Muslim reformer articulates dangers of Islamism, which candidates 'get it'

On radio Tuesday, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, joined Glenn to discuss what is being done to confront radical Islamism. As a Muslim himself, Jasser offered a very unique perspective on the situation.

"Muslims aren't making it clear that we're not Islamists. And we've been painfully silent," Jasser said, adding, "We need to have that room to differentiate between Muslims who are against theocracy and Muslims who are Islamists that are part of the problem.

When Glenn asked the most pressing question of how to tell the difference, Jasser left no room for confusion in his response.

The difference is: Those who have allegiance to the Islamic State (be it all 56 majority Islamic states that are identity, and with it comes jihad and a dedication to being a citizen of that Islamic State, to fight for it).

Or you believe in the secular state, the separation of mosque and state or church and state, as our establishment clause calls for and, ultimately, you are a warrior against theocracy, against Islamism and for liberty.

Later in the conversation, Glenn shifted to presidential politics, asking if there is a candidate that Jasser thinks "gets it." Here is what he said:

Well, I can tell you, we graded the candidates in the first two debates. And Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio were at the top of that. Ted Cruz was high up in there in being able to articulate that there's a problem with a faction of political movements of Islamists, and there's a position for America -- a role for America to play in the world. And we graded them very high compared to the other candidates.

Listen to the segment or read the full transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Good friend of the program. Great American. I believe he was a captain in the Navy. Zuhdi, correct me if I'm wrong.

ZUHDI: No. Lieutenant commander.

GLENN: Lieutenant commander.

ZUHDI: Great to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Great to talk to you. Zuhdi, you're really, truly one of the good guys and a guy that I always look to as one of the first real heroes of my lifetime standing up and doing the dangerous things when it really counts. I mean, I think, after September 11th, the world changed. And people began -- regular people began to risk their lives. And you have done this now for 15 years. You were doing it before. But you were ringing the bell and trying to get, you know, the rest of the world to stand and up see the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist.

Zuhdi, I want to play some audio here and get your reaction as a Muslim.

There is this debate going on on whether a Muslim should be president of the United States. And I think Ben Carson is answering this inartfully, but I think if I understand him right, I think I agree with him. And I want to see -- I kind of want to do a bigot check here on me. Not on him. On me. And make sure that I'm seeing things the proper way. Here's what he said to Jake Tapper.

JAKE: I think one of the things, you are a member of a church that there's a lot of misinformation about, the Seventh Day Adventist church. You're an African-American. You know what it's like for people to make false assumptions about you, and you seem to be doing the same thing with Muslims.

BEN: In which way am I making a false assumption about them?

JAKE: You're assuming that Muslim Americans put their religion ahead of the country.

BEN: I'm assuming that if you accept all the tenets of Islam, that you'll have a very difficult time abiding under the Constitution of the United States.

VOICE: This interview is over.

GLENN: Okay. Stop there.

So here's the thing, Zuhdi, and I don't know whether this -- whether Sharia law would be classified as a tenet of Islam. I know it's a tenet of Islamists. Would you agree with him there or not?

ZUHDI: Well, I certainly -- you know, listen, as you said, the reason I'm doing all this work is our community has been so silent that, you know, it's no wonder most Americans that are doubly as fearful of Islam today as they were after 9/11. Because Muslims aren't making it clear that we're not Islamists. And we've been painfully silent.

Now, having said that, if you want Muslims to be in that time in history that Christianity was -- as our Founding Fathers were, where they were not Christianists, they were devout Christians that rejected theocracy. If we're going to make that stand, which I think is the most important stand in the world today, is this battle within the house of Islam. Then we need to have that room to differentiate between Muslims who are against theocracy and Muslims who are Islamists that are part of the problem.

And, by the way, it's not just about being president. It's about security clearances. It's about every position in government, whether you take that oath as the president, or oath as a military office, or oath in Homeland Security. If you're an Islamist, you should not be getting those clearances. But if you're a Muslim, who is anti-theocratic, you are not only an essential patriot, you're probably one of the most important ideologues on the planet today in order to defeat this threat.

GLENN: So here's the problem, Zuhdi. And we're seeing this overseas. We're seeing this with the people who are coming out of the Middle East, the, quote, refugees out of the Middle East. You don't know how to tell the difference between an Islamist who is lying to you and just saying that they're a Muslim and a Muslim, who is actually -- because a Muslim, as I define a Muslim, compared to an Islamist -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Zuhdi, but I write about it in my book, that a Muslim by definition in today's world is a reformer of Islam and an Islamist is somebody who believes in all of the tenets of the Koran and the Hadith with Sharia law as it's understood in the Middle East. So how do you know what the difference is?

ZUHDI: Well, the difference is, those who have allegiance to the Islamic State, be it all 56 majority Islamic states that are identity. And with it comes jihad and a dedication to being a citizen of that Islamic State, to fight for it. Or you believe in the secular state, the separation of mosque and state or church and state, as our establishment clause calls for and, ultimately, you are a warrior against theocracy, against Islamism and for liberty.

So those people coming here, they're coming here because they're part of a jihad. They're our enemy. If they're coming here seeking freedom like my family did, then they're not only allies -- and that's why we have to be careful. There's ISIS already in all 50 states. But yet the refugees coming here for the most part and see that narrative that the West stands for their only solace against the two evils of political Islam or Islamism and secular HEP atocracy of Assad and other dictators of the Middle East -- so we can't change who we are, what our Statue of Liberty stands for. Yes, we should vet the refugees. But if we say we're not going to take anyone, remember, most of the jihadists that attacked us, are -- might be kids of immigrants. But they certainly aren't new refugees for the most part. I'm not saying there aren't any threats there, but we can't change who we are, because otherwise we become the Russias and the Saudi Arabias of the world and take nobody.

GLENN: But here's the thing. I have gone off -- and I know this is a controversial stance. But I don't know -- I'm not qualified myself to do this. And we're having the United Nations do all of our vetting for the refugees, which I think is a tremendous mistake. But I look at the refugee status and say, "Look, Saudi Arabia and everybody else, they have plenty of room for refugees who are Muslim, and they're more qualified to figure out which one is which. Good guys and bad guys. We're not. We won't even admit that there are bad guys in that mix." So we've got to take care of the Christians who cannot be taken care of in the Middle East. They're not going to find a friendly home -- you know, you're not going to bring your Bible into Saudi Arabia. They have to get out of there.

Meanwhile, all of the Islamic nations in the Middle East are not taking refugees. They're expecting -- they're expecting the West to take all of them. How, Zuhdi, would we possibly know -- what's a litmus test that you would think would even work on who the good guys and the bad guys are?

ZUHDI: Well, remember, our country has fought so many wars. In the Vietnam War, World War II, we took in refugees, and we had ways to tell who were the Vietnamese that were with us and who were fighting against us. And yet we didn't say, "Well, no refugees because there may be some communists in those that we take in." Yes, there is a problem, yes, with an administration that won't even say the word "Islamist" as the president caters to the blasphemy laws of all Islamic states and doesn't even identify Islamism as a threat. We'll have major difficulties. But in the Cold War, we were mastering the fact that Soviet War Theory, Communist war Theory was our enemy.

GLENN: Yeah, but we admitted it at that point.

I mean, Zuhdi, honestly, if I'm president of the United States, I go and I find people like you and say, "Okay. Help us weed the good guys from the bad guys." But that's not what our administration is doing. That's not what the last administration was doing. They refused to even look at it as if Islamists even exist.

ZUHDI: That's why we have to thread this needle, where if we have leaders -- I'm getting whiplash where now we've had six and a half years of an administration that caters to the Islamist. And now we're finally having courageous candidates that are identifying that there's a problem in the house of Islam, but we need to thread the needle and say, "You know, it's not a battle between Islam and Christians or Islam and Christianity or the West. It's a battle between liberty versus the theocrats. And we have to bond with those Muslims." We have a coalition of reformers that you know many of. Including Kad Ahmed and Assir Nomani and Zani BelHEP. And so many who could help our administration vet the jihadist versus the non-jihadist. And yet we can't even set foot in the White House because he wants to have a coalition to fight al-Qaeda. It's like having a coalition against drug violence and inviting the meth distributors into the White House to help you fight drug violence. It just doesn't make any sense.

GLENN: You're exactly right. So yesterday at the United Nations, the president spoke. And then Rouhani spoke. And then Putin spoke. I don't know. Did you see any of the speeches?

ZUHDI: I did. Yes.

GLENN: Did any of those make sense to you?

ZUHDI: They make sense if you have a new unraveling of the world order, where the Islamists are filling in a vacuum where you had an opportunity in Arab wakening that could have seen the ushering in of a change where Islam is going through that time in history, that the West went through between the 15th and 18th century. But now what makes sense is, we've aggregated that to the Russias and the Irans of the world. We're handing Iran $150 billion to help Assad.

I don't know what's happening with the meeting between Putin and Obama. But the bottom line is, a genocide against the Sunnis in Syria is turning against genocide against minorities. And we're seeing ISIS fill that vacuum. And now Iran is going to homogenize the Middle East. The world order is unraveling. The refugees are one symptom of it. And if we don't take sides within the house of Islam and get candidates that can articulate that Islamism is the problem and we're going to take the side of liberty and not alienate a core of the world's population, but yet realize that we have friends within this revolution happening.

GLENN: Have you had any candidate on either side reach out to you and talk to you about the Islamic world?

ZUHDI: We have had a few candidate conversations. And I think you can tell some of them that are able to be articulate on this issue and those that aren't. But I -- I want to be careful.

GLENN: Have you seen anyone -- yeah. I don't want to put you -- you feel free to say no. Because I don't want to put you in a spot because you need all the allies you can get.

ZUHDI: Yes.

GLENN: Is there a candidate that you see that you say, this guy gets it. Even if he doesn't get anything else, he gets this -- or she.

ZUHDI: Well, I can tell you, we graded the candidates in the first two debates. And Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio were at the top of that. Ted Cruz was high up in there in being able to articulate that there's a problem with a faction of political movements of Islamists, and there's a position for America -- a role for America to play in the world. And we graded them very high compared to the other candidates.

GLENN: Zuhdi, what can we do to help you? I'm starting to just be much more action-oriented. I'm tired of just talking about things. And I'm looking to support the people that are out on the front lines. What can somebody do that is listening to you and is like, I want to help. I want to be part of the solution. What can people do? How can they help you?

ZUHDI: When we have these conversations, to realize a think tank like the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and our coalition, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition, should be playing an active role publicly in media, in government, in universities.

Yale just had a center bought by another Wahhabi petro-dollar HEP Saudi who spent $10 million for a center on Sharia. Georgetown has one. Harvard does. I mean, if you wonder where the moderate voices of Islam are, we're being drowned out by the petro HEP Islamists that are spending millions to make sure that we don't have a voice. And, you know, we need to be at the table. And then you'll realize that there's a diversity within the house of Islam, and we're not all -- and this is why candidates are confused. Because the moderate voices are shut out by the institutions that are making us less and less relevant. And your listeners and Americans can make sure we have a seat at the table. No different than the Founding Fathers did in that battle against against theocracy.

GLENN: Zuhdi, always good to talk to you, my friend. Stay safe. God bless you.

ZUHDI: Thank you. God bless.

GLENN: You can find Zuhdi. His website is AIFdemocracy.org. That's AIFdemocracy.org. Truly one of the good guys. And a guy who risks his life every day to stand up against Islamists as a Muslim himself.

The Democrats are turning on Biden

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

The election is over, Kamala Harris has officially conceded, and now the Democrats are doing some serious soul-searching.

After reflecting long and hard (approximately 24 hours), the Democrats have discovered the real reason Harris lost the election. Was it Trump's excellent campaign that resonated with voters? Was it Harris's off-putting personality? Or was it her failure to distinguish herself from the Biden administration's failed policies?

No, it was Joe Biden. All the blame lies on President Biden's shoulders. The Left sees no need to take any real responsibility for the landslide defeat the Democrats suffered earlier this week; just pass the blame on to 'ole Joe.

Here are the leading excuses the Left is spinning up to explain Harris's crushing defeat:

"Biden should have dropped out sooner."

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

This is the crux of the left-wing media's argument against Biden. They claim that if Joe Biden had dropped out earlier, Harris would have had more time to campaign and would not have had to carry around the baggage of Biden's abysmal debate performance. This could make sense, but what these commentators are conveniently forgetting are the years of propaganda these very same people promoted arguing that Biden's declining mental acuity was nothing more than a right-wing conspiracy theory. If Biden had been as sharp as they had told us, why would he have dropped out?

Also, if a lack of time was Harris's biggest issue this election, she sure didn't act like it. She was practically in hiding for the first several weeks of her campaign and she took plenty of days off, including during the last few crucial weeks. More time wouldn't have helped her case.

"Harris failed to distance herself from Biden."

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

This is media gaslighting at its finest. Yes, Harris failed to distance herself from Biden. However, that's because she, along with the rest of the Left, publically went on record defending Biden's policies and his mental acuity. By the time Harris became the nominee, she had already said too much in favor of Biden. Don't forget Harris's infamous “There is not a thing that comes to mind,” quote after being asked on The View if she would do anything differently than Biden. In a way, Harris couldn't separate herself from Biden without drawing attention to the greatest flaw in her campaign: if she knew how to fix the country, why hasn't she?

"Harris did the best anyone could have done in that situation."

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

But did she really? As mentioned earlier, she was noticeably absent for much of the campaign. While Trump was busy jumping into interviews, events, and rallies non-stop, Harris was MIA. Whenever Harris did manage to make an appearance, it almost always did more harm than good by highlighting her lack of a robust policy platform and her inability to string together a coherent sentence. Notable examples include her aforementioned appearance on The View and her disastrous interview on Fox News with Bret Baier. The point is, even considering the limited time to campaign she had, Kamala Harris wasnot the best person for the job and there are undoubtedly many other Democrats who would have run a much more successful campaign.

Glenn: I'm filled with hope. And you should be, too.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The election was a major blow to draconian globalist organizations. Now, we could have a true rebirth of freedom and the American dream.

Millions of people around the world were holding their breath on election night. I've talked to Europeans to try to get a bead on what’s happening over there. There are Europeans like you and me who are frustrated with their own globalist, tyrannical bureaucracies telling them how to live and what to believe. If Donald Trump didn’t win, where in the world would they look to for hope that this madness would stop? Which leader could they count on to stand in the gap against their globalist elites? They, too, had a lot on the line in our election last night.

But today brings hope, not only in America but for freedom-loving people worldwide.

We need to restore the balance of power in the federal government — the way America’s founders intended.

We know Trump is going to stop the madness at the southern border. He is going to deport serial criminals and sex offenders who entered our country under Biden and Harris' watch. The media will try to convince you that deportations are something akin to Hitler, but they turn a blind eye to their Democratic predecessors who have deported even more illegal immigrants than Trump. In fact, Bill Clinton deported more illegal immigrants than any president in U.S. history, shipping 11 million out of the country in the 1990s. In contrast, Trump deported less than a million during his first term, which is even less than the 1.8 million under the Obama administration.

Deportations of criminals who are in our country illegally is critical to protecting the safety of the American people, a practice that has been exercised by presidents for decades.

Our friends across the pond have been witnessing the destruction of their societies since EU globalists opened Europe's floodgates to immigrants in 2015. Crime is rampant, communities governed by Sharia law are multiplying, and their social programs are being pushed to a breaking point. Tuesday night gave them reason to hope. America is going to say, "No more," and perhaps this will be the rallying cry for our European brothers-in-arms to stand up as well.

The election was also a major blow to draconian globalist organizations. The United States will no longer be beholden to the Paris Climate Accords. Our nation will no longer give credence to the World Economic Forum. We won’t give the World Health Organization a single penny more. All these very well-planned globalist initiatives are going away.

But Trump can't act alone. Thank God we won the Senate. This is an incredible step forward, but for these big plans to come to fruition, we need the House. If the Republicans — actual freedom-loving, Constitution-abiding Republicans don't have the House, you’re not going to be able to get things done except by executive order, which we don’t want to do. One reason things were so bad during the last four years is that Joe Biden simply signed executive orders to reverse everything that Trump accomplished, completely bypassing Congress. We have to do it the right way. We need to restore the balance of power in the federal government the way America’s founders intended.

One of the most hopeful things Trump said Tuesday night is that we’re going to enter a new golden era in America. I believe him. He could have said that in 2020, and I wouldn't have believed him as much as I believe him now. That’s because Trump now has a team of people that's not exclusively comprised of politicians.

Bringing in somebody like Elon Musk is one of the most hopeful things for our country I've witnessed in my lifetime. I know that guy can cut spending. I know he will find the waste in our government because he's not a government guy he's a businessman. He's going to slash all the redundancies that have been justified by career bureaucrats for decades. We have a chance of cutting our budget and creating a reasonable one.

Trump’s promise to cut regulations also spells hope for our country. He cut more regulation in his first term than any other president, but Biden and Harris have since added a mountain of rules. He will have his work cut out for him, but he will get it done. He must if this economy will roar again.

We could have a true rebirth of freedom and the American dream, and I find that really hopeful. So many Americans are tired of worrying about their kids struggling and seeing Bidenomics and regulation yank from their children's hands the possibility of the American dream that they attained. Donald Trump is the biggest chance of bringing it back.

Today, I’m filled with hope. Real, tangible hope. And you should be, too.

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

TOP FIVE liberal meltdowns to Trump's victory

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

Conservatives are celebrating Donald Trump's election for what feels like the first major conservative victory over the past four years. But how are our liberal friends holding up? Has anyone checked on them recently?

Some of them aren't doing too well, and quite a few have an inexplicable desire to share their anguish with the world on social media. We've waded through a torrent of liberal tears to bring you the top FIVE best responses to Donald Trump's 2024 victory:

The Car Screamer

This first one is in a category we've dubbed, the "Screamers." These include people who have been so overcome with rage that they have lost the ability to communicate with words. Instead, they revert to a more primitive form of communication, usually composed of some combination of screams, shrieks, sobs, and wild gesticulations. There are dozens of "Screamer" videos across the internet, but this one takes the cake for the most animated and over-the-top.

Sunny Hostin's Meltdown

Just to prove that the daytime talk show "The View" is completely out of touch, host Sunny Hostin tried to rationalize Trump's victory using identity politics. Hostin dismissed the idea that Harris lost due to her less popular policy and instead suggested it was because of her race and gender along with the religion of her husband. She clearly forgot about JD Vance and his mixed-race family.

CNN Watches the Election Crumble Around Them

In this clip, you can actually hear the defeat setting in as the CNN host realizes that Kamala Harris is losing. When asked to see a map of the counties where Harris was over-preforming Joe Biden in 2020, Jake Tapper was flabbergasted when the map came up blank.

The Calm Coper

At least this guy isn't screaming. Instead, he regurgitates the lies and propaganda fed to him by the media with a strangely robotic cadence. He's trying to project calm intelligence, but all he is really doing is coping and seething.

The Screamer Compilation 

Just in case you didn't get enough of, the "Screamers," here is a handy compilation that perfectly sums up the liberal response to Trump's victory.

Biggest takeaways from Trump's HISTORIC election

John Moore / Staff | Getty Images

"Too big to rig" was the 2024 Trump strategy, and it was proven true on election day.

President Trump declared victory early in the morning on Wednesday, November 6, 2024, after securing the required 270 electoral college votes, marking an exciting end to a historic campaign. Since then, more electoral college votes have trickled in for Trump and he has secured 51 percent of the popular vote. There is no space for the Democrats to contest his election.

Trump's victory is just the beginning! Here are the top takeaways from election night:

Trump sweeps the swing states

Andrew Lichtenstein / Contributor | Getty Images

Seven swing states were poised to make or break the election: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada. At the time of this article's publication, Trump had won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Michigan, and North Carolina and was poised to win Arizona and Nevada in what could be a total sweep of the swing states. The "swing state sweep" is a stunning victory for Trump.

The GOP takes the Senate

TIMOTHY A. CLARY / Contributor | Getty Images

The presidential race wasn't the only important election yesterday. Approximately one-third of the Senate was up for re-election. At the time of this article's publication, Republicans had officially clinched a majority in the Senate, flipping three seats from the Democrats in Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia, giving the GOP 52 of the 100 Senate seats. In addition, Republicans are poised to win a seat in Pennsylvania and Nevada, which would further cement their lead.

Republicans lead in the House

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Seats in the House of Representatives were also up for grabs as Republicans fought to keep control of the House. The race is currently too close to call, but at the moment, the GOP is holding the lead with 201 seats — only 17 seats away from a majority. This means there is a real possibility that the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate could all be held by Republicans.