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.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.