Tag Archives: Grover Norquist

Why the Campaign to Silence Frank Gaffney?

“If you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target.” So my brave friends who were Navy pilots used to say, when I was safe at sea on a submarine. After many years of standing against America’s enemies, first in wartime and then in national politics, I find that observation apt when hysterical charges are hurled at some fearless truth-teller.

A fusillade directed at the messenger usually signals that someone is desperate to silence his message before the rest of us wake up to danger. Nothing gives a disrupter the upper hand, as Saul Alinsky said in “Rules for Radicals,” like isolating, stigmatizing, demonizing, discrediting, and thus “freezing” a troublesome opponent.

Such is the explanation, I believe, for the relentless stream of smears and sneers against my friend and fellow Reaganite conservative, my comrade in arms in the battle for the free world, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy.

So here is the truth as I know it firsthand. Here is the Frank Gaffney that the Left and the Islamists are frantic to prevent Americans from hearing, so much do they fear his testimony.

Watchman on the Wall

The Frank Gaffney I know is an American patriot with a record of service to his country over the past forty years, both at senior levels of government under President Reagan and, subsequently, in the non-governmental public policy arena. Over that time, his positions and prescriptions have engendered more than their share of controversy and ad hominem attacks.

Why is that? I submit it has been because he was recognizing and calling for action on problems that were at the time widely unacknowledged or misunderstood. Yet he has been proven right again and again – a vindication in which, as Frank has remarked to some of us, he takes no satisfaction, as it would have been far better for the country if his warnings were not borne out.

The attacks on Gaffney have been especially virulent in connection with Islamic supremacism, a frequent subject of his writings, media appearances, and the work of the non-profit policy research organization he founded in 1988, the Center for Security Policy (CSP).

Starting before 9/11, and intensifying since then, CSP’s efforts to sound the alarm about the rise of the global jihad movement, about the various ways in which it pursues the triumph worldwide of its animating ideology, shariah, and about how those techniques might be most effectively countered, have infuriated Islamists.

They and some others, particularly on the Left, have found it easier to denounce the “watchman on the wall,” rather than challenge the substance of the factual information Frank Gaffney and his colleagues have presented.

Connections Exposed

This has been particularly true in connection with the research the Gaffney team has conducted on the Muslim Brotherhood and what it calls the “civilization jihad” – that Islamist organization’s stealthy, subversive effort to “destroy Western civilization from within.”

Those are the very words of a top Brotherhood operative in the group’s 1991 internal document, Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America – which was introduced by federal prosecutors in the largest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation. (Its full text is available here.)

The effort Frank Gaffney has led to thwart the sort of influence operations described in the Explanatory Memorandum has presented extensive – but all-too-often unexamined – evidence of Islamic supremacist penetration of both Republican and Democratic circles.

That evidence identified, on the Right, as one enabler of such penetration, Grover Norquist, the ubiquitous conservative organizer – and on the Left, among others, Huma Abedin, an individual with extensive personal and family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood who has been influentially positioned, through her close association with Hillary Clinton, to shape American policy.

It’s hardly surprising that, as these and other connections were exposed, the Muslim Brotherhood has resorted to ever more strident attacks on Gaffney. If even half of them were believed, he would have little remaining credibility.

Yet I can attest, having known and worked with Gaffney over the years, that he is unfailingly scrupulous in his methods, forthcoming in sharing the facts behind his analyses and those of the Center for Security Policy, and persuasive in explaining the conclusions drawn. His enemies, however, brook no such discussion or dialogue. They are bent on simply silencing him, from motives that are easy to infer.

Now, in rebuttal to some of the anti-Gaffney faction’s most lurid allegations and farthestfetched charges, it’s time for a detailed look at what is actually true and what’s not:

Q.1: Is Frank Gaffney a conspiracy theorist?

A.1: He is nothing of the kind. Gaffney deals in realities, not theories. There’s a simple difference between someone obsessed with wild unfounded fears of nefarious plots, and someone needfully warning about an actual and dangerous conspiracy (for there are such things, as history shows). The difference comes down to facts.

Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy he founded in 1988 have spent nearly three decades marshalling those very facts – facts about the plans and activities of America’s very real enemies, foreign and domestic.

Mockery can’t wish those enemies away. The scoffers either are unfamiliar with the realities and the prodigious work done by the CSP team to document them, or simply hope to discourage others from evaluating them and taking appropriate actions in response.

That is particularly true with respect to the admitted and determined conspiracy that has been a prime focus of Frank Gaffney’s and CSP’s work since before 9/11: The “civilization jihad” being mounted by the Muslim Brotherhood for the explicit purpose of “destroying Western civilization from within…so that Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Documentation that this conspiracy to impose sharia worldwide has been underway in the United States since the early 1960s has been verified by the U.S. Department of Justice and established in federal court in the Holy Land Foundation prosecution of 2008.

Introduced into evidence in the course of that trial was a secret plan laying out that mission and the stealthy, subversive techniques by which it has been pursued for decades. This strategic plan, known as the Explanatory Memorandum, was written in 1991 by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohamed Akhram.

This Memorandum explicitly describes the Brotherhood’s conspiracy to penetrate and subvert America’s civil society institutions and government agencies. The Center for Security Policy has published ten books and monographs in recent years documenting the conspirators’ success in executing that seditious strategy. (These products can be downloaded for free at SecureFreedom.org.) The willful blindness or deliberate deceptions of those who deprecate this work is no excuse for responsible Americans to do the same.

Conspiracy theorist? Hardly. I see Frank Gaffney more as a modern-day Paul Revere, urgently working to awaken his countrymen to the rising threat before it’s too late.

Q.2: Is Frank Gaffney a racist, bigot, hater, or Islamophobe?

A.2: None of those, not by any stretch of the imagination. Gaffney has indeed been called all these names, usually by Islamic supremacists and those on the Left who consort with the Islamists and enable their anti-American agenda. Leading the charge has been the once-respected Southern Poverty Law Center.

Strangely, SPLC has abandoned its former mission of protecting civil rights and become little more than a fundraising machine and instrument for political warfare against conservatives and other patriotic Americans, including Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy.

Frank tells people that far from being consumed with hate, he is motivated by love – love of this country and our way of life, our Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees. It is a sad irony that a group like the SPLC, whose initial raison d’etre was defending those freedoms, is now willingly used by liberty’s sharia-adherent enemies to try to suppress or destroy it, starting with freedom of speech.

Q.3: Does Frank Gaffney claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim?

A.3: Absolutely not. Gaffney and CSP have no more definitive information about President Obama’s religious beliefs than everyone else (although boyhood school records do list him as a Muslim, according to reports in the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times).

Gaffney is on record as having repeatedly said that the important thing is not what Obamaprofesses in faith, but what he is doing in policy with the effect of enabling Islamic supremacists who threaten Americans and their vital interests.

The false charge that Frank Gaffney has labeled Obama as a Muslim seems to stem to from selective quotations from one of his 2009 Washington Times columns with the following lede paragraph, quoted here in its entirety:

During his White House years, William Jefferson Clinton — someone Judge Sonia Sotomayor might call a “white male” — was dubbed “America’s first black president” by a black admirer. Applying the standard of identity politics and pandering to a special interest that earned Mr. Clinton that distinction, Barack Hussein Obama would have to be considered America’s first Muslim president. This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black. (Emphasis added.)

Gaffney proceeded to emphasize, as he has done repeatedly before and since, that it is notthe president’s religion that matters, but his policies:

Whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim or simply plays one in the presidency may, in the end, be irrelevant. What is alarming is that in aligning himself and his policies with those of 5 Sharia-adherents such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the president will greatly intensify the already enormous pressure on peaceful, tolerant American Muslims to submit to such forces – and heighten expectations, here and abroad, that the rest of us will do so as well.

Undiplomatic? No doubt. Provocative? Quite purposely. But not a word of untruth, an iota of hyperbole, or a scintilla of illogic. Just blunt as a bulldog and honest as daylight; that’s my friend Frank.

Q.4: Has Frank Gaffney contended that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, like the so-called “birthers”?

A.4: Never. Gaffney has no firsthand knowledge of President Obama’s birthplace and has never asserted he did. He did make, in October 2008, some factual observations relevant to the debate then occurring about candidate Obama’s personal history, just ahead of that year’s presidential election.

“Another question yet to be resolved,” noted Gaffney, “is whether Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, a prerequisite pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. There is evidence Mr. Obama was born in Kenya rather than, as he claims, Hawaii.”

He was referring to evidence that had surfaced that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, including a 1998 client list for his publicist, then called Jane Dystel Literary Management.

So Gaffney wasn’t citing allegations by the future president’s detractors, but statements by Obama’s own representatives, whose born-in-Kenya claims dated both from that 1998 document and from an earlier 1991 booklet issued by what was then known as Acton & Dystel. This evidence may have been less than conclusive, and it was denied by Obama and his defenders, but there it is in the public record.

The same is true of another piece of evidentiary data, of which Gaffney wrote in 2008: “There is also a registration document for a school in Indonesia where the would-be president studied for four years, on which he was identified not only as a Muslim, but as an Indonesian.” The registration can be seen in this document from SD Katolik Santo Fransiskus Asisi, a Catholic school in Jakarta.

As Frank remarked to me during preparation of this white paper, “While the question of where Barack Obama was born and his eligibility to serve as our 44th president was once material, it certainly isn’t any longer. What’s needed now is a laser-focus on the attributes and policy predilections of those who would be our 45th chief executive.”

Q.5: Did Frank Gaffney say it was treasonous for Gov. Chris Christie to appoint a Muslim attorney to a New Jersey judgeship?

A.5: He did not say that. Gaffney’s criticism of various actions by Christie, before he became governor and since, though sharp, never took that form. In 2008, for example, Frank strongly disagreed with Christie, then a federal prosecutor, for dispatching his deputy to testify as a character witness for a virulent Islamic supremacist, Imam Mohammed Qatanani, during deportation proceedings being conducted by the Department of Homeland Security.

That intervention contributed to Qatanani, whom Christie has called his “friend,” being allowed to remain in this country, endearing the would-be governor to the Muslim Brotherhood and those Muslim voters in New Jersey under its sway.

Once in office in 2011, Gov. Christie appointed to the state judiciary Qatanani’s Islamist lawyer, Sohail Mohammed – a man who had worked for the American Muslim Union (AMU), an organization with close ties to Hamas. The governor responded to widespread criticism in New Jersey and beyond by lashing out at his critics as racists and bigots, the sort of ad hominem attacks generally employed by Islamic supremacists and their leftist allies.

It was then that Frank Gaffney, interviewing Andrew McCarthy on Gaffney’s syndicated radio show, asked the former federal prosecutor whether knowingly appointing a person to the bench who had been associated with a front for a designated terrorist group could be considered “misprision of treason” – i.e., ignoring, and thereby enabling, treasonous activity. A tough question, but under the circumstances a fair one. A reasonable inquiry on points of law, not an accusation.

Q.6: Did Frank Gaffney claim that a logo redesign at the U.S. Missile Defense Agency must reflect Obama’s Muslim views?

A.6: Certainly not. This canard arose when Gaffney wrote a February 24, 2010, column for Breitbart.com titled, “Could This Possibly Be True?”. It made a teachable moment of an assertion circulating at the time on the Internet that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) had recently adopted a new logo that appeared eerily to combine the colors and themes of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign logo with the crescent moon symbol of Islam.

The point of the column was not that the imagined provenance of the new MDA symbol was true – it subsequently was established not to be – but, rather, that the Obama administration was, in any case, wreaking havoc on the nation’s missile defense programs, accommodating Iran’s nuclear ambitions, adopting Islamist memes, and otherwise accommodating Islamic supremacists. Regrettably, each of those points have proven to be true.

In addition, the indignant voices raised against Gaffney’s logo column predictably ignored an awkward fact that came to light a few weeks later. It turns out that President Obama did direct an agency involved with rockets and space to embrace his determined effort to curry favor with Muslims. It’s just that it was the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, not the Missile Defense Agency.

Americans were left scratching their heads when NASA Director Charles Bolden announced on June 30, 2010, that he had been “charged” by the President “perhaps foremost” with finding “a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”

The tactic of pounding the table and changing the subject when you have a weak case has seldom been better illustrated than by apologists for Barack Obama’s soft stance toward the global jihad movement. It’s much easier for them, obviously, to focus on demonizing the Frank Gaffneys of the world than to justify to a puzzled public their President’s belief that he has a “responsibility… to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.” What?

Q.7: Did Frank Gaffney accuse Huma Abedin, a key staffer for Hillary Clinton, of being a terrorist?

A.7: Never, and any such claim is but another instance of Islamist apologists throwing dust in the air to distract people’s attention. However, Gaffney is indeed one of those – including, again, counter-jihad expert and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy – who have documented the extensive personal and family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood of Secretary Clinton’s long-time aide, Huma Abedin.

These ties are symbolized by the identification for some twelve years of Ms. Abedin as an associate editor on the masthead of the journal of her family’s business, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). This institute was set up first in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia under the sponsorship of and with resources from the Saudi-financed World Muslim League that were secured by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative and al Qaeda financier: Abdullah Omar Naseef. For at least seven years, Naseef’s name was listed as a member of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs’ advisory board, close by that of Ms. Abedin.

Interestingly, the mission of the IMMA is to promote the Brotherhood goal of discouraging assimilation by Muslims in non-Muslim nations. As has been evident from a string of recent horrors in Europe, keeping Muslims separate from the larger population facilitates efforts to foster memes of alienation, grievance and victimhood – and the sharia-adherence, miscalled “radicalization,” that often flows from such narratives.

Insofar as the United States government has yet to designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, Huma Abedin can’t be strictly considered as terrorist-linked. Her long association with that organization would, however, qualify her to be considered a civilization jihadist.

Which ought to concern Americans more – the ominous closeness of so suspect a person to someone who may well be our next president, or the Center for Security Policy’s alleged impoliteness in asking pointed questions about such a woman?

Q.8: Did Frank Gaffney claim Grover Norquist is gay?

A.8: He certainly did not, nor does that matter interest him in the slightest. But the wellconnected Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and an NRA board member, has been repeatedly called out by Gaffney as an enabler of the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealthy subversion of the United States. The factual basis for that charge is laid out in a dossier published by the Center for Security Policy under the title, Agent of Influence: Grover Norquist and the Assault on the Right.

Among those who have attested to the damning nature of that evidence are former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former Congressman Allen West, former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.

As Gaffney put it in a letter to General Mukasey (published in its entirety in the fourth edition of Agent of Influence):

I have endeavored throughout the seventeen years in which I have raised an alarm about Mr. Norquist’s conduct [with respect to his longstanding and ongoing relationship with individuals and organizations tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes] to address that conduct – not the individual in question’s personal affairs or activities. Claims to the contrary are baseless. The issue is what he has done, and is doing, in his professional capacity.

Q.9: Was Frank Gaffney or the Center for Security Policy banned from attending the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), or from speaking there?

A.9: Never. According to Dan Schneider, Executive Director of the American Conservative Union, which runs the annual conference, “Neither Frank Gaffney nor the Center for Security Policy has ever been banned from attending CPAC.”

Falsehoods to the contrary stem from moves by Grover Norquist and one of his Muslim Brotherhood-associated colleagues, Suhail Khan, to retaliate against Gaffney for the 9 latter’s efforts to expose and counter their Islamist-enabling influence operations. Both have repeatedly used their influence with the American Conservative Union, the Council for National Policy, Coalitions for America, the Washington Times, and other organizations to attempt to silence and ostracize Gaffney.

Regardless, Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy did participate actively in CPAC 2016, just as they did at CPAC in previous years. Additionally, Gaffney was honored with the George Washington Military Leadership Award from the Council for National Policy in 2016 and with the Stephen H. Long Award from the Western Conservative Summit in 2015. And he remains a member in good standing of the Conservative Action Project. Norquist’s allies’ efforts to marginalize and silence Gaffney have, in short, failed.

Q.10: A final question, then: Has any one American taken more flak from Islamists and the Left, with less justification, than Frank Gaffney?

A.10: No one that I know of. Indeed, few others are even close. Unrelenting, undeserved abuse has surely been heaped upon such brave truth-tellers against jihad and shariah as Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum, and Congressman Peter King of New York.

Brigitte Gabriel endures intense hatred, unbowed. Pamela Geller survived a jihadi attempt on her life. So did the ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is not actually an American but an asylum-seeker on these shores after having to flee both her native country of Somalia and her adopted homeland of the Netherlands.

But Gaffney has been the object of a more sustained barrage from Islamists and the Left than all of them. What should hearten him and them, amid the storm, is that this treatment from those forces can only be worn as a badge of honor. Because, remember: if you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target.

So my concluding personal word of encouragement and commendation to you, Frank Gaffney, is simply to say, “Be of good cheer, my friend, and stay on task. Stay on target!”


John Andrews has been president of the Colorado Senate, founder of the Western Conservative Summit, and an appointee of four Republican presidents. He currently leads a newly formed citizens advocacy group, Americans for America, and chairs the Center for Security Policy’s Counter-Jihad Advisory Board.

Grover Norquist suspends involvement with NRA Board

Grover Norquist has suspended his involvement with the Board of the National Rifle Association pending the completion of its investigation of charges that he has for seventeen years been involved with and enabled Muslim Brotherhood influence operations against the conservative movement and Republican Party. This is a welcome, and long-overdue, step towards disassociating the NRA from a man whose past and ongoing conduct is odds with the core, patriotic beliefs of the organization’s rank-and-file.

As Fox News reported (www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/15/gop-power-player-norquist-steps-down-from-nra-amid-probe-islamist-ties/), radio and TV talk show host Glenn Beck, who has conducted his own, extensive on-air investigation of the charges against Norquist, announced on 14 April that: “[The NRA has] assured me and their membership that this will not be a whitewash, this will be a legitimate investigation. I believe they will do the right thing in turning over every stone and following the evidence wherever it takes them.”

Highlights of Mr. Beck’s inquiry – which represents the gold standard against which the rigor and integrity of the NRA investigation will be judged – are here:

Grover Norquist is No ‘Useful Idiot’

In the course of an uncomfortable hour-long television interview with Grover Norquist yesterday, radio and TV talk show host Glenn Beck established a number of things. The most surprising is that the libertarian activist best known for his anti-tax campaigns would rather be perceived as what influence operators call a “useful idiot” – an individual unwittingly duped into helping hostile forces – than as an “agent of influence” for those forces. As Bill Clinton used to say, “That dawg won’t hunt.”

No one who knows Grover Norquist would believe that this Harvard MBA with decades of experience running sophisticated and impactful political and lobbying campaigns at the highest levels of official Washington is an idiot, useful or otherwise. Certainly, he is too smart to have been taken for a ride by relative newcomers to the business, namely Muslim Brotherhood-associated operatives. (As pollster John Zogby recounted in 2001: “[Norquist has] played the role of interlocutor. With all respect, many of the [Muslim] leaders are immigrants and don’t have years and years of experience. Grover has filled that void.” http://tinurl.com/oebajak)

Mr. Beck afforded Norquist an opportunity to respond to evidence amassed over the past fifteen years by an array of investigative journalists and national security practitioners. Norquist’s responses were a mish-mosh of filibustering non-answers, deflections, ad hominem attacks, improbable defenses and outright deceptions.

A few examples suffice to call into question Norquist’s latest claims:

  • Who are Grover Norquist’s “Muslim leaders”? Beck drilled down on Norquist’s ties to a succession of individuals associated with the Muslim Brotherhood with whom he has made common cause over the years. In response, Norquist suggested that he did not know, scarcely interacted with or was oblivious to the true nature of such “Muslim leaders” – especially two who subsequently went to prison on terrorism charges: Abrurahman Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian. Like Claude Raines in “Casablanca,” he risibly professes to have been shocked, shocked to have only belatedly discovered their true jihadist nature.

That would only have been possible if he deliberately worked not to know. After all, long before Alamoudi and al-Arian were arrested and convicted, it was common knowledge that both were deeply problematic Islamic supremacists. David Horowitz’s “Discover the Networks” website notes:

  • In 1994, [Alamoudi] said: “Hamas is not a terrorist group…. I have followed the good work of Hamas.”
  • In March 1996, Alamoudi said he was “honored to be a member of the committee that is defending” Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) founder Musa Abu Marzook, who in 1997 would be deported from the U.S. because of his Hamas-related activities. “I really consider him to be from among the best people in the Islamic movement,” Alamoudi added. “Hamas … and I work together with him.”
  • In December 1996, Alamoudi told a meeting of the IAP: “I think if we were outside this country, we can say, ‘Oh, Allah, destroy America,’ but once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it…. You can be violent anywhere else but in America.”

As for Sami al-Arian, as far back as April 1991, he had been captured on film declaring: “Let us damn America. Let us damn Israel. Let us damn their allies until death. Why do we stop?”

In addition, al-Arian’s well-documented associations were instructive. For many years, he was involved with known Muslim Brotherhood fronts including: the International Institute for Islamic Thought, the International Association for Palestine, the American Muslim Council and the Islamic Society of North America as early as the mid-1990s. In addition, according to Wikipedia, al-Arian’s “University of South Florida/World Islamic Studies Enterprise (WISE) [al-Arian’s think tank at the University of South Florida] associate Ramadan Abdullah Shallah,…had been designated a Specially Designated Terrorist by the U.S. in 1995 and was accused of being Secretary General of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.[1][2][3]

Also, Byron York reported in National Review that “During all this time [specifically, from July 2001 (when Norquist protégé Suhail Khan arranged for al-Arian to attend a White House briefing) to his indictment in 2003], al-Arian’s terrorist ties were public knowledge, having been the subject of press reports and congressional testimony.” http://tinurl.com/nvrr4emj)

  • Norquist and the Islamic Institute: Beck grilled Grover Norquist about the organization he started in 1998 with help from Abdurahman Alamoudi, the Islamic Free Market Institute (better known as the Islamic Institute). Norquist made a series of implausible and tortured explanations for the role of this organization – a Muslim Brotherhood influence operation set up inside his offices – and that of the man hired to establish and run it, Khaled Saffuri.

As Mr. Beck established, Saffuri was a long-time associate of and former deputy to Alamoudi at several of his Brotherhood front organizations. (One of them was the American Task Force on Bosnia (ATFB). Although Norquist averred that “Jews supported” the Task Force at the time, according to U.S. Naval War College professor Jonathan Schindler, the ATFB was “The most important bin Laden front working Washington on the [Islamist] Party of Democratic Action (SDA)’s behalf.”)

Norquist insists the Islamic Institute was just a vehicle for promoting capitalism, property rights and small government – ostensibly all supported by a non-Muslim economist’s reading of the Koran. He tries to deflect attention from the following facts:

  • In October 2000, the Islamic Institute’s co-sponsored, along with a number of other Muslim Brotherhood-tied organizations, an anti-Israel demonstration in Lafayette Square. On that occasion, Alamoudi declared his support for Hamas and Hezbollah. In response to Mr. Beck’s questions about this event, Norquist preposterously blamed the Institute’s sponsorship on the unauthorized say-so of “an intern.”
  • Grover Norquist’s involvement with the Islamic Institute gave Muslim Brotherhood-tied individuals access to the Bush campaign (e.g., Khaled Saffuri’s appointment as Muslim outreach coordinator for the George W. Bush 2000 campaign). And, after the election, it helped place others in government positions (e.g., Suhail Khan at the White House and Transportation Department and Faisal Gill in the Department of Homeland Security).
  • The Institute also was instrumental in promoting the agenda of Muslim Brotherhood leader, Sami al-Arian, aimed at denying prosecutors the ability to protect classified information in deportation proceedings.
  • Grover Norquist “Champion of the Abolishment of Secret Evidence Movement”: Glenn Beck probed Norquist’s work on behalf of al-Arian’s bid to prohibit so-called “secret evidence.” Norquist repeatedly insisted that his interest in repealing the authorization for the use of such evidence had nothing to do with al-Arian. He claimed instead to have been inspired to do so by former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey.

As it happens, Mr. Woolsey did not advocate repeal of the statute authorizing this practice. He simply sought to secure for defendants’ lawyers with appropriate security clearances an opportunity to review relevant classified material – but not the alien defendants themselves. Norquist, on the other hand, was pushing the position of his Brotherhood-tied Muslim friends: outright repeal of the statute in question. In fact, Norquist received an award for his “abolishment” efforts personally from Sami al-Arian himself. Contrary to Norquist’s assertion, Mr. Woolsey did not from al-Arian such an award.

  • Khaled Saffuri and the Muslim Brotherhood: Beck challenged Norquist several times about hiring Alamoudi’s “right-hand man” to run the Islamic Free Market Institute. Norquist implausibly responded that: Saffuri did not like Alamoudi “who looked back” (translation: Alamoudi was a shariah-adherent and -promoting Islamist) and, even though he worked under that Muslim Brother (and al Qaeda financier) for many years, he did not share Alamoudi’s Islamic supremacist views. He asserted that Saffuri alone was responsible for taking $20,000 from Alamoudi for the Islamic Institute and that Saffuri was ignorant of his boss’ jihadism until Alamoudi’s outburst at the October 2000 demonstration. These are preposterous claims.

Among other roles with Alamoudi, Saffuri worked with Alamoudi as his executive director for the American Task Force on Bosnia (ATFB). According to US Naval War College professor Jonathan Schindler, the ATFB was “The most important bin Laden front working Washington on the [Islamist] Party of Democratic Action (SDA)’s behalf.” (http://tinyurl.com.njkkp8p) Saffuri could not have been trusted to work in such an organization without being reliably sympathetic to its mission and aligned with its founder.

Glenn Beck charitably, if sarcastically, offered the explanation for Grover Norquist’s serial assertions that he didn’t know what was happening around him and who he was working with that Norquist was the “unluckiest man in the world.” If Norquist’s increasingly desperate assertions were true, he wouldn’t be unlucky. He would be a useful idiot, a dupe who was manipulated by others to do their bidding.

The facts (both those itemized above and those compiled in a dossier at point to a more straightforward, if unpalatable, conclusion: Grover Norquist knew exactly who he was dealing with – “Muslim leaders” whose community he thought could be induced to provide money and votes in exchange for access to powerful political figures and concessions on substantive issues (notably, secret evidence and policy towards Israel).

The fact that these leaders were known Islamic supremacists with documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood was clearly not a showstopper for Grover Norquist in starting up the Islamic Free Market Institute in 1998 – nor at any point since. If anything, the evidence suggests Norquist has been sympathetic to Islamist agendas as: blocking or dismantling U.S. counter-terror capabilities (e.g., secret evidence, the Patriot Act), enforcing what amount to shariah blasphemy laws by shutting down cutting defense expenditures and maintaining open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens who take advantage of it.

Grover Norquist is no idiot. He certainly has been useful to America’s enemies, though, and evidently thinks the rest of us are sufficiently idiotic not to recognize deliberate dissembling when we see it.

Grover Norquist is No Useful Idiot

Glenn Beck has lately been rendering an extraordinary public service. The talk show host has pursued a long-running national security problem that too many other prominent figures have chosen to ignore.

In a series of recent programs, Mr. Beck has addressed evidence that a prominent anti-tax activist named Grover Norquist has been associated with – and enabled – Muslim Brotherhood individuals, organizations and influence operations. Yesterday, he grilled Norquist for an hour on his television program. It wasn’t pretty.

Norquist would have us believe that he was ignorant of – or at least not responsible for – the Islamic supremacist character of the people he hangs with and helps. That would make him a “useful idiot,” rather than an “agent of influence.” No one who knows Grover Norquist thinks he’s an idiot. We aren’t either.

Secure Freedom Salutes Glenn Beck, N.R.A. For Investigation Of Grover Norquist, Calls On Board To Deem Him Ineligible To Serve

(Washington, D.C.):  Secure Freedom (also known as the Center for Security Policy) today applauded radio and television talk show host Glenn Beck for his principled declaration that he would end his close association with the National Rifle Association (NRA) if Grover Norquist were to be reelected to the NRA’s Board of Directors in balloting now underway.  Mr. Beck initially made this pledge on his syndicated radio program in the course of an interview with Secure Freedom President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. on Wednesday, calling Norquist “a very bad man” and enabler of Muslim Brotherhood operatives.

Evidence of Mr. Norquist’s longstanding ties to Islamic supremacists was compiled in a detailed dossier transmitted in February 2014 to the then-leadership of another prominent national organization, the American Conservative Union, by ten influential national security professionals, led by Bush ’43 Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Clinton Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey.

A fourth edition of this monograph, entitled Agent of Influence: Grover Norquist and the Assault on the Right – Targeting the NRA, has just been released by Secure Freedom.  It includes illuminating correspondence written on the one hand by Mr. Norquist and one of his defenders, Washington attorney Cleta Mitchell, and on the other by General Mukasey and Mr. Gaffney.

Glenn Beck announced during his radio program on Friday that he had spoken for over an hour with Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice President of the NRA. In response to what Mr. Beck described as “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds” of phone calls stimulated by his earlier announcement, Mr. LaPierre promised that the National Rifle Association would be launching a “transparent” ethics investigation of Mr. Norquist.

In the interest of assisting in that investigation, Mr. Gaffney today sent every member of the NRA’s Board of Directors copies of the new edition of Agent of Influence, together with a transmittal letter (see below) offering to provide to have the Mukasey-Woolsey et.al. team provide its members with a briefing on the wealth of evidence of Grover Norquist’s involvement with and assistance to Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist figures.

In response to this week’s dramatic developments, Mr. Gaffney said:

For sixteen years, it has been evident that Grover Norquist has helped jihadists – including two who were subsequently convicted on terrorism charges – gain access to and influence over conservative organizations, the Republican Party and, most especially, the 2000 campaign and presidency of George W. Bush.  Until now, none of the groups with which he has been associated have been willing to do a serious inquiry into the nature and acceptability of such activities.

Members of the National Rifle Association are to be congratulated for their success in instigating such an investigation, as is Glenn Beck for raising the alarm that precipitated this inquiry and Wayne LaPierre for appreciating that nothing less would be acceptable.  The investigation will be in order and should be rigorously completed –  even if, as seems inevitable, Grover Norquist resigns from the NRA Board.

Agent of Influence can be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org or purchased at Amazon.com.  For more information, contact: [Samantha Nerove at sam@anelisgroup.com or 703.504.8856].

Glenn Beck: “NRA Told Me It’s Opening Ethics Investigation Into Grover Norquist”

From The Blaze:

Glenn Beck said Friday that NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told him the organization is opening an ethics investigation into Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform.

“Two days ago I was on the air and I brought up Grover Norquist,” Beck explained on his radio program. “He’s a board member on the NRA, and he’s running for re-election. And I said something then that I meant then and I mean now — that if Grover Norquist remains on the board of the NRA, I don’t believe that I can remain a member of the NRA.”

Beck said he believes the people that Norquist “helps empower” are “agents of influence” for the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Many of the reasons why we’re on the wrong track now in the Middle East is because of the influence of Grover Norquist,” Beck said. “He is a guy that the left used to say was the all mighty and powerful Oz during the Bush administration. I used to mock that. … [But] we heard it so many times that we started doing our own homework on it. … And I’m sorry, he is Oz.”

Beck said he agrees with Norquist’s tax policy, but “when it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood and Islam, this guy is on the wrong side whether he knows it or not.”

“I don’t believe he’s out trying to destroy America, but his efforts and his work will lead to the destruction of America,” Beck declared. “Yesterday I spent about an hour on the phone with Wayne LaPierre at the NRA. … They reacted immediately because of your phone calls. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of phone calls have apparently come in.”

“I honestly expected some sort of defense. But [Wayne LaPierre] said, ‘…I want you [and] your audience to know, I take our members voice’s seriously,’” Beck continued. “When you called, they went into action. And they said that they were opening up an ethics investigation on Grover. They said they’re going to get down to the bottom of this once and for all. Grover denies all of these allegations.”

Beck said he fully expects to be called a racist and an Islamophobe, though “there’s not a racist bone in [his] body.” But he praised the fact that the NRA has promised a “fully transparent” investigation that will be “posted on the web.”

“When it comes down to something this important, agents of influence … we do not take a risk,” Beck said. “Especially with an organization as important as the NRA. … We cannot lose the NRA. And that’s why I say this, because I believe Grover Norquist is an agent of influence. I believe that he is influencing people to look the other way when it comes to people like the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Beck encouraged people to do their own homework on the issue, referencing an article from the Center for Security Policy highlighting other influential figures in the realm of national security who have had the same concerns.

“My opinion is, he’s a very dangerous man, whether knowingly or unknowingly,” Beck concluded. “And if he remains on the board of the NRA, I will to have resign my membership. And that comes at great pain for me because I love these people. I really love them and I believe in them.”

Glenn Beck Threatens to Leave NRA if Grover Norquist Re-Elected




All right, we want to bring on Frank Gaffney. He is founder and president of the Center for Security Policy. Because yesterday, he was on TV with me. We were talking a little about what’s coming and Islam and the war that is being waged now with ISIS. But I also, off the air, talked to him about something. There is a re-election campaign going on right now in the NRA for Grover Norquist. And Grover Norquist is, I believe, one of the more dangerous men in America. And they’ve done a really great job of making anybody who thinks Grover Norquist is a dangerous man look like a conspiracy theorist. But he is a dangerous man. And Frank Gaffney is with us now. Frank, how are you, sir?


I’m terrific. Thank you so much for yesterday and a chance to repeat some of the points we talked about and – talked about off-air – today with you.


Okay, so let’s talk a little bit about Grover Norquist. Cause most people just don’t know who he is. The left made a big deal out of him and I remember –


For tax purposes.


Yeah, eight years ago, I remember thinking, oh come on, Grover Norquist, who even knows who he is? But he actually is a very dangerous man and a big player behind the scenes.


I wouldn’t have believed this myself if I hadn’t had the, well, providential experience, I guess, kind of actually being co-located, our Center for Security Policy with his organization, Americans For Tax Reform for seven biblically long years. And in the course of that time, about a month after we moved in to this shared sublet arrangement, a colleague of mine came to me and said, you know, there’s a Muslim Brotherhood front group on the other side of that xerox room which we happen to share? And so yes, this anti-tax activist and man who’s prominent in certain conservative circles, particularly for his role in trying to keep taxes low and pledge to, you know, not raise taxes and so on, has had a sideline. And he started, I discovered, back in 1998 when he began taking money and staff and otherwise associating with a top Muslim Brotherhood operative at the time by the name of Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi. Al-Amoudi subsequently was imprisoned for twenty-three years in connection with terrorism charges and was also identified by the federal government as an al-Qaeda financier. This is a man who put Grover Norquist in the business of running an Islamist influence operation called the Islamic Free Market Institute and I believe, and what’s so worrying to me about the possibility that he might be re-elected to the board, not that he was on it in the first place, but re-elected to the board of the National Rifle Association, it would, I think these influence operations on behalf of enemies of this country are continuing. We’ve done a dossier on this which people can check out at securefreedom.org. It’s called Agent of Influence: Grover Norquist and the Assault on the Right.


Wow, tell us how the – how he is an agent of influence and what you’re concerned about with the NRA. I will tell you that I am so concerned about this, Frank, and I am not an expert on Grover Norquist by any stretch of the imagination, but I’ve heard enough that makes me concerned enough that – and I hope the leadership of the NRA hears this and every member of the NRA hears this, that if this man is elected or re-elected and confirmed on the board of the NRA, I may drop my membership in the NRA. I mean, I just – I am that concerned that he is a very bad influence and a very bad man that if this is who the NRA decides to put on their board of directors, I don’t think I can be associated with them.


Well, I have a feeling a lot of National Rifle Association members would feel the same way, Glen. And I am an admirer of that organization, by the way, so I don’t want to see –


[OVERLAP] I am too.


– come to it. But on the other hand –


[OVERLAP] They do a lot of good in – right.


Harm comes to it if you have people who have something other than its best interests at heart serving on the board of directors and there are lots of different examples and I’ll just give you a couple that particularly worry me. One is, Grover Norquist has been promoting, he makes no bones about it, so-called leaders of Muslim American communities, a number of whom, not just Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, but Sami al-Arian, for example, have also been convicted on terrorism charges. Others are known Muslim Brotherhood operatives. He helped engineer their influence on George W. Bush at a critical time, within hours of 9-11, by the way, and subsequently, that I believe contributed materially to the problem we talked about on the show yesterday, a lack of clarity about the nature of the enemy. We’re being subjected, thanks in part to Grover Norquist and his Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist friends, to an influence operation in information dominance that has kept us largely witless about the nature of –


[OVERLAP] Explain – explain –


– to defeat them.


Explain an influence operation.


Well, an influence operation is one of the oldest pieces of tradecraft in espionage and, you know, sort of state operations against the enemies. You see what you can do to get inside their heads. To get inside their government, to get inside their civil society institutions and undermine them from within. This is, by the way, the explicit mission of the Muslim Brotherhood. We know this from a secret memorandum, a plan that they actually put together back in 1991. It was introduced into evidence down in Richardson, Texas in 2008 by the federal government. It said their mission in America, the Muslim Brotherhood’s, is to destroy Western Civilization from within by their hands, meaning ours, the infidels, and the hands of the believers so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. And then it proceeds to lay out how the Brothers are working to undermine what would be the church, the media, academia, our financial sector, our government and so on. And what I really am concerned about is the extent to which Grover Norquist has been an enabler of this. Particularly against the conservative movement. And against the Republican Party. It’s a very serious problem.


Okay, so Frank, help me out on this. Because that’s a really serious charge you’re making that, I mean, he’s an agent of influence. Is he knowingly an agent of influence? What is his role in this? And why?


Unquestionably, he is a knowing agent of influence. I’ve called him out on it over the better part of, oh, I don’t know, fifteen years now. So it’s not –


But you – hang on just a second. I want to make this clear. You say he knows he is working with the Muslim Brotherhood as an agent of influence against the purposes of the United States of America and the Western world?


Yeah, no, of course, he denies it. In fact, we have a new edition of this dossier coming out this week that has two extraordinary emails that he sent, one to the board of the National Rifle Association and accusing me of all kinds of improper activities and another to former attorney general of the United States, Michael Mukasey, who by the way, lent his name to this dossier which was sent to the leadership at the time of the American Conservative Union about a year ago. And what these documents – and, you know, don’t take my word for it. This is an eighty-seven fact, fifty-five footnote document. All of which, with the exception of one item that I happen personally and uniquely to see myself on 9-11, but all the rest of it is drawn from official sources, corporate filings, testimony in trials, reports from the Wall Street Journal and the New Republic and on and on and what you cannot help but take away from a clear objective reading of this dossier, Glen, is Grover Norquist has, in fact, been serving as an agent of influence since 1998 for Muslim Brotherhood operatives and organizations and, oh, by the way, for the Iranian government as well, running interference for them in a manner that is deeply, I believe, injurious to our interests. So these are – these are documented facts. He does deny them. He will accuse me of being a racist and bigot and Islamophobe and so on, but it doesn’t alter the facts and the board of the National Rifle Association and I believe the membership of the National Rifle Association needs to know what these facts are and if they do, I can’t imagine that they’d want that guy anywhere in the organization.


Frank, this is so hard for I think a lot of people, Republicans especially, to get their head around because they can’t understand why. He’s not Muslim, right? Where does this come from? Why would he do this?


I’m always asked that question and I always demur because I don’t know. I – and frankly, I don’t care. I’m not interested in his motivations, I’m interested in his conduct. And his conduct, by the way, at the office. Not his personal life or anything else in his life, though he constantly injects that as well. This is about what he has done. I’ve documented it as have others. And, you know, the motivations maybe interesting, but they truly are secondary. Anyone, again, I think anyone willing objectively to assess this situation is going to say, you know, this isn’t good for America. Unfortunately, it’s not the only example. I mean, if we had time, we could talk about a couple of others. Huma Abedin, one of the people who’s featuring in this Hillary Clinton scandal, by the way, with her emails. One of the other people who had a private email account on that Clinton server. One of the other people who was a top State Department official and using those private emails evidently in violation of policy and perhaps the law. Was also very closely tied, personally and through her family four generations, to the Muslim Brotherhood. That’s kind of a problem. Then there’s Andre Carson, a member of congress from Indiana that Nancy Pelosi just put on the House Intelligence Committee. Who also has as a dossier available at securefreedom.org, just pointing it out, extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. And then president Obama in his recent countering violent extremism summit talks about this wonderful mosque in Boston which is his outreach partner for countering violent extremism up there, called the Islamic Society of Boston. It was founded by this same guy who put Grover Norquist in the Muslim Brotherhood way, Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi. It’s got twelve different jihadists that we know of that came out of it or have been associated with it, including by the way, the two Tsarnaev boys. So this is not unique to Grover. We have a huge problem with the Muslim Brotherhood and its influence operations in America. It’s just that this is particularly concerning because this guy is inside the wire of the conservative movement, of the Republican Party, of the National Rifle Association and I believe it must be brought to an end.


Okay, you can find this information at the centerforsecuritypolicy.org. Is that the right address?


Yeah, it’s easier to remember securefreedom.org. But they’ll both get you there.


Okay, securefreedom.org. And find this and if you’re an NRA member, Grover Norquist is running for re-election on the board and I find this so serious and I find him such a dangerous man that I may reject my membership of the NRA if he’s re-elected. I just don’t think I can stand with the organization and I love this organization. I think they do an awful lot of good and I think they are really good people. And I’ve helped raise millions of dollars for them. But Grover Norquist is a very, very bad and dangerous man in my opinion. And you need to do your own homework on him. Don’t take my word for it. Don’t take Frank’s word – don’t take Grover’s word for it. Do your own homework. Frank, thanks so much, we’ll talk to you –

C-PAC’s Muslim Brotherhood Problem

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

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

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

This week’s syndicated column

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do I know that? Simple. The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 strategic blueprint for “civilization jihad,” discovered in 2004 by the FBI during a raid, says so. According to this “Explanatory Memorandum,” the Muslim Brotherhood’s “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within … so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Like so many other dire threats to U.S. national security, however, Muslim Brotherhood infiltration is never, ever discussed under CPAC’s auspices. (Fast becoming an extra-CPAC tradition are the Breitbart-sponsored national security panels of national security experts known as “The Uninvited.”) Perhaps, in ACU-CPAC-land, there’s no need. After all, at CPAC in 2011, ACU board member Suhail Khan declared: “There’s no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.”

That’s good enough for the board of the American Conservative Union.

But is it good enough for American conservatives?

CPAC’s Blind Spot

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

The rest of us would call it the national security.

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

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

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

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

The message reiterated throughout the day was that international developments are becoming more and more ominous thanks, in part, to President Obama’s abandoning of the tried-and-true approach Ronald Reagan practiced under the rubric “peace through strength.”  Speaker after speaker called for clarity about the challenges we are facing and for conservatives and the Republican Party to provide the American people with an alternative vision, call it a “Loyal Opposition,” worthy of – and likely to garner – their support.

The bottom line is that the nation deserves at least one party reliably committed to its survival.

Unfortunately, if the agenda at CPAC and the views expressed by many of its speakers are any guide, that need is going to continue to go unfulfilled.  As a result, the country will for certain be disserved, and possibly be seriously imperiled.

What makes this state of affairs all the more bizarre is that the Right has historically benefited from providing strong leadership in this portfolio. From Reagan’s time to the present, when the Republican Party and its candidates offer a convincing platform of competent robustness with respect to national defense and foreign policy, it has generally been rewarded at the polls.

Alternatively, when the GOP has ignored this subject, chosen as standard-bearers candidates who know nothing about and appear uncomfortable with such topics and/or allowed Democrats to run as more responsible stewards of the common defense, the public all-too-often denies Republicans a majority.

So, why would CPAC make this seemingly obvious mistake – especially at a moment when events cry out for a focused effort to showcase conservative ideas and recommendations in the run-up to critical congressional elections in the fall?  The answer appears to be, in part, a reflection of the fact that relatively few prominent figures on the right these days have experience with, or a comfort level concerning, defense and foreign policy. As the National Security Action Summit demonstrated, however, a cohort can readily be found that is sufficiently large and conversant with these topics to illuminate them helpfully and to lead with respect to them.

One contributing factor is that CPAC has for years been under the malign influence of American Conservative Union board members, notably, Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.  They have worked to ensure that the conference’s agenda precludes speakers and topics that would, for example, expose their involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood, its front groups and agenda. (For documentation on the nature and extent of this involvement see: Agent of Influence: Grover Norquist and the Assault on the Right, which is available in pdf form at www.GroverMustGo.com).

Norquist also favors open borders and amnesty, cutting defense and improving relations with Iran. (See Part 7 of the free online course.) It is, in short, no wonder that the CPAC audience has been denied a balanced treatment of such topics.

The time has come for conservatives to recognize that the future of the country, to say nothing of their movement, depends on eschewing such policies and rebuilding their national security bona fides.   The National Security Action Summit was an important first step, but it must not be the last.