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.

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?