Salem radio commentator Hugh Hewitt has become a media darling for his “expert” opinions, as he lectures Republicans on how to handle not only the media but the issues. However, Hewitt is the same commentator who had flatly predicted a big Mitt Romney win. On October 22, 2012, Hewitt announced, “Romney’s momentum will continue unbroken, and his demeanor and especially his poise will be the takeaway for any undecideds that are left…Romney won the debates decisively, which means he will win on November 6. Some things are simple, and this is one of them.”
Hewitt, known as Hugh Blewit, failed to understand that President Obama had organized “the strongest grassroots organization in the history of American presidential politics,” in the words of Jeremy Bird, the National Field Director of Obama for America. This was a network comprised of more than two million volunteers, backed by neighborhood political teams and 2,700 field organizers. They carried the day.
We noted at the time that Republican strategist Karl Rove was raising $300 million for television ads depicting Republican candidate Mitt Romney as a would-be efficient manager of the U.S economy. Rove had advised Republicans not to call Obama a socialist, believing that undecided, moderate or left-leaning voters would jump to Obama’s side if that charge were leveled against him. This was a terrible miscalculation. It meant that a significant percentage of conservative voters didn’t think Romney was up to the task of identifying and rolling back Obama-style Marxism. They didn’t turn out for Romney. They also gave up on the Republican establishment, a continuing wave of outrage and discontent that accounts for outsiders moving to the top of the field of Republicans contending for the GOP 2016 presidential nomination.
But the establishment is back, in the form of such personalities as Karl Rove, a Fox News contributor, and Hugh Hewitt.
A moderator during the recent Republican debate broadcast by CNN, Hewitt engaged in back-and-forth with candidate Donald Trump over a Trump interview on Hewitt’s Salem network radio show. Trump complained that Hewitt was playing gotcha with trick questions about Arab personalities and names in the Middle East. Hewitt has made it clear he doesn’t like Trump’s style and approach.
Now that candidate Ben Carson is under fire by the media for offering his opinion that a Muslim who believes in Sharia should not be president, Hewitt has gone back on CNN to take issue with Carson and offer his advice. On Tuesday he told CNN’s Carol Costello that Carson is a rookie who has to work on getting his message right.
Confirming his role as a gatekeeper, Jim Geraghty of National Review says that Republican candidates are “attempting to showcase their interest in Hewitt’s priorities.” Similarly, Politico says Hewitt “has captured the ears of the GOP and earned the trust of virtually all of its biggest names.” But why? As proven by his faulty prediction in 2012, it seems he is too tied up in the establishment Republican Party view to understand the progressive wave that is not only still strong in the U.S., but around the world. Despite how things may look on the Democratic side right now, these forces are strong and believe that history is on their side.
In terms of their most recent gains, consider that the socialists have solidified their control of Greece, anti-American socialist Jeremy Corbyn has been elected the head of the Labor Party in Britain, and socialists seem poised to win the Canadian national elections on October 19. Even if the New Democratic Party (NDP) doesn’t win nationally, the left-wing party has already taken control of Alberta, the oil-rich and most conservative part of the country.
Here, avowed socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is strongly challenging Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. He draws huge crowds—most of them young people—and attracts people in the New Age movement who believe in bizarre things like a federal Department of Peace. This may sound strange, but the movement has tens of millions of followers who forecast a new Aquarian Age, apparently to be led by Sanders and the leader of a new global religion.
Having misjudged one presidential contest, it would be nice if the public were reminded of the details surrounding Hewitt’s prediction of a Romney victory in 2012. His blog at the time had proclaimed, “Why Romney Wins: the Economy is Tanking.” It is easier to pontificate than actually examine what is happening out in the country, as I recently did when covering a Sanders for President rally. The surge for socialism is real and has taken hold among those being “educated” at our public universities. No wonder Sanders wants to give them free college, a maneuver that could guarantee the Democrats millions of votes.
In a 2012 column entitled “Mittmentum Builds,” Hewitt seemed to have New Age powers of clairvoyance, saying that “He who surges last surges best in a presidential campaign, and it appears that Romney has indeed caught the last big wave.” He said that an “amazing” Romney speech in Wisconsin “is the sort of performance that flows from a candidate who knows he is winning.”
Let’s remember that Republican Mitt Romney lost an easily winnable election. He got only 48 percent of the vote, just two points more than Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) total in 2008.
Candidates get scorched for making perceived mistakes, in response to trick or gotcha questions, but commentators are rarely held accountable for their errors. Let’s take a look back at some other predictions from the 2012 election, as reflected in headlines or actual quotations:
Karl Rove’s Prediction: Mitt Romney wins 285 electoral votes to President Obama’s 253.
George Will Predicts 321-217 Romney Romp.
Larry Kudlow (CNBC) predicts Romney Landslide. “A huge victory for a principled Romney.”
Ann Coulter confident of Romney victory.
Why Glenn (Beck) thinks Romney will have a decisive victory on Tuesday.
Dick Morris: Romney will win popular vote by 5 or 10 points.
Charles Krauthammer: It will be very close but Romney will win the presidency.
Landslide (win for Romney): Limbaugh predicts 2012 election.
(Michael) Barone predicts Romney wins handily.
Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard: “Why Romney Will Win.”
Jonah Goldberg: “I think Romney wins in an absolute nailbiter.”
Matt Vespa at Red State: “My Prediction: Romney Wins Comfortably.”
Edward Morrissey (Hot Air): “Joe Biden Can’t Save Obama.”
James Pethokoukis (American Enterprise Institute): “…Mitt Romney will be elected the 45th President of the United States, winning the two-party popular vote 51% to 49% and the electoral vote by 301 to 237 for President Obama.”
Commentators get things wrong, and that doesn’t disqualify them from continuing to hold their jobs and make predictions. But getting a presidential contest wrong, without analyzing why it happened and whether the progressives are still outsmarting the Republicans, is a recipe for another disaster.
The headline over that October 22, 2012 Hugh Hewitt column was, “Romney Wins Again, And Left Gets It Wrong—Again.” The left was not only “right,” but is as strong as ever. Today, they have the pope on their side.
Republicans listen to and follow a Pied Piper like Hewitt at their own risk.
Did Fox News conspire with Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, and Valerie Jarrett to attack Trump in the first debate?
Given the carnival of a debate, during which the Fox moderators spoke more than any candidate, is it so hard to believe? The cabal that runs Washington, Democrat and Republican, fears nothing more than an outsider who doesn’t owe them favors.
Rove was George W. Bush’s special advisor for years, going back to Texas. He’s been a sleazy political operative for decades. After the White House, he managed to weasel himself into a position of prominence at Rupurt Murdoch’s (an Australian socialist) Fox News.
Here’s a picture of Jeb, Murdoch, and Obama’s “Special Advisor,” the Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett. The cabal photographed at dinner… only person missing is Karl Rove.
News Corp, the parent company of Fox News, hired Toni Cook Bush (not the same Bush family) to be Executive Vice President and global head of government affairs. She is a cousin to Valerie Jarret.
A recent article in Politico details the envy and frustration of Jeb Bush, who never expected to have to catch up to Trump in the polls. There’s your potential motive.
It is doubtful that Trump will be knocked out by Jarrett’s puppet, Megyn Kelly.
But this first debate, and the ensuing internecine GOP arguments, may be enough to ensure that another Democrat – Hillary – is elected in 2016.
The usually brilliant and stalwart Kevin D. Williamson of National Review appears at last to have fallen victim to the virus known as Beltway Insider-itis. In doing so, he joins the likes of David Brooks and Jen Rubin, so-called “conservatives” who act as the unofficial PR wing of the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove, and the Republican National Committee.
We do not expect the likes of Williamson, however, to channel Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Karl Rove and Tom Donohue and slam the very group of Americans who handed the Republican Party massive midterm wins at every level of government in 2010 and 2014.
Never mind the Democrats, economic realities, Putin, ISIS, the geographical facts of the U.S.-Mexico border — all would be well and all manner of things would be well if not for the behind-the-scenes plotting of Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and their enablers, who apparently can be bribed with small numbers of cocktail weenies. The WHINO is a Republican conspiracy theorist, in whose fervid imaginings all the players — victims, villains — are Republicans.
Why the vitriol (and patently false vitriol at that)?
Williamson, like many Beltway insiders, has panicked at the latest polls showing Donald Trump (no, not Donald Trump!) atop the current GOP field.
Recall, however, that at this same moment in the prior election cycle, Rudy Giuliani sat in Trump’s position.
Williamson also insists Romney was a wonderful candidate and anyone who couldn’t see the difference between the former Massachusetts governor and Obama was either a “fanatic or extraordinarily ill-informed”. Or perhaps nominating the Godfather of Obamacare made the dominant policy issue of 2012 a moot point?
And why do I call Williamson’s insipid arguments patently false?
He need look no further than his own website to read the sobering wisdom of Andrew C. McCarthy (“Republicans Have Needlessly Undermined their Ability to Resist the Iran Deal”), which effectively shreds every last molecule of Williamson’s diatribe.
In fact, on the most important national security question in possibly all of American history, the Obama-Kerry nuclear Iran agreement (McCarthy terms it “a disastrous deal that would end sanctions against the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism while paving its way to a nuclear-weapons arsenal”), John Boehner and Mitch McConnell conspired with Barack Obama to simply cede Congressional oversight of a deal that will reward Iran with $150 billion and allow it (easily) to build nuclear weapons.
That legislation … enacted as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, shifts the burden of persuasion away from President Obama and onto opponents of the Iran deal, thus making the deal virtually impossible to stop or undo…
…Iran, of course, is not just an accused party; it is an incorrigible recidivist. In overt contempt for our nation and president, Tehran is already in flagrant violation of the “Joint Plan of Action” it agreed to with the administration. The mullahs see that, even as they systematically flout this interim deal, Obama is hell-bent on looking the other way. It is therefore certain that they will violate the final deal — which will be so frontloaded with carrots (e.g., a $150 billion signing bonus in the form of immediate sanctions relief) that the sticks can be laughed off…
…Under the Constitution, the president must persuade a two-thirds supermajority of senators to approve an agreement with a foreign power. That is, as I’ve repeatedly contended in connection with the Iran negotiations, the Constitution’s presumption is against legally binding international pacts…
…Under the Constitution’s burden of persuasion, then, the Iran deal did not have a prayer of becoming law … In the final Iran deal, the burden of persuasion is key. Enter the Corker legislation. It undermined the Constitution’s presumption against international agreements by shifting the burden of persuasion: Rather than forcing the president to persuade two-thirds of the Senate to approve the deal, it imposes on opponents the burden of persuading two-thirds of the full Congress to reject it.
In other words, the Corker bill (and, remember, Bob Corker is simply a puppet of Mitch McConnell in this and many other matters) surrendered full control of the most dangerous deal imaginable — handing cash and nuclear weapons to a terror state whose unofficial slogan is “Death to America” — to Barack Hussein Obama.
I don’t know whether McCarthy wrote his piece as a direct assault on Williamson, but suffice it to say that it appears purpose-built.
Williamson must also ignore the fact that, in order to get elected, men like Boehner and McConnell pledged fiscal responsibility, a full repeal of Obamacare, and investigations of Barack Obama’s high crimes and misdemeanors.
In fact, a Republican Congress has aided and abetted the most massive expansion of government since World War II; an act of fiscal irresponsibility so unhinged and detrimental to society that Mark Levin’s new book on the topic (Plunder and Deceit) is already a #1 bestseller weeks before it hits the shelves.
In fact, a Republican Congress has done nothing of import to repeal the disastrous Obamacare law, even as the Supreme Court and the Department of Health and Human Services rewrites it at will.
In fact, a Republican Congress has failed to name a Select Committee to investigate the weaponization of the IRS (the mere suggestion of which was outlined in Richard Nixon’s prospective articles of impeachment); it has permitted Hillary Clinton to destroy her government records that were under subpoena with virtually no repercussions; and it has failed to diligently pursue any one of dozens of other scandals (e.g., Fast and Furious, Solyndra, the UAW bailout, the violation of the War Powers Act, etc.) that should be front and center every single day.
Is it any wonder that the conservative base is frothing at the mouth?
Williamson concludes with the pithy phrase “[w]hining is no substitute for winning”; unfortunately his beloved Establishment has done very little winning, whether in general elections or on the most important policy questions of the day.
In order to win, Kevin, you have to fight.
Feckless, cowardly boobs like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have surrendered at every opportunity without even considering a fight, insisting before the battle is even joined, for instance, that they’ll never shut down the government.
The American people need a Presidential candidate who will fight. Whether that man is Donald Trump or, more realistically, someone like Ted Cruz, Americans want a candidate who will not hesitate to face our enemies, whether they be foreign or domestic.
Republican operative Karl Rove writes in The Wall Street Journal that “few demonstrate as much contempt for journalists as do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.” That may be true for Obama, but Mrs. Clinton has taken a different approach. Her platforms, the Clinton Foundation and its project, the Clinton Global Initiative, have given the appearance of humanitarian work, drawing many big names from the media into her network of influence. No wonder they treat her with deference and respect. The media have been compromised.
“Until late Tuesday afternoon,” reports USA Today, “the Clinton Foundation website listed CNN anchor Jake Tapper as a ‘speaker’ at a Clinton Global Initiative event scheduled for June 8-10 in Denver. After USA TODAY asked CNN about the event, Tapper’s name was swiftly removed from the Clinton Foundation website.”
It appears that Tapper will still participate in the meeting, but not as a speaker.
This Tapper controversy should put an end to the pretense that George Stephanopoulos of ABC News is the only member of the journalism business who was compromised through his involvement in the Clinton Foundation. A list of media members of the Clinton Global Initiative in 2011 included Stephanopoulos and many others:
Christiane Amanpour, Chief International Correspondent, CNN
Thomas Friedman, Columnist, The New York Times
Lionel Barber, U.S. Managing Director, The Financial Times
Nicholas Kristof, Columnist, The New York Times
Maria Bartiromo, Anchor, CNBC (now with Fox Business Network)
Matt Lauer, Host, The Today Show, NBC
Matthew Bishop, New York Bureau Chief and American Business Editor, The Economist
Tom Brokaw, Special Correspondent and Moderator of Meet the Press, NBC News
Greta Van Susteren, Anchor and Host, Fox News Channel
Anderson Cooper, Anchor, CNN
Judy Woodruff, Senior Correspondent, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS
Katie Couric, Anchor, CBS News (now with Yahoo)
Fareed Zakaria, Editor, Newsweek International
The pro-Clinton group Media Matters has been having a field day with the news that Fox News personalities were on the list. The group points out that Van Susteren and Bartiromo have both lavished praise on the Clinton Global Initiative for its good work.
We noted back in 2005 that Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of the Fox News parent company, was a participant in the Clinton Global Initiative meeting held in New York in mid-September of that year. As we also pointed out, Clinton himself had appeared on Greta Van Susteren’s Fox News Channel show to promote the event.
That same year we reported that the Fox News Channel, in addition to giving Clinton a platform to talk about his Global Initiative, had done then-Senator Hillary Clinton a big favor by canceling some interviews with Ed Klein, the author of a book critical of Hillary.
Back in 2007 we noted that Murdoch had personally made a $500,000 gift to the Clinton Global Initiative.
“In terms of the Clinton Global Initiative,” Van Susteren told former President Clinton in a 2010 interview, “I’ve seen so many of the good works in terms of the money that goes around the world, whether it’s clean water in different areas. If there is one particular mission for you to describe the Clinton Global Initiative, what is it?”
Clinton’s lengthy reply to this softball question included praise for Frank Giustra, the Canadian business executive, for giving $20 million. Giustra’s donations have subsequently been linked to a plan to win U.S. approval to sell a uranium company to Russia.
Rather than look into the contributions of Giustra and others, Van Susteren encouraged others to contribute to the Clintons. She said to the former president, “A lot of people look at the program, a lot of big names, big contributors and very generous, what about somebody who says I don’t have any big money to contribute. I might have some ideas, or I’m willing to do some leg work to help. How can I participate?”
Isn’t that nice? Even Fox News was in bed with the Clintons.
In a September 27, 2012 column, we pointed out that members of the media scheduled to speak at that year’s Clinton Global Initiative meeting were:
Nicholas D. Kristof, Columnist, The New York Times
Piers Morgan, Host, CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight
Charlie Rose, Executive Editor and Anchor, “Charlie Rose”
Fareed Zakaria, Host, CNN-GPS
It turns out that 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney even attended and addressed that year’s Clinton Global Initiative meeting. Perhaps he had been told by Republican advisers like Rove that it was a humanitarian event with a bipartisan flavor.
“Since serving as President here in America,” Romney declared, “President Clinton has devoted himself to lifting the downtrodden around the world. One of the best things that can happen to any cause, to any people, is to have Bill Clinton as its advocate. That is how needy and neglected causes have become global initiatives.”
The comment goes to show how Clinton, who disgraced himself by having sex with a White House intern and was impeached, has had his reputation rehabilitated. A Republican who got caught doing such things would be forced to slink away and beg for forgiveness from the media.
Romney may have gotten bad advice about going to that event, but it was Romney himself who told Jan Crawford of CBS News during the campaign that the major media were not in the tank for President Obama and that he had no plans to challenge liberal media bias.
No wonder the Democrats are so confident about their ability to manipulate the press. They have the Republicans eating out of their hands.
The main failure by top Republicans—and even many conservatives—is that they do not challenge President Obama as the Marxist he is, and they have no coherent alternative to his strategic plan of supporting America’s enemies.
Reflecting the current mindset—that Obama is just a misguided liberal—Republican strategist Karl Rove failed to anticipate or understand the nature of the growing anti-Obama movement, and the potential it holds. He had predicted the GOP would pick up only six seats in the House, when the Republicans picked up 14 seats. He had predicted that Republican would win the Senate with 51 seats, when the actual figure turned out to be 54.
Republicans like Rove do not understand the nature of the Democratic Party and how it has been taken over by Marxist forces. He had advised Republicans in 2008 and 2012 not to refer to Obama as a socialist. However, grassroots conservatives increasingly understand the dangers we are facing.
The 40th anniversary of the end of United States military involvement in Vietnam—and the 50th anniversary of the start of that U.S. military involvement—provide an opportunity to understand how the Democratic Party has changed. During that 10-year period, 1965-1975, more than 58,000 Americans sacrificed and died to save that country from communism.
Today, with the help of the Republican leadership, President Obama is trying to wrap up a Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal that includes communist Vietnam, a dictatorship with the blood of those Americans on its hands, which has no respect for the human rights of its own people. Interestingly, Obama is trying to sell the agreement as a counter to China’s influence throughout the world. He wants us to believe that China and Vietnam somehow differ on their common objective of achieving world communism at the expense of America’s standing as the leader of what used to be the Free World.
Both countries would gladly welcome the U.S. to help pay to accelerate the growth of their socialist economies and expand their markets.
Vietnam would be free today except for a Democratic-controlled Congress that decided otherwise. Lewis Fanning’s excellent book, Betrayal in Vietnam, notes that “…it was not the Hanoi communists who won the war, but rather the American Congress that lost it.” Fanning writes, “It was not until after the United States elections in the fall of 1974 that North Vietnamese field commanders received the go-ahead in their plans to conquer South Vietnam. As a result of the Watergate scandals, the Democrats had gained forty-three seats in the House. This liberal victory meant that in the 94th Congress there would be 291 Democrats and only 144 Republicans. In the Senate, the Democrats had gained three seats and the lineup was now 61 Democrats to 39 Republicans. This leftward shift of both congressional chambers played a significant role in the North Vietnamese decision to unleash its army.”
Going through the provisions of various bills offered by Democrats in Congress, he presents the case that “A Democratic caucus of the Congress of the United States, aided and abetted by a few liberal Republicans, cast the South Vietnamese people into Communist slavery.”
That left-wing caucus, Members of Congress for Peace through Law, decided that American military involvement would end, and dramatically reduced aid to the government of South Vietnam. Republican President Gerald Ford, who took power after Richard Nixon’s resignation, understood that Congress would not provide enough assistance to keep the country free of communism. Hundreds of thousands of “boat people” tried to escape the Hanoi communists who took power in Saigon while the communist Khmer Rouge took power in neighboring Cambodia, eliminating almost two million people.
The only Senate member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is Vermont’s “independent” Senator Bernie Sanders, who has just announced he is running for president. It is telling that Sanders, an open socialist who collaborated with the communists through the Soviet-run U.S. Peace Council, thinks he has sufficient stature and credibility within the party to rally the “progressives.”
As we have noted, the name of Bernie Sanders, then identified as former mayor of Burlington, Vermont, even showed up on a list of speakers at a 1989 U.S. Peace Council event to “end the Cold War” and “fund human needs.” Other speakers at the U.S. Peace Council event included Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan; Gunther Dreifahl of the East German “Peace Council;” Jesse Jackson aide Jack O’Dell; and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) official Zehdi Terzi.
In 1981, the Soviet-front U.S. Peace Council held its second national conference. Endorsers included Democratic Rep. Danny K. Davis, one of Obama’s associates in Chicago, and David Cortright of a group known as SANE, for the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy.
Rep. Davis got an award from the Communist Party in 2012 and the major media ignored it. Jeremy Segal recorded video of the Democratic Representative getting the communist award—and still the media ignored it
Today Cortright is the Associate Director of Programs and Policy Studies of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, which offers a Ph.D in “Peace Studies.” He is in charge of a conference this week in Washington, D.C. titled, “The Vietnam War Then and Now: Assessing the Critical Lessons.”
The Kroc Institute is named after Joan Kroc, the widow of McDonald’s Corp. founder Ray Kroc. She contributed $69.1 million to establish and support the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.
The final conference panel, “The Anti-War Movement: What were the impacts of the anti-war movement?,” includes Cora Weiss and Tom Hayden, supporters of the communist enemy, and Cortright himself, an agent of influence or dupe.
Hayden is probably the best known of the “anti-war” activists, having become “Mr. Jane Fonda” when he married the actress after she posed with a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down and kill American pilots over Vietnam. Hayden had personally written a June 4, 1968, “Dear Col. Lao” letter to a North Vietnamese official that ended, “Good fortune! Victory!”
Not surprisingly, Hayden, a member of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) during the 1960s, would later join “Progressives for Obama.”
The Democrats in Congress at that time were working with what became known as the “Hanoi Lobby,” a collection of communist and socialist groups that played a key role in America’s defeat. The remnants of the Hanoi Lobby are active today in such areas as backing Obama’s normalization of relations with and recognition of communist Cuba.
Then, like now, their plan is to work on behalf of enemies of the United States. Although they usually call themselves “anti-war” peace activists, they don’t seem to be concerned about wars started by anti-American regimes and movements which undermine U.S. interests. The Sanders candidacy will help smoke them out.
Ironically, Sanders is opposing Obama’s Asia trade agreement, largely because Big Labor is against it, while top Republicans in the House and Senate are trying to round up enough votes to approve fast track trade promotion authority for Obama and then pass the agreement itself. These are the same Republicans who have been complaining that Obama has assumed too much executive authority.
It seems as if the Republicans never learn. Or else they don’t want to.
The Republican Party is becoming more and more detached from their conservative base. They seem to vote against anything the conservatives want and do all they can to enable our Marxist president. As Andrew McCarthy put it, “Voting to confirm an attorney general who won’t uphold the Constitution isn’t a way to inspire confidence among conservatives.”
Last Thursday, Karl Rove couldn’t wait to announce that, “The dysfunctional Congress finally appears to be working again as the Founders intended.” Really? Because this isn’t the way I perceive the Founders having intended it at all. They would have impeached and removed a sitting president who acted like a monarch. Then to validate Rove’s proclamation, the GOP-controlled Senate confirmed as attorney general Loretta Lynch who blatantly supports the systematic non-enforcement of federal law. Ms. Lynch also supports President Obama’s boldly unconstitutional usurpations of legislative authority, including Congress’ power to set the terms of lawful presence by aliens in our country. Ted Cruz SLAMMED the Republican majority in the Senate for allowing the Lynch nomination:
On the Senate floor a few moments ago, Ted Cruz SLAMMED the new Senate Republican majority for refusing to block Loretta Lynch’s nomination to attorney general. He said that the Republican majority could continue to block the nomination if they wanted to and it’s something he’s urged them to do because of her admissions to run the DOJ in a lawless fashion just like Eric Holder.
He pointed out that more than a few voters are asking what is the difference between a Republican and Democratic Senate majority when someone promising the exact same lawlessness as Holder will be allowed to get confirmed. He says that’s something each Republican will have to explain to their constituents.
He also adds that not a single Republican can vote for such a nomination and be consistent with their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.
Unfortunately, Loretta Lynch was just confirmed. Sigh.
Q: Will you defend Obama’s illegal Executive Amnesty? A: Lynch thinks the Administration’s contrived legal justification is reasonable. She sees nothing wrong with the President’s decision to unilaterally grant lawful status and work authorizations that are explicitly barred by federal law to nearly 5 million people who are here illegally.
Q: Who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful immigrant who’s here as a citizen – or a person who entered the country unlawfully? A: Lynch believes that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, she would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.
Q: Concerning the limits of prosecutorial discretion… the dubious theory that President Obama has put forward to justify his illegal Executive Amnesty; where do you stand? A: Lynch would give no limits to that theory.
Q: Can a subsequent President use prosecutorial discretion to order the Treasury Secretary not to enforce the tax laws and to collect no more income taxes in excess of 25%? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Can a subsequent President use prosecutorial discretion to exempt the state of Texas, all 27 million people, from every single federal labor and environmental law? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Do you agree with the Holder Justice Department that the government could place a GPS sensor on the car of every single American without probable cause? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Do you agree with the Holder Justice Department that the First Amendment gives no religious liberty protection whatsoever to a church’s or a synagogue’s choice of their own pastor or rabbi? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Do you believe the federal government can employ a drone to kill a US citizen on American soil if that citizen does not pose an imminent threat? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Would you be willing to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the IRS’ targeting of citizens and citizen groups for their political views? An investigator that was at a minimum, not a major Obama donor? A: She refused to answer.
Our ‘functional Congress’ confirmed Loretta Lynch as our new attorney general, replacing Eric Holder, possibly the most lawless, racist and fascist AG this nation has ever seen. Lynch testified brazenly that she endorses and intends to facilitate the president’s lawlessness and constitutional violations. Having heard her testimony during the confirmation hearings, 10 Republican senators decided to vote for Lynch. Remember, the position of attorney general exists to ensure that the laws are enforced and the Constitution is preserved; and… each senator has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. This should have been a no-brainer. Yet, Republicans sided with the Marxist Leftists and Lynch was confirmed. The ten Republicans who voted for confirmation were: Kelly Ayotte, Ron Johnson, Mark Kirk, Rob Portman, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell. The Senate voted 56–43 in favor of Lynch.
Mitch McConnell bald-facedly lied in October. While he was wooing conservatives for the upcoming midterm election, he stated that any nominee that was going to replace Eric Holder as “the nation’s highest law-enforcement official” must, “as a condition of his or her confirmation,” avoid “at all costs” Holder’s penchant for putting “political and ideological commitments ahead of the rule of law” — including as it “relates to the president’s acting unilaterally on immigration or anything else.” He fibbed big time and betrayed conservatives nationwide. It was his wheeling and dealing that led to the deal that was struck with Harry Reid and that cinched Lynch’s confirmation.
Here’s Mitch McConnell’s deal: If Democrats agree to stop blocking a human trafficking bill over some boilerplate language regarding abortion funding — a position that made them look unreasonable — Republicans, with all the leverage imaginable, will help confirm another attorney general nominee who will rubber stamp the president’s many overreaches. So, you see in the end, the Republicans voted for the continuation of the abuse of Executive power. It’s really just that simple. The reasons given for supporting Lynch included that she was a black woman and the best so far to come out the Obama White House – those are two breathtakingly horrible reasons for Lynch to be confirmed. It’s absolutely shameful politicking.
If you didn’t think Mitch McConnell was a lying, conniving Progressive before… you should now. Once the November election was won and behind him, McConnell went to work behind the scenes to whip up support for Loretta Lynch. He wielded his power from the shadows and strong-armed others into supporting her. By voting for her confirmation, he summarily flipped off any conservative who had been foolish enough to believe his campaign rhetoric. Suckers.
That doesn’t begin to quantify the perfidy, though. In order to get Lynch to the finish line, McConnell first had to break conservative opposition to allowing a final vote for her nomination. The majority leader thus twisted enough arms that 20 Republicans voted to end debate. This guaranteed that Lynch would not only get a final vote but would, in the end, prevail — Senators Hatch, Graham, Flake, Collins, and Kirk having already announced their intention to join all 46 Democrats in getting Lynch to the magic confirmation number of 51.
So, in addition to the aforementioned ten Republicans who said “aye” on the final vote to make Lynch attorney general, there are ten others who conspired in the GOP’s now routine parliamentary deception: Vote in favor of ending debate, knowing that this will give Democrats ultimate victory, but cast a meaningless vote against the Democrats in the final tally in order to pose as staunch Obama opponents when schmoozing the saps back home. These ten — John Thune (S.D.), John Cornyn (Texas), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Cory Gardner (Col.), Mike Rounds (S.D.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.) — are just as willfully complicit in Lynch’s confirmation and her imminent execution of Obama’s lawlessness.
This is not a Senate back to regular order. It is a disgrace, one that leads to the farce’s final act: On Monday, Loretta Lynch will ceremoniously take the oath to uphold the Constitution she has already told us she will undermine.
This is not about immigration, amnesty, health care, and the full spectrum of tough issues on which reasonable minds can differ. It is about the collapse of fundamental assumptions on which the rule of law rests. When solemn oaths are empty words, when missions such as “law enforcement” become self-parody, public contempt for Washington intensifies — in particular, on the political right, which wants to preserve the good society and constitutional order the rule of law sustains.
Mitch McConnell and the other Progressive RINOs are responsible for destroying mainstream America’s faith in their government and the rule of law. Our contempt and disgust for those in DC is now complete. The last time out for a presidential election, millions of Republicans were so disillusioned that they stayed home rather than voting. Obama won a second term that way. It appears that the Republican Party is intent on losing the next presidential race as well… they obviously don’t give a flying crap about their base. Ask yourself this… would McConnell be doing anything differently if he were Obama’s insider in the Senate?
“I voted against her because even though I walked into her confirmation process with an open mind, hoping and even expecting to like her, I couldn’t vote for her because she refused to answer any of my questions about prosecutorial discretion and its limits,” Sen. Mike Lee, whose grilling gave Lynch the most trouble, told The Federalist. “Even as I made the questions more and more obvious, and gave her hypotheticals which I thought made the question clearer, she refused to answer. It’s not because she doesn’t have the capacity, it’s because she had concluded that she wanted to share as little information as possible and, apparently, she responded well to coaching. I found that troubling.”
Lee had offered a hypothetical scenario wherein a governor wanted to raise the speed limit from 55 miles per-hour to 75 but could not convince the legislature. Could that governor decide to unilaterally instruct his highway patrol to not enforce the speed limit? Could he issue permits to drivers who wanted to exceed the limits established by statute? “I thought that was a pretty reasonable hypothetical,” Lee explained. She refused [to] discuss the scenario.
Much of the GOP’s opposition to Lynch was due to her support for Obama’s executive action on immigration. During her confirmation hearing, Lynch said she believes Obama’s plan was consistent with the Constitution, drawing outrage from Republicans who have said it’s an end-run around Congress.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the most vocal Republican against Obama’s plan, said the Senate shouldn’t confirm Lynch to be the nation’s top law enforcement officer given her support for what he has called an illegal move by Obama.
“The Senate must never confirm an individual to such an office as this who will support and advance a scheme that violates our Constitution and eviscerates established law and congressional authority,” he said Thursday. “No person who would do that should be confirmed. And we don’t need to be apologetic about it, colleagues.”
Obstructionist and evasive doesn’t quite do Loretta Lynch justice here. In my opinion, she is an anti-Constitutionalist and certainly a Liberal Progressive. I am convinced that Lynch is not only a racist, she will be just as bad or worse than Eric Holder and you can thank, in large part, Mitch McConnell and the Progressive Republicans for it. She also has a very special enthusiasm for civil asset forfeiture that she will up the stakes on across the nation. The fact that she is black and a woman should have nothing to do with her confirmation – her adherence and stances on the law and the Constitution should be all that counts. We are definitely at a Constitutional tipping point and Loretta “I Refuse To Answer” Lynch may very well be the Progressive straw that broke the Republic’s back.
Only six of 54 Republican members of the Senate signed a pro-traditional marriage legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that was submitted on Friday. USA Today noted, “By contrast, 44 Democratic senators and 167 Democratic House members filed a brief last month urging the court to approve same-sex marriage. The brief included the full House and Senate [Democratic] leadership teams.”
These developments strongly suggest that while the homosexual movement remains solidly in control of the Democratic Party, the tactics of harassment and intimidation that we saw wielded against the religious freedom bill in Indiana last week are taking their toll on the Republican Party as a whole.
In the Indiana case, a conservative Republican governor, Mike Pence, abandoned the fight for religious freedom in the face of homosexual and corporate pressure.
It appears that more and more elite or establishment Republicans are simply deciding to give up on the fight for traditional values and marriage.
While this may seem politically expedient, this dramatic move to the left by the GOP could result in millions of pro-family conservatives deciding to abandon the Republican Party in 2016, a critical election year.
USA Today also noted that “…while some members of the 2012 Republican National Convention platform committee filed a brief against gay marriage Friday, it notably did not include GOP Chairman Reince Priebus.”
The Republican senators signing the brief included:
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas
Senator Steve Daines of Montana
Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma
Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina
Fifty-one members of the House of Representatives signed the brief. But House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) name was not on it.
Taking the lead for traditional marriage in the House was Representative Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), who not only signed the pro-marriage brief but has also introduced House Joint Resolution 32, the Marriage Protection Amendment, to amend the United States Constitution to protect marriage, family and children by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The resolution has 33 co-sponsors and has been referred for action to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Huelskamp is the only Member of Congress who has authored one of the 30 state constitutional amendments that prohibits homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage. In 2005, when he was a state senator, 71 percent of Kansans voted for the state constitutional amendment that he authored.
In reintroducing the federal marriage amendment, Huelskamp said, “In June 2013 the Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, but upheld the right and responsibility of states to define marriage. Since then, though, numerous unelected lower court judges have construed the U.S. Constitution as suddenly demanding recognition of same sex ‘marriages,’ and they struck down state Marriage Amendments—including the Kansas Marriage Amendment—approved by tens of millions of voters and their elected representatives.”
However, on April 28 the U.S. Supreme Court will review the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which upholds marriage laws in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. A ruling is expected in June.
USA Today noted that scores of prominent Republicans last month joined a brief on the homosexual side filed by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, a former lieutenant to Karl Rove who came out of the closet and announced in August of 2010 that he was a homosexual. He has since launched a “Project Right Side” to make the “conservative” case for gay marriage.
Big money Republican donors such as Paul Singer, David Koch, and Peter Thiel have either endorsed homosexual rights and same-sex marriage or funded the homosexual movement. Thiel is an open homosexual.
A libertarian group funded by the Koch brothers, the Cato Institute has been in the gay rights camp for many years and its chairman, Robert A. Levy, wrote a “moral and constitutional case for a right to gay marriage.”
Other signatories to the Mehlman brief included Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois, and former presidential candidates Rudolph Giuliani and Jon Huntsman.
The signers of this brief at the Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage were described as “300 veteran Republican lawmakers, operatives and consultants.” Some two dozen or so had worked for Mitt Romney for president.
One of the signatories, Mason Fink, who was the finance director of the Mitt Romney for president campaign, has signed on with a super PAC promoting former Florida Republican governor Jeb Bush for president. In another move signaling his alignment with the homosexual movement, Bush has reportedly picked Tim Miller, “one of the most prominent gay Republicans in Washington politics,” as his communications director.
A far-left media outlet known as Buzzfeed has described Bush as “2016’s Gay-Friendly Republican,” and says he has “stocked his inner circle with advisers who are vocal proponents of gay rights.”
But some conservative Christians are fighting back against the homosexual movement.
A brief to the court filed by Liberty Counsel notes that, in the past, the Supreme Court has upheld marriage as “a foundational social institution that is necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman.” It cites the case of Skinner v. Oklahoma, in which marriage was declared to be “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race,” and Maynard v. Hill, in which marriage was declared “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Liberty Counsel said the court is being asked to affirm a false notion of marriage based upon fraudulent data about homosexual activity in society. It said, “For the past 67 years, scholars, lawyers and judges have undertaken fundamental societal transformation by embracing Alfred Kinsey’s statistically and scientifically fraudulent ‘data’ derived from serial child rapists, sex offenders, prisoners, prostitutes, pedophiles and pederasts. Now these same change agents, still covering up the fraudulent nature of the Kinsey ‘data,’ want this Court to utilize it to demolish the cornerstone of society, natural marriage.”
The homosexual movement has long maintained that Kinsey validated changes in sexual behavior that were already taking place in society. In fact, however, the evidence uncovered by Dr. Judith Reisman shows that Kinsey deliberately exaggerated those changes in a fraudulent manner by using data from pedophiles and prisoners.
Commenting on the impact of the acceptance of the fraudulent Kinsey data, Accuracy in Media founder Reed Irvine noted, “Gradually over the years, acceptance of the Kinsey morality has grown to the point where premarital and extramarital sex raise no eyebrows, where, in some communities, out-of-wedlock births are in the majority, homosexuality is glorified and aggressively promoted in our schools and the last taboo—adults having sex with young children—is now under attack in some of our institutions of higher learning.”
The Mattachine Society, a gay rights organization started by communist Harry Hay in 1950, cited the flawed Kinsey data in an effort to convince the public that homosexual behavior was widespread in American society.
The book, Take Back! The Gay Person’s Guide to Media Action, said the Kinsey Report on male sexuality “paved the way for the first truly positive discussion of homosexuality in the mainstream media.”
Today, this same Kinsey data is being used to convince the Supreme Court to approve homosexual “marriage” as a constitutional right.
Glenn Beck speaks on his television program March 26, 2015. (Photo: TheBlaze TV)
It’s all about money and political correctness. Money has bought tolerance. It has bought admittance onto some of the most prestigious corporate boards out there. It has bought control over conservative conclaves and it controls the GOP. A famous literary Nobel laureate by the name of Thomas Mann who escaped Germany in 1928 and became an American, wrote in one of his books, tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil. That’s where we are today as a nation and that especially applies to conservatives. Conservatives have welcomed with open arms a known agent of influence — an obvious enemy from within — Grover Norquist. He brings money and power to the table and he wields a massive amount of power within the GOP. He is our modern day Alger Hiss. This infiltrator is being funded by the likes of Karl Rove, who gave him $26 million in 2012 alone, via American Crossroads, donated to American Tax Reform. Norquist also receives a great deal of money from the Koch brothers. Does anyone honestly believe these power brokers don’t know what they are buying? Who they are putting in control?
Grover Norquist has made his bones on the portrayal that he is a small government guy and a warrior against taxation. That sounds great – sounds very, very conservative… until you see what else he is up to. Until you dig just a bit. He is a big time conservative operative that has been around forever and knows everyone. If he doesn’t like someone or approve of his actions, that person becomes persona non grata in the GOP. This is a man who sits on the boards of CPAC and the NRA. He’s also allegedly behind increasing exclusion of conservatives — counterterrorist experts and other vocal bloggers — who are also against radical Islam, from CPAC in recent years. More and more are being turned away from CPAC, not being allowed in. I’m one of them. At the 2011 CPAC conference, Norquist told the Soros-funded organization Think Progress that Islam “is completely consistent with the US Constitution and a free and open society.” In early November 2011, Hoover Institution fellow Paul Sperry described Norquist as someone who “dress[es] up [Muslim] Brotherhood agents who underwrite him as patriotic conservatives in order to give them political cover and gain the trust of the GOP establishment. Then with the backing of duped party leaders secured, he promotes these neo-Islamists to positions of power inside government.” Remind me again the difference between this and what Obama is doing with the Muslim Brotherhood.
In addition to his work with ATR, ACU, and the Islamic Institute, Norquist serves on the boards of numerous organizations, including GOProud, the Hispanic Leadership Fund, the Indian-American Republican Caucus, the Nixon Center and ParentalRights.org.
Agents of Influence from Glenn Beck:
Glenn Beck should be commended for taking on Grover Norquist. He should have been outed years and years ago. Beck devoted two shows to Norquist this week. The first laid out his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. In the second show, he had Grover on to defend himself. The weasel did a very bad job of defending his record. His demeanor and posturing screamed that he was lying. He only went on Beck’s show after he petulantly emailed Beck that he was backing out and then reversed himself because he realized how bad it made him look.
Here’s the full interview between Glenn Beck and Grover Norquist. It is one of the most painful exchanges I have ever seen. Watch and cringe:
A little background on Norquist. He was born in 1956 and grew up in Massachusetts. His father was a vice president of Polaroid Corporation. He first became involved in politics when he volunteered for Nixon’s 1968 campaign. Norquist went to Harvard where he earned his BA and MBA. He describes himself as a “boring white bread Methodist.” In 2004, he married a Palestinian Muslim named Samah Alrayyes, a Kuwaiti PR specialist who was formerly a director of the Islamic Free Market Institute and specialist at the Bureau of Legislative and Public Affairs at United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The couple has adopted two children, both girls, one of whom was adopted from the city of Bethlehem. According to friend and former roommate John Fund, Norquist’s devotion to his political causes is “monk-like” and comparable to that of Ralph Nader. Monk-like … sounds so much better than obsessive.
Norquist is the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, an organization that opposes all tax increases and a co-founder of the Islamic Free Market Institute. A (so-called) libertarian-leaning Republican, he is the primary promoter of the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” a pledge signed by lawmakers who agree to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, as well as net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate. Prior to the November 2012 election, the pledge was signed by 95% of all Republican members of Congress and all but one of the candidates running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Monk-like. Conservative. “Libertarian.” Free market. The man is obnoxiously “right wing” buzz word compliant.
Norquist has close professional and personal ties to Islamic political activism. He co-founded the Islamic Free Market Institute together with Khaled Saffuri and Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi. Norquist’s wife is a Muslim, born in Kuwait to Palestinian Arab parents. His sister Lorraine is married to Majed Tomeh, founder of the Islamic Institute. In 2010, Norquist emerged as an outspoken Republican foe of politicizing the mosque-in-Manhattan issue, calling it a “distraction.” He was a big supporter of the Ground Zero Mosque. Right-wing-buzz-word-compliant … with just a dash of Islam.
Although Norquist claims to be Tea Party, saying it should serve as the exoskeleton for the GOP, he is for massive illegal immigration. He is definitely not Tea Party regardless of his claims. “Immigration” — illegally — has another descriptor: hostile colonization. Increasingly, our right-wing-buzz-word-compliant hero is shaping up to be arsenic labeled as sugar.
“It’s the most important thing to focus on if you’re concerned about the future of the country both as an economic power and as a serious leader of the world, or simply as a successful society. It’s not only good policy to have more immigrants in the United States — dramatically more immigrants than we do today, to having a path forward for those people who are here. It’s not only a good idea, but it’s good politics.”
He is intimately aligned with the national Chamber of Commerce which should tell you all you need to know. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. This is a politician who says one thing, espousing what conservatives want to hear on smaller government and lower taxation, while on the other hand, he does the opposite. He is for reduced defense spending, he minimizes fighting terrorism everywhere he goes… and he is aligned with and aiding those who are terrorists and support terrorism. Okay, so maybe more than a “dash” of Islam. The man is an unmitigated danger to this country.
Beck likens Norquist to the Right’s version of George Soros without all the money. I would agree with that. He has that kind of power, influence and sway over the GOP. Grover is listened to within the GOP and feared as much as he is respected. Norquist, along with Karl Rove, was the co-architect of the Bush wins and he was the leader in Muslim outreach after 9/11.
An early 2001 White House memo, intended to coordinate Muslim and Arab-American public liaison events, showed that Norquist’s Islamic Institute played a vital role in establishing Islamist connections with the Bush administration. A leading Arab-American pollster, John Zogby, said that “absolutely, [Norquist is] central to the White House outreach.” Among the key players involved in Norquist’s outreach efforts were:
CAIR executive director Nihad Awad, who was among those first introduced by Norquist and Saffuri to Bush during the presidential campaign, and whose access to the White House continued after 9/11;
American Muslim Alliance founder/president Agha Saeed, who was invited to participate in the Bush campaign’s Muslim outreach meeting engineered by Norquist and Saffuri in 2000, and who was given post-9/11 access to the White House;
American for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Md., Thursday, Feb. 26, 2015. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi
One of Norquist’s connections is Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi. Al-Amoudi was held up as a moderate Muslim. He founded the Islamic Society of Boston Mosque in 1981. That is the mosque that the Tsarnaev brothers emerged from as radical Islamists and then went on to commit the Boston Marathon bombing.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he campaigned on behalf of Mohammed Salameh, who was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. In 1994, al-Amoudi also denied that Hamas was a terrorist organization. He vocally declared support for Hamas leader, Marzouk, saying: “I have known Musa Abu Marzuk before, and I really consider him to be from among the best people in the Islamic movement.” Federal authorities caught him expressing frustration that no Americans died in 1998 in the US Embassy bombing in Kenya. He recommended more operations be conducted there. It doesn’t end there… in 2000, al-Moudi stood across from the White House and pronounced vehemently his support for the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah.
Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute accepted at least $20,000 from Abdurahman al-Amoudi, who allegedly raised money for al Qaeda and is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence on terrorism charges.
In September 2003, British customs officials arrested Alamoudi at Heathrow Airport as he was returning from Libya with $340,000 in cash given to him by President Muammar Qadhafi to finance a plot involving two U.K.-based al Qaeda operatives intending to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince (later King) Abdullah.
Alamoudi was subsequently extradited to the United States. In October 2003, he was arrested at Dulles Airport on charges of having illegally accepted $10,700 from the Libyan mission to the United Nations.
With Alamoudi in custody, federal authorities released a transcript of a telephone conversation in which he had: lamented that no Americans had died during al Qaeda’s 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya; recommended that more operations be conducted like the 1994 Hezbollah bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires, in which 85 people died; and clearly articulated his objective of turning America into a Muslim nation.
Alamoudi was indicted not only for his illegal dealings with Libya, but also for tax evasion and immigration fraud. He ultimately plead guilty to, and was convicted of, being a senior al Qaeda financier who had funneled at least $1 million into the coffers of that terrorist organization. He also acknowledged that he had pocketed almost $1 million for himself in the process. In October 2004, Alamoudi was sentenced to 23 years in federal prison.
Al-Amoudi’s right hand man was Khaled Saffuri. Saffuri was a deputy at the American Muslim Council, one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s front organizations. He was founder of the Islamic Institute. Saffuri was very influential in the Bush administration as well. He led talks with the administration in opposition of Operation Green Quest. Karl Rove tapped him for Muslim outreach. He voiced displeasure after the decision to shut down the Holy Land Foundation for funding Hamas and was distraught that they were deemed a terrorist front group. Norquist is also connected to Saffuri.
Alamoudi’s longtime deputy, Khaled Saffuri, became the founding director of Norquist’s new Islamic Institute, whose associates would periodically make presentations at the Wednesday Group Meetings on such topics as: the plight of Palestinians under Israeli occupation; the allegedly misunderstood Islamist government of Sudan; the innocent nature of the process whereby Muslim chaplains were being selected for the U.S. armed forces; and the honored status of women in the Muslim world.
In 2000, as a result of Norquist’s influence, Khaled Saffuri was named the National Advisor on Arab and Muslim Affairs for the Bush presidential campaign. Holding out the promise of votes and donations in key battleground states with significant Muslim populations (especially Michigan, Florida, and New Jersey), Norquist and Saffuri were able to persuade the Bush campaign’s chief strategist, Karl Rove, to entrust them with the task of identifying the groups and individuals upon whom Bush should rely to elicit such support. In the summer of 2000, moreover, Norquist persuaded Bush to sit down with leaders of the Muslim American Political Coordinating Committee, a confederation of community groups that included, among others, Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Sami al-Arian is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and was a professor at USF. He was caught soliciting donations for a Palestinian terrorist to kill an Israeli Jew. He also paid homage to ‘the march of the martyrs and to the river of blood that gushes forth and does not extinguish.’ Al-Arian also said, ‘Let us damn America to death.’ He is another nefarious connection to Norquist. Al-Arian plead guilty to supporting a terrorist organization and was recently deported by the Obama administration. Sami al-Arian was sentenced to 57 months in prison on one count of conspiracy to “make or receive funds … for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”
Norquist, reported Wolf, “also associated with terror financier Sami Al-Arian, according to Mary Jacoby’s reporting in March 2003, in the St. Petersburg Times. Al-Arian pled guilty in 2006 ‘to a charge of conspiring to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a specially designated terrorist organization, in violation of U.S. law,’ and is under house arrest, according to a Department of Justice press release. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s ‘paramilitary wing—the al-Quds Brigades—has conducted numerous attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings,’ according to the National Counterterrorism Center.”
Another connection to Norquist is through Suhail Khan. He is the whitewashed Islamic version of Van Jones when it comes to nefarious characters and the Muslim Brotherhood. He looks good and sounds good. Along with the others, he campaigned against the DOJ’s secret evidence agenda. But his parents tell a different story altogether. They were prominent leaders in Muslim Brotherhood front groups. The annual ISNA award is given each year in his father’s name. The mosque funded by Khan’s father, hosted the Blind Sheikh shortly before he bombed the World Trade Center. He has a network of terror friendly organizations and he made it possible for Osama bin Laden’s number two, Al-Zawahiri, to actually covertly visit the United States undetected in 1995. He played a key role in founding CAIR. He was also praised by al-Amoudi at an award ceremony.
Norquist is also aligned with Jamal al-Barzinji who is the founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. He played a crucial role in creating and organizing the web of Brotherhood front groups that followed: ISNA, the Muslim American Society and IIIT. Al-Barzinji founded a radical mosque in Virginia. He’s known for his ties to Islamic terrorists from Hamas to al Qaeda. He’s also an officer of the SAAR Foundation, which is suspected of funding terrorist groups.
So … way more than a “dash” of Islam. Ever had one of those awful moments when you go to season a soup or stew with your favorite seasoned salt … and the cap comes off, dumping the whole container into the pot? That’s the kind of “dash” of Islam we’re talking about here. It gets worse: as you contemplate how much you will have to dilute the soup, you happen to check the ingredients of your “seasoned salt” and discover it’s rat poison. And you have considerably more than a “dash” in your dish.
All of this, in my view, points to Grover Norquist having a strong connection to the Muslim Brotherhood and an affinity for radical Islamists and terrorists. Norquist claims that Frank Gaffney has been spreading conspiracy theories about him for 15 years. Well, maybe it’s time America listened to those theories – carefully. If the GOP is controlled by the likes of Karl Rove and Grover Norquist, the party needs an enema and in fact, may be beyond saving. The Muslim Brotherhood has long sought and stated that it wanted to infiltrate our government. They infiltrated the Democrats easily. Now it looks like they infiltrated the Republicans almost as easily and no one dares say a thing. The GOP has to clean house and Grover Norquist – an infiltrator and an enemy from within on the Right – is an excellent place to start.
Donate to NoisyRoom.net
Support American Values...