Author Topic: Norquist: Cruz's Defunding 'Tactic' Not the Same as My Anti-Tax Pledge  (Read 621 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719

Norquist: Cruz's Defunding 'Tactic' Not the Same as My Anti-Tax Pledge

by Tony Lee 5 Oct 2013, 9:58 AM

On Friday, Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, again slammed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for his defunding Obamacare strategy in an appearance on Fox News.

In an appearance on Gretchen Carlson's Real Story, Norquist claimed there was "no difference among Republicans on 'let's get rid of Obamacare as quickly as we can'" and referred to comments he made to the Washington Post in which he said Cruz "pushed House Republicans into traffic and wondered away."

Norquist said all he was doing in those remarks was "pointing out how angry House Republicans are at Cruz" for insisting "that he had a strategy to repeal" Obamacare and "get all the Democrats in the Senate" needed to do so. Norquist also claimed that as soon as the House finally passed a short-term resolution to fund the government and defund Obamcare without any gimmicks, "Cruz announced he had no capacity" to get five Democrats in the Senate to support his plan. In addition, Norquist said after Cruz and conservative outside groups "got nothing," Republicans in the House "have walked away from Cruz's position."

Norquist failed to note, as Cruz had been saying, that it would have taken 41 Republicans to vote against cloture to prevent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) from adding an amendment to fund Obamacare to the House bill. Cruz said the defunding strategy, which he fiercely advocated with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), would be most effective in convincing Democrats from red states to come on board only if Republicans were united first.

But Republicans in the House and those like Norquist never rallied behind the defunding strategy at the outset and never gave it a chance--even though it could have given them leverage in the budget negotiations. Senate Republicans never got behind Cruz and Lee either, as 25 Senate Republicans joined Democrats to vote for cloture.

Norquist, who has supported House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) in nearly all of the budget negotiations, also failed to note that he supported the initial gimmick from the House Republican leadership on a symbolic vote to defund Obamacare that conservatives revolted against after the "Exempt America" rally, which groups like ForAmerica and Tea Party Patriots organized in front of the Capitol. The House Republican leadership ultimately tabled that "gimmick" and finally allowed a vote on a bill to defund Obamacare after blasting that strategy for months on and off the record.

When Carlson asked Norquist how Cruz's defunding Obamacare push was different from his organization's famed anti-tax pledge, Norquist said they were not analogous because they are "two very different things, never to be confused."

Norquist claimed his anti-tax pledge was a "principle" and a "written commitment" politicians make to constituents when they run. He mentioned that nearly every politician has "kept that commitment."

Cruz, though, has repeatedly said that he was pushing to defund Obamacare because he, too, was living up to his campaign promises. Unlike other Republicans who ran in 2010 and 2012 promising to get rid of Obamacare only to be squeamish about doing so once they got to the halls of power in Congress, Cruz followed through.

Norquist called Cruz's Obamacare push a "tactic" that amounted to, "Let's have this vote on this date."

"Tactic. That's not principle," Norquist said.

When Carlson mentioned that in the past Senators like Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) have criticized Norquist about his anti-tax pledge the same way Cruz has been criticized about his defunding Obamacare strategy, Norquist reiterated they were "completely different" and said Coburn once had "impure thoughts" about tax increases as part of a budget deal that was in the works in 2011.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: Norquist: Cruz's Defunding 'Tactic' Not the Same as My Anti-Tax Pledge
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2013, 01:52:06 AM »
Norquist is a fraud. He is nothing more than a professional fund-raiser. Remember he was part of the Abramoff scandal and got off because McCain "convinced" him to support his 08 run for President...  word has it McCain had an entire file on Norquist to bring him into line and threatened to use it in the investigation he chaired at the time into Abramoff unless Norquist ponied up... ever since then Grover has been a McCain guy.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: Norquist: Cruz's Defunding 'Tactic' Not the Same as My Anti-Tax Pledge
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2013, 01:57:34 AM »

How the Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated the GOP
December 12, 2011 By

he talk below recently took place at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend in West Palm Beach, Florida (Nov. 17-20, 2011).

Frank Gaffney: Ladies and gentlemen, while we are hopefully going to pull together this PowerPoint presentation, which — I’m grateful to the hotel staff for trying to work on absolutely no notice, just as I’m very grateful to you for sticking around on no notice.

My name is Frank Gaffney.  I’m the president of an organization called the Center for Security Policy in Washington.  This is absolutely, bar none — the high point of my year is being here.  So if this is my last visit with you all, I just want to say it’s been great.

I’m here to talk to you a little bit about something that was brought up at the tail end, as you probably heard, of the first panel — second panel, I guess it was, before lunch.  And that was a question that I didn’t arrange for but I was delighted was asked, about Grover Norquist, and the role that Grover has been playing in the Republican Party and the conservative movement with respect specifically to the issues that we’ve been talking about, most recently on this panel — namely, trying to promote the agenda and the agents of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

And if this is your first introduction to the subject, I’m going to try — again, hopefully we’ll have some audiovisual assistance here — to set the stage a little bit about what the Brotherhood is up to.  Again, you’ve heard some of this in the previous panels.  Andy McCarthy has written definitively on the subject, as has Robert Spencer.  They have some differences, as you heard.  But I think in terms of the stealth jihad, as I believe Robert coined the phrase for it; or the civilization jihad, as the Muslim Brotherhood has called it; I think there’s no difference between them or, for that matter, anybody who has really looked at this in any kind of rigorous way.

The fundamental proposition that I guess I think really sets the scene for everything else I’m going to tell you about, and that you must have clearly in your heads if you want to understand both the sort of micro problem that I want to talk to you about and the macro problem, is Sharia.  And one of the books that will be on offer tonight is one that Andy was helpful, enormously helpful in coauthoring, along myself and 17 other folks who’ve spent a good bit of their lives on national security issues, one fashion or another.

Several of them are very prominent, like Andy, Jim Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence; Jerry Boykin, three-star general, retired former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence; Lt. General Ed Soyster, retired former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency — and a number of other lesser lights — but people who have thought seriously about this problem and come to the conclusion that whatever the true Islam is, there is only one Sharia.  And Sharia is absolutely, unalterably hostile to everything we hold dear.

And those who are seeking to impose it on others — which is, by the way, one of the obligations under Sharia — are our enemies, and will not be dissuaded from doing so by our efforts to accommodate them, appease them, or otherwise try to appear more submissive, which is — no matter what we justify it as or think of it as — how they see it.  We call it political correctness — fine.  We call it tolerance — fine.  We call it diversity, or sensitivity — fine, fine.  They call it submission.

And under the doctrine of Sharia, they are obliged to double down.  Because according to Sharia, according to the Koran — the foundational document of this whole thing — making them feel subdued is the whole point of the exercise.  A political, military, intelligence, legal doctrine — yes, with a patina of religion to it — but fundamentally, it is about power, not about faith.  And if you can sort of get your head around that basic concept, then it flows from it fairly easily that the purpose that jihad serves in promoting Sharia, in compelling others to be submissive to it, is central to that doctrine.

The key point — and again, both Andy and Robert have done incalculably important work in helping to make this as accessible to the rest of us as possible — is that this is a very practical program.  Drawing as it all does from the perfect Muslim’s model, namely Mohammad’s, it’s all about violence, if that’ll be effective.  And generally, it is.  Terrifying violence generally produces the desired results.

Unless you’re dealing with adversaries who happen to be stronger than you are, in which case it may be actually counterproductive.  Which is where the stealth jihad comes in.  If you are a Sharia-adherent Muslim, you are still obliged to engage in jihad, even if it might be hazardous to your health — not just to be a shahid, but just even trying to support jihad in the violent sense.

You have two responsibilities in that circumstance.  One is to engage in this stealthy kind of jihad, as Mohammed himself did — to work towards achieving the same ends, the same ends, of the triumph of Sharia and, ideally, the governance of a caliph who will rule in accordance to it worldwide, through stealthy means, through what are sometimes called nonviolent means, but that are really, practically speaking, pre-violent.

Because in the end, once you’ve changed the correlation of forces — to use an old Soviet metaphor — once you’ve achieved enough power that you can use violence, well, Mohammed’s example was you’re supposed to do that, go back to that.  Use the violent.  Because it will effectively make them feel subdued, and hopefully keep them subdued.  Okay?

So this is really sort of the crux of the phenomenon we’re up against worldwide.  A lot of violent jihadism by Sharia-adherent Muslims.  And then, in places like Baroness Cox’s Britain, elsewhere in Europe, elsewhere in the free world — Canada, Australia, here — you’re finding the pressure for jihad still going forward, but through these nonviolent or pre-violent techniques.  We happen to know a lot about this, thanks to an absolutely providential development.

You may have heard this story, but I’m going to regale you with it anyway, because it’s one of the great facts to know and tell.  In 2004, an alert Maryland transportation authority cop happened to observe a couple driving back and forth across a bridge up in my neck of the woods, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.  You may have been across it — it’s a beautiful span across an extraordinary body of water.  Typically, people admire the view.  Not infrequently, they’ll take pictures of it.

Well, the woman in the car with the man was taking pictures all right, except she was taking pictures of the structural supports of the bridge, which the police officer happened to notice and thought didn’t look right.  As it happened, she was in cover, which might have been a clue.  But then, that would be racial profiling, wouldn’t it?


He pulled them over, ran their IDs, and discovered that the gentleman driving — a fellow by the name of Ismael Elbarasse — was wanted on a material witness arrest warrant out of Chicago in connection with Hamas fundraising, which got the FBI a search warrant to go into their home — again, in my neck of the woods, in Annandale, Virginia — about 20 minutes, on a very good day, from our seat of government.  They went top to bottom and, lo and behold, in the bottom, discovered a secret subbasement, in which were 80 banker boxes filled with the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.  Yeah.

What was so providential about that, of course, was these documents helped provide incredibly detailed information that was then used in the trial, conducted down in Dallas, Texas in 2007 — it resulted in a mistrial initially — then in 2008, called the Holy Land Foundation Trial, the largest terrorism financing trial in US history.  And as a result of what was introduced, by the way, uncontested into evidence in that trial, we have some powerful insights into who the Muslim Brotherhood are in the United States, what their mission is here, how they are proceeding to execute that mission — what, as Andy called in his book, a kind of grand jihad.

And this is the mission statement of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Robert quoted part of it for you a moment ago — a kind of grand jihad in destroying — eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers, so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Now, I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound too friendly, or too secular, or too nonviolent.  And yet, this is how the top intelligence officer of the United States government — another retired three-star general by the name of Lt. General Jim Clapper, now the Director of National Intelligence — characterized the Muslim Brotherhood in testimony to the United States House of Representatives Intelligence Committee.  Now, you could say he misspoke.


Except he was reading from a prepared text in response to questions that they obviously knew would be coming.  Because at about this time in February, all hell was breaking loose in Egypt.  And even then, it was obvious that one of the prime beneficiaries of that was likely to be who?  The Muslim Brotherhood, right?  So people asked; he had a ready answer.

It’s a largely secular group, he said, it’s quite heterogeneous.  It’s eschewed violence, it’s condemned al-Qaeda.  It’s really mostly given to charitable works.

Well, the short response to this is — not.  As the director of the FBI, who happened to be sitting next to Jim Clapper, said in a polite way.  And within the day, Clapper had revised and extended his remarks to say that he probably had been misunderstood.


The point that I’m going to keep coming back to is he wasn’t misunderstood; he was misunderstanding.  And it’s a reasonable question to ask — how could it be that the top intelligence officer of the United States government could possibly be misunderstanding on that magnitude?  And if we had a PowerPoint presentation, I would try to answer that question.

Sharia is usually used as a modifier to the term “law,” just as you’ve asked.  Sharia law — what is Sharia law?  Well, there are people, including those on the panel, who are far more expert about this than I, but I will tell you what I’ve learned from them.  And that is that Sharia law is only partly about law.  As I said, it’s also only partly about religion.

It does have particulars about how as a faithful Muslim you are supposed to pray, how many times, in which direction; what you wash, what you don’t wash; when you eat, what you don’t eat; and all that.  And it also has other rules and regulations that are supposed to govern, you know, how an individual interacts with, say, his womenfolk, which is not particularly good; how they deal with their other family members, how they deal with their neighbors, how they deal with, you know, the community, business associates and so on — all the way up into how the world is governed.

And that’s the point I was trying to get out a moment ago, is this is a comprehensive program for governing all aspects of life, literally every aspect of a human’s life and, indeed, the entire world.  So it’s really — it’s much more than law.  It is a totalitarian system of complete control.  Some have said — I don’t know if this is one of your points, Andy, or not — but some have said it’s kind of like communism in that respect, with a god.

But at the end of the day, again, I bring you back to the central point.  And I think if you get this, everything else fits into place.  If you don’t get this, you’re going to be wandering around as — well, as befuddled as Jim Clapper is.  It’s about power.  It’s about how people submit, particularly non-Muslims to Muslims; and, within Islam, Muslims to Muslims — ideally again, under the rule of a caliph. So, are you with me so far?

So let’s see if my PowerPoint is here.  There we go!  Could I have a real round of applause for those guys?  Thank you very much, guys.


Okay.  I’m going to whip through a couple of these slides, because I’ve killed the time talking with you about them.  Let me just make sure I’m on the right show.  Yes, okay, we talked about these cats.  Talked a little bit about this Sharia business.  Okay.  You know that Sharia currently is the law of the land in some places, so you don’t have to take my word for how bad it is — just look at it.

And the key point here is it’s coming to a couple of other places.  Within months of our meeting here, you will see new populations enslaved by Sharia.  And it won’t be the Arab Spring that they’re living under.  I didn’t hear Andy’s characterization of it, but I know I agree with him.

And — oh, by the way, as recently as yesterday, Feisal Abdul Rauf — your remember him?  Ground Zero mosque fame?  Well, he was out there touting this same line — that Sharia’s really consistent with the Constitution of the United States.  Again, you don’t have to be a world traveler or deeply knowledgeable about any of this, but if you think any of these places look like America, you’ll buy that.  But if you don’t, you won’t, I hope.

I mentioned Jim Clapper.  All I can say is, really?  This is the creed of the Brotherhood.  I won’t belabor this point, except to say again — doesn’t leave a whole lot to interpretation as to whether this is secular, nonviolent, different from al-Qaeda.  In fact, it’s the same as al-Qaeda; it’s just different techniques.

This is Elbarasse — I mentioned his treasure trove.  This is The Holy Land Foundation, the strategic plan I just gave you.  That’s the mission statement.

Here’s another interesting document — the phased plan of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Five phases — here are the first two.  It starts with a secret establishment of Brotherhood organizations, building up a leadership cadre, and then gradually appearing on the public scene.

Now by the way, this was dated 1991.  It was written by the man who was the second-ranking Brother in the United States at the time.  This was a particularly telling point.  These in italics, you can see, are their self-assessment of how they’re doing.  And as of 1991 — can you read this — we’ve also succeeded in achieving a great deal of our important goals, such as infiltrating various sectors of the government.  That’s not Andy McCarthy saying that, or Jim Woolsey, or Boykin or me.  That’s the Brotherhood saying it.

Phase three — prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, use the mass media.  Anybody seen outfits like the Council on American-Islamic Relations on Fox?  Okay, well, that’s for sure where we are.  I would argue we’re in phase four, actually, which is open public confrontation with the government through political pressure.  The guys who are now occupying Wall Street are getting help from these cats, you can bet, and in a lot of other ways we’ll talk about.

But let me just call your attention to this little passage — training on the use of weapons domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero hour — it has noticeable activities in this regard.  Zero hour, what’s that?  Well, that’s phase five.  Phase five is seizing power to establish their Islamic nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united.

Okay, how many still think Clapper’s got this right?

This is the phase plan of the Brotherhood itself.  An attachment to that other document, the explanatory memorandum, the strategic plan, was very helpful.  29 groups were listed under the heading, “A list of our organizations and organizations of our friends.”  Those of you like me, who can remember the Cold War, will appreciate the subtext — “Imagine if they all march according to a single plan.”  Right, the united front.

These guys actually learned a lot from the Soviets.  ISNA you may have heard of, or you certainly will by the end of this brief — the number-one group on this list of 29, which even today represents all of the prominent Muslim American organizations in the United States.  This is the largest of them — the Islamic Society of North America.  It came about when the guys who were in the second group, the Muslim Students Association, got too old to be members.  But today, there are between 300 — I think you actually used 500, Andy — chapters, some extraordinary number — 500 and 600 chapters of the Muslim Students Association on your kids’ college campuses, or grandkids.

CAIR — now CAIR you’ll look at, and you’ll say — well, wait a minute, Gaffney, CAIR is not on this list.  Why do I have an arrow to the Islamic Association for Palestine, IAP?  Well, I have that because one of the other helpful things introduced into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial were the transcripts of the wiretaps — back when the FBI still did this sort of thing — in which principles of the Islamic Association for Palestine got together to found the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  It’s just that that didn’t happen until 1993.  And in 1991, it couldn’t be on the list in its full glory.  But its progenitor is.

In the book that Andy did with a number of us, we looked at this question of the nonviolent stealthy techniques — I did mention you can buy it tonight, didn’t I?  Okay, just checking.  Government circles, law enforcement, intelligence, military and penal institutions — remember that for a moment, because I’m going to come back to it — but also these civil societies, groups and institutions have also been targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood for its civilization jihad.  Again, remember — same ultimate objective as al-Qaeda, just using a different tactical approach for the moment.  That’s the scene that I wanted to set for you.

And going to segue to the problem that you’ve been kind enough to stay here to listen about.  This is Tradecraft 101 in intelligence.  If you want to do what we just talked about on that slide — to destroy, or at least subvert, targeted institutions in a free society like ours — this is the kind of thing you do.  And again, this is right out of the Soviet playbook.  This is exactly what they did.

They often started, actually, with bringing in useful idiots, as they called them, or agents of influence.  But inevitably, they also were insinuating individuals that they would create a legend for.  They would promote a sort of new story about them, and they would try to discourage anybody from paying attention to the parts that were unhelpful.  They’d burl them in, they’d credential them as a member — ideally, as a prominent member — of the community.  And then these cats would start doing a wrecking operation, so as to destroy it from within by their own hands — by promoting ideas or policy initiatives or positions that were antithetical to what that community actually stood for or believed in.

But suddenly, what do you get out of that?  You get fratricide.  You get conflict, division, within the community.  That’s not good for any organization or community.  And it’s especially insidious because if what the community is about — as, oh, let’s say conservatives or Republicans are — is trying to enlist other people who aren’t part of that community, well, if you’ve got this kind of mayhem — let alone espousing of positions that are really unappealing to independents, Tea Party people, conservative Democrats — well, you’re not likely to get them onboard, are you?

Okay.  So let me cut to the chase here.  The job of going after the conservative movement, and Republicans more generally, was given to this guy — a top Muslim Brotherhood operative back in the 1990s.  Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi is his name.

Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi was probably the most capable, I would argue — certainly one of the most capable — of the Brotherhood operatives in the United States.  He established a couple of these front groups himself or with others, and he was on the board of about two dozen of them in his prime.  This guy had already earned his chops with these characters.

Al-Amoudi was the guy that the Clinton team used as a goodwill ambassador with Muslim communities, foreign and abroad.  He was an advisor on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.  But get this — he was the guy that they gave the job to of identifying, training and credentialing chaplains for the United States military and penal institutions.  Remember, I talked about the penal institutions?  Can you imagine two communities that you would least like having the Muslim Brotherhood minister to?  Felons?  And people who we ask to kill for a living?

How do we know Al-Amoudi was involved?  Well, we’ve got these two checks.  Obviously, the $20,000 they represent is a drop in the proverbial bucket.  But they were made out to the Islamic Free Market Institute.  But back in 1999, he created this enterprise and assigned his deputy — a man you’ll hear about more here in a moment, Khaled Saffuri — to run it day to day, to ensure complete operational control.  Okay?

And in fact, this Islamic Institute, as it came to be known for short, was used, as you will see, to launder the credentials of Muslim Brotherhood operatives and otherwise gain access to the conservative and Republican communities, thanks to this guy.  He was the founding chairman of the Islamic Free Market Institute.

The Islamic Free Market Institute was established and operated for years in his offices.  I happen to know this as a result of another bit of providence.  I wound up subletting space from Grover Norquist for seven years.  And to be perfectly honest with you, if I hadn’t, I wouldn’t have known this.  And I’m not sure anybody else would have, other than the Brothers.

So what I’m going to tell you now is all based on open sources, my own personal first-hand observation in some cases, and information that is readily available to anybody on the Internet with a little bit of spadework.  This does not represent what the United States government could and should know based on techniques that I don’t have access to, like subpoenas and wiretaps.  I trust those exist somewhere, but I’ve not seen them.

The Bush Campaign and the Bush Administration were the targets for this operation.  As you will see, this worked like a top during the Bush Administration, and it is continuing today.  I’m going to give you six case studies.  I could go on, but this will give you, I think, enough grist for the mill.

Al-Amoudi, with George W. Bush at the Governor’s Mansion in May 2000, as part of the campaign outreach to the Muslim American community.  In fact, it was the Muslim Brotherhood.  This was of course a couple of months before Al-Amoudi announced in Lafayette Square, three blocks from my office, that he worked for and supported Hamas and Hezbollah.  Kind of a problem.  It was also a couple of years before he was convicted of terrorism, for which he is currently serving what was originally a 23-year sentence in Supermax — now reduced, for reasons that Andy might be able to better explain than I, to 17 or 15 years.

But this guy was not only charged with, convicted of, trying to kill the then Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia at the behest of and with money from Muammar Kaddafi; he was subsequently identified by the US government as a top al-Qaeda financier.  Are you with me?

Khaled Saffuri — Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi’s right-hand man at the American Muslim Council, the Muslim Brotherhood front organization with which Al-Amoudi was most closely associated — became, as I mentioned, the executive director of the Islamic Free Market Institute.  He also became the Muslim outreach coordinator for the Bush 2000 Campaign.  Gosh, I wonder how that happened?  Saffuri is shown here with President Bush and his friend, Al-Amoudi, at the Governor’s Mansion in May 2000 — part of that Muslim outreach to the Brotherhood effort of the Bush Campaign.

I don’t know if you can see this — here’s Saffuri again with the President, now, of the United States, admiring the mosque up on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, DC.  This was part of the post-9/11 hug-a-Muslim exercise that the President went through at the behest of the Muslim Brothers, including this guy, one of the ones who was wiretapped from the Islamic Association of Palestine; now runs the Council on American-Islamic Relations, guy by the name of Niad Awad, one of the worst of the Brothers in the business; certainly most aggressive.  You’ve seen him all over the press apologizing for or otherwise excusing terrorism.

How about this guy?  You know him?  Sami Al-Arian, used to operate just on the other side of this peninsula.  Sami was, at the time that he visited with George W. Bush in Orlando, as part of the campaign in March 2000, running Palestinian Islamic Jihad from his University of South Florida professorship.  Gosh, I wonder how he got there?  He was later convicted of doing just that — Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

I’m going to come back to Sami in a minute.  But Muzammil Siddiqi, one of the worst of the imams in the United States, a former president of the Islamic Society of North America, the largest Muslim Brotherhood front organization — remember, the top of the 29?  This guy now runs operations out of California.  He happened to be pretty explicit about his desire to bring Sharia to the United States.  He said — once more people accept Islam inshallah, this will lead to the implementation of Sharia in all areas.  Kind of like Feisal Abdul Rauf, actually.  How do we construe these guys as moderates?

He’s no moderate, but here he is — selected of all Muslims to be the guy who’s the representative of that faith in the interfaith ecumenical memorial service three days after 9/11.  Everybody who was anybody was there, including this top Muslim Brotherhood operative.

But that’s not enough.  Here he is in the White House, a couple of days later, giving George W. Bush a Koran — in the  course of which George W. Bush, for reasons I’ll get into in a moment, started saying things — not started, but repeated things like — the teachings of Islam are the teachings of peace and good.  Repeat after me.  Right?  Well, that’s pretty much what he was doing.

How did that guy get there?  Well, he got there through this fellow, who I would argue is the most productive of the Muslim Brothers around Grover Norquist — probably his handler — a fellow by the name of Suhail Khan.  Suhail Khan is a pedigreed Muslim Brother.  If he were Chinese, they would call him a princeling of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Because his parents helped found four of these prominent organizations and were involved in a number of other ones.

He’s been very involved with them in his own right, but he’s never repudiated his parents’ involvement with these things.  In fact, to the contrary — as you’ll hear in a moment, I hope — he’s very proud of them — including — as you’ll see in a speech to that largest Muslim brotherhood front, the Islamic Society of North America, in 1991 — he said the following.

(Video played)

Could you hear that?  I’m sorry, this is one of the technical difficulties.  Well, I can’t repeat it word-for-word, probably, Nina, but I’ll give you the gist of it.

The thing that I guess I just wanted to say is you heard, or should have been able to hear, Suhail Khan say in 1999, at an annual convention of the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States, that the earliest Muslims succeeded because they loved death more than their oppressors loved life.  And basically, he said, that must be our approach to life’s present problems.  And we must be committed to following, you know, Islam.  And he has personally committed himself to giving his life for the ummah, the ummah being the Muslim people, the world of Islam, the dar al-Islam, as they call it.

Now, in 1999 — this is when I was a relatively young man — he was a guy who — as you will see, if we can ever get back onto this — has of course gone on to other things.  But at the time, he was working for a fellow by the name of Tom Campbell.  Anybody know Tom Campbell?  Tom was a member of the House of Representatives, a Republican.  Well, in a bad year, he might’ve spoken at one of these conferences.

Tom Campbell is what, I think David would agree, is a RINO.  Republican in name only.  He ran twice, as I recall, for the United States Senate from California — happily did not succeed either time, but was in the House of Representatives, including during the period when Suhail Khan — who had graduated from Berkeley and come from a family which was then prominent in the Bay Area — his parents were — all I have to do is get back to where I was.

Tom Campbell I’ve talked about.  One of the things that these guys were doing — Tom Campbell and John Conyers, with the direction of Suhail Khan — at the behest of Sami Al-Arian — Palestinian Islamic Jihad — was try to prohibit something called secret evidence.  Apart from Andy McCarthy, has anybody ever heard that term before? Okay, [Joel Nolbray], extra points, you get to stay after class.

This is the term that was coined to treat in a pejorative way something that’s an eminently sensible national security tool, which is to say — back in 1996, a law was enacted that said if you’re trying to deport an illegal alien, an illegal alien, you can use classified information that makes the case against them without having to share that information with the illegal alien.  Because if you were to share that information with him, you might well compromise not only that information but maybe the sources and methods by which it’s obtained.  Okay?

So Sami Al-Arian wants to get rid of that.  Remember, Sami Al-Arian is running Palestinian Islamic Jihad.  He thinks that kind of tool would be bad.  Well, he actually had an even more personal reason for wanting to do that.  What was it?

His brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar, was being held at the time, I think, in a federal detention center here in Florida on the basis of secret evidence.  I happen to think that that secret evidence probably was going to implicate Sami as well in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.  So he was trying to crush this important national security tool.

And to that end, what did he do?  Well, he enlisted Grover Norquist’s help.  In fact, in July 2001 — I’m jumping around a little bit here — but the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom, what you might think of as the Red-Green Axis — hard leftists, like the National Lawyers Guild, working with that whole array of Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood.  They give Grover an award for his work, as he says, as a — Sami Al-Arian actually gave him the award — as a champion of the abolishment movement against secret evidence.  And Grover subsequently said he was proud to receive that award.  I can’t remember whether he said that after Sami Al-Arian was convicted or before.  But still, it raises a question, don’t it?

Here’s a picture of that same meeting of the Brotherhood in the Governor’s Mansion in May 2000, with Karl Rove, who was instrumental in making it happen.  At the time, he was the Svengali to George W. Bush’s campaign.  While Suhail Khan was working for RINO Campbell, he was put on the board of the Islamic Free Market Institute.  He was made one of the team members, with Khaled Saffuri — Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi’s right-hand man, remember, shown here — as the outreach coordinator and his sidekick.  So here they are, lashing up with the President — or the governor, rather, prospective President.

And thanks to Rove, they got George W. Bush, in the course of the second debate with Al Gore — this was the — nobody remembers this debate, of course, for one reason — this is the one where Al Gore kept walking away and doing that alpha male thing in George Bush’s face, remember that?  Yeah, most people do.  Anyway, George Bush, out of the blue, says that if elected he would prohibit the use of secret evidence.  Grover Norquist got that done.  And it was the thing that was going to give them, you know, the Muslim votes.

After the campaign, Suhail Khan gets moved into the White House.  Not paid position; as a full-time volunteer, working in the Office of Public Liaison under Karl Rove.  What was his job?  He was the gatekeeper for the Muslim American community.  Guess who got in the gate?  The Brotherhood.  Guess who didn’t?  Well, people like Zuhdi Jasser and Sheikh Kabbani.

In this role, he played an incalculably important part.  And I’m going to again dwell on this for a minute, just because it’s an influence operation.  It helped with the information dominance — as the military calls it — piece incalculably.  Bush not only made that comment about the Koran being about peace and good, but Islam is a religion of peace.  You heard that?  How about jihad is really just about personal struggle?  Yeah.  And then there’s this — al-Qaeda is hijacking Islam, just as much as it hijacked those planes.  All right, well, they got the President of the United States and his administration to say these sorts of things, in part thanks to the people they were surrounding themselves with.

He also got the President to deliver on his promise to prohibit secret evidence.  Interestingly enough, it didn’t come as quickly as Sami wanted.  So in July 2001 — at that largest Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the Islamic Society of North America, the annual convention that summer — Sami, just before Suhail gets up and represents the White House at this meeting, harangues the audience to launch a campaign.  He said — I want 50,000 e-mails and faxes and meetings and phone calls to the White House now!  I guess he was getting a little nervous that his brother-in-law was going to get thrown out of the country, or they were going to use that evidence against him.  Well, guess what? Suhail Khan gets up right afterwards and says — I got it, I got it, we’re working it.  We’re working to get you the meeting.

Well, you’re not going to believe this.  What day, of all days, could they possibly have arranged to have that particular promise delivered to these particular guys?  Oh, you are so good.  Yeah, 9/11.  And you want to know what was really weird?  I mean to the point of — I was standing in the doorway of my office on 9/11, frankly, trying to figure out what the hell to do.  We were about four blocks from the White House as a 757 flies.  So we could stay there and get smushed, or we could flee and take our chances on the road.  That was a touchy moment, I can tell you.

It was about, I’d say, 10:30 or so in the morning.  There were still things up in the air.  We had no idea what else was coming.  And all of a sudden, down the hall — about as far from me is maybe where Nina is — the three banks of elevators opened.  My recollection is they sort of all opened simultaneously.  And out comes this — well, I think of it as a Noah’s Ark of Muslims, in every imaginable form of regalia.

I was in my office, 19th and L Street — 20th and L Street, Pennsylvania — just a couple blocks from Pennsylvania Avenue.  And, you know, the gals with the hijabs — I think there might have been a burqa.  There were certainly man dresses and skullcaps, and Armani suits, of course.  And these characters all start walking down the hall towards me.  And they’re about as far away from me as you are.  And they break right, and they go into my conference room.  The one I shared with Grover Norquist.  And bringing up the rear, chattering like magpies, was Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.

What was that about?  Well, reportedly, this is the access list, complete with dates of birth and Social Security numbers, for 49 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to go to the White House, we’re told, on the day that George W. Bush was supposed to deliver that promise — 9/11.  And interestingly enough, as you might be able to see from that distance, Grover Norquist’s name is at the top of this list.  How do you like them apples?

Anyway, the point is they were all supposed to be at the White House.  They closed the complex.  They came to my conference room, which he’d shared.  It’s really has conference room which I shared, technically.  But it was a big space, not too far from the White House.  And they convened there, basically, I think, to do damage control, with one of the smartest political operatives in the country, who was working for them.

Now, I’ve long speculated what happened in that room.  It goes without saying, I was not invited in.  And it wasn’t until about three months ago that I discovered in the course of giving this briefing, or a version of it, that one of my colleagues had the presence of mind –when I told them what was going on in the conference room on the other side of his drywall partition — to lift up the false ceiling and listen.


Is this a great country, or what?

So I don’t know all that happened, because I think he got a crick in his neck or something.  But what I did just learn from my colleague, Mike Waller, is that he heard them thrashing around and trying to fashion a joint statement that they could put into the New York Times and other publications to denounce terrorism.  And Mike said they got all wrapped around the axle, because some of the people in the room did not think that they could describe the Pentagon as an improper target, because they didn’t think it amounted to terrorism, since it was a military establishment.

I think what else happened there — but again, I wasn’t listening, and Mike hasn’t been able to confirm this — was that I think they worked through this business that Bush now needed them more than ever.  Because remember his first response?  His very first response was — there’s a crusade that must be launched now.  That didn’t go over very well.  That offended these people.  Remember?

And so what they immediately set about doing, with Grover’s help and Suhail Khan’s — and Karl Rove’s, I’m sure — was helping the President understand that he needed to be a little bit more sensitive, so he didn’t drive all of these — I mean, it comes back in a way to the conversation we just had — that we don’t want to drive these Muslims into the arms of the terrorists.  So we’re going to say nice things about their faith, and we’re going to make them feel better about us.  And then they’ll be with us, and then everything will be okay, kind of.  We’ll just be able to focus on the enemy, which is just al-Qaeda, or just terror.  Right?

Okay.  I don’t want to get unduly long on this, because I know you’ve got other things to do.  But let me just run through a couple more items in this bill of particulars to flesh this out for you — couple more on Suhail.  What did he do?  Well, it turned out shortly after 9/11 — after he helped finagle getting Muzammil Siddiqi into the ecumenical session and up to the White House, and so on — somebody [tipped] the powers that be — Grover accused me of being it, but it wasn’t, because I didn’t know at the time — that his father and mother were top Muslim Brotherhood figures.  And I guess somebody had the sense to say, in the Bush White House, you know, maybe he shouldn’t really be here.

So what did they do?  They moved him to the Office of Transportation, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, initially under Norm Mineta; subsequently under Mary Peters — in which role, as the Assistant for Policy, ultimately, he would’ve had access to classified information about this sort of thing, and an at least top-secret clearance.  Now, there are some who will point out that if you got a clearance, there can’t really be any problem with him.

Want to tell you — this is a quick story, but it’s instructive. I mentioned Mike Waller, colleague of mine.  He’s currently a professor at the Institute of World Politics, John Lenczowski’s organization — terrific outfit in Washington, DC.  They train mostly sort of junior mid-level people who want to advance in the national security space, on [states craft] and the techniques involved.

One of them was a young woman who was working for a contractor, who was processing background investigations for security clearances.  And Mike told me that this young woman came to him in tears recently.  Because she had been directed by her superiors to up the quota of approvals that she was doing from seven per day to 20 per day.

Now admittedly, that kind of rubberstamping, at least as far as I know, wasn’t taking place in Suhail Khan’s day.  But I can assure you, having been through this process myself, you had a White House pressure to get a guy quickly installed, so there wouldn’t be any trouble moving him out of the White House.  And they’re going to move him into a top political appointment in the Transportation Department.  I mean, how serious can that be in terms of security, right?  I mean, forget about that ports and rails and stuff.  But you know, kind of a backwater.

So I think this guy got the light treatment.  And after all, what were they worrying about?  The place was crawling with Muslim Brothers by then.  That was going to be a disqualifier?  Okay.  You get the point.

While he was working for the Transportation Department, Grover Norquist gets him put on the board of the American Conservative Union — which Grover’s also on, by the way — which means that they get to control a lot of what happens at CPAC, Conservative Political Action Conference, including keeping people like yours truly off the agenda.  I was delighted that Andy McCarthy made the cut last year and did a superb job on Sharia.  But there’s been a systematic effort over the past few years to have Suhail Khan deciding who can talk about national security at CPAC.

Oh, by the way, our host — if you haven’t seen it, you’ve got — leave the space to go look at David Horowitz’s speech at CPAC last year on this very subject.  It’s absolutely fantastic.

I’ve introduced you to Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi.  This is Mahbub Khan, father of Suhail.  I’m going to risk fate by trying to hear this audio one more time.  Because I think you’ll find this instructive as well.  This is Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi at another of these Muslim Brotherhood front meetings, talking about the Khans.

(Video played)

Okay.  So this is not Frank Gaffney telling you Suhail Khan is deeply involved with the Muslim Brotherhood.  This is an al-Qaeda financier, now a man convicted of terrorism, deeply involved and established to be such in the courts of law.

Again, I know I’m probably straining your patience with this, but I just want to make sure you get this.  Because this is really the crux of the issue.

Anyway, this is what Suhail said.  This is what Suhail Khan said.

Unidentified Audience Member: (Inaudible — microphone inaccessible)

Frank Gaffney: Yeah.

Unidentified Audience Member: — what you’re saying, like you’re squeezing it in, like this is unimportant.

Frank Gaffney: This is not unimportant.

Unidentified Audience Member: Yeah, I know it’s important.

(Video played)

Frank Gaffney: Okay.  Let me just cut to the chase.  You’ve just heard him say that his parents were not Muslim Brothers; these are not Muslim Brotherhood groups.  Well — and they’ve not been proved as such.  Actually, the US government, as I mentioned, in the Holy Land Foundation trial, introduced evidence, uncontested in that trial, saying they were.  A trial judge rejected three of their efforts to be delisted, and an appellate panel of three federal judges said he was right.

So my question to you, ladies and gentlemen, is — if Khan is lying about stuff that is demonstrably wrong, what else might he be lying about?  Which brings us to –

Unidentified Audience Member: Mr. Gaffney, what was that CNN –

Frank Gaffney: That was on the margins of CPAC this year.  Because we got into some fisticuffs over it.

I won’t bore you with this, or this.  I’ll just show you this quickly.  To come back to Grover — in addition to what I’ve shown you in terms of getting people in positions to influence and undermine our community, three other things — building the infrastructure for influence operations, promoting candidates, and otherwise advancing the agenda.

On the infrastructure — this is a quote from the group that Grover and Suhail bring to CPAC — Muslims for America.  As best I can tell, it’s a two-person operation run out of Colorado.  But it’s pretty much sort of Muslim Brotherhood-lite.  And they say, quote — We have partnered with the Americans for Tax Reform organization who are looking for Muslim leaders state by state to participate in their monthly meetings — in these state-level meetings, which are sort of [minimi] operations Grover’s spun off from the one in Washington.  Why?  Because they serve as political hotbeds for creating relations with political leaders and Muslims.  Okay?  Influence operation.  Think influence operation.

One of the guys who I would argue fits this bill is a fellow by the name of David Ramadan.  Together with Samah Norquist, Grover’s Muslim wife; and four other Muslims, David, the first in the list, signed a letter basically denouncing conservatives who opposed the Ground Zero mosque back in August of [2000].  Grover encouraged him to run for a State House of Delegates seat in Virginia in this last cycle.

Shortly before the election, Ken Timmerman, many of you may know, identified his father-in-law by his first marriage — and by the way, there’s no evidence that it ever stopped being his marriage — was linked as a major-general in Lebanese intelligence to Syria, Iran and Hezbollah.  As Ken points out in his article, knowing a lot about the Middle East as he does, you don’t get to be married into the family of a major-general in Lebanese intelligence if you’re not, you know, with the program.  Certainly not a moderate Muslim, let alone a Christian.

Unidentified sources of foreign wealth also — the question occurs, what’s he done with it?  Well, he’s given a bunch of it to some of these kinds of people.  I don’t know if you recognize them, but I would argue they’re among the most promising new generation of Republican leaders in the country — Eric Cantor and Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia.

This fellow you may not know of — Ken Cuccinelli, another one.  Virginia Attorney General.  All of these guys have received campaign contributions from David Ramadan, all of them endorsed him.  Cuccinelli, worse yet — when Ramadan was sued, after he won the primary by 240 votes, by five residents of his district — who believed he did not live in the district and therefore would be ineligible for being its representative — Ken Cuccinelli, the morning of the trial, endorsed him.  And lo and behold, two commonwealth attorneys show up at the trial to quash a subpoena, sought by the plaintiffs, of the state police who had investigated whether this guy actually lived in the district or not.  In the absence of that information, the judge ruled he did represent the district and could serve.  He just won by 50 votes.

So, moving right along — I won’t belabor this point, except to say that on the agenda, I would be willing to bet you there is not a person in this meeting — not just in this room, but in this meeting — who would agree with any of his positions on these sorts of issues.  Mentioned the Ground Zero mosque, closing Gitmo, Jay Streets, Agenda for Israel, repealing the Patriot Act.  You’ve heard about secret evidence, the candidates business.   How about these — bringing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to trial in New York City?  Oh, the inclusion bit — I can show you that.  But bringing the Nation of Islam into the conservative movement.  How’s that for an idea?

He is leading the fight, as we speak, to get Republicans to join him in cutting defense, massively.  He thinks it should be the bill payer — anything but taxes — and of course cashing in on our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and leaving our borders open.

This is interesting.  A couple of months back, the fellow we had at breakfast came to his Wednesday meeting and got — well, to put a fine point on it — lynched by Suhail Khan and some of Grover’s other minions over Cain’s very, I think, sensible position that you can’t entrust the Bench or your Cabinet to people who embrace Sharia.  Because they can’t, as we’ve talked about, support the Constitution of the United States.

How about this?  American Laws for American Courts.  As you may know, this is kind of a problem.  Because the enemy is trying, as part of its stealth jihad, to bring Sharia into our courts.  We’ve just done a study of this — 50 cases in which somebody, a plaintiff or defendant, try to get Sharia used to adjudicate the matter.  In 27 out of those 50 cases, in 23 different states, the court at either the trial or the appellate level upheld the use of Sharia to dispose of the matter — the most notorious of which you may have heard of, probably, in New Jersey.  A Moroccan American woman came to the court asking for a restraining order on her husband because he was systematically raping and torturing her.  And the judge said he could find no evidence of criminal intent, because he was just practicing his rights under Sharia.  Overturned on appeal, but still this is happening.

So a number of us have worked to get this kind of American Laws for American Courts enacted at state level.  Grover has now taken it upon himself to lead the fight against it — back in July getting some Jewish friends of his to come in and say — we won’t be able to practice our faith, which is complete rubbish.

How about this?  The end of September, he brought into that Center Right Coalition these notable conservatives to argue against American Laws for American Courts.  You know, most people I tell that to — most people say — American laws for American — why would you need law to do that?  Of course.  Well, foreign law is being insinuated into our courts — not just Sharia, but particularly.

Then, on October 2nd, shortly after that meeting, he went to Dearborn, Michigan to attend the Red-Green Axis’s National Leadership Conference, in the company of the likes of John Conyers and Keith Ellison, a host of Muslim Brothers, his friends from the ACLU, and George Soros’s Center for American Progress.  There’s now a report, by the way, that he’s now meeting with these people to teach them how to run fundraising operations.  I don’t know, folks, but this is kind of a problem.

Let me just give you — if I can again make this work, and I really appreciate your patience — but you need to hear this in his own words.  And I hope you will be able to.  This is Grover speaking at that National Leadership Conference.

(Video played)

Well, I don’t know if you could hear that.  But he was sort of breaking up in making that closing comment.

Okay, last slide or two, here you go — how does he respond to all of this?  I’ve laid out a lot; you’ve been patient — how does he react?  Well, it’s basically shooting the messenger.  And here it is in his own words.

(Video played)

It is sad and silly.  Okay.

Just to wrap up –

Unidentified Audience Member: Frank, what about [conversation with] Rick Perry?

Frank Gaffney: This is a good question, let me come back to it.

Is this a classic influence operation?  I suggest to you it is, in all of these respects.  This is the bottom line.  This is bad, and getting worse.  And I often ask myself at moments like this, what would he do?  Well, we know what he would do.  Because you see him here in 1947 in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee, testifying about communists in his industry, at considerable risk to himself and his family and his career.

So anyway, I really appreciate you taking all this aboard.  This is a hard problem.  We as a community have not come to grips with this.  As a result, it has metastasized, this cancer.  I hope that this conversation will equip you to be part of the steps that are necessary to rectify it.  And I really appreciate again you hearing this out.


I’m happy to stick around.  You all have something else to do.  And I’ve got a book — did I mention the book is for sale — yes.  Anyway, I’ll do that, too.  But let’s take a few questions, if you want to stay.

Unidentified Audience Member: (Inaudible — microphone inaccessible)

Frank Gaffney: Rick Perry.

Unidentified Audience Member: Yeah.

Frank Gaffney: Rick Perry is one of the candidates for President, and indeed, candidates for most other offices, and indeed incumbents, with whom Grover Norquist has a relationship.  How close a relationship?  You get differing opinions.  I happen to have been at a meeting with Mrs. Perry, in which she jokingly — I think, but nonetheless, jokingly — said that if asked any questions, she was going to have Grover answer them.  I took that badly.  But I think there is a relationship there.  I think that’s more worrying, frankly, than his relationship with the Emadis, for example.

But there’s a — Grover has, as you saw yourself, used his access to people through the tax drill to gain access to them on other agenda items.  And I think that’s worrying.

Yes, ma’am?

Unidentified Audience Member: I’ve been following this [for G Tours].  And I wanted to know if you have any idea how this sort of started (inaudible — microphone inaccessible).

Frank Gaffney: Yeah.  This question always comes up, and I always say I don’t know his motivations.  It is indisputably the case that this started before his wife turned up.  It started, as far as I can tell, back in 1999.  And I don’t think she came into the picture until 2002 or ’03 or so.

Look, if I had to make a guess, my guess is that it’s like a lot of things in Washington — it was about money.  I think it was about building up a base, an infrastructure, power.  I know for a fact that several other people were involved in sort of getting this thing going — you may have heard of them — in addition to Karl Rove, who was looking for a constituency that we were told — I think I said this at lunch — that was roughly as loyal, and certainly as well-heeled, as Jews have traditionally been for the Democratic Party.

And Jack Abramoff, interestingly enough — Jack was at the time a very successful super-lobbyist.  But he was also a Republican political operative.  He and Rove and Norquist went back to College Republican days together.  And Jack actually told one of my colleagues, who immediately told me, that he had helped cook this thing up as a kind of trifecta.

Remember Khaled Saffuri, Abdul Rahmad Al-Amoudi’s right-hand man who became the Muslim outreach coordinator for the Bush Campaign and executive director of the Islamic Free Market Institute?  Well, in his spare time, he was also going to consult with Jack Abramoff’s lobbying operation to facilitate his access to the Saudis and others in the Oil Patch, which was not going to be a very easy thing for Jack to do by himself, given that he was, A, an orthodox Jew; and B, a supporter of Israel.  But having a guy like Saffuri opening doors and lubricating things, I think, helped.

So you have those kinds of motivations.  I think this thing — truthfully, I think this thing started as nothing more than, you know, [the annality in] corruption and, you know, political operations.

The problem, as far as I’m concerned, is when I personally started raising an alarm with these people about the problem, they went into denial and character assassination.  I mean, that’s the real irony — him complaining about character assassination.  He has called me a racist, a bigot, a hater, and otherwise, you know, as you see, condemned me.

So anyway — yes, sir?

Unidentified Audience Member: (Inaudible — microphone inaccessible)

Frank Gaffney: Under the laws, as they are currently written, if they are engaged in this kind of nonviolent or pre-violent jihadist activity, they don’t qualify.  One of the things that we’ve been encouraging is a revision of that, so that they could be listed as an enemy influence operation, or in some form, clearly in a pre-violent kind of mode.

Unidentified Audience Member: (Inaudible — microphone inaccessible)

Frank Gaffney: Well, it’s a good question.  There are those who will tell you that the Bush Administration was never going to bring them to trial.  There are others who believe, as I do, that they envisioned getting the low-hanging fruit, who were the five people that they had a very strong case on, who they subsequently got convictions on.  And once you had that, then you turn and you get into these other guys.

But let’s face it — as you’ve seen, the Bush Administration was going to be deeply embarrassed if they starting rolling up these Brotherhood folks.  So I don’t know.  What I can tell you is that the Obama Administration has said there will be no further prosecutions of those unindicted coconspirators.

Unidentified Audience Member: (Inaudible — microphone inaccessible)

Frank Gaffney: I don’t think so.  Most of what I have heard him say about this is just simply denying that there’s anything to it.  In fact, in the Wall Street Journal, there was a front-page story, back in 2003, I think.  And right under the paragraph in which I said more or less what you’ve just heard — that there’s an influence operation being run against the Bush White House — he said there’s nothing — there’s no there there.  And I think that remains his position, far as I know.

Yes, ma’am?

Unidentified Audience Member: (Inaudible — microphone inaccessible)

Frank Gaffney: Oh, of course.  Of course.

Unidentified Audience Member: (Inaudible — microphone inaccessible)

Frank Gaffney: There’s Bob McDonnell, the governor of Virginia.  There’s Eric Cantor, the House Majority leader.  And there’s Ken Cuccinelli, the attorney general of Virginia.

Unidentified Audience Member: And I was wondering, if Huma Weiner (inaudible) assistant to Hillary, Secretary of State (inaudible).

Frank Gaffney: No.  Huma Abedin, she goes by, is Anthony Weiner’s wife.  She is now the Deputy Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State. I think that’s one example, just one of many, many examples, where you can see how the Bush precedent, and influence operations run against them, set the predicate for a group that, you know — the President on down came into office with a much, much more, you know, passionate interest in bringing these people in and listening only to them.

So the problem is — as you’ve heard once or twice, I suspect — this administration often, when it gets into some difficulty, pointing to the Bush Administration.  And here, they can.

But Huma Abedin — just a quick other story — Huma Abedin and Hillary went to Egypt recently to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood.  And while they did that — or rather, in the process of doing that, they went to Huma Abedin’s mother’s university, where, as part of the proud mother thing, Hillary told Huma’s mother that she, Huma, had a very important and sensitive position in her office.

Huma Abedin’s mother is a top Muslim Sister.  He brother is a top Muslim Brother in Egypt.  This is, in short, a problem, I think.

Unidentified Audience Member: Why doesn’t it come into question?  I don’t get it.  What is the point?  (Inaudible) talk (inaudible) so openly, and it doesn’t get challenged.

Frank Gaffney: Well, it doesn’t get challenged because if what you have just seen is that I’m a nutter, that I’m a crackbat, and that nobody should pay any attention to me, then why does anybody need to do anything about it?  I can’t tell you how many conversations, how many meetings, how many letters, how many briefings I have given, to find people absolutely determined not to hear any of this.

Unidentified Audience Member: (Inaudible — microphone inaccessible)

Frank Gaffney: I’m not going to go there, ma’am.


I have no idea what the relationship is with these two folks, but I’ve got to believe it’s complicated, to say the least.


Yes, ma’am?

Unidentified Audience Member: I’ve got a couple things.  One is that Weiner’s wife (inaudible) normal, you know, Muslim tradition would be considered (inaudible).  So [there are] obviously [plans] (inaudible) Egypt, and they would kill her for marrying a Jewish man.  Okay, that’s number one.

Number two, (inaudible) and I had the pleasure (inaudible).

Frank Gaffney: Good for you.

Unidentified Audience Member: It was like watching a train wreck.  I saw all that evidence presented.  I saw the videos.  I heard the testimony from those people, but they don’t tell you their names (inaudible) that manifesto (inaudible) 13 pages (inaudible).  I e-mailed it to everyone, as well as that FBI [connect-the-dots] thing (inaudible).  It’s just amazing that people don’t get (inaudible) chilling.  What [he] didn’t touch on was a video that was put together by that man (inaudible) whose house was it that –

Frank Gaffney: Elbarasse’s house?

Unidentified Audience Member: Yeah.  Oh, my God, that (inaudible).  And this man bought this hous
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: Norquist: Cruz's Defunding 'Tactic' Not the Same as My Anti-Tax Pledge
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2013, 02:07:08 AM »

A Troubling Influence By: Frank J Gaffney Jr. | Tuesday, December 09, 2003

Why We Are Publishing This Article by David Horowitz

The article you are about to read is the most disturbing that we at have ever published. As an Internet magazine, with a wide circulation, we have been in the forefront of the effort to expose the radical Fifth Column in this country, whose agendas are at odds with the nation’s security, and whose purposes are hostile to its own. In his first address to Congress after 9/11, the President noted that we are facing the same totalitarian enemies we faced in the preceding century. It is not surprising that their domestic supporters in the American Left should have continued their efforts to weaken this nation and tarnish its image. Just as there was a prominent internal Fifth Column during the Cold War, so there has been a prominent Fifth Column during the war on terror.

By no means do all the opponents of America’s war policies (or even a majority) fit this category. Disagreement among citizens is a core feature of any democracy and respect for that disagreement is a foundational value of our political system. The self-declared enemies of the nation are distinguished by the intemperate nature of their attacks on America and its President – referring to the one as Adolf Hitler, for example, or the other as the world’s “greatest terrorist state.” They are known as well by their political choices and associations. Many leaders of the movement opposing the war in Iraq have worked for half a century with the agents of America’s communist enemies and with totalitarian states like Cuba and the former USSR.

We have had no compunction about identifying these individuals and groups. America is no longer protected by geographical barriers or by its unsurpassed military technologies. Today terrorists who can penetrate our borders with the help of Fifth Column networks will have access to weapons of mass destruction that can cause hundreds of thousands of American deaths.  One slip in our security defenses can result in a catastrophe undreamed of before.

What is particularly disturbing, about the information in this article by former Reagan Defense official, Frank Gaffney, is that it concerns an individual who loves this country and would be the last person to wish it harm, and the first one would expect to defend it. I have known Grover Norquist for almost twenty years as a political ally. Long before I myself was cognizant of the Communist threat – indeed when I was part of one of those Fifth Column networks – Grover Norquist was mobilizing his countrymen to combat it. In the early 1980s, Grover was in the forefront of conservative efforts to get the Reagan Administration to support the liberation struggles of anti-Communists in Central America, Africa and Afghanistan.

It is with a heavy heart therefore, that I am posting this article, which is the most complete documentation extant of Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column. I have confronted Grover about these issues and have talked to others who have done likewise. But it has been left to Frank Gaffney and a few others, including Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, to make the case and to suffer the inevitable recriminations that have followed earlier disclosures of some aspects of this story.

Up to now, the controversy over these charges has been dismissed or swept under the rug, as a clash of personalities or the product of one of those intra-bureaucratic feuds so familiar to the Washington scene. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. The reality is much more serious. No one reading this document to its bitter end will confuse its claims and confirming evidence with those of a political cat fight. On the basis of the evidence assembled here, it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.

As Frank Gaffney’s article recounts, Grover’s own Islamic Institute was initially financed by one of the most notorious of these operatives, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah who told the Annual Convention of the Islamic Association of Palestine in 1996, “If we are outside this country we can say ‘Oh, Allah destroy America.’ But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.” Grover appointed Alamoudi’s deputy, Khaled Saffuri to head his own organization. Together they gained access to the White House for Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian and others with similar agendas who used their cachet to spread Islamist influence to the American military and the prison system and the universities and the political arena with untold consequences for the nation.

Parts of this story have been published before, but never in such detail and never with the full picture of Islamist influence in view. No doubt, that is partly because of Grover Norquist’s large (and therefore intimidating) presence in the Washington community. Many have been quite simply afraid to raise these issues and thus have allowed Grover to make them seem a matter of individual personality differences. This suits his agendas well, as it does those of his Islamist allies. If matters in dispute reflect personal animosity or “racial” prejudice, as Grover insists, then the true gravity of these charges is obscured. The fact remains that while Grover has denied the charges or sought to dismiss them with such arguments on many occasions, he has never answered them. If he wishes to do so now, the pages of are open to him.

Many have been reluctant to support these charges or to make them public because they involve a prominent conservative. I am familiar with these attitudes from my years on the Left. Loyalty is an important political value, but there comes a point where loyalty to friends or to parties comes into conflict with loyalty to fundamental principles and ultimately to one’s country. Grover’s activities have reached that point. E.M. Forster, a weak-spirited liberal, once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and his friends, he “hoped [he] would have the guts” to betray his country.

No such sentiment motivates this journal. In our war with the Islamo-fascists we are all engaged in a battle with evil on a scale that affects the lives and freedoms of hundreds of millions people outside this nation as well as within it. America is on the front line of this battle and there is no replacement waiting in the wings if it fails, or if its will to fight is sapped from within. This makes our individual battles to keep our country vigilant and strong the most important responsibilities we have. That is why we could not in good conscience do otherwise, than to bring this story to light.


A Troubling Influence by Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

At a black-tie dinner on November 5th, nearly 300 conservative activists and politicians gathered at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel to recognize a prominent fixture in their community: tax-advocate and conservative coalition-builder Grover Norquist.


The talk that evening was of the honoree’s tireless efforts to advance his libertarian objective of down-sizing federal, state and local governments by reducing their revenues.  He was toasted for organizing nationwide initiatives to memorialize Ronald Reagan, notably with the renaming of the capital’s National Airport after the former President.


Most in the audience were surely unaware that the effect of their tribute – if not its organizers’ intended purpose – was to provide urgently needed political cover for a man who has been active on another, far less laudable and, in fact, deeply problematic front: Enabling a political influence operation to advance the causes of radical Islamists, and targeted most particularly at the Bush Administration. The growing influence of this operation – and the larger Islamist enterprise principally funded by Saudia Arabia – has created a strategic vulnerability for the nation, and a political liability for its President.

The Islamist Connection: Abdurahman Alamoudi


The association between Grover Norquist and Islamists appears to have started about five years ago, in 1998, when he became the founding chairman of an organization called the Islamic Free Market Institute, better known as the Islamic Institute.1  The Institute’s stated purpose was to cultivate Muslim-Americans and Arab-Americans whose attachment to conservative family values and capitalism made them potential allies for the Republican Party in advance of the 2000 presidential election.


If successful, such an outreach effort could theoretically produce a windfall in votes and campaign contributions. Consequently, it enjoyed the early support of Karl Rove, when he was then-Governor Bush’s political advisor, and who knew Norquist from their days in the College Republicans.


Unfortunately, some associated with the Islamic Institute evidently had another agenda.  Abdurahman Alamoudi, for one, a self-described “supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah,”2 the prime-mover behind the American Muslim Council (AMC) and a number of other U.S.-based Islamist-sympathizing/supporting organizations, saw in the Islamic Institute a golden opportunity to hedge his bets.


For years, Alamoudi had cultivated ties with the Democratic Party and its partisans, and contributed significant amounts to its candidates. These donations had given Alamoudi access to the Clinton White House and enabled him and his associates to secure the right to select, train and certify Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military.3


By the end of the 1990s, an AMC spin-off called the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council and a like-minded organization, the Islamic Society of North America, were responsible for selecting all U.S. Muslim chaplains. 4  One of these appointees – Army Captain Yousef Yee – has lately been in the news.  Yee has been removed from his duties ministering to Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo pending military judicial proceedings for, among other alleged misconduct, mishandling classified material.


For an Islamist-sympathizer like Alamoudi, the opportunity to determine who would minister to Muslims in the U.S. military was an important strategic prize. It built upon a Saudi-sponsored initiative dating back to the time of Operation Desert Storm to convert members of the American armed forces to Wahhabi Sunnism,5 the religious doctrine of the Islamic radicals. It has been reported that Saudi Arabia provided more than 100 such service personnel6 – including Captain Yee7 – with free trips to Mecca to make the hajj. (The nature and implications of these Islamist initiatives are under investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Terrorism Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Jon Kyl, R-AZ, and by the Defense Department’s Inspector General.)


In the mid-1990s, Alamoudi also had a hand in the recruitment and placement of another 75-100 so-called “Islamic lay leaders” for the U.S. military.  According to the Wall Street Journal, he arranged for “an arm of the Saudi government” called the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences to train “soldiers and civilians to provide spiritual guidance when paid Muslim chaplains aren’t available.”  The Journal also reports that there are signs that “the school…disseminates the intolerant and anti-Western strain of Islam espoused by the [Saudi] kingdom’s religious establishment.” 8


The right to select military chaplains not only offered Alamoudi and his colleagues the chance to recruit still more Islamists with specialized and highly useful skill-sets.  It also was an invaluable legitimating credential to be wielded against those who might otherwise regard the American Muslim Council and its leader with suspicion, or worse.


It would, therefore, have been important to retain this role even if the Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, were to lose and Republicans come to power.  Hence, Abdurahman Alamoudi took an interest in one of the GOP’s most assiduous and influential networkers, Grover Norquist.


It seems unlikely that even in Alamoudi’s wildest dreams he could have imagined the extent of the access, influence and legitimacy the American Muslim Council and allied Islamist organizations would be able to secure in Republican circles, thanks to the investment they began in 1998 in a relationship with Norquist.


Alamoudi and Norquist


The investment began when Alamoudi wrote two personal checks (a $10,000 loan and what appears to be a $10,000 gift) to help found Norquist’s Islamic Institute.9 In addition, Alamoudi made payments in 2000 and 2001 totaling $50,000 to Janus-Merritt Strategies, a lobbying firm with which Norquist was associated at the time.10


Questions about the original source of this seed money would seem to be in order. In particular, it would be instructive to know whether it came from Saudi Arabia or a pedigreed terrorist state like Libya. Last month, Alamoudi was arrested and charged with engaging in illegal financial transactions with the Libyan government. According to an affidavit filed at the time, he admitted to trying to take $340,000 in sequentially numbered $100 bills to Syria, en route to Saudi bank accounts.11 When apprehended, Alamoudi declared that the funds had been delivered to him after extensive interactions with officials of Muammar Qadhafi’s government by a man “with a Libyan accent.” Its source is alleged to be a charity used by Qadhafi to finance terrorist operations.


According to the affidavit, Alamoudi told authorities in Britain that once the Libyan funds were in Saudi banks, he would then draw upon them in roughly $10,000 increments to defray the expenses of organizations with which he was associated in the United States. He admitted to having undertaken “other, similar transactions involving amounts in the range of $10,000 to $20,000.”  He also acknowledged that he had first approached representatives of the Libyan government in 1997 – the year before Norquist’s Islamic Institute was founded.


It is unclear exactly how much money Alamoudi received from Libya and precisely when, or who were the beneficiaries. What is known, however, according to published tax returns and foundation records, is that the overwhelming majority of the Norquist Institute’s funds from its inception have come from Persian Gulf states and their U.S. funding mechanisms, a number of which have been raided by federal anti-terrorism task forces.12


Whatever the provenance of Alamoudi’s seed money for the Islamic Institute, an even more significant contribution to its future course came in the form of the placement of his deputy, Khaled Saffuri, as the founding director of Norquist’s new organization. This placement is consistent with a practice long employed by Islamist-associated groups in the United States and, for that matter, other tightly controlled and non-transparent enterprises (e.g., the Soviet KGB’s operations overseas and Mafia business empires).


This disciplined approach has guided the Saudi-funded global Islamist network starting back in the 1960s. At that time, the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs established the Muslim World League (MWL) – headed by the minister himself – to promote radical Islamist agendas around the globe.


Of particular concern has been the MWL’s effort in America where four layers of front organizations have been spawned to recruit, indoctrinate, train and employ new adherents in furtherance of the Islamists’ overarching objectives: dominating the Muslim world and, in due course, forcing the non-Muslim world as well to submit to Islamic law.13


A surprisingly small number of trusted individuals run and financially control the roughly 40 groups that make up this radical Islamic front. For years, Abdurahman Alamoudi has been the most prominent leader of this front in America, and is involved in no fewer than 16 Islamist organizations.


As in the case of Grover Norquist’s Islamic Institute, control of the operations of these front organizations is usually given to a protégé of one of the godfathers or another trusted cadre member. Funds then flow from the same network.


Hence, in addition to the seed money from Alamoudi, the Islamic Institute has also received funding from organizations described by the Washington Post as a “secretive group of tightly connected Muslim charities, think tanks and businesses based in Northern Virginia [and] used to funnel millions of dollars to terrorists and launder millions more” – a number of whom are currently part of the “largest federal investigation of terrorism financing in the world.”14

Point Man: Khaled Saffuri


The founding director of Grover Norquist’s Islamic Institute, Khaled Saffuri, is a Muslim Palestinian by birth. Prior to joining Alamoudi’s group (where he served for almost three years15), Saffuri was active in Muslim-support operations in Bosnia,16 a hot-bed for Islamic radicals from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere anxious to establish a beachhead on the continent of Europe. In recent years, he has acknowledged personally supporting the families of suicide bombers – even though, in public settings, he strenuously denies having done so.17 He denounced President Bush for shutting down the Holy Land Foundation, a Saudi charity that the U.S. government determined was funneling American Muslims’ donations to terrorist organizations overseas.18


I first had occasion to observe Saffuri in the late 1990s, when I became a regular attendee of Grover Norquist’s “Wednesday Group” meetings, weekly gatherings of conservative movement activists and libertarians.  Troubled that many of the participants rarely, if ever, addressed national security matters – certainly before 9/11 and, arguably, even afterwards – I viewed these conclaves as an opportunity to promote awareness of and renewed support for robust foreign and defense policies. With a view to doing that on a routine basis, I accepted Norquist’s invitation to move my Center for Security Policy into new office space he had acquired. In the summer of 1999, I relocated to the space which was also occupied by his primary organization, Americans for Tax Reform, which also housed the Wednesday Group meetings and the Saffuri-headed Islamic Institute.


Since the Institute was located inside the ATR suite next to ours, we wound up sharing a large conference room, Xerox room, bathrooms, elevator bank and hallway.  Consequently, I had a ring-side seat as Saffuri and his colleagues became ever more prominent fixtures at the Wednesday Group meetings, usually underscoring their close relationship with the host by sitting next to Norquist (or near him) in the center of the room.


From time to time, one or another of the Islamic Institute’s associates would make a presentation to the generally standing-room-only crowds of influential Washington conservatives, would-be politicians, think-tank denizens, journalists, and an increasing number of lobbyists. Over the years, topics they addressed included: the plight of Palestinians under Israeli occupation; the much-maligned and badly misunderstood Islamist government of Sudan (in fact, a designated state-sponsor of terrorism); the innocent nature of the process whereby Muslim chaplains have been selected for the armed forces; the honored status of women in the Muslim world; and efforts to promote Islamic causes and candidates in Republican circles.


Whenever possible, I tried to interject or make presentations to counter what I considered to be an ill-concealed and ominous influence operation. On one occasion, which occurred a few weeks after 9/11, I made an intervention to decry the fact that Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council was among the groups invited to the White House. I observed that on the same day its representatives were meeting with the President and his senior subordinates to talk about how Muslims could help with the war on terror, the AMC’s website featured a box headlined “Know Your Rights.” A click on the proferred hyperlink took you to a joint statement urging Muslims not to talk to the FBI. The statement was issued in the name of an organization of which the AMC was a member: the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF) – a virtual legal aid office for terrorists.  At the time, a South Florida University professor named Sami al-Arian was the NCPPF’s president. As will be discussed below, he was also Secretary of the worldwide governing council of a terrorist organization called Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), responsible for 99 suicide-bombing victims.


I suggested to the Wednesday Group that the White House would surely have been astonished to discover that it was dignifying so-called Muslim leaders who were urging their co-religionists not to cooperate with law enforcement. I also pointedly observed – without mentioning names – that those responsible for facilitating the President’s Muslim outreach, who profess to support him and wish him success, should take pains to avoid including such groups in the future. I circulated a column I had written making similar points and that had been published the day before in the Washington Times.19


No sooner had I finished speaking than Norquist left his seat to consult with Saffuri’s deputy and successor as director of the Islamic Institute, Abdulwahab Alkebsi (another former Deputy Director of Alamoudi’s AMC).20 After the consultation, Norquist came over to me and whispered that he had checked and that there was no such box on the AMC website. I, in turn, consulted with one of my colleagues, who produced a copy of the webpage in question and sequential images as it was removed from the site in the wake of my column’s publication. (This was not an isolated phenomenon; in fact, in the post-9/11 period, webmasters for a number of pro-Islamist organizations evidently were directed to sanitize their internet sites.)


I reported this to Grover and showed him the original item. Shortly thereafter, I had to leave the meeting. Only later did I discover that he had taken advantage of my absence to disinform the group by announcing that what I had told them about the AMC website was wrong and that it featured no such encouragement to obstruct justice.


Penetrating The Bush Campaign


In 2000, thanks to Grover Norquist’s influence with the White House political operation, Khaled Saffuri was named the George W. Bush presidential campaign’s National Advisor on Arab and Muslim Affairs.21 Holding out the promise of votes and donations in key battleground states with significant Muslim populations (notably, Michigan, Florida and New Jersey), Saffuri and Norquist were able to persuade the Bush campaign’s chief strategist, Karl Rove, essentially to contract-out to them responsibility for identifying the groups and individuals upon whom the Governor should rely to elicit such support. Insight Magazine reported in February 2001:


[In September 2000], on [Karl Rove’s] way to the airport to catch his flight back to Texas, Khaled Saffuri, executive director of the Islamic Institute, joined Rove in his car.  Saffuri explained to him that the vote of the Arab-American community, which includes both Muslims and Christians, still was up for grabs. The community is prosperous and could be the source of considerable campaign contributions. If Bush would mention in public just a few of the issues that concern Arab-Americans, Saffuri told Rove, he would win their hearts, their minds and their support.22


While the thrust of this report sounds right, the evidence suggests Saffuri’s car ride with Rove was by no means the first time such a proposition had been discussed with the Bush campaign. Indeed, the lure of such political dividends induced Governor Bush to hold a meeting in his mansion in Austin on May 1, 2000, not only with Alamoudi and Saffuri, but with other, immoderate Muslims, as well. As the National Journal reported:


It was the summer of 2000, and for George W. Bush, the meeting held the promise of an unusual but important endorsement for his presidential bid. Conservative activist Grover Norquist had persuaded the Republican nominee to sit down with leaders of the Muslim American Political Coordinating Committee, a confederation of four Muslim community groups.23


In addition to Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council, the group included the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad is another self-professed Hamas-supporter and, as will be discussed further below, its radical agenda and ties have recently been the focus of sharp, bipartisan criticism in Sen. Kyl’s Judiciary subcommittee.


Saffuri had also arranged for the Bush campaign to enlist Sami al-Arian, a well-known Florida-based activist – despite the fact that the professor made little secret of his radical Islamist sympathies – to help engender Muslim support in his state.24 A photograph of Mr. Bush taken with al-Arian in March 2000 subsequently received considerable attention after the professor was arrested last February on 40 terrorism-related counts. Of particular concern are those alleging his functional direction over the past 19 years of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, one of the most murderous terrorist organizations in the Middle East.25

Obstructing Justice


Al-Arian’s arrest was made possible by the USA-PATRIOT Act. With this legislation’s enactment after 9/11, it became possible for the first time in decades, for U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share sensitive information – such as the voluminous wiretaps of Sami al-Arian coordinating Palestinian Islamic Jihad operations from his professor’s office in Tampa.


Not surprisingly, the Islamist front recognizes the threat this and other provisions of the PATRIOT Act represent to their operations in America. They are determined to rescind it and, if possible, remove its principal architect and most effective defender, Attorney General John Ashcroft.  Accordingly, they have become an integral part of the left-wing coalition, which includes the ACLU, the pro-Castro National Lawyers Guild and many Islamic “solidarity” groups, in waging a national campaign against the PATRIOT Act.  It seems hardly coincidental that the preeminent conservative figure to join the campaign and lead the recruitment of other conservatives is Grover Norquist.


In fact, Norquist was also a prime-mover behind efforts to secure one of the Islamists’ top pre-9/11 agenda items: the abolition of a section of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act that permits authorities to use what critics call “secret evidence.”  This is a rarely employed practice whereby prosecutors can withhold classified information from foreign suspects.  To do so, however, the authorities must have reason to believe the disclosure of such information could compromise – and, thereby, eliminate – the sensitive intelligence “sources and methods” by which it was obtained.


As it happens, one reason why banning secret evidence was an Islamist priority was that  undisclosed classified information linking Sami al-Arian’s brother-in-law, Mazen al-Najjar, to terrorist activities was used to detain the latter from 1997 to 2000. Ultimately, that same information was used to deport him.


Thus, secret evidence was a personal priority for one of the Bush campaign’s Muslim-outreach operatives – and corrective action became a price of his and other Islamists’ support. In the second presidential debate with Al Gore, Governor Bush responded to the demand that, as Saffuri put it, he “mention in public just a few of the issues that concern Arab-Americans.” The Republican candidate formally pledged that, if elected, he would prohibit the use of secret evidence.26


In recognition of this stunning exercise in political influence and his instrumental role in achieving it, Grover Norquist was an honoree at an event held by Sami Al-Arian’s National  Coalition to Protect Political Freedom in July 2001, two months before 9/11. The award was for being a “champion of the abolishment movement against secret evidence.” Such recognition was certainly deserved. But for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that followed, Norquist’s efforts would by now almost certainly have denied law enforcement this important anti-terrorism tool.


Ironically, pro-Islamist groups had been scheduled to meet with President Bush on the morning of September 11 to hear what he planned to do to deliver on his secret evidence campaign pledge.27 But that day, the executive mansion complex was shut down, for fear that a fourth hijacked aircraft was headed its way. I watched bemused as Grover Norquist and the White House official responsible for Muslim outreach, Suhail Khan, escorted the displaced Islamists into the conference room we share. (Al-Arian had arranged to participate in the presidential meeting via phone. According to his website, his teaching schedule at the University of South Florida would not allow him to be there in person.)28


Penetrating the White House


Suhail Khan was one of at least three Muslim outreach gatekeepers at the White House with whom Norquist has been associated over the years. I became aware of the intensity of the attachment when Norquist verbally assaulted me one day in the hallway outside our offices with the accusation that I had been calling Khan a terrorist. I assured him that I had done no such thing. Evidently, somebody else, though, had stumbled onto the fact that Khan’s late father, Mahboob Khan, was a prominent figure in the Islamist enterprise in America. It turns out that, among other things, he was the founder of a large Wahhabi center, mosque and school in Orange County, California.29


The New York Times revealed on October 23, 2001, that, in that capacity, Khan Sr. had hosted Ayman al-Zawahiri, reportedly Osama bin Laden’s right-hand-man in the al-Qaeda organization – not once, but twice in the 1990s.30 The first time, Zawahiri came under his own name, the second time he used an alias.  In the course of his trips, the terrorist chief reportedly not only raised funds for al-Qaeda’s operations at Khan’s mosque but also purchased satellite communications equipment while in the United States.31


After Khan’s family ties to terror became a focus of press attention, Suhail left the White House staff to go to work at the Department of Transportation. Grover Norquist closed a Wednesday Group meeting by tearfully apologizing to Suhail Khan for the injury caused him by “racists and bigots” and, by example, encouraging the assembled company to join him in a standing ovation to Khan. Most hadn’t a clue what he was talking about but went along. Mindful that Norquist had me in mind, I sat it out.


If White House security procedures had worked across the board as they were supposed to, it seems unlikely that President Bush and his senior subordinates would ever have met with some of those sponsored by Norquist and Saffuri. Sami al-Arian and Abdurahman Alamoudi, for example, would probably never have gotten inside the White House compound.


What happened at the Wednesday Group meeting after Khan’s move to Transportation was unfortunately not an isolated incident, but part of an already established pattern. In July 2001, the Secret Service evicted Sami al-Arian’s son, Abdullah, from a meeting in the White House. The President had affably dubbed Abdullah “Big Dude” after first meeting him and his family on the campaign trail in Florida in March 2000.32  Evidently, the Service acted on the basis of the law enforcement community’s longstanding suspicion of the father’s ties to international terror.


Norquist’s friends immediately raised a ruckus. Other participants in the meeting walked out in solidarity. It became a cause celebre, trumpeted as an egregious example of the racial profiling about which the Islamists and their leftwing allies incessantly complained. In short order, the Deputy Director of the Secret Service was obliged to issue a written apology to “Big Dude” al-Arian. And the President himself personally called the evictee’s mother to express regret and to assure her that no such thing would be allowed to happen again.

Access to the White House


Notice had been served on the Secret Service and other security-vetters:  Their job was to provide for the President’s physical security – the threat of would-be assassins – not to protect him from the political embarrassment (or worse) that might result from meetings with terrorist-apologists, or possibly terrorists themselves. If unarmed Islamists were able to secure access to Mr. Bush and his subordinates (e.g., the Secretaries of the Treasury, State and Energy, the Attorney General, the directors of Homeland Security and the FBI), law enforcement and intelligence professionals got the message that they were not to interfere. 


Consequently, over the years, and particularly as the Bush Administration’s Muslim outreach effort ramped up in the aftermath of 9/11, Grover Norquist was able to gain extraordinarily high-level access for a number of troubling individuals and groups. An undated White House memo, evidently prepared by Suhail Khan in early 2001 and intended to coordinate Muslim and Arab-American public liaison events, shows that Norquist’s Islamic Institute was instrumental in establishing Islamist connections with the Bush administration. The Islamic Institute provided the White House with a list of Muslim invitees, with the name, date of birth and Social Security number of each. As the founder of the Islamic Institute, Grover Norquist tops the list.33


A leading Arab-American pollster, John Zogby, told The New Republic, “[Grover]’s played the role of interlocutor. With all respect, many of the leaders are immigrants and don't have years and years of experience. Grover has filled that void.” He went on to say that “absolutely, [Grover is] central to the White House outreach.”34


Among the dubious characters included in this outreach – in addition  to al-Arian, Alamoudi and his deputy, Saffuri – were the following:


Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).  Awad was among those first introduced by Norquist and Saffuri to Bush during the presidential campaign and his access continued after September 11th. In fact, the front page of the Washington Post featured a photograph of Nihad Awad and Khaled Saffuri flanking Mr. Bush as he toured the Washington Islamic Center.


This public relations coup was an early indication of the strategy Norquist’s Islamist friends would follow in the wake of the hijackings:  Exploit the President’s laudable – and strategically sensible – desire to show that neither he nor the American people would hold all Muslims responsible for the murderous actions of the few. This would be done by proposing that President Bush (or his surrogates) attend events in Washington, Detroit, and other cities with Muslim populations, sponsor meetings, host White House iftar dinners to break the Ramadan fast, and so forth. Evidently Norquist, Saffuri and the gatekeepers they had placed inside the White House would work to ensure that representatives of the pro-Islamist organizations would be invited as the exclusive representatives of the Muslim-American and Arab-American communities and – just as important – that non-Islamist Muslims would be excluded.


In this fashion, improbable though it may seem, the Wahhabi agenda of access, influence and legitimacy could actually be advanced in the post-9/11 environment. That people like Nihad Awad could pull this off is a tribute to the skill of the influence operators. After all, he had personally declared that he was a “supporter of the Hamas movement,”35 and his organization raised money for terrorist fronts (including the Holy Land Foundation, the Benevolence International Foundation, and the Global Relief Fund).36 One month after these organizations were raided by the U.S. government, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper lamented: “The Holy Land Foundation, Global Relief International, Benevolent International Foundation [sic] -- these were our major relief organizations, and they've all been shut down.”37


Even more astounding is the fact that Awad and CAIR have continually attacked the President and his Administration. They have even sued Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Moeller.38 They have strenuously objected to Bush policies on Homeland Security and the War on Terror.  And they have played a leading role in national campaigns aimed at undoing the PATRIOT Act and preventing the liberation of Iraq.


As noted above, CAIR’s pro-Islamist sympathies and conduct have been the object of bipartisan criticism from the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism. In the course of the subcommittee’s hearing, even one of the organization’s go-to guys on Capitol Hill, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL, observed that the committee should hear from more “mainstream” Muslim groups in the future, since CAIR and its rhetoric were too “extreme” and its associations “suspect.”39


Such an assessment has certainly been reinforced by the fact that since September 11, 2001, three CAIR figures have been arrested by U.S. federal authorities on terrorist-related charges:


·    In December 2002, Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR-Texas, was arrested on a number of charges including export violations, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of designated terrorist, conspiracy and money laundering.40

·    Bassem K. Khafagi, the Community Affairs Director for CAIR at the time of his January 2003 arrest,41 pled guilty on September 10, 2003, to charges of bank and visa fraud.42 He remains under investigation for his alleged role in the terrorist funding group Islamic Assembly of North America and is expected to be deported to Egypt.43

·    Randall Todd “Ismail” Royer, former communications specialist and civil rights coordinator at CAIR, was arrested in late June 2003 for his alleged involvement in the Pakistani terrorist organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba.44 The Justice Department upgraded Royer’s charges in September 2003 to include providing material support to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.45  At the time of his arrest, Royer was spokesman for the National Liberty Fund, a legal defense fund for the PIJ leader Sami al-Arian.


Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.  According to the Washington Post, on September 9, 2001, at a rally to support cop-killer and former American Muslim Council executive Jamil Al-Amin (a.k.a. H. Rap Brown), Shaykh Yusuf declared, “This country is facing a terrible fate...This country stands condemned. It stands condemned because of what it did – and lest people forget Europe suffered two world wars after conquering the Muslim lands.”46 At this same rally, the Post reported, Shaykh Yusuf lamented that Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric convicted of plotting to bomb Manhattan's Lincoln and Holland tunnels, was “unjustly tried, was condemned against any standards of justice in any legal system.”47


The FBI went to interview Yusuf to determine whether this inflammatory statement was indicative of prior knowledge of the attacks that occurred two days later. When agents knocked on the door of his San Francisco home on September 20th, they were incredulous to hear his wife explain that Yusuf was absent because he was meeting with the President.48 Upon checking, the FBI discovered that he had indeed been included in an ecumenical meeting in the Oval Office with then-Cardinal Law and a Jewish rabbi – a meeting that was, according to the Wall Street Journal, arranged by Grover Norquist’s White House surrogate, Suhail Khan.49


The website of Yusuf’s organization promised to send a percentage of all sales of tapes of his pro-Islamist sermons to Benevolence International Foundation, even after its director was indicted for funneling money to bin Laden and al-Qaeda.50


Muzammil Siddiqi.  In September 2001, when Siddiqi met twice with Mr. Bush, he was president of the Board of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). This Saudi-funded organization is, as will be discussed below, used by the Muslim World League (MWL) to finance and exercise control over most of the mosques in the United States.  Siddiqi’s ties to Saudi Arabia are even deeper.


Before heading up ISNA, Siddiqi was previously a top figure in the MWL itself, whose American headquarters was raided in March 2002 on suspicion of ties to terrorism during the U.S. government’s Operation Green Quest.51 He has also served as the Chairman of the Religious Affairs Committee of the Muslim Students Association (see below) in the United States and Canada. In addition, he is a member of the Fiqh Council, another raided entity.52


Despite these troubling connections to Islamist causes and organizations, someone got the White House to call on Siddiqi to represent the Muslim faith in the inter-religious prayer service for the 9/11 victims that was held at the National Cathedral on September 14, 2001. As syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer noted afterwards, Siddiqi could not bring himself to condemn terrorism in remarks delivered to a worldwide audience, as well as four Presidents and hundreds of dignitaries.53


Even after a performance that was, to say the least, disappointing, Siddiqi was allowed to be photographed with President Bush in the Roosevelt Room of the White House and to present him with a Koran.


Agha Saeed, founder and president of the American Muslim Alliance. Saeed was invited to participate in the Bush campaign’s Muslim outreach meeting engineered by Norquist and Saffuri at the Governor’s mansion in 2000. He also has been given access to the White House since the 9/11 attacks.54


As noted previously, Saeed created an umbrella group, the American Muslim Political Coordination Council (AMPCC), to unite other members of the “Wahhabi Lobby,” including the American Muslim Council (AMC), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).


Interestingly, in June 2000, Hillary Clinton felt constrained to return $50,000 in AMA checks for her Senatorial campaign because Saeed had spoken in favor of Palestinians’ right to “resist by armed force.” He had also allegedly served as head of the Pakistani Communist Party.55


AMA’s Annual Dinner in April 2002 honored the alleged Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist leader Sami al-Arian, now in federal prison awaiting trial, as a “civil rights” leader, sponsoring a civil rights award in his name.56           


Eric Vickers, then-director of Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council.57  Vickers is a black radical who converted to the Muslim faith. While many black Muslims follow a divergent strain of Islam, Vickers found a home in the Wahhabi-connected AMC and served as its executive director from June 2002 until February 2003, after he left the American Muslim Alliance. Vickers was also an incorporator and board member of the Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA). The organization had two grants worth $4.2 million revoked by the U.S. Agency for International Development at the State Department’s request because of the group’s ties with terrorist-sponsoring Sudan (including the alleged provision by IARA officials of intelligence equipment to al-Qaeda).58


Like Nihad Awad, Vickers was a particularly outspoken critic of the Bush Administration and its policies in the War on Terror. He participated prominently in antiwar rallies, was a visible presence in campaigns against the PATRIOT Act and repeatedly assailed President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft, among others. Vickers made no secret either of his sympathy for Islamists and their organizations. In June 2002, I debated Vickers in an MSNBC “Hardball” program concerning the AMC’s pro-Islamist record – and the inappropriateness of FBI Director Robert Mueller addressing its annual convention that year. In the course of the show, Vickers refused to renounce or otherwise to disassociate himself or his organization from Hamas, Hezbollah or even al-Qaeda. When pressed, the most he would say is that al-Qaeda is a “resistance movement.”59


Mahdi Bray, executive director, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation.60 Bray, a former member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), is a leader of several pro-Islamist organizations in this country. His role typically is that of a coordinator for political activism. By mid-October of this year, Bray had overseen the training of nearly 1,000 Islamic activists.61  Bray also served as the political director of another pro-Islamist group based in Los Angeles, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and as a founding board member of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom.62 He hosts a radio talk-show sponsored largely by – and reflecting the views of – Wahhabi Saudi Arabia.63   


In March 2003, Bray testified at the bond hearing of indicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) leader Sami al-Arian, claiming responsibility for “mentoring [al-Arian] about the civil rights movement.”64 He also claimed that he and al-Arian were “kindred spirits” on the issue of Muslim political activism.65


Through public statements and demonstrations, Bray has vehemently protested Bush administration policies in the War on Terror, claiming that they are injurious to innocent American Muslims. For instance, in May 2003, Bray said:


The recent barbaric and illegal invasion of Iraq has emboldened the Bush administration in its actions to target the Muslim and immigrant community and to violate the rights of Muslims, immigrants, and all Americans with impunity. We must continue to forge a coalition of conscience to resist the Bush administration's belligerent and destructive policy which is the greatest impediment to global peace today.66


Click Here to read the conclusion of "A Troubling Influence", or to access the Endnotes.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: Norquist: Cruz's Defunding 'Tactic' Not the Same as My Anti-Tax Pledge
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2013, 02:08:30 AM »
and don't forget Grover is pushing amnesty.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo