The Muslim Brotherhood and the Fellow Traveling Left at Slate

On Saturday morning, Feb. 12, I gave a speech at CPAC warning of the dangers posed by the infiltration of the conservative movement by the Muslim Brotherhood in the person of Suhail Khan and his sponsor Grover Norquist. Both Khan and Norquist are board members of the American Conservative Union, and both spoke at CPAC. The facts about Norquist and Khan which I discussed in my speech were taken from an elaborate dossier presented to the board of the American Conservative Union and posted on Frontpagemag.com.

Yesterday morning SLATE, which is published by the Washington Post, rose to the defense of Khan. This was reminiscent of the past when liberals defended the Soviet spy Alger Hiss and attacked conservatives like Richard Nixon who were attempting to expose Hiss — a parallel I mentioned in my speech.

Slate’s defense of Khan is typical of the reactions of the soft left — compulsively mislabeled “liberals” throughout the (also mislabeled) “war on terror.” When I organized Islamo-Fascism campus weeks on 100 college campuses two years ago my efforts were savagely attacked by such leading lights of the (also mislabled) democratic left as Joshua Micah Marshall, who produced a satiric video ridiculing my efforts. I am about to launch a campaign this spring to oppose the “Israel Apartheid” weeks organized by the Muslim Brotherhood through its campus front, the Muslim Students Association. I am sure the liberal chorus will be out there defending the genocidal efforts of the Left as well.

Suhail Khan’s defense against the detailed charges against him, only a few of which I was able to mention in my 15 minute speech, is as disingenuous and lame as it has been since the first of these were leveled against him by Frank Gaffney in Frontpagemag.com several years ago.

As in all of Khan’s defenses, he offers  no specifics in his statement in Slate and the claims that he does make are false — e.g., I was never a communist, I despised Saul Alinsky when I was on the left and never read his book, and neither Gaffney nor I ever said he he was a member of al-Qaeda. What we said was that in 1995 his father Mahboob Khan held a fund-raiser at a the mosque he founded for Ayaman Zawahiri, the number two man in al-Qaeda. Suhail called me to deny that his father was anything more  than a member of the mosque and said he couldn’t remember any fund-raiser for Zawahiri. So I emailed Suhail the Washington Post story which said that Mahboob Khan was a founder of the mosque and had held a fund-raiser for Zawahiri at the mosque in 1995 and asked him to respond. I haven’t heard from him since.

In my speech I made the specific charge that Suhail Khan was a protege of his father and of the convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi. (Readers can view the video evidence here.) I also charged tht Suhail Khan, along with his patron Grover Norquist, was instrumental in getting President Bush to agree to ban the use of secret evidence in trials of terrorists. This was a campaign launched by the terrorist Sami al-Arian (whose brother, also a member of Palestine Islamic Jihad, was deported on the strength of secret evidence.) Grover Norquist and Suhail used their influence to get al-Arian a face-to-face with George W. Bush who then attacked the use of secret evidence in his campaign and was about to implement al-Arian’s proposed ban when 9/11 took place. Al-Arian who, as the head of PIJ in North America, and its chief financier was responsible for the suicide murders of over 100 people in the Middle East,was also supported in this campaign by the ACLU, The Nation magazine and the American Left. (The ACLU was also one of his chief defenders when he was indicted for terrorist activities and eventually deported.) Suhail Khan has no response to these (or any other) facts because they are true.

  • Chezwick_Mac

    Well David, you've created some commotion…which means you did your job. The WaPo came to Khan's defense, which is no surprise to anyone…and Grover Norquist's angry denials no doubt won't be far behind. But the question is, how are your charges being received at CPAC and the ACU?

    The ideal is for these two charlatans to be excommunicated from conservative ranks. As long as Norquist and Khan are identified with us, our ability to pressure the Dems for their disgraceful abetting of the stealth Jihad will be seriously compromised.

    • WildJew

      Conservatives only have ourselves to blame for this dangerous infiltration. Conservative leaders circled the wagons around former President Bush even as he courted these jihadists and jihadist-sympathizers. Anyone with half a brain could see what Bush was doing and could discern his repeated lies about Islam and Israel. Nevertheless, this site stood by Bush throughout his entire eight years, as did Limbaugh, Hannity and other conservative leaders and spokespeople. Now we have the spectacle of Ann Coulter endorsing Chris Christie!

      Friday, January 14, 2011
      Gov. Chris Christie nominates Islamist to superior court in favor of hiding stated Islamic motivation in terror case of Fort Dix 6
      .
      "Don't equate actions with religion," he said."…
      http://impeachobamatoday.blogspot.com/2011/01/gov

      • cjk

        True points which all genuine righteous people need to think about. In retrospect I personally am culpable of backing Bush far more than I should have mostly due to ignorance, but not entirely so.

        As far as Ann Coulter goes, I'll write that off to ignorance, but only for about a month. She really needs to address her error.

  • penny678

    I went and did my own research on Mr. Khan. Mr. Horowitz you are once again correct. Please keep spreading the word about these people. Hopefully, Americans will wake up to what is going. We need to not be afraid to talk about Islam and the radicals.
    I believe these groups when they say they want to destroy western culture and Israel.

  • jacob

    We will never learn and that is why these two have the ear of the Conservatives,
    same as they had the ear of G.W. BUSH, the same one who claimed on TV
    in the evening of the 9/11 horror, that "ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE"….!!!!

    From OBAMA there is nothing to wonder about on the issue, but.I wonder…

    What kind of "peace" did Bush have in mind ???

    THE PEACE OF THE GRAVEYARDS OR THAT OF THE COMMON GRAVES ???

  • jacob

    Not on the issue but watching FOX NEWS night before last, I learned that the
    Ft. HOOD massacre could have been avoided if the people that noticed what
    could happen at any given moment were more interested into covering their
    backs in case of raising an accusation of ISLAMOPHOBIA and as a result,
    passing the buck than in putting matters in their proper prospect.

    I believe this must be of great consolation to the relatives of those killed by
    this animal and those maimed, as now there is a frantic search for justifying
    his actions and we can rest assured he will claim being as fruity as a nut
    cake…

    Lets hope and pray that Texan justice, not impeded by the stupid considera-
    tions of nothern justice, will know how to properly handle him, that is, if he
    doesn't end up being decorated for having helped to solve somehow the
    overpopulation problem of good old soon to be United States of Muslim America

  • USMCSniper

    The modern leftist does not really believe in the existence of barbarians outside the gates. He thinks violent communist or third-world or Islamic revolutionaries must have logical reasons for what they do. They must be responding to rational grievances, rather than be driven, say, by demons inside their heads. He believes that if the West – and in particular America – was weaker, it would be a less (rather than infinitely more) violent and dangerous world. In short, he is someone whose foreign policy ideas will lead to the triumph of tyranny abroad and ultimately at home.

    • USMCSniper

      That is our President, the clandestine Muslim Marxist who is loved in both these worlds,

    • Wil

      Right on.

    • MarkRich

      My fear is that some on the so-called right wing are similar. Most people are unaware of these associations as they are not really touched on by the republican potential nominees. Its frightening. And unlike Vietnam and other cold war incursions this enemy is disperse and infiltrative in ways the communists werent. Oh I know the commies did do that- but these guys are much more patient and much more subtle. Most people do not take their ideology seriously and even when they do they rationalize that they will change once opened up to American culture- they HATE American culture and have no difficulty melding into it in order to take it down. I also am a veteran of Vietnam and I find the present circumstances much more frightening than then.

  • Paul

    When will conservatives and CPAC in particular figure out that Grover Norquist is not a conservative, but is in fact a fifth columnist bent on undermining and discrediting the conservative movement. The fact that this Islamic Marxist is associated with Grover Norquist is no surprise. The real surprise is that either of these two frauds is given any credence whatsoever by conservatives and CPAC. As for the ACU I stopped contributing to them long ago when I realized who Norquist really was and I will re-emphasize that he is not a conservative. He is a progressive/Marxist who has presented himself as a conservative to sucessfully infiltrate and undermine the conservative movement. If you doubt what I am saying I suggest you look at his position on things like open borders, amnesty and a host of other issues that are important to conservatives throughtout the nation.

    • WildJew

      It is because, throughout the Bush years no conservative was willing to challenge Bush for recruiting these dangerous people into his administration; or for lying about Israel and Islam; something Bush did repeatedly and egregiously. Now that Obama is president, conservatives have found their voice. I read a piece late last week on Tucker Carlson's conservative Daily Caller (DC). 'DC' did a nice piece which put Norquist in a good light. One of the readers (Poster #1) wrote: "
      Norquist is a supporter of Islam and Sharia law. Anything he says should be disregarded." Another conservative reader responded: " Links please. Prove it." Poster #1: "I’m not your researcher. Do your own work. Try google." Then another conservative reader: *You* made the assertion, if you want people to take you seriously *you* should back it up. Telling people to “google it” is a cop out."

      Is it any wonder we are in this mess?

    • Rachel

      Right on! I am a CPAC attendee who knows that GOProud, Suhail Khan and Grover are not conservative. GOProud has been kicked, now the others need to go and if must be Ann Coulter for being on the board of GOProud and endorsing the muslim and illegal loving Christie.

  • http://www.facebook.com/al-kidya Kim Bruce

    Islamism is a lie and the truth will kill it.

  • Still Smiling

    Mr. Horowitz, Your inner strength must be tested beyond belief. What you do is so vital that I pray you can endure the slings and arrows that surely come your way. My heartfelt thanks to you and may God bless you!!!

  • Questions

    Grover, I'm afraid, really is a conservative. A longtime small government advocate, he's about as much of a "Marxist" as I am. The problem is that we've come to define conservatism as almost anyone in this country who is Deeply Religious without giving thought as to the consequences of putting belief into action. Islam just isn't a good fit with American life. We found that out on 9/11 — and other dates.

    What we need to do, as conservatives, is redefine what it means to be one.

    • adam

      The fact that Norquist is a supporter of conservative economic principles means nothing if he's helping to allow the country to be subverted by Islamists. I don't really want a fiscally sound Islamic American Republic.

      In fact, Norquist dosen't care a whit about anything other than subverting the American Republic. He himslef is a closet Muslim and Islamist. He's been asked the question, and he dosen't deny it.

  • http://apollospaeks.townhall.com ApolloSpeaks

    NASSERISM, THE EGYPTIAN PEOPLE AND THE DOWNFALL OF MUBARAK -excerpt

    "BILL O'REILLY ON MUBARAK THE BAD

    Friday night my jaw dropped as I heard a self-righteous, nonsensical Bill O'Reilly sounding off about Mubarak being a "bad guy" and deserving his fate. He was sounding off about his corrupt, oppressive and brutal regime and his billions socked away in Switzerland and elsewhere. WHAT A CLUELESS PINHEAD! O'Reilly is oblivious to the fact that his notion of a "bad guy" isn't shared by most Egyptians, nor for that matter are his Western democratic values. Indeed, by O'Reilly"s standard Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt's despot for 14 years, was a "bad guy," a very "bad guy," as much a corrupt, oppressive and brutal tyrant as Mubarak who, like Mubarak, filled Egypt's jails with tortured political prisoners.

    continued

  • http://apollospaeks.townhall.com ApolloSpeaks

    Yet Nasser, unlike Mubarak, was immensely popular with his people, as well as with the Arab street. In fact, most Egyptians and Arabs wept when Nasser died and millions turned out for his funeral. But these same Egyptians were bitter with Mubarak for thirty years and wanted him gone or dead. Why? Because unlike the corrupt, brutal, oppressive Nasser the non-ideological Mubarak failed to make them proud: proud to be Arab; proud to be Egyptian; proud to be Moslem; proud to have the truth. Oppression, brutality and corruption in a ruler are okay with Egyptians so long as he does them honor and makes them proud."

    Click my name to read the rest of this piece.

  • Bob

    And Yet thru All of this Toil and Whoo,,,,, We Continue to Bring in MORE Muslams ,Somalies Etc To take Even More Jobs,,,, WHEN Will IT STOP,,,,,,,,,,,,
    What the Mexicans Do not Take The Muslams Will………………….

  • http://mypage.direct.ca/l/lbouchar/ SeaMystic

    The following item shows the mind set of Mohammed, as the core basis of Islam.

    This was compiled by the scribe Ishaq, the first and only one to compile the sayings of the illiterate Mohammed in his lifetime.

    Ishaq: 676

    Asma bent Markam, a literate women and poet, chastised her tribes men for their activities under Mohammed.
    “Mohammed asks will no one rid me of this woman? Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes.
    That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping, surrounded by her young children. There was one on her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet.
    The next morning in the mosque, Mohammed who was aware of the assassination, said, “You have helped Allah and his Apostle.” Umayr said, “She had five sons should I feel guilty?” “No” the Prophet answered, “Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting their heads.

  • http://mypage.direct.ca/l/lbouchar/ SeaMystic

    I see Islamic Troll at work on this site. Since they admire Mohammed the pedophilic pervert as the most honourable of all men, would you allow them to baby sit your children?

  • Jolly Canuck

    This what you get when a nation’s health care system neglects to treat its loonies and lets them walk the street instead. Some of the loons get their guns and stage a massacre. And some, the ones with a messianic complex and a gift of gab, like Beck, and the confirmed hate-monger, Horrorwtz, (who figured out that right wing lunacy pays better than that of the left), spout deliriously paranoid conspiracy theories to stir up hysteria amongst a rabid pack of true believers. About each Heinrich Heine pretty well nailed it, “Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid.”

  • http://www.non12steprehabs.org/our-story.html their website

    I do think that the real surprise is that either of these two frauds is given any credence whatsoever by conservatives and CPAC. As for the ACU I stopped contributing to them long ago.