Vote YES to Remove Grover Norquist From NRA Board

Glenn is urging all NRA members to vote "YES" to recall Grover Norquist from the NRA board of directors. This is a chance for responsible gun owners to make an immediate impact.

Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform and co-founder of the Islamic Free Market Institute, came under the spotlight thanks in part to Glenn raising concerns Norquist's associations with known radical Islamists. Mr. Norquist “voluntarily” suspended himself from the NRA board In April of 2015.

Norquist's longtime history with and connections to Islamic radicals spurred members of the NRA to submit a petition to recall and remove him from the NRA board. Voting is open to all NRA members and ballots will be arriving in the mail.

NRA Members have until May 1, 2016 to submit their votes.

In March of 2015, Glenn had a on-air, hour-long interview with Mr. Norquist and came to the following conclusion: Norquist was lying.

“That guy is very dangerous and needs to be removed from the NRA," Glenn said on radio Friday. "So when you get your ballot, if you're an NRA member, make sure you vote 'YES' on the recall of Grover Norquist from the board. Yes, you want him removed from the board of directors from the NRA. Enough infiltration."

Glenn went on to say while he loves Norquist's flat tax ideas, his connections to dangerous people on the Islamist side is frightening.

"It needs to end," Glenn said.

Here are details from the petition:


The Petition asserts that Mr. Norquist's presence on the NRA Board of Directors (the ''NRA Board") has "become a confusing distraction to the NRA's mission" of defending the Second Amendment. Mr. Weber (the Petitioner) believes that Mr. Norquist's "statements and known associations" with radical Islamists and Muslims, as claimed in a book called "Agent of Influence," have caused serious disruption in the NRA. As a result, Mr. Weber asks that Mr. Norquist be removed from the NRA Board. "Agent of Influence" presents information concerning Islam 's threat to the security of the United States and says that certain "associates" of Mr. Norquist were involved. These charges include:

• Mr. Norquist's alleged role in a purported seditious meeting at his offices in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, after the attacks;

• A $ 10,000 contribution from Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi to a group that Mr. Norquist helped start --- the Islamic Free Market Institute (IFMI);

• Mr. Norquist's outreach to Muslim American voters during the 2000 Bush Presidential Campaign; and,

• Mr. Norquist's opposition to the use of secret evidence in the trials of suspected Muslim terrorists.


Mr. Norquist testified under oath for most of the hearing methodically rebutting multiple charges made in "Agent of Influence." He firmly stated that he was a loyal American who has never been, and would never be, involved in activities harmful to the United States and has been a loyal member of the NRA and the NRA Board, who has engaged in significant efforts in support of the Second Amendment. He firmly defended saying that he had no real ties to the Muslim "bad actors" cited by the Petitioner and that those Muslims he did have ties to were not "bad actors."

With respect to the key charges:

• 9/11/01 Allegations: Mr. Norquist testified he was in San Diego the night before, making a speech, took a red eye flight back to BWI (Baltimore) airport, and never went to his Washington, D.C. office on 9/11. He was supported by written statements from a number of his employees who were in the office that day.

• Mr. Norquist stated that IFMI was a legitimate business policy organization with no ties to terrorism, that he did not solicit the money, and that Mr. Al-Amoudi had no role or influence at IFMI whatsoever.

• Mr. Norquist testified that his 2000 election Muslim voter turnout efforts were critical to President Bush's victory and unrelated to any terrorist activities.

• Mr. Norquist pointed out that his opposition to the use of secret evidence was legitimate and shared by numerous loyal and well-respected Americans.

Again, NRA members have until May 1, 2016 to submit their votes.

Featured Image: Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, participates in a session on 'Strategic Communication' at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor, Maryland, outside Washington, on February 26, 2015. (Photo credit: NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:

Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.