RSS Feed
October 22nd, 2013 
David Schulberg It was once said that Politics and War make for strange bedfellows. When it comes to the Republican Party establishment, one such example is Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). Norquist’s prominence today very much includes a ride on Ronald Reagan’s coattails. The 40th President’s name is invoked in the very first sentence of Grover’s bio on ATR’s website.
Grover Norquist: Wants Cruz to be quiet.
Like Senator John McCain (RINO-AZ), when it comes to the fight waged by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) over Obamacare recently, Norquist would rather fight Cruz than the Democrats, despite the fact that Cruz has been fighting against what the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice said was a tax. In an interview with Nora Caplan-Bricker of the left-wing New Republic, Norquist mocked Cruz with analogies that put him on the side of the Republican establishment.
The establishment’s disgust for Cruz is not about disagreeing with his strategy; it’s about Cruz’s ability to unleash the power of the conservative base. It’s an engaged contingent of America that the establishment – including Norquist – fears. There are many reasons why the Republican establishment wants to defeat this group – many reasons. One such reason is what it doesn’t want to be exposed about itself.
That something very much includes Norquist.
While the New Republic’s Caplan-Bricker provided the ATR President a platform to attack Cruz in 2013, that publication’s Franklin Foer published an article entitled “Fevered Pitch” two months after 9/11 in 2001 that – in hindsight – demonstrates that Norquist was a major player in granting Muslim Brotherhood access to the Bush White House.
Franklin Foer: Time bomb article in 2001 implicates Norquist.
You see, Norquist was the man perhaps most responsible for the George W. Bush administration’s decision to engage the Muslim Brotherhood’s front groups in the U.S. instead of exposing them.
Foer wrote:
ON THE AFTERNOON of September 26, George W. Bush gathered 15 prominent Muslim- and Arab-Americans at the White House. With cameras rolling, the president proclaimed that “the teachings of Islam are teachings of peace and good.” It was a critically important moment, a statement to the world that America’s Muslim leaders unambiguously reject the terror committed in Islam’s name.
Unfortunately, many of the leaders present hadn’t unambiguously rejected it. To the president’s left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas “freedom fighters.” Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that “we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.” And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans, “America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come.” Days later, after a conservative activist confronted Karl Rove with dossiers about some of Bush’s new friends, Rove replied, according to the activist, “I wish I had known before the event took place.” {emphasis ours}
As mentioned previously, there are many reasons why the Republican establishment – arguably run by Rove today – wants Cruz defeated but all of this history becoming part of the American consciousness has definitely got to be one of them.
This Grover has nothing to hide.
When is the last time you heard anyone from the Republican establishment in general or the Bush administration in particular, warn about Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S.?
The politically strategic decision set in motion in the days after 9/11 perfectly exposed by Foer was lobbied for heavily by Norquist:
If the administration was caught unaware, it may be because they placed their trust in one of the right’s most influential activists: Grover Norquist. As president of Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist is best known for his tireless crusades against big government. But one of Norquist’s lesser-known projects over the last few years has been bringing American Muslims into the Republican Party. And, as he usually does, Norquist has succeeded. According to several sources, Norquist helped orchestrate various post-September 11 events that brought together Muslim leaders and administration officials. “He worked with Muslim leaders to engineer [Bush]’s prominent visit to the Mosque,” says the Arab-American pollster John Zogby, referring to the president’s September 17 trip to the Islamic Center of Washington. Says Zogby, who counts Norquist among his clients, “Absolutely, he’s central to the White House outreach.” {emphasis ours}
This is not to say that Cruz is an expert on issues relative to the Muslim Brotherhood and its goals in the U.S. When it comes to Congress, figures like Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) do. Cruz rarely, if ever, speaks about such things. However, the contingent of Americans that does understand it resides firmly within his base and would be a grave threat to said establishment if unleashed – the Tea Party Americans. The ones who are conservative through and through, the ones who are Pro-God, pro-life, pro-heterosexual marriage, pro-second amendment, pro-Legal immigration, and pro-Constitution are those who understand the Islamic threat to America best. If one of the reasons Norquist is fighting to protect the establishment is because he supports the Brotherhood, others – like Rove and the Bush family (Jeb) – could be fighting to prevent the destruction of the Bush administration’s legacy.
Senator Ted Cruz: Under Grover’s skin.
At Breitbart, Tony Lee draws attention to Norquist’s very curious reaction to Cruz’s rise within the Tea Party:
Norquist has single-handedly tried to obliterate Cruz in nearly every outlet that has given him a microphone… Before and especially after the government shutdown, Norquist attacked Cruz for throwing Republicans into traffic and wandering away. He has said Cruz has dragged Republicans across broken glass, dismissed Cruz’s “tactic,” condescendingly suggested Cruz was now wiser, said Cruz has “crashed and burned,” and even demanded that Cruz apologize not only to Republicans but to the constituents for whom Cruz was fighting and to whom he was listening.
When is the last time you saw a Republican establishment figure attack Democrats like that? It doesn’t happen. Norquist’s reaction to Cruz smacks of ‘thou doth protest too much’. If there is a characteristic most common in individuals who are outed for grievous wrongdoings, it’s smearing their accusers. Cruz hasn’t accused Norquist of inviting Muslim Brotherhood operatives into the halls of power in the days after 9/11 but Norquist knows that the odds of such a truth being revealed increase as Cruz gets more support.
In Lee’s next paragraph, he rightly identifies part of why Norquist so rejects Cruz:
Norquist’s fight against Cruz represents the broader struggle within the Republican party between an establishment desperately clinging to its past power and a growing grassroots-powered conservative movement that represents the future.
While that assessment is correct, it’s incomplete relative to Norquist. He doesn’t just see Cruz as someone who represents a threat to his power. Perhaps more concerning to Norquist is that Cruz also represents a movement that threatens to reveal Norquist’s great betrayal of his country. As the intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood groups in America become more well known, Norquist could make Benedict Arnold’s transgressions pale in comparison. Those who know this most, support Cruz; Norquist knows this too.
As the years have passed since Foer’s 2001 article, these concerns have long since migrated away from conjecture and have landed in the camp of undisputed territory.
Foer wrote of Norquist:
In the mid-1990s, he enlisted a partner, Khaled Saffuri, then working as a lobbyist and deputy director for the American Muslim Council (AMC).
The AMC was founded by none other than Abdurahman Alamoudi, who is serving a 23-year prison sentence on terrorism charges. Gohmert, mentioned above, is quite familiar with Alamoudi and earlier this year, asked FBI Director Robert Mueller if he was aware that Alamoudi founded the mosque in Boston attended by the Boston Marathon bombers. Shockingly, Mueller, on whose watch Alamoudi was prosecuted, feigned ignorance as quietly as he possibly could:
Again, while Cruz has not publicly demonstrated the knowledge that Gohmert has about these subjects, as Cruz’s power increases, so does Gohmert’s, which is unequivocally a factor in Norquist’s contempt for Cruz.
That’s not all; back to Foer’s 2001 article, which is an absolute time bomb for Norquist in an internet age:
One day after Bush’s inauguration, he (Norquist) and Saffuri arranged for Muslim leaders to meet Newt Gingrich and Congressman Tom Davis, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Soon Saffuri began regularly appearing at the White House, accompanying imams and heads of Islamic organizations to discuss the faith-based initiative and concerns about law enforcement persecution of Muslims. Suhail Khan, an administration adviser who helps plan Muslim outreach, once served on the Islamic Institute’s board. And at one of his regular Wednesday meetings, according to two witnesses, Norquist announced that he had lobbied to get Khan his White House post. {emphasis ours}
Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist at CPAC in 2011.
Those who point to the mention of Gingrich and say, “ah hah!” miss an important point. Last year, Gingrich was one of the few who stood with Bachmann and Gohmert after they expressed concerns about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the U.S. Government. Conversely, Mitt Romney, the establishment’s handpicked choice for the Republican nomination demurred on the campaign trail when asked about Abedin.
The real problem with the aforementioned excerpt is Foer’s revelations about Suhail Khan. If Norquist is responsible for getting Khan a position in the Bush White House, there is one thing that would keep treason off the table; the Muslim Brotherhood was not identified as an enemy of the United States. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. In fact, the odds of it attaining such status increase along with Cruz’s influence and power.
Khan is steeped in Muslim Brotherhood connections. His father – Mahboob Khan – helped found the Muslim Students Association (MSA) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) both prominent Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S. Khan’s mother has sat on the board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in California. In 2011, Khan actually had the audacity – while at CPAC – to deny the existence of Muslim Brotherhood groups in America:
One year later, also at CPAC, Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer and Atlas Shruggs’ Pamela Geller confronted Khan, who actually did what Norquist has been trying to do to Cruz. Instead of addressing the facts, he attempted to smear, simply resorting to calling them “liars”. In fact, when Spencer and Geller brought up Khan’s connection to Alamoudi, the Norquist colleague actually accused Geller of being connected to Saul Alinsky. The irony is that in so doing, Khan was attempting an Alinsky tactic:
Hillary Clinton’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood through her closest adviser – Huma Abedin – and the Bush administration’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood through Grover Norquist puts them all on the same side in one respect. The protection of hides and legacies.
As we’ve written before, George W. Bush’s closest adviser Karl Rove is implicated in all of this too (see Foer’s article). He’s a Fox News Contributor and essentially runs the Republican National Committee while heading perhaps the Party’s most influential PAC. Is this simply a quest for power or is it also a desire to suppress the truth and protect his boss’s legacy? Rove never mentions the threats of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. and if anyone should understand those threats, he should. In fact, like McCain, Rove supported siding with the Brotherhood in Syria.
Rove: Why would he side with Grover?
Jeb Bush, the guy wanted by the Republican establishment to get the Party’s nomination for President in 2016 has to be a bit more nuanced when going after Cruz but that doesn’t mean he won’t do it. In fact, Jeb has chosen to portray himself as being far more high-minded and rational than Cruz by saying the Tea Party favorite should “have a little bit of self-restraint”.
Jeb wants what Rove wants – a suppression of the truth about America’s enemies because we failed to identify them when we absolutely should have.
Jeb: Will fight to protect his brother’s legacy.
Those who scratch their heads when wondering why the Republican establishment (McCain is the poster child for this) attacks Cruz and defends the Democrats should consider something. It’s better for such figures to stand with Democrats who will keep their traitorous secrets safe than it is to support Republicans who will expose them.
Sure, it’s about power. More important, it’s about keeping what’s in the dark from coming into the light. If that were to happen, high treason would be ubiquitous. Any Republican establishment figure who attacks Ted Cruz while siding with the Democratic Party should be vetted thoroughly.
The desire to both hide and protect hides and legacies makes for strange bedfellows.
It’s also what makes the Republican establishment little more than a gaggle of backstabbers:
Source Article from http://shoebat.com/2013/10/22/norquist-protects-islamic-sympathies-attacking-cruz/
Views: 0
Posted in 
