Muslim Brotherhood at CPAC?

Has CPAC been ifiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood? That’s what Pam Geller said on Friday afternoon.What did Glenn think?

“This is from CPAC, and I want you to know that I am not taking on CPAC at this point.  I am going over the news and I am at the beginning of looking into this.  And I don't say this with a slam against CPAC by any stretch of the imagination,” Glenn said.

“Well, it's interesting because one of the panels, Pamela Geller, who's a conservative blogger, made some interesting charges against CPAC and what's going on there,” Pat explained.

“It's corrupted and it's been compromised by Muslim Brotherhood,” Geller said in the audio to applause. “2,000 people, this is where I do my event.  Every year I do an event because if you look at the agenda of CPAC, look at all of the panels and then look at your daily news, headlines, they're either clueless or complicit, okay?  And I believe it's the latter.”

“I find it very hard to believe that they are complicit, you know, but I haven't studied, I haven't studied this particular angle,” Glenn explained.

On the other hand, Suhail A. Khan, a former senior Bush political appointee, and board  director of the American Conservative Union, claimed there was no Musim Brotherhood in the United States.

“Which is absolutely a lie.  That is absolutely untrue.  Now, who is this guy?  This is a very important figure in the Bush administration.  This is a guy who comes with his credentials for the right.”

Glenn invited Zuhdi Jasser on to discuss these remarks and the revolution going on in Egypt.

“In case you don't know Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, he is a practicing Muslim, and he is one, he is one Muslim that we were all searching for after 9/11, somebody who comes out and says jihad, blowing yourself up is an abomination, and he has been trying to rout out the evils in his own religion for a while.  He is a brave, brave man,” Glenn said.

“He is a patriotic American and a voice that I trust,” Glenn added.

Glenn asked Dr. Jasser if the Muslim Brotherhood was in the United States.

‘Absolutely.  I mean, if you look at any ‑‑ anybody that looks at any of the work being done, whether it was the Holy Land Foundation that showed a whole nexus, our documentary, the Third Jihad [which] talked about the documents that were demonstrated from 1991 that showed a whole Nexus of operating organizations that were founded by members that came out of the brotherhood, out of Egypt and out of the Middle East,” Dr. Jasser said.

“The brotherhood is much more than the brotherhood.  It's the ideology of political Islam.  It's a mixture of mosques and states.  It's the desire to establish Islamic statism and put Sharia law into government,” Dr. Jasser said.

“[Khan] just wants us to accept it on face value that he's a conservative and he's all about Western ideals when, in fact, talked about American ideals, talk about Egypt, talk about other things.  He never identifies the brotherhood as a threat and that to me is a problem for somebody who's an avowed conservative.”

“I do want to caution my conservative colleagues that we have to be careful not to say that, well, good Muslims are nonviolent; bad Muslims are violent and that these guys become extremists.  There's a continuum there.  Even the most radicals like Imam Elahi or Nidal Hasan there is continuum these guys slid down over ten years.”

“That continuum begins with sort of this nonviolent motherhood and apple pie, we want an Islamic state based on separation of powers, we love America, you know, et cetera but their vision of America includes sort of a crescent on the flag, it includes this universalism of Islam, not a universalism of individual rights and reason that our country was based on.  So we have to be careful to be able to nuance the continuum that these individuals slide down.

“And that's what I hope when we have radicalization hearings that Peter King is doing, we start to look at that continuum because we can't as a nation do counterradicalization as sort of a binary black and white.  We have to recognize that there is a long continuum that includes the beginning of a political ideology of Islamism that slides some of them down to violence and others down to this insidious ideology that is a threat, the same type of threat,” Zuhdi explained.

Full rush transcript below:

In case you don't know Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, he is a practicing Muslim, and he is one, he is one Muslim that we were all searching for after 9/11, somebody who comes out and says jihad, blowing yourself up is an abomination, and he has been trying to rout out the evils in his own religion for a while.  He is a brave, brave man.  There are other voices that say these things.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes to mind, but she is not Muslim.  Zuhdi is.  And he is a patriotic American and a voice that I trust.  And we wanted to get him on because there is a story that you will see the video on The Blaze and, Pat, if you'll help fill in some of the blanks here with Zuhdi where some of the members are saying that there's problems with one member on the board of directors of CPAC.  He is an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood.  In fact, he says there is no such thing as the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

Let me bring Zuhdi on with us now.  Hi, Zuhdi, how are you, sir?

JASSER:  Great, Glenn, it's good to be with you.

GLENN:  Good to be with you.  Are you familiar, what is his name, Pat?

PAT:  Sohail Khan?

GLENN:  Sohail Khan, you're familiar with him, right?

JASSER:  Yeah, I am, uh‑huh.

GLENN:  Let me play what happened this weekend at CPAC and they're having a panel with the board of directors on it.  And somebody stands up and they are talking about how could we possibly be excited about a revolution where the Muslim Brotherhood are involved; we can't stand with the Muslim Brotherhood.  And this is what happens.

(Audio playing).

VOICE:  What I have a problem with is they say, you know, jihad is their way, you know, martyrdom is their goal.  I mean, that is antithetic to everything ‑‑

VOICE:  I understand all of those things.

VOICE:  You got your answer.

VOICE:  You know what they said, too, Mr. Khan?  That we should be outreaching the Muslim Brotherhood.  There's no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States?

VOICE:  No.

GLENN:  Zuhdi, is the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States?

JASSER:  Absolutely.  I mean, if you look at any ‑‑ anybody that looks at any of the work being done, whether it was the Holy Land Foundation that showed a whole nexus, our documentary, the Third Jihad put out by the (inaudible) talked about the documents that were demonstrated from 1991 that showed a whole Nexus of operating organizations that were founded by members that came out of the brotherhood, out of Egypt and out of the Middle East.  And the bottom line is when you say brotherhood, I know many on the left say that, well, this is all conspiracy theory.  They are not card‑carrying members per se.

GLENN:  Yes.

JASSER:  But to me as an active Muslim we formed our organization, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, because the brotherhood is much more than the brotherhood.  It's the ideology of political Islam.  It's a mixture of mosques and states.  It's the desire to establish Islamic statism and put Sharia law into government.  And these Muslims that deny that, actually what they are doing is obfuscating their Muslim responsibility to reform our faith into (inaudible) and to separate mosque and state, they are obfuscating the direct connection between the separatist ideology of Islamism and Western society's values.  And I think this issue at CPAC is very important.  Not that we could definitely prove that sue hail had the card or the brotherhood but you can prove that here you have a so‑called conservative who as far as I'm concerned hasn't represented any of the ideas of true conservatism.  Not only fiscally but when it comes to our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, he has not stood against Islamist groups that have basically been all about big governments, all about theocracy.  He has not made any statement that the brotherhood is a threat to society, a threat to the West and to me this is not something that is consistent with CPAC values.

GLENN:  Okay.  So give me the guy's resume.  I mean, Zuhdi, I had heard that you disagreed with David Horowitz.  David Horowitz is strong on this and says this guy's a danger.  I don't know if he goes as far as saying that he is a member, you know, card‑carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood.  I don't think he does.  He just says this man is ‑‑ was appointed by Bush and brought in, you know, the people like CAIR into the White House which they're, many believe are front organizations for this Islam extremism that makes political correctness, ratchets all the political correctness up so you can't look into any of the dangers that are clear and present.

JASSER:  You know, I agree with him in many ways in that what happens is ‑‑ and not that one Muslim can make that much of a danger to an organization like CPAC, but what happens is in today's society where Muslims are a minority, they look for a Muslim to sort of say, okay, we're not offending Muslims.  So here you have Sohail, comes in and brings in other Muslims.  So the White House or whoever seeks his advice in the State Department or whatever checks up have they talked to a Muslim and here you have him bringing in organizations that are not part of the solution but part of the problem.  CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America and others are basically front organizations.  Why?  Because their entire mantra is about victimology.  It's that, well, terrorism is the West's fault, it's basically because Muslims are attacked.  They use that so‑called narrative that if somehow American foreign policy would change or anti‑ Islam rhetoric would change that somehow terrorism would go away and they don't recognize that it is a problem within the house of Islam that needs reform.  So it is dangerous, I think, to have individuals that so‑called represent Muslims who, in fact, they're actually representing a statistic platform and that is of political Islam.  And it anesthetizes Americans and especially conservatives to our founding ideals of classical liberalism and our founding documents.  So yeah, I think ‑‑ and not to mention, I mean, sue hail hasn't rejected.  He denies his father's connections to the brotherhood which is fine.  I mean, we can't prove that.  And as they say, the sins of the father are not the son's.  But he hasn't rejected those ideologies.  He hasn't ‑‑ I mean, to me my work post 9/11 is rife with ideological descriptions of the problem of Sharia, the problem of Islamism.  He has none of that work.  He just wants us to accept it on face value that he's a conservative and he's all about Western ideals when, in fact, talked about American ideals, talk about Egypt, talk about other things.  He never identifies the brotherhood as a threat and that to me is a problem for somebody who's an avowed conservative.

PAT:  Yeah.  And not only was he a senior political appointee with the Bush administration, he was also a senior fellow for the Muslim Christian Understanding of the Institute For Global Engagement.

GLENN:  What is that, Zuhdi?

JASSER:  It's a think tank that does work on Christian Muslim cooperation around the world and looks at foreign policy.

GLENN:  Do you think it's ‑‑

JASSER:  And, you know, it has some conservatives within.  I even think it's considered a right of center think tank but, you know, this is the thing of political correctness is that many of us in America want to believe that Muslims here have gone through a modernization, that they are Jeffersonian Democrats ‑‑ or Muslim and they believe in the same ideals but yet we don't ask for any type of expounding from them on their ideology so that we know where they stand.  We don't ask them to take apart organizations like CAIR and show how they have facilitated political Islam.  I mean, look at CAIR's position on the referendum of Sharia in Oklahoma.  Look at CAIR's position on ‑‑ recently CAIR, for example, has been doing media spots on Iranian television about the Egyptian crisis.  They weren't on Iranian television last summer when those people were revolting in that country.  So he doesn't speak out against those actions that Muslim organizations are doing and thus he facilitates an anesthesia, if you will, over what Muslim groups are doing in the name of Islamism.

GLENN:  Zuhdi, let me ask you, because you are so outspoken.  And these bad guys exist and they are nasty, nasty organizations.  What is your safety like?  Because here you are, I mean, you are the king of infidels.  You are a practicing Muslim that they would say is perverting Islam and destroying Islam.  What is your ‑‑ I mean, are you safe?

JASSER:  You know, I mean, it's in God's hands and I've never been physically threatened.  I do get my share of hate mail like all of us do but, you know, at the end of the day, they all know that I'm doing this because I love my faith, I'm a conservative Muslim, orthodox, I believe in our scripture and in God and I want to raise my children to be good Muslims with a close relationship with God.  But, you know, to me Islam is about responsibility.  It's about personal repair.  And I think the revolt in Egypt showed for the first time Arabs and Muslims starting to take responsibility for their own condition.  You didn't see them blaming the West, blaming Israel, blaming all these conspiracy theories.  And this is my problem with these Islamist groups.  And people like Mr. Khan who claim to represent Muslim communities in America but yet have done nothing in their work in America to fix our own condition.  It's all about everybody else and blaming others and to me I think Muslims, as much as they may not like what I have to say, you know, when they start attacking the messenger rather than the message, you realize, as you do, Glenn, that they must not have the power of their idea.  And that's my concern with the CPAC issue is CPAC ‑‑ and the reason this is so important is our conservative unions and our groups that we form are based on ideas, based from our Founding Fathers.  And if we can't figure out what that platform is and have appropriate filters to know who is with our ideas and who isn't, then I think we need to reassess how clear those platforms are.

GLENN:  Real quick, Zuhdi, because I have to run.  But what should members of CPAC do?  If you're a member of CPAC and you say, I love CPAC and this guy is on the board of directors, because it's not clearcut.  I mean, he's not, you know, he's not wearing a black hat and he has a lot of people that are, you know, vouching for him that are very high up in the conservative movement.  What should people do?

JASSER:  Well, I think first of all membership in CPAC, you can't have filters.  I think that then it really becomes sort of a McCarthyism and that doesn't make any sense.  But board of directors?  I mean, you have to have established a credibility that you are on the side of liberalism, Westernism, secular liberal democracy, then against political Islam and you recognize that the biggest threat to security, global security in the 21st century is the affinity of the Islamic state.  So I think they need to reassess what type of Muslims and what type of board members they are looking for.

GLENN:  Are you ‑‑ will you confirm that it is political Islam, extremist Islam, if you will, that it is the way to go in undercover, infiltrate and destroy and decay from within?

JASSER:  Yes.  I mean, simply put, absolutely.  But I do want to caution my conservative colleagues that we have to be careful not to say that, well, good Muslims are nonviolent; bad Muslims are violent and that these guys become extremists.  There's a continuum there.  Even the most radicals like Imam Elahi or Nidal Hasan there is continuum these guys slid down over ten years.  That continuum begins with sort of this nonviolent motherhood and apple pie, we want an Islamic state based on separation of powers, we love America, you know, et cetera but their vision of America includes sort of a crescent on the flag, it includes this universalism of Islam, not a universalism of individual rights and reason that our country was based on.  So we have to be careful to be able to nuance the continuum that these individuals slide down.  And that's what I hope when we have radicalization hearings that Peter cane is doing, we start to look at that continuum because we can't as a nation do counterradicalization as sort of a binary black and white.  We have to recognize that there is a long continuum that includes the beginning of a political ideology of Islamism that slides some of them down to violence and others down to this insidious ideology that is a threat, the same type of threat.

GLENN:  Zuhdi Jasser, he's the president and founder of the American Islamic Forum For Democracy.  Go to his website, find out more information.  Aifdemocracy.org.  Zuhdi, I'm proud to be called your friend and I thank you for all the hard work that you've done and the risks that you take and keep it up, brother.

JASSER:  Thanks a lot, Glenn.  God bless.  Appreciate it.

Megyn Kelly is not happy about the "disgusting" media coverage of President Donald Trump, specifically pointing to Lesley Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview on CBS Sunday.

On the radio program, Megyn told Glenn Beck the media has become so blinded by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they've lost their own credibility — and now they can't get it back.

"It's disgusting. It's stomach-turning," Megyn said of the media's coverage of the president. "But it's just a continuation of what we've seen over the past couple of years. Their 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has blinded them to what they're doing to their own credibility. They can't get it back. It's too late. They've already sacrificed it. And now no one is listening to them other than the hard partisans for whom they craft their news."

Megyn also discussed how she would have covered the recent stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's alleged corruption. Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Imagine sometime next year, getting called before HUWAC – the House Un-Woke Activities Committee.

"Are you or have you ever been a member of the un-woke?"

Something like that is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Last week, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, now a UC Berkeley professor, tweeted this:

Since the 1970s, there have been dozens of "Truth Commissions" around the world like the kind Robert Reich wants in America. Most of these have been set up in Africa and Latin America. Usually it happens in countries after a civil war, or where there's been a regime change – a dictator is finally overthrown, and a commission is set up to address atrocities that happened under the dictator. Or, as in the commissions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, atrocities under communism. Or, in the most famous example, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission addressed the decades of apartheid that ravaged that nation.

These commissions usually conclude with an official final report. These commissions and reports have served as a means of governments trying to close a dark chapter of their country's history, or provide emotional catharsis, as a way to generally move on. Sometimes it kind of works for people, most of the time it leaves people clamoring for more justice.

Here's how one professor described truth commissions in an article in The Conversation last year. He wrote:

The goal of a truth commission… is to hold public hearings to establish the scale and impact of a past injustice, typically involving wide-scale human rights abuses, and make it part of the permanent, unassailable public record. Truth commissions also officially recognize victims and perpetrators in an effort to move beyond the painful past… Some have been used cynically as tools for governments to legitimize themselves by pretending they have dealt with painful history when they have only kicked the can down the road.

See, this is the problem with a lot of "Truth" commissions – they are inherently political. Even if you trust your government and give them all the benefit of the doubt in the world that their Truth commission is trying to do the right thing, it is ALWAYS going to be political. Because these truth commissions are never set up by those who have LOST power in government. They're always established by those who have WON power.

The Deputy Executive Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice says one of the main points in these Truth commissions is that "the victims become protagonists."

A Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility.

So, who are the victims in Robert Reich's America? People like him, members of the far-Left who had to endure the atrocities of four years of a president with different political ideas. What an injustice. I mean, the left's suffering during the Trump administration is almost on the level of apartheid or genocide – so we totally need a Truth commission.

There have been lots of calls for the U.S. to have its own Truth and Reconciliation commission, especially around racial injustice.

This past June, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California introduced legislation to establish the " United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation."

Ibram X. Kendi – the high priest of anti-racism, and author of Target's current favorite book " Antiracist Baby" – proposes a Constitutional anti-racism amendment. This amendment would:

establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

If you think that is far-fetched, you haven't been paying attention to the Left's growing radicalism. In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, a Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility. And of course, such a DOA would never stop at policing government.

We're in a dangerous, precarious moment in our history. Given the events of 2020, should Democrats gain the White House, the Senate, and the House, how many commissions will be in our future? They will suddenly have plenty of political capital to drag the nation through years of commission hearings.

And the Left's form of justice is never satisfied. You think it will stop at a T&R commission on race? MSNBC's Chris Hayes tweeted this month about the need for a commission to deal with Americans who are skeptical about wearing masks:

Or what about a Truth commission on religion? I mean, look at those reckless churches spreading Covid this year. Or this would be a big one – a T&R commission on climate change deniers.

The Left is highly selective when it comes to truth. That's why they are the very last group you want in charge of anything with "Truth and Reconciliation" in the title.

This is one of the most incredibly frustrating things about the Left in America today. The Left insists there is no such thing as absolute truth, while simultaneously insisting there are certain approved truths that are undeniable.

So, you can't question "Science" – even though that's pretty much what every great scientist in history did.

You can't question racism as the explanation for all of existence – because, well, just because.

You can't question third-party "Fact-checkers" – because the powers that be, mainly Big Tech right now, have decided they are the Truth referees and you have to trust what they say because they're using certified external fact-checkers. They just forgot to tell you that they actually fund these third-party fact-checkers. It's like if McDonald's told you to trust third-party health inspectors that they were paying for.

The Left thinks it has a monopoly on Truth. They're the enlightened ones, because they've had the correct instruction, they're privy to the actual facts. It's psychotic arrogance. If you don't buy what they're selling, even if you're just skeptical of it, it's because you either don't have the facts, you willingly deny the facts, or you're simply incapable of grasping the truth because you're blinded by your raging racism problem. It's most likely the racism problem.

The Left never learns from its own preaching. For the past 60-plus years they've decried the House Un-American Activities Committee for trying to root out communists, getting people canceled, ruining Hollywood careers, etcetera. But a HUAC-type committee is precisely what Robert Reich is describing and many on the Left want. It's not enough for Trump to be voted out of office. Americans who helped put him there must be punished. They don't want reconciliation, they want retribution. Because the Left doesn't simply loathe Donald Trump, the Left loathes YOU.

President Donald Trump's performance at last night's final presidential debate was "brilliant" and "the best he's ever done," Glenn Beck said on the radio program Friday.

Glenn described the moments he thought President Trump came across as "sincere," "kind," and "well-informed," as well as Joe Biden's biggest downfalls for of the night — from his big statement on wanting to eliminate the oil industry to his unsurprising gaffes as the debate neared the end. But, the question remains: was Trump's "brilliant performance" enough to win the election?

Watch the video be low to get Glenn's take on the final debate before the November 3 election:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

This is a moment "Cynical Theories" author James Lindsay probably hoped would never come. The liberal mathematician and host of the "New Discourses Podcast" recently came out as "unhappily" voting Republican, including for President Donald Trump, because the Democratic Party is now being controlled by a far-left movement that seeks to destroy our country and the U.S. Constitution.

He joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to explain why this election isn't "Trump versus Biden." It's Trump versus a "movement that wants to tear apart American society at its very foundation." Lindsay warned that if it isn't stopped, the left can toss out our rights by rewriting the Constitution — or abolishing it altogether.

"A lot of people don't understand what's happening with the election we have right now," he said. "They think it's a choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. And at the surface level, of course, it is. We're voting for each candidate to be duly put into the office of president. But that's not what we really have going on. We have, in Donald Trump, a man who's going to govern as we've all seen — the way he feels like he's going to govern. And we have in Joe Biden, a man captured by a movement that wants to tear apart the American society at its very foundation."

Lindsay noted the popular leftist narratives that call to "abolish anything they don't like," which now includes the U.S. Constitution. He added that "this is the movement that is controlling the Democratic Party."

"It is my belief, that there has been a largely effective kind of silent coup of the Democratic Party, that's turned it completely under the control of this movement. And that's what we're going to be electing with Joe Biden. So I can't do it," he said.

Watch the video below for more details: