Mohamed Elibiary has left the building

3728290738Center for Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Mohamed Elibiary, an Islamist with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and a record of influence operations in the service of its agenda, has announced his departure after five years on the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. We can only hope that – at a moment when the danger posed by shariah-adherent Muslims is becoming more palpable by the day – the Department decided to stop legitimating an advisor who has publicly championed that it was, “ inevitable that ‘Caliphate’ return”, contended that the United States is “an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution.”

Elibiary had always been brazen in his support for Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, including featuring the Muslim Brotherhood “R4Bia” symbol on his twitter page, and publicly lauding Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb.

In 2011, Elibiary was also suspected of utilizing his security clearance in order to access confidential documents from the Texas Department of Public Safety, and seeking to “shop” the files to journalists in order to label then Presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry an “Islamophobe.” In May 2014, during testimony before Congress, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted to Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX), that this was “problematic.”

Whatever the cause of Elibiary’s departure from a senior advisory capacity in the Obama administration, it must be welcomed because – as documented in the Center for Security Policy’s online, video-based course entitled The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within” (MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com) – he played a prominent role in blinding the U.S. government to the threat posed by the Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad.” This was the practical upshot of a sequence of events that began with Elibiary being given the FBI’s highest civilian award at the Bureau’s Training Academy in Quantico, Virginia in September 2011.

Shortly thereafter, Spencer Ackerman of Wired Magazine published pictures of materials in the FBI Training Academy’s Library that Elibiary and his ilk deemed “offensive” accompanied by a series of screeds about the need to stop employing such information and trainers employing it to prepare Bureau personnel to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On November 8, 2011, then-Homeland Security Advisor to the President (now CIA Director) John Brennan agreed not only to accommodate that demand but applied the purge to the U.S. military, U.S. intelligence community and Department of Homeland Security, as well.

Unfortunately, as welcome as the news is that Mohamed Elibiary may be less able in the future to run subversive influence operations from within the U.S. government, his next publicly announced mission is disconcerting. In response to a Tweeted question from investigative reporter Ryan Mauro (who conducted a highly illuminating interview with Elibiary in the fall of 2013), the former Senior Fellow at the Obama Department of Homeland Security announced that he was now going to turn his attention to “reform[ing] the conservative movement so the GOP can win in 2016.”

I had an opportunity to witness personally Mohamed Elibiary’s involvement with the conservative movement when I was invited in the Spring of 2013 to address a conservative group that meets monthly in the Park Cities neighborhood of Dallas, Texas. Undeterred by his presence, I briefed the group on the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, its goals of imposing shariah worldwide under the rule of a Caliph, and its practice of stealthy, pre-violent “civilization jihad” to advance that agenda.

I also discussed the enabling role that has been played on behalf of and with Muslim Brotherhood-tied Islamists like Abdurahman Alamoudi, Sami al-Arian, Nihad Awad and Suhail Khan in their influence operations targeting the George W. Bush in the run-up to and during his administration by a prominent conservative activist, Grover Norquist. As recounted at length in Agent of Influence: Grover Norquist and the Assault on the Right, the Brotherhood front called the Islamic Free Market Institute, founded by Norquist and Alamoudi, and Norquist’s self-styled “Center-Right” Coalition meetings in Washington and similar groups meeting in state capitals and major cities across the country have served as vehicles for facilitating the penetration and subversion of the conservative movement.

In the course of my Park Cities briefing last year, I did not mention Elibiary by name and he did not make any intervention or otherwise challenge my briefing. After the meeting ended and he left, however, I asked the organizer, “Why do you have a Muslim Brother in this meeting?” Interestingly, he did not reply by saying, “Who are you talking about?” or “What evidence do you have that anyone here is a Muslim Brother?” Instead, he simply said, “The Center-Right Coalition recommended him.”

One can only assume that if Mohamed Elibiary is going to be involved in “reforming the conservative movement,” he will be doing it with the help of Grover Norquist. And that prospect should be of concern to all of us – as are Norquist’s past dealings with such Islamists to, among many others, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin and six of their colleagues in the community of influential national security practitioners who signed a cover letter accompanying the Statement of Facts that makes up the body of Agent of Influence. It should be required reading for all conservatives.

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

CPAC’s Blind Spot

3235888515By Frank Gaffney:

What would you call an issue portfolio that is vital to the future of our country, central to conservatism’s past electoral success and compelling to significant parts of the demographics likely to determine the Right’s future competitiveness? If you were the American Conservative Union, sponsor of the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference, you would evidently call it taboo.

The rest of us would call it the national security.

To be sure, despite a palpable effort by CPAC organizers to low-ball topics addressing the defense and foreign policy challenges of our time, a few speakers nonetheless touched on them.  But the degree to which such issues deserved to be a central focus of the three-day meeting – but weren’t – was made palpable by a parallel, day-long event held on CPAC’s first day under the sponsorship of EMPAct America and Breitbart News Network. I was privileged to have had a hand in organizing and moderating the proceedings.

Dubbed the “National Security Action Summit,” the program featured remarks from nearly forty participants including Senators Ted Cruz and David Vitter and five Members of Congress – Representatives Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Trent Franks, Mo Brooks and Jim Bridenstein.

Among the other highpoints were: a keynote address provided by former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, remarks by Phyllis Schlafly, comments by undercover investigative journalist James O’Keefe and a rousing closing speech by Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro.

Panels addressed topics that were largely ignored by CPAC, but should not have been.  These included: the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its “civilization jihad” and enablers; the dangers inherent in open borders and amnesty to both the country and the GOP; the need for truth-telling and accountability in the Benghazigate scandal; Obama’s endangering of the common defense, evident in and facilitated by his hollowing out of the military; the crisis in the Ukraine and what we should do about it; and the existential threat to our country posed by an electric grid dangerously vulnerable to attack and naturally occurring solar storms.  (Videos of the entire conference can be viewed at www.homelandthreats.com.)

Read more at Center for Security Policy

(Hover over menu item “Latest Events” to access videos of speakers and panels)

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

Grover Norquist & Co. Build Islamist Influence in GOP

Grover at CPACClarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Tue, March 4, 2014

How the GOP Came to Embrace the Muslim Brotherhood Lobby

Islamism is not a partisan issue. Special interests, major companies and foreign powers have long tried to affect both political parties—and the Muslim Brotherhood lobby is no different. Ten former senior officials, including a former CIA director, have issued a  joint statement with meticulous documentation about how the Republican Party was and is influenced by this lobby.

The Beginning

When the Muslim Brotherhood arrived in the U.S. in the 1960s, it recognized that violent action is counterproductive. Instead, it began political organizing so it could lead the growing Muslim-American community and use it to affect U.S. policy.

In the 1980s, the FBI recruited a confidential source deep inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood lobby. He warned that the Brotherhood established a network of front groups including the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), Muslim Students Association,Islamic Society of North America and North American Islamic Trust. One of the chief objectives was to penetrate the U.S. government with sympathizers and IIIT already claimed success.

The network was so impressive that Pakistani intelligence bred itsown influence operation from it in 1990 with the Brotherhood’s support. It donated to campaigns on both sides of the political aisle and met with officials involved in foreign policy.

The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood drafted a secret plan in 1991 that defined its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad…in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” It was not a doctrine of violence, but of activism based on aligning with non-Muslim political forces. It listed about 30 of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends” to accomplish it. This document was recognized as authentic by the U.S. Department of Justice as was introduced as evidence in the Holy Land terror financing trial.

In 1993, the FBI wiretapped a secret meeting of top Brotherhood operatives in Philadelphia. A key theme was deception and secrecy in support of their non-violent activism. In the words of one participant, the objective was “forming the public opinion or coming up with a policy to influence…the way the Americans deal with the Islamists, for instance.”

The Brotherhood decided that a new front with an apparently clean track record was necessary. Two of the participants in that meeting founded the Council on American-Islamic Relations the following year. By 1994, the infrastructure of the Brotherhood lobby was in place, though it would continue to expand with new organizations and name changes.

The Influence Peddlers

The most senior elements of the Brotherhood lobby handled outreach to the Clinton Administration and both political parties, especially the presidential campaign of then-Texas Governor George W. Bush.

SamiSami al-Arian was a central figure. He admits having been a Muslim Brotherhood member from 1978 to 1982, but his involvement in the American lobby continued after that. In a 1992 letter, al-Arianacknowledged that his organization and IIIT, the aforementioned Brotherhood front, were essentially one and the same. He was convicted in 2006 of the charge of conspiring to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a specially designated terrorist organization.

Another central figure was Abdurrahman Alamoudi and his American Muslim Council. He developed intimidate ties to both political parties, despite his support of terrorist groups. In 2004, he was indicted on terrorism-related charges. He later wrote from his prison cell, “I am, I hope, still a member of the Muslim Brotherhood organization in the U.S.A,” as reported by the Grand Deception documentary.

In 2000, Alamoudi was asked by an Islamic website how Muslims should “decrease the influence of the Zionist lobby on presidential candidates.” He said they must elect sympathetic candidates like Rep. Tom Campbell (R-CA).

Rep. Campbell spoke at the Brotherhood lobby’s events and touted their causes. He became the example and was rewarded with political support and donations to his Senate campaign in 2000, including a fundraiser that brought in $35,000. The man guiding Campbell was Suhail Khan, his campaign coordinator in 1995 and press secretary and legislative assistant from 1996 to 1999.

Read more

Ryan Mauro is the ClarionProject.org’s National Security Analyst, a fellow with the Clarion Project and is frequently interviewed on top-tier TV stations as an expert on counterterrorism and Islamic extremism.

safe_image

click the image to sign the petition

The “why?” of Muslim Brotherhood outreach

By Leslie Burt:

In his June 4, 2013 report, “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Policy,”  Patrick Poole asks the question,

Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations “moderates” and embraced them as outreach partners? In a number of cases from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, the leaders of these organizations (some of whom are now in federal prison) were under active investigation at the same time they were meeting with senior U.S. leaders at the White House and the Capitol and helping develop U.S. policy. Now these same Islamic organizations and leaders have openly encouraged a purge of counterterrorism training that have effectively blinded law enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence agencies to active terror threats as seen in the inaction of the FBI concerning the Boston bombing suspects and other terror cases. This study poses serious questions as to the efficacy and even security concerns about U.S. government outreach to Islamic groups, which often turn out to be Islamist militants, enemies of Islamic moderation, and even supporters of terrorism.

***

Perhaps the most baffling element to the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach since the 1990s is the steadfast refusal by its supporters to acknowledge the mountain of evidence that testifies to its catastrophic failure. What pathology can explain how prosecutors can identify Muslim leaders and organizations as supporters of terrorism in federal court, and at the same time high-ranking government officials embrace these same leaders and groups as moderates and heatedly defend their inclusion as outreach partners? The answer might only lie in the realm of theology and not psychology.

While it is true that the Muslim Botherhood has, through very effective influence operations, affected U.S. counterterrorism policy we have to remember that it was the U.S. that originally reached out to them starting clear back in the Eisenhower administration. Our intent was to influence them and use them to counterbalance our enemies. However, it has turned out that the Muslim Brotherhood has won the influence game by taking advantage of our ignorance of their true theologically driven agenda. We’ve learned the hard way that they are only moderate while they are politically weak. When empowered, the mask comes off to reveal their true violent extremist nature. The evidence has been there all along for anyone taking the time to examine the history of the Muslim Brotherhood since their formation in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna

In my May 6, 2013 post , Anatomy of a Coverup  which I will re-post here, Daniel Greenfield gives what I believe is the definitive answer to Poole’s question. Why are we partnering with terrorists? Do click on the link and read his entire article. It explains a lot.

As the steady drumbeat for a select committee to investigate Benghazi continues, hopefully the drip, drip, drip of new information will edge us closer to examining the whole Middle East foreign policy rationale of the Obama administration. Elections have consequences and foreign policy should be a campaign issue in the coming 2016 presidential elections. But CPAC so far is playing it down:

CPAC AGAIN FAILS TO ADDRESS FOREIGN POLICY

Could it be the influence of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan? Sign the petition:

Tell The ACU: Grover Norquist Must Go

dereliction-of-duty-five

Anatomy of a Coverup

We now have whistle blowers set to testify that what happened in Benghazi is very different than what the Obama administration has told us. We also have the proof that the Benghazi talking points were scrubbed. The question being asked now is why did Hillary Clinton and so many top administration officials, including General Petraeus, go to such extraordinary lengths to present a false narrative?

Daniel Greenfield has written a very good explanation of the Obama administration’s foreign policy towards the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda in his piece, “Obama’s Big Brotherhood Bet” at Front Page that helps answer this question:

In the spring of 2009, Obama went down to Cairo. He skipped the gaming tables at the Omar Khayyam Casino at the Cairo Marriott and instead went over to the Islamist baccarat tables at Cairo University and bet big on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama had insisted on Muslim Brotherhood attendance at a speech that was part apology and part abandonment. The apology was for American power and the abandonment was of American allies.

The text of the speech was largely inconsequential in the same way that most of the words that scroll across the teleprompters of politicians are. In politics, the speech is often the medium while the timing, the audience and the location are the message. And the message was that the Brotherhood’s hour had come.

Obama was following through on an idea that had long been an article of faith on the left. The idea was that the United States had invested in a defunct status quo and that our biggest problems were our allies. The only way out was to toss them all overboard.

Generations of diplomats had griped from their walled compounds in Riyadh, Kuwait City or Doha that many of our problems in the region would go away if Israel somehow went away. But this was bigger. It involved dumping every single allied government in the region to start fresh with new governments elected through popular democracy and enjoying popular support. It would be a new beginning. And a new beginning was also the title of the Cairo speech.

The idea wasn’t new, but it was right up there with proposals to unilaterally abandon our nuclear arsenal or dedicate ten percent of the budget to foreign aid; ideas that a lot of diplomats liked, but that they knew no one would ever be crazy enough to pull the trigger on.

And then Obama tried to pull the trigger on two out of three. What he wanted was for the Brotherhood to win so that it could make the War on Terror irrelevant.

As much as the advocates of smart and soft power insisted that Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with Islam, they knew better. They knew that Al Qaeda wanted to create Islamic states that would form into a Caliphate. Central to its thinking was that it would have to fight to create these states. But what if the Caliphate could be created without a war?

To make it happen, all America had to do was surrender the Middle East.

Read more

The Obama administration, with it’s cultural relativist world view, believes that BOTH Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda can be moderated by making a  transition to democracy with our help. There has been an Orwellian re-branding of the word terrorism in order to sell this idea to the public as well as a denial of the so called al Qaeda “franchise’s” ideological links to “core” al Qaeda. So when the al Qaeda militia we were partnering with (Feb. 17th Martyrs Brigade) to protect the embassy actually assisted al Qaeda members from Yemen and possibly Egypt to attack and kill our people in Benghazi, they had to cover that up or risk Obama losing the election. Hillary Clinton went to extraordinary measures to change the Benghazi talking points in order to protect her political future as well as Obama’s. As a bonus, she managed to insert the lie of the “offensive” video tape in order to advance the campaign to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Walid Phares: ” These forces were not on the map as a threat to US national security because of a political determination that they were on the right side of history, and they were perceived as in transition to integration.”

Clare Lopez: “The real issue — which is what the CIA, the State Department or anyone in the U.S. government has been doing backing regime change operations across the Middle East and North Africa region in the company of and for the benefit of Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood jihadis — never gets addressed, much less explained by the ARB or anyone else.”

Related articles

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:

 

 

 

Influence Operation

Frank Gaffney / AP

Frank Gaffney / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by :

Islamists linked to the Muslim Brotherhood are seeking to influence the U.S. conservative movement as part of non-violent jihad against the United States, according to a group of retired national security leaders.

The 10 former officials—including a retired attorney general, former CIA director, a retired general and an admiral, and a former counterterrorism prosecutor—challenged an assessment made several years ago of the political outreach activities by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, a former George W. Bush administration official, and their purported links to Islamist subversive groups.

The 2011 assessment in question was conducted for the American Conservative Union (ACU) by Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer and ACU board member who concluded there was no factual basis for charges linking the two activists to Islamists.

In a cover letter accompanying a 45-page dossier made public Tuesday, the former officials supported charges made by Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration defense official, who has said both activists are tied to and have engaged in activities “in support of Islamists inside the United States, including the Muslim Brotherhood, its operatives, front groups, and agendas.”

The letter and “statement of facts” were produced in response to Mitchell’s review for the ACU that stated she found “no factual basis” to Gaffney’s charges. The rebuttal letter and dossier also was sent to ACU Chairman Alberto R. Cardenas.

The dossier, titled “The Islamists’—and their Enablers’—Assault on the Right: The case against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan,” presents a detailed rebuttal of the Mitchell memorandum.

“The statement of facts demonstrates that Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist have extensive ties to ‘various Muslim extremist organizations,’ individuals associated with them and their activities,” the report said.

“These include: organizations established in federal court as prominent Muslim Brotherhood front organizations with ties to the designated terrorist organization, Hamas; two convicted terrorists, Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian; and efforts to deny prosecutors an important counterterrorism tool vilified by such groups and individuals as ‘secret evidence,’” the report said.

The former officials stated in the cover letter that Mitchell should address the compiled statement of facts that they asserted support Gaffney’s charges and contradict her 2011 assessment.

Additionally, the former officials said the Mitchell memorandum prompted the ACU board to endorse the conduct of two of its members that “is at odds with the stated mission of the American Conservative Union—namely, ‘harnessing the collective strength of conservative organizations fighting for Americans who are concerned with liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values, and strong national defense.’”

Mitchell said in an email she had no plan to read the report and thus would have no comment.

A spokeswoman for Norquist had no immediate comment, and a spokesman did not return an email seeking comment. Khan could not be reached for comment and did not return emails seeking comment.

The dossier concludes that Muslim Brotherhood front groups are engaged in “civilization jihad” aimed at destroying Western civilization from within. It also says “Muslim Brotherhood front groups and operatives have targeted, among others, the Republican Party and conservative movement.”

The cover letter was signed by former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey; former CIA Director R. James Woolsey; former Rep. Allen B. West; retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a former undersecretary of defense for intelligence; former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy; Former FBI Agent John Guandolo; retired Adm. James A. Lyons, former commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet; former Pentagon Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz; Amb. Henry F. Cooper, former director of the Pentagon’s Strategic Defense Initiative Organization; and former CIA officer Clare Lopez.

Cannon Shot

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

Pamela Geller: “the essential battle in all of this throughout history is individualism vs. collectivism”

Pamela Geller, author of Freedom or Submission

Pamela Geller, author of Freedom or Submission

Pamela Geller at the CPAC “Uninvited” panel Q&A:

This is the unending and continual battle of the human condition. This is an unending battle. It comes in a different costume, it comes in a different cloak, but the essential battle in all of this throughout history is individualism vs. collectivism. This is the battle. A hundred years ago it was communism or Stalinism, the National Workers Socialist Party, Nazism and Islam. There is no unique soul in Islam. This is collectivism, the state versus the individual. That is the essence of this battle. And I think that we are losing it. I think America has lost her way. I don’t think America understands. I don’t think our children are taught about individual rights. It is the key, it is the key to everything and you have to speak. People say, “what do I do?”…you must speak, you must speak every day. You’re in the bakery… you must speak. I am sure that you hear things that make you wince and you don’t say anything. No more silence, SPEAK!

via Pure Deliciousness! “Uninvited at CPAC” by Pamela Geller:

I have been dive-bombing into CPAC since 2008 – holding events on subjects that this body of the conservative movement refuses to address. And what CPAC omits is immense. There was little or no discussion of jihad in America; Shariah (close to half of the state legislatures are currently enacting or considering foreign law – why no discussion at CPAC?); the rise of Islamic supremacist regimes throughout the Middle East and Africa; the case for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East with a shared value system of governance: life, liberty, individual rights; how college students can handle the vicious anti-American bias on university campuses – the list goes on and on.

But more than this, at CPAC there is no discussion of philosophy. And without a basic understanding of our system of thinking – the nature of knowledge – we are cooked.

Indeed. Tocqueville wrote in “Democracy in America” that no country in the civilized world had paid less attention to philosophy than the U.S. He observed that Americans had no philosophical school of their own and little interest in those of Europe. But this was our genius, because our philosophy was our sense of life. We shared the same premise, conducted our understanding in the same manner, governed by the same rules – without taking the time or trouble to define the rules.

We must first go back to square one and learn why capitalism is the greatest and most benevolent of all economic systems. Capitalism is individual rights. We should have taught the 10,000 great Americans who came to CPAC why we think the way we do. Our story is a great one, the greatest. Individual rights. The U.S. the first really moral government in history based on that premise. And everything glorious and magnificent and supreme that we achieved was a rational fidelity to that principle.

Individual rights is the basis of my work. Individual vs. statism. This is the unending battle of the human condition. Communism, Nazism and now Shariah. There is no individual soul under Islam. And the Shariah is diametrically opposed to freedom.

Read it all at WND