A 60s leftist, David Horowitz eventually renounced Leftism and embraced conservatism and has made a reputation for himself as a conservative writer and policy advocate. He has authored a number of books, including Reforming Our Universities: The Campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights and Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey. Horowitz recently penned a pamphlet entitled, “Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution,” which is modeled after Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
In his February 12 CPAC address, Horowitz indicated the two biggest threats to the American republic are leftism on college campuses as well as the links between the American Left and radical Islam.
Horowitz specifically addressed the dangers of radical Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that Horowitz contends has infiltrated both the Democrat and Republican parties, as well as the Conservative movement, by way of the Muslim Brotherhood’s front groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim American Society, and the Islamic Society of North America. He stated: "The Muslim Brotherhood has been wildly successful in its plan to become more part of America’s civil culture and to infiltrate the institutions of America’s civil government, including the White House and both political parties as well, and the conservative moment."
According to Horowitz, the infiltration of the conservative movement is evident just by taking a cursory glance at the panel on the board of the American Conservative Union, the very same organization responsible for the annual CPAC conference, at which Horowitz was speaking.
Revealing no qualms about implicating the very same people who had him appear at this year’s conference, Horowitz named a number of ACU board members that have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood: “[ACU board member] Suhail Khan is the proud son of Mahboob Khan and his protégé as he is also the protégé of the convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi, sponsored by his longtime patron Grover Norquist, who has been the pillar of the Conservative movement.”
It’s worthwhile to note that Suhail’s father Mahboob ran a large mosque in Santa Clara, California, that catered to Osama Bin Laden’s number two man, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Suhail Khan was on President George W. Bush’s staff at the time of the September 11 attacks, but was quickly transitioned to the Department of Transportation afterward.
Likewise, the Cypress Times reports, “Norquist is said to have been the one who got Khan into the White House. Khan has also been an advisor to CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, an un-indicted terror co-conspirator, Hamas front group and Muslim Brotherhood affiliate.”
The relationship between Norquist and Khan is clear, as observed by Horowitz:
With Grover’s support, Suhail has also been made a board member of the American Conservative Union and was a moderator on a panel on religious liberty yesterday at this event. Suhail Khan used his offices at the Bush White House with the support of Grover to carry weight for the terrorist Sami al-Arian and the attempt to ban the use of secret evidence in terrorist trials-a proposal that thanks to Grover’s influence was actually endorsed by President Bush and was only thwarted by the September 11 attacks.
The remainder of Horowitz’s speech described the current administration’s friendly treatment of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the appointments of members of CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America to top positions in the Department of Homeland Security. Yet listeners could not help but find themselves reeling over the information Horowitz provided that implicated members of the ACU board.
David Horowitz credits Frank Gaffney, president of the American Center for Security Policy, as the “courageous bringer of the bad news about Grover and Suhail Khan.”
Specifically addressing the board of the ACU, Horowitz adds: “Many good conservatives on the board of the ACU refuse to believe the evidence of Suhail’s Brotherhood allegiances and agendas. They are of the opinion that Suhail’s public appearances with Alamoudi and the Muslim Brotherhood fronts took place a decade ago and that he doesn’t promote violent agendas. I understand this.”
Horowitz later explains, “The conservatives are much too civilized and inclusive and should not be making exceptions for people like Suhail.”
What will it take for Horowitz to be convinced of Suhail Khan’s alleged change of heart? “When an honest person has been a member of a destructive movement and leaves it, he will feel compelled to repudiate it publicly and to warn others of the dangers it poses,” Horowitz said.
Like William Ayers of the Weather Underground, Mr. Khan has yet to repudiate the violent organization with which he has been connected.
Horowitz closed his CPAC talk by urging conservatives to educate themselves further on the Muslim Brotherhood and its various front organizations, and to be “vigilant against its spread to the ranks of the conservative movement, the Republican Party, and the government of the country we love.”
In an exclusive interview with The New American following his enlightening speech, Horowitz explained what being “vigilant” entails: “They have to educate themselves. Discoverthenetworks.org is an excellent guide to the Left. Also books like The Grand Jihad by Andrew McCarthy and my book Unholy Alliance are excellent resources conservatives can use.”
Horowitz’s willingness to stand before the very group that provided him a speaking platform at the conference was certainly a courageous, and controversial, move. When asked what compelled Horowitz to do so, he told The New American, “There was just too much evidence to ignore the facts.”
Likewise, Horowitz made a number of attempts to allow Suhail Khan and Norquist to vindicate themselves by answering for the information produced against them. According to Horowitz, Norquist simply refused to address any of the allegations made by Gaffney in his report, replying “I’m too busy with the revolution.”
By contrast, Khan did address the allegations when Horowitz brought them to his attention, adamantly denying their accuracy. Unfortunately, it was Khan who proved to have a problem with accuracy. For example, Khan explained that despite Gaffney’s assertions, he is not responsible for the list of people with approved access to the White House. Gaffney, however, disproved Khan’s remarks, by sending Horowitz an approved White House guest list with Khan’s name on it as the approver of the guest list.
Similarly, Khan claimed that his father was merely a member of the mosque, but did not have a fundraiser for terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri-as his father was accused — seemingly unaware that the Washington Post had published an article on the role Khan’s father played in the fundraiser.
Once Khan realized that each of his assertions were being discredited by hard evidence, he stopped returning Horowitz’s calls.
Horowitz asserts that Khan is “an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood and a threat to America.” When The New American asked if Horowtiz if he believed Norquist to be a conscious subversive, or, to use Lenin's term, simply a “useful idiot,” Horowitz stated simply: “He’s not an idiot.”
Horowitz contends that he will not allow the potential consequences of exposing Norquist's and Khan’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood — such as not being invited back to CPAC — intimidate him from doing so. He told The New American, “This is my mission — to wake up the conservative movement.”
Photo of David Horowitz: AP Images
Related articles:
