestigious High Level Group, NATO’s senior politico-military committee. He also represented the Secretary of Defense in key U.S.-Soviet negotiations and ministerial meetings.

From August 1983 until November 1987, Mr. Gaffney was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy under Assistant Secretary Richard Perle.

From February 1981 to August 1983, Mr. Gaffney was a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John Tower (R-Texas). And, in the latter 1970′s, Mr. Gaffney served as an aide to the late Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson (D-Washington) in the areas of defense and foreign policy.

Mr. Gaffney holds a Master of Arts degree in International Studies from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.

Mr. Gaffney’s leadership has been recognized by numerous organizations including: the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Award (1987), the U.S. Business and Industry Council’s Defender of the National Interest Award (1994), the Navy League of the United States’ “Alfred Thayer Mahan Literary Achievement Award” (1999), and the Zionist Organization of America’s “Louis Brandeis Award” (2003).

 

Related articles