A Disturbing Event: The American Conservative Union Embraces an Islamist

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a CBN News contributor. He is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007). 


Pages: 1 2

Are these remarks merely a “youthful” indiscretion? Horowitz, whose biography makes him something of an authority on second thoughts, answered the question during his keynote address at the 2011 CPAC event:

As for the question of whether Suhail Khan believes now what he openly said then, my answer is this: When an honest person has been a member of a destructive movement and leaves it, he will feel compelled to repudiate it publicly and to warn others of the dangers it poses. This is a sure test of whether someone has left the Muslim Brotherhood or not.

Suhail Khan has never repudiated his father’s Muslim Brotherhood legacy or the patronage of the convicted terrorist, Abdurahman Alamoudi. Nor has he disavowed his praise for Islamic martyrdom, nor has he taken steps to warn his fellow Americans of the Islamist threat posed by his past and present associates (part 4 of Gaffney’s videos documents Khan’s continuing involvement with Mohamed Magid, Muzammil Siddiqi, Nihad Awad and other top Muslim Brotherhood figures and organizations.) Instead, he has denied that the Muslim Brotherhood even operates in America.

On September 21, 2011, the ACU finally took up the issue of Frank’s charges. The occasion was an unusual meeting of the ACU board, which normally meets only twice a year – in Washington and via teleconference. This particular meeting took place in Orlando, Florida, where an ACU event was being held. Because of the unusual venue, far away from ACU headquarters, most of the ACU board members did not attend, including several whom Frontpage talked to who had not been informed of the meeting and who were not in sympathy with its result. When the rump board met, they voted unanimously to adopt a resolution that dismissed Gaffney’s charges out of hand, and declared their “complete confidence in the loyalty of Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist to the United States,” and “welcome[d] their continued participation in the work of ACU and of the American conservative movement.” In adopting this resolution, the board members also declared that they “profoundly regret and reject as unwarranted the past and on-going attacks upon their patriotism and character.”

In making its decision, the board appears to have relied entirely on a memorandum provided by one of its members, Cleta Mitchell, a well-known and widely admired conservative lawyer. In her memorandum, and despite its sweeping conclusions, Mitchell addressed the specifics of only one of Gaffney’s many findings, while categorically dismissing them all: “There is absolutely nothing contained in any of the materials” presented by Gaffney, she wrote, “that in any way linked Suhail (or Grover) to such [‘Muslim extremist’] organizations or their activities.”

The one specific that Mitchell took issue with was an unlikely one given her categorical statement there was absolutely nothing that in any way linked Suhail to Islamist organizations or their activities. This was the video of Khan’s 1999 address to the Islamic Society of North America featured in Gaffney’s video course. ISNA is the principal Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States; it was founded by Suhail Khan’s own parents; and before this audience Khan spoke in the ritualistic language of the Muslim Brotherhood about how Muslim warriors love death more than their opponents love life, about his devotion to the Muslim nation, and his readiness to die for Allah. Mitchell dismissed his comments in these words: “Yet, even in that speech, there is nothing that suggests Suhail is unpatriotic or subversive.  The clip from the speech is simply (in my view) rhetoric that is, quite frankly, meaningless in terms of substantiating any of Mr. Gaffney’s allegations.” But is it meaningless to paraphrase the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood to a meeting of the most important Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States, and embrace it as one’s own aspiration?

Mitchell rests her case against Gaffney and in behalf of Khan on a single point: “Suhail was subject to FBI background checks and cleared to work directly for the President and Vice-President? How would the FBI have ‘missed’ ties to such groups if those ties existed?”

In fact, as Gaffney observes — under the right circumstances, and with the right sponsors — it would have overlooked them quite easily. “The fact that Suhail Khan received a security clearance during his time in government is an indictment of the clearance process, not evidence that his background is problem-free: Ali Mohammad—Osama bin Laden’s ‘first trainer’ and longtime al Qaeda operative—also went through a background check and received a security clearance to work with the federal government. Major Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood killer, not only obtained a clearance, he was even promoted from captain to major despite his monitored communications with al Qaeda leader Anwar Awlaki, and the fact that in the course of his military education, he announced during a lecture that it was the duty of Muslims under shariah to kill infidels preparing to attack other Muslims (i.e., U.S. soldiers awaiting deployment to Afghanistan).

Horowitz agrees. He points to the fact that Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, has a top security clearance, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that her closest family members have been Muslim Brotherhood leaders and that for twelve years prior to being hired by the State Department, she worked for an Islamist organization founded and run by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a top funder of Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network, and a Muslim Brotherhood eminence.

Given these well-known facts, Khan’s security clearance seems a pretty thin reed on which to base so sweeping a dismissal of Gaffney’s concerns, let alone refer to them as “reprehensible.” To understand her position better, I tried to interview Mitchell, but she declined to comment, saying by email “I am precluded from talking to anyone about this because of the confidentiality provisions of the boards on which I serve which have been dealing with Frank Gaffney issues.”

That confidentiality, however, had been already breached when someone on the ACU board leaked the details of its Orlando meeting and the contents of Mitchell’s letter – and leaked them not to conservatives but to the left-wing organization “ThinkProgress.” One of the things I wanted to ask Mitchell was how she thought this letter might have been leaked and by whom (Norquist? Khan?). Accompanying ThinkProgress’s release of the Mitchell letter was this summary on its website of what had transpired:

Gaffney … was unanimously condemned by the one of the most powerful conservative organizations in America, as two documents obtained exclusively by ThinkProgress this week show.  Last September, the board of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which puts on CPAC and includes top leaders of various factions of the conservative movement, unanimously passed a resolution (read it here) condemning the “false and unfounded” attacks Gaffney had made against Norquist and Khan, both board members, after having another board member, Cleta Mitchell, look into Gaffney’s serious charges of sedition and abetting an enemy.  In a letter to the ACU board (read it here), Mitchell, a prominent and very conservative attorney, said that after reviewing the “evidence” Gaffney presented (including a lengthy PowerPoint presentation and DVDs video laying out the case against Norquist and Khan), she found his “ceaseless war” to be “reprehensible.”

Another issue I wanted to ask Mitchell about was what she thought of the fact that her sweeping memo along with the leak had given powerful ammunition to the Brotherhood and its agents in their campaign to silence critics of Islamism. ThinkProgress had previously published a “report” on “Islamophobia” (following an earlier one by CAIR on the same subject). As David Horowitz and Robert Spencer demonstrate in their pamphlet, Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future, Islamophobia is a term actually invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to silence its critics. The ThinkProgress report on Islamophobia attacked a dozen leading conservative critics of the Islamic jihad (also singled out by CAIR), including Frank Gaffney, as “bigots” and “racists.” Future editions of the report and future left-wing attacks will undoubtedly draw on the testimony of ACU board.

When asked about these events, Gaffney noted the irregular nature of the board meeting that condemned him, and deplored its lack of due-diligence that led to its categorical dismissal of the readily available evidence. He stated:

By acting solely on the basis of Mitchell’s defamatory and superficial memorandum, and then through the deliberate leak to a Soros-funded leftwing organization, the leadership of the American Conservative Union has discredited itself and given ammunition to those who want to prevent legitimate inquiries into Islamist influences in Washington.

This seems a more than reasonable concern. Since many prominent ACU board members were not present to conduct this auto-da-fé, there appears to be ample basis for it to seek a second opinion in regard to the case of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.  Should it fail to do so, the ACU board will simply reinforce suspicions that it has been successfully infiltrated and subjected to an influence operation by those opposed to everything for which the conservative movement stands.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • Chezwick

    Raymond Ibrahim does us a great service in keeping this issue alive. The battle for the soul of the Republican Party is essentially a microcosm for the battle of the soul of America. How can conservatives possibly save America from our enemies if the party of conservatives is doing the bidding of our enemies?

    The only satisfactory outcome is that Grover Norquist becomes so radio-active that he's completely marginalized…..and consigned to the political wilderness.

    • NAHALKIDES

      Agreed. This is Ibrahim's most important article to date. Norquist, Khan, and their confederates must be made unwelcome in the Conservative movement and in the Republican Party.

    • Andy

      For the health of the nation, people like Norquist and Khan should be eliminated one way or another. A fatwa or contract or one way ticket to Pakistan.

    • Questions

      Did anyone see "60 Minutes" last evening? They did a whole segment on Grover, though it focused only on the tax-pledge issue and reactions by GOP congressmen to it.

    • MaryS, CA

      The Muslim Brotherhood, C.A.I.R., ISNA and all the others have completely infiltrated the Democratic Party and they will do so to the Republican party as well if we are not vigilant. Grover Norquist I would trust as far as I could my dog to catch a opposom and he doesn't do that very well, in fact not at all. Grover is married to a Muslim and what would you expect. Obviously Grover doesn't know the word "Taquiya". Shame on Grover, he would betray his country for a skirt…. MaryS, CA

  • Burned Out

    This is a very disturbing article and truly exposes an ugly rift in the Conservative Party. I had read about this matter before, bits and pieces anyway, but Mr. Ibrahim's presentation here seems ironclad. Is Norquist that powerful, that stalwart conservatives like Tea Party darling Cleta Mitchell must sell out, and for a person with such obvious Islamist ties like Khan? With "conservatives" like these, who needs liberals! Welcome to reality, people: it's no longer about leftist vs rightists, or liberals vs conservatives. They're all the same crap — SELLOUTS!

  • C.R.

    I've known for a long time Grover Norquist was not the good conservative many so called conservatives claim him to be!

    When asked what his believed he said it was too personal to speak of.

    He is married to a devout Muslim–which means Grover Norquist had to at least fain a profession of faith in Islam–Grover Norquist is a Muslim–and as such an enemy of American [of human] liberty–Islam and American liberty are not compatible–wherever Islam is embraced it oppresses the people!

  • Gerald

    "Islamophobia is a term actually invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to silence its critics." It is quite possible that the term Islamophobia may not have been invented by the Muslim Brotherhood at all but by a Jew Richard Stone in Britain.
    The details are here. http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.com.es/2011/12/

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Islamofascismphobia is a rational response to 9/11.

  • Paul B.

    Thank you for this expose. This has risen to the level where Norquist and friends must answer the charges, or be removed from their positions of influence. The thought of this going on within the bowels of the conservative movement is chilling.

    • WildJew

      I wonder if anyone is interested, who made up this CPAC rump group that voted “unanimously” to dismiss long-standing accusations against Muslim Brotherhood activists Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.

  • Ar'nun

    I think this story says it all. Batton down the hatches, stock up on food, water, and guns and ammo. The most unfortunate part of the larger story is that the Muslim Brotherhood has been in the US and carrying out this diabolical plan for decades and unfortunately, like with cancer, these things need to be caught early. Well this tumor seems to have matastisaized and is inoperable. They have infiltrated not only the Seccretary of State, but I believe the POTUS himself is a member. Someone should look into the rich Saudi roomate Obama had at Occidental. I have a feeling he will come back as being affiliated too.

    So then we see in this article, not only is one side of the political spectrum in deep, but now the right as well. Norquist is not just an activist, he is the money for the right, which means many will be hesitant in object to him. And if were just Norquist. McCain visited Egypt and Libya during the height of the Arab Spring. Whils standing in front of several protest signs that depicted Shwatzstikas, Netanyahu with a Hitler moustache, and one that read "Death to Israel" McCain said he saw no evidenc of an anti-Semetic overtone to the Arab Spring.

    • NAHALKIDES

      In Obama's case, it's not so much that he's an agent of the brotherhood or even a Muslim as that he acts like one. I doubt Obama is a devout Muslim any more that a devout Christian – the only God he worships is power. But because he sympathizes unduly with Muslim third-world nations, he ends up doing the Brotherhood's bidding – quite possibly with the assistance of Houma Abedin in the State Department.

  • rbla

    The gravediggers of the Republic are not present only on the left. Long before Grover took up his championship of Islam he helped thwart any reasonable immigration reform that would have been an obstacle to the third-worlding of America. That in itself should have had him ostracized by so-called conservatives.

  • Demetrius M

    Just as the article mentions, it would seem that this is part of the 5th column strategy. Islamic money bought and influenced the democrats and now they are working on the second and more difficult challenge, conservatives.
    The sooner people see Islam as an ideology and not a religion, the sooner we can upend their goals of either heavy influence over our government or a complete takeover.

  • WildJew

    Raymond wrote: "A few months ago, these questions reached another flashpoint in an unlikely setting. The incident took place at an irregular board meeting of the American Conservative Union, an organization usually intent on keeping wobbly Republicans honest. The rump group in attendance — several key board members told Frontpage they were not even aware the meeting had been called – voted “unanimously” to dismiss long-standing accusations against two ACU board members…."

    I would like to know who made up this rump group. Who was and was not in attendance?

  • WildJew

    Raymond wrote: I tried to interview Mitchell, but she declined to comment, saying by email “I am precluded from talking to anyone about this because of the confidentiality provisions of the boards on which I serve which have been dealing with Frank Gaffney issues.”

    Cleta Mitchell ducked. What a shock.

  • WildJew

    Republican platform committee defends two-state solution language
    By Daniel Treiman · August 22, 2012

    The Republican Party's platform committee resisted efforts to strip out language expressing support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — i.e., a Muslim-enemy state in Israel's heartland.

    Buzzfeed reports:

    The draft platform, written by the Romney campaign and committee aides states, "We envision two democratic states," which drew fire from several members of the platform committee.

    Three separate amendments to the draft platform were offered and shot down after Sen. Jim Talent, a Romney surrogate who is tasked with ensuring the platform document is in line with Romney's policy proposals, objected to each.

    Minnesota delegate Kevin Erickson offered two of the amendments, which would have removed the line, replacing it with tough language on terrorism.

    Erickson said he didn't want to pressure the Israeli government by specifying the conditions of an ultimate peace…

  • SuicidePrevention

    Interesting article. What is the relationship between Grover's goals of ending Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Department of Energy, Department of Education, EPA and his other apparent goal of furthering the spread of Islam? Does he believe the former would enable the later? Would it? Or are all these goals secondary and in service of some primary but undeclared motivation? Maybe he is just nursing some childhood humiliation and his hidden motivations shouldn't matter to us. We must judge for ourselves what the proper role of government is and what marginal tax rates should be, and what immigration policies should be. Grover should be exposed and then ignored.

  • jemaasjr

    I wonder if they are bought off in some way, or do they really mean it? A lot of what we call conservatives are really just business guys who want to get on in life and seldom look at the big picture. Mostly they are not pushing any particular cultural notions. Well, you know, the go along get along RINO's.

  • Dado7

    I've never heard of Cleta Mitchell before reading Raymond's article. I took the time to read her memorandum denouncing Frank's claims. For someone who is supposed to be a top conservative lawyer, the memo reads like a junior high rebuttal to someone who's been teasing her friends. Frank, et al, please keep up the great work you are doing and do not be deterred by these fools.

    • Estani2

      Exactly – I can't believe that was supposed to be a 'serious' rebuttal from a respected lawyer in the conservative movement. All it is is a bunch of exclamations and categorical statements that address nothing in particular. What a joke!
      Kudos to Mr. Raymond Ibrahim and his allies! More please.

  • Anonymous

    Norquist and Khan are extremely well connected with the Islamists of America. Anyone near them in DC knows this to be true. This proves that the current ACU board is in bed with the enemy — for they all know of Norquist's coziness with the Islamists, and yet they look the other way. Shame on them. America's conservative party needs new leadership – and fast!

  • marios

    "The Muslim Brotherhood…must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religious.”- Mohamed Akram.
    “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”
    May 22, 1991
    It was said 20 years ago and they were working on it all those years.
    Romney is real friend of Israel and long time friend Israel PM Netanyahu. I remember that he banned that time Iran PM Rafsanjani to come for speech to ultra-liberal financed by sallafits Saudi Arabia Harvard University. Romney said that enemies of US and Israel never would step on Massachusetts ground till he was governor at least. G-d help him to be elected next Pres and survive our country (and Israel).

  • ShawmutI

    And, "Li'l Grover" grew up in one the wealthiest town in the country, Weston, MA. His wife is evidently Muslim. And I once heard his mother tout the point (at meeting of former intelligence officers {Something she and daddy tied themselves in to their dotage}) that an "in-law" was part of Assad's government. (DUH?)
    I tend to think of Gover as a mere venal, social climber than conservative (Arte` Americaine).

    • Kufar Dawg

      Gaffney used to think that Grover was merely corrupt, but now I believe he thinks Grover has become a card carrying member of the ROP.

  • Michael

    Only naive/ idiots don't believe in conspiracy now! M.Bros infiltrate government,both parties and Libs media.

  • traeh

    Wow. Ibrahim has written a great article. He knows the difference between strong evidence and not-so-strong, and he brings some strong stuff to the fore in this piece. The result is that his article is very persuasive, whereas some other articles on the same side of this issue can leave one feeling, "well, yeah, it sounds bad, but maybe that's not the whole picture." Ibrahim's article proves there is very legitimate reason for being very worried about Khan and Norquist.

    I very much appreciate Ibrahim's obvious efforts to get at the truth and be objective.

  • traeh

    One thing about this issue I'm not sure people understand. There's a large grain of truth in the claims from the other side that there is no special nefarious group operating with a special conspiracy. The fact is that "Islamist" beliefs and sentiments of one sort or another are so thoroughly a part of global and local Islam that virtually all Muslim leaders — even liberal ones — almost unavoidably have associations with Islamists. So maybe Gafney need not put too much of an emphasis on some special conspiratorial group like the Muslim Brotherhood, or Al Qaeda, or the Taliban — all of these are just various phases and leading edges of establishment Islam, vanguards of global mainstream Islam. So Suhail and Grover are not necessarily engaged in some special conspiracy. It's just a case of Islam doing its thing, trying to spread itself. In their own minds, Suhail and Gaffney are perhaps just being "discreet," as they know Islam is not mainstream or popular in America. The difference I'm pointing to between conspiracy and merely being "discreet" is in this particular case not big, but it's not entirely insignificant either. I do think Gaffney and others are right to call out Suhail and Grover on their Islamist links — but realistically, if we exclude from important government posts any Muslim with Islamist links of one sort or another. perhaps there will be almost zero Muslims in such posts. But that's not our problem — that's Muslims' problem for choosing to remain part of a religion with serious totalitarian political ambitions that are quite mainstream in global Islam.

    We see Huma Abedin, according to Ray Ibrahim, being for ten years part of an Islamist organization prior to working with Hillary, and I don't doubt it. So why then did Hillary Clinton take Huma on board? Isn't it possible that Clinton and many other politicians have decided that it's virtually impossible to find a socially active, public Muslim who does not have ties and links to "Islamist" groups? And perhaps Hillary then concludes something like this:'

    "If you are a Muslim, and you don't want to abandon all society with other Muslims, you inevitably end up connected to groups and individuals with some serious Islamist involvement. And non-Islamist Muslims can't do much about that as things are now, nor can we expect non-Islamist Muslims to immediately abandon Islamic organizations and Islamic culture and society. Muslims, like others, need the support of family. So we have to try to pluck from out of those Islamist-riddled organizations the Muslims working in them who are not Islamist, and who are only in the Islamist groups because there are few alternatives if a Muslim wants sometimes to be among people of his/her own background.

    • traeh

      Addendum to my comment above — I can imagine Hillary thinking as I described — but that's not how I think.

      • Kufar Dawg

        The Clintons have made tens of millions of dollars in business dealings w/islamofascist petrostates. While the amoral and apathetic might not call that bribery, people of more character might.

  • Schlomotion

    Mr. Ibrahim references David Horowitz referencing Frank Gaffney. This gives the appearance of independent verification, but all these men work together in the same media outlet, so really, it's no verification at all, especially when the media outlet pays another guy who wants to extort money from Suhail Khan in order to stop libeling him.

    This quote is interesting:

    "What disturbed me most—and ultimately persuaded me that Frank was on to something—was the fact that Grover didn’t respond to Gaffney’s charges although I invited him to do so in Frontpage. Then when I caught up with Grover at a CPAC conference, and said he really needed to answer the charges, he brushed me off saying he didn’t have time"

    In other words, if a politician doesn't appear on Frontpage to answer the charges they made against him and thereby prove his innocence, the self-appointed Lieutenant Governor and Witchcraft Tribunal Magistrate takes it as evidence of guilt and calls for more hearings. This is a political and moral pestilence.

    • Kufar Dawg

      LOL, we know Grover by who he associates with and the agenda he pushes Farid.

  • Rose Johnson

    Well, isn't this an eye opener! Aside from forwarding this story onto my friends, what then? Evil is just everywhere!

  • jewdog

    Sure, Norquist is a conservative, just like Hitler was. It's the paleo-right marrying Christian antisemitism with Islamic supremacism. A few more guys like Norquist and I will vote for Obama.

  • oogenhand

    If they love death so much, why do they whine when they are killed?

    • Ron Edge

      It's because Westerners, in general, deplore Genocide: The Holocaust truly repelled Europeans and truly shocked Americans. Even, or especially, when faced with fellow-Citizens who, essentially, state: "Either kill me or give up your Freedoms" the West falters and attempt some-sort of accommodation(s) which will placate their enemy(ies) while relieving them of the slaughter which MUST accompany a, in this case, "Jihad-free" America.

      The Islamist(s) know this very well and, so, their death(s) and their loud cries of "Western failure" in this regard play upon our fears of the-more-to-come, if we are to retain our Freedom, and we give-way a little bit more. Thus, a sort of 'two-fer' is accomplished by the Islamists.

      This crap works best on Liberals. For us Conservatives?

      Pay-off the Economic 0.01% who'll buy up our Right-wing Political Elite and you're good-to-go!!

      As Ibraham's article points out with such clarity.

      • oogenhand

        I have always been strongly convinced that abortion kills babies. Nevertheless, due to teenage hormones I became pro-choice/anti-life, still convinced that abortion kills. Combined with a lowered empathy due to Asperger's Syndrome, I am not really impressed by crybabies. Nevertheless, the Islamists do have learned the lessons of the Holocaust, and fear, at some level, eradication. Paradoxically, by promising to take their women, you allay that fear. As I am not a Christian, I have no real problem with polygamy. But well then, why not become Islamist? Polygamy is a pyramid scheme, and the Islamist pyramid is far too large already.

  • eib

    Islam is profane.
    Mohammed is a false prophet.
    It is obvious that Norquist was a godless, indecent man before.
    He and all like him are people without faith, guided only by fear. And so they find it easy to submit.
    They are traitors to their history, their culture and to this country.

  • JP Knight

    I know Cleta Mitchell. There is no more solid, patriotic conservative in the USA. She is honorable and ethical and a woman of integrity.

    • anonymous

      That does not address anything in this article. This article gives evidence, and your response is to evoke her moral character? talk about reverse ad hominem .

    • Ron Edge

      "I know Cleta Mitchell. There is no more solid, patriotic conservative in the USA. She is honorable and ethical and a woman of integrity. "

      Great gal, alright!! AND….

      Completely out-of-line, totally wrong and subverted in some manner.

  • Asher

    They will never get any more donations from true Conservatives!

  • Asher

    So in other words the ACU has prevented the destruction of Iran's nuclear sites…and what is the big idea of this, to allow them to get nuclear weapons and take out American and Israel… Republican muslims…these people are not Republicans, they have invaded the party of weak kneed RINOS!

  • https://www.facebook.com/delta.mike.161 Delta Mike

    When asked if he had converted to Islam, Mr. Norquist wouldn't answer. This is surprising, in that he could always claim the necessity of "Taqiyya" to lie about it. But his marriage to a Muslim woman is blessed and accepted in the Muslim community, as is Obama praying with Muslims in the White House.

    Islamic Doctrine forbids marriage to or praying with "polytheists". It is considered "shirk" a grievous sin. It is hard not to conclude both the President and Mr. Norquist now are loyal to "The Ummah", NOT the Kafir United States.

  • MarcyFleming

    As a secular Jew (Mom's side) who also had the benefit of sixteen years of classical Roman Catholic education,
    grade 1 through university, I find this deliberate attempt here at Front Page to whip up the rankest form of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry disgusting in the extreme.
    David Horowitz has found it extremely profitable to push Jewish paranoia buttons despite all the increasing collateral damage that this promotes. It sure beats living in a cramped Berkeley apartment writing his ONE scholarly book, The Free World Colossus. David did the world by recycling D. F. Fleming's two volume work into a readable format for the intelligent reader and I say this despite disagreeing with Fleming's (no relation) massive Soviet apologia. It's always better to understand one's opponents than to caricature them as is routinely done here at Front Page.
    Funny, when I lived in Tel Aviv for two years there was more debate and freedom of discussion on Palestine than we have here. Apparently a great many loudmouth American chickenhawks, both Jewish and Gentile, are willing to prolong the conflict to the last Israeli.
    The attacks on Clinton's aide are rubbish as even the GOP hawks have recognized. Neoconservatism has nothing to do with the limited government concept best exemplified by Isabel Paterson in The God Of The Machine and Robert A. Taft in A foreign Policy For America.
    You folks are starting to read like the nutcases at Atlas Shruggs and the Ayn Rand Institute, both of which disgrace Rand's great philosophy of Objectivism. We had one good candidate this year, Ron Paul.
    Now you will see Obama reelected despite a terrible record, particularly at home.
    Your readers might benefit from ARI Watch. Great foreign policy essays.

  • dannyjeffrey44

    The above information was quite helpful in making my point… http://www.freedomrings1776.com/2013/03/divided-b