Glenn lays out Grover Norquist's spooky connections to the Muslim Brotherhood

March 26, 2015

WRITER

UPDATE: After initially declining to come on the show, Grover Norquist has now said he will come on 'The Glenn Beck Program'. Glenn is taking down the paywall and opening up TheBlaze TV to anyone who wants to watch - online or on your mobile device - for free at 5pm ET.

Original Story:

Grover Norquist has brushed off claims from conservative critics before - but this time he's not getting off so easy. On Wednesday night, Glenn presented the facts on Norquist's disturbing ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic extremists. Is he an 'agent of influence'? You decide.

Watch a short highlight from last night's show below and scroll down for more. Subscribers to TheBlaze TV can watch the full episode HERE.

"There are many who claim that Grover Norquist is really kind of the right’s version of George Soros without all the money. He is really a power player who has managed to use his influence to evade any real scrutiny over his dangerous connections. That’s why tonight and tomorrow’s show are necessary," Glenn said.

"Politicians listen to him. Many obey him. He has a long list of connections with radical Islamic organizations and in some cases actual terrorists. Others, not just Frank Gaffney, who was on my program, radio program, and we’re not including Frank Gaffney on this program tonight because we went and did our own homework. We wanted to find out ourselves. We called people ourselves. We did our own homework," he said.

Here are just some of the connections Glenn and his team found.

Who is Grover Norquist?

"Well, first of all, we know that he’s a Harvard grad. He’s really, really quite brilliant. He’s politically minded, wanted to be in politics since he was a youth. Even though he believes in the small business and the free market, he skipped, he has no private sector experience at all, and he was the co-architect of the Bush wins," Glenn said. "He led Muslim outreach after 9/11 with Bush. "

"He has weekly D.C. meetings with the top conservatives because he wields an awful lot of power. He is very, very influential. He also founded something called the American Tax Reform Institute in 1985. This is where you get the pledge, that tax pledge that is signed by most Republicans. He is the guy who has really bulldozed and helped get George W. Bush elected in 1999, and he is big on outreach."

What has he done?

"Now, what has he done? Well, he is extremely influential in the GOP circles, and the important thing is to know where the money goes, so does Norquist. With the cost of winning elections skyrocketing, it makes him extremely important, so people play ball with him. So, what has he created? Well, we know he’s created this foundation, and this is really important. About 90% of all Republicans signed his tax pledge, and it’s a good thing, but he’s also created this, the Islamic Institute, which is trying to support the free market within Islam."

"That’s a good goal until you start to see how this thing has come together."

Who does Grover Norquist trust?

1) Karl Rove and the Koch brothers

"Karl Rove gave $26 million to[Norquist's] tax organization in 2012, and here it is, for something called social welfare, $26 million from Karl Rove and the Koch brothers. The other donor the Koch brothers, they are the primary funders of Norquist’s budget for this."

"Okay, is that a good thing? Sure, all right, whatever, because even if you are on the left and you want really high taxes, there’s nothing seemingly nefarious going on here. Okay, because of this, he holds those high-profile conservative groups in his hands, and he threatens his power to campaign against anybody who doesn’t play by his rules. But what other alliances is he making?"

2) Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi

"This guy is extremely disturbing, al-Amoudi. You might have heard his name before. He was once held up as a moderate Muslim. He founded the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in 1981, and that is the mosque that [the Tsarnaev brothers] came from, you know, the radical marathon bombers."

"In 1993, after the World Trade Center bombing, he campaigned on behalf of Mohammed Salameh, who was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. In 1994, al-Amoudi also denied that Hamas was a terrorist organization."

"He declared support for radical Hamas leader, Marzouk, saying, and I quote, 'I have known Musa Abu Marzuk before, and I really consider him to be from among the best people in the Islamic movement.' Feds caught him expressing frustration that no Americans died in 1998 in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Kenya. He recommended more operations be conducted there."

"In 2000, he stood across from the White House voicing support for terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. "

"He declared support for radical Hamas leader, Marzouk, saying, and I quote, “I have known Musa Abu Marzuk before, and I really consider him to be from among the best people in the Islamic movement.” Feds caught him expressing frustration that no Americans died in 1998 in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Kenya. He recommended more operations be conducted there."

"In 2000, he stood across from the White House voicing support for terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah."

3) Khaled Saffuri

"Now, the next one on the board is Khaled Saffuri. Who is that? Well, he is al-Amoudi’s right-hand man. He was a deputy at the American Muslim Council, one of the Brotherhood front organizations. He was founder of the Islamic Institute. He was very influential in the Bush administration. He led talks with the administration in opposition of Operation Green Quest, which we’ll talk a little bit about later. That was basically trying to go get the front groups. He didn’t want that to happen."

"Karl Rove tapped him for Muslim outreach. He voiced displeasure after the decision to shut down the Holy Land Foundation for funding Hamas. So, after the trial and they were proven to be a terrorist front group, he was upset at that decision."

4) Sami Al-Arian

" Then we go to Sami Al-Arian. I think everybody pretty much knows who he is, former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, former professor at USF, campaigned against secret evidence method. He was caught soliciting donations for a Palestinian terrorist to kill an Israeli Jew. He paid respects to 'the march of the martyrs and to the river of blood that gushes forth and does not extinguish.' I don’t know about you, but I want to hang out with him. He also said, 'Let us damn America to death.'"

5) Suhail Khan

"Then we go to Suhail Khan. Suhail Khan is probably the cleanest of Grover Norquist’s friends. He campaigned against the DOJ’s secret evidence. His parents are really the trouble spot. They were prominent leaders in the Brotherhood front groups. At the annual award at ISNA, it is given every year in his father’s name. The mosque founded by his dad hosted the Blind Sheikh just a couple of months before he bombed the World Trade Center. He has a network of terror friendly organizations, and he made it possible for Osama bin Laden’s number two, Al-Zawahiri, to actually covertly visit the United States undetected in 1995. He played a key role in founding CAIR. He was praised by al-Amoudi at an award ceremony."

6) Jamal al-Barzinji

"This one is Jamal al-Barzinji. He is the founder, the founding father, he’s the George Washington of the Muslim Brotherhood of the U.S. He played a crucial role in creating and organizing the web of Brotherhood front groups that followed, ISNA, Muslim American Society, IIIT. He founded the radical mosque in Virginia. He’s known for ties to Islamic terrorists from Hamas to Al Qaeda. He’s officer of SAAR Foundation which is suspected of funding terrorist groups."

What does it mean?

"I don’t know what Grover’s motivations are for working with people that range from Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer all the way to full-blown terrorists. It can only be one of two things, he is the most unlucky and naïve guy next to the President of the United States, and I hope it’s that, because the only other option is that he strongly agrees enough with the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission or they’re just paying him enough cash to subvert America."

"Either way, somebody with this much power inside the Republican Party and inside the NRA with these connections is absolutely unacceptable. No person with any shred of integrity whatsoever would be within the same ZIP Code of some of these people, let alone at the same office or exchanging money with them. So far, the explanations given for the connections are completely unacceptable as well."

Watch a short highlight from last night's show below and scroll down for more. Subscribers to TheBlaze TV can watch the full episode HERE.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep