Muslim rebel

Getmilitaryphotos | Shutterstock

  • Font Size
  • A
  • A
  • A
Print Images Print

Daniel Horowitz raises a critical point in a recent piece on America’s willfully blind immigration policies, which imperil our national security by way of importing Islamic supremacists who wish to subvert our republic.

Noting that among Republicans in Congress — supposed bulwarks of homeland security and a robust defense — only Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) and Rand Paul, R-Ky. (A, 92%) have introduced bills geared towards limiting the flow of immigrants from jihadist-harboring nations, while Democrats are uniformly MIA on the issue, Horowitz asserts that there has been a profound shift over the last decade-plus on these matters.

Horowitz looks back to the year 2002, when Congress unanimously passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act containing language explicitly calling for “restriction on issuance of visas to nonimmigrants from countries that are state sponsors of international terrorism.”

He also mentions the fact that “the bill was originally sponsored by a group of bipartisan senators, including Ted Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. (F, 0%)

Horowitz concludes by noting that while “the 2002 bill had a lot of loopholes, which voided out its benefits in the long run and allowed Obama to erase what was left of the bill…the fact that Democrats were even willing to sign onto a piece of legislation advertised as cutting off visas from some Middle Eastern countries demonstrates just how far their party has moved in almost 15 years.” 

There is further evidence backing this assertion.

In response to my article on Great Britain’s plan to quarantine jihadism in its prisons — on account of the spread of Islamic supremacism by way of imams and prisoners alike — a friend on the Hill pointed me to a 2003 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security hearing titled “Terrorism: Radical Islamic Influence of Chaplaincy of the U.S. Military and Prisons.”

During that hearing, one senator’s testimony read in part:

I…discovered that the few groups charged with certifying Muslim chaplains in these institutions had several disturbing ties to a puritanical and intolerant form of Islam known as Wahhabism. The official state religion in Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism also provides part of Al-Qaeda's ideological foundation.

Far from endorsing the pluralistic approach to religious belief that we all hold dear, Wahhabism espouses an extremist, anti-Western, exclusionary religious doctrine, and denigrates other faiths, be they other forms of Islamic belief such as moderate Sunni, Shia, and Sufi Islam, or Christianity or Judaism.

One group, the ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America, had on its governing board a man named Siraj Wahaj. Mr. Wahaj is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that the FBI now believes was master-minded by one of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants. Why such a man would remain on the board for many years afterwards raises a whole lot of questions.

Another, the Graduate School for Islamic Social Sciences, is under investigation, and I understand the investigation is continuing, for terrorist financing. And the third, the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, is a sub-group of the American Muslim Foundation, which is also under investigation for terrorist financing. They have the same 501(c)(3) number, and that means that the subsidiary group says it is doing the same thing that the parent group does. 

…there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation of these groups to assess their pluralistic credentials and determine whether they should be advising, and certainly should be advising exclusively the Pentagon and the Bureau of Prisons on who should provide spiritual guidance to American soldiers and inmates.

… Steven Emerson, the head of the Investigative Project, says Wahhabi literature makes its way into prison libraries, courtesy of the Saudi-backed Al-Haramain Foundation.

In June, the websites for the Navy and Air Force chaplains were found to have links to, a website that espouses Wahhabism. The site contained links to lectures by fundamental clerics, some of whom advocate jihad against the United States and denigrate Christianity and Judaism as forms of disbelief.

…In 2001, another Muslim military chaplain, Abdul Mohammed, traveled to Saudi Arabia for the haj with a number of other Muslim U.S. service members on a trip that was fully paid for by the World Muslim League. The World Muslim League is a known Saudi organization dedicated to front Wahhabism, and in 1996 the CIA identified it as a front for Al-Qaeda. What is such a group doing sponsoring American soldiers to go on a haj. Go on a haj, great. Why this group, and what happened there?

So it boggles my mind that someone the CIA identified as a front for Al-Qaeda would be allowed to pay for travel expenses of some of our active soldiers. Who knows who had access to our loyal service members while they were in Saudi Arabia.

Then there is more bad news coming from associates of the chaplains program. On September 30, the FBI arrested Abdurahman Alamoudi, the man responsible for starting the military's Muslim chaplain program, charging him with violating the Libya Sanctions Act.

Despite all of these developments, and despite all of the connections between Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, and the organizations involved in the Muslim chaplain programs, I have not heard back from either the Pentagon or the Bureau of Prisons about the status of the investigations I requested over 6 months ago.

Just to summarize, here we have a senator who forthrightly describes one of the primary schools of jihadist thought and ties it to the Saudi regime. He then calls into question several major Islamic organizations on account of their alleged jihadist activities and/or affiliations including that of Muslim Brotherhood-tied ISNA, a group in front of whom our current DHS Secretary recently spoke. This senator essentially asks “What the hell are we doing?” when there is evidence of Wahhabist and other Islamic supremacist literature flooding our prisons and military, not to mention penetration of critical areas by individual jihadi potential agents of influence.

This senator is not some member in good standing of the vast right-wing conspiracy, but rather Democratic New York Senator Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. (F, 2%).

Let us leave aside the fact that Sen. Schumer’s constituency may have been and continues to be more apt to care about national security than other Democratic mainstays, and that in a post-9/11 world it was in Sen. Schumer’s interest to cultivate a “tough-on-terror” image.

The Democrat Party is a progressive party with all that that entails, including an ignorantly morally relativistic outlook which says that all belief systems are equal (except theirs).

Can we imagine another Democrat standing up in the Senate chamber today and drawing links between jihadist ideology and the potential threat of influential Islamic groups to critical American institutions. Can we imagine such a senator asking for answers as to the nature and extent of the problem? Would he not be branded a McCarthy-ite?

As Horowitz notes, the political line has moved, and dramatically and profoundly so.

The Democrat Party is a progressive party with all that that entails, including an ignorantly morally relativistic outlook which says that all belief systems are equal (except theirs). That party boasts a multiculturalist bent unable to recognize that different peoples hold dear different values and principles. Likewise, it refuses to acknowledge a suicidal materialist worldview that views the West as the oppressor and all others as the oppressed leading to a perverse left-Islamic supremacist alliance, wittingly for some and unwittingly for others, that threatens our very existence.

As with the socialist revolutionaries of the past, of course it would be the progressive intelligentsia that would be the first to be lined up and shot should their Islamic supremacist “underdogs” inherit the Earth.

National security-minded Democrats in the Reagan mold have largely either passed away or become Republicans.

Saddest of all, on account of how much the culture has moved, so too have Republicans.

Though the 2016 election may be viewed as a test on this thesis, clearly the public has shifted substantially in the last 14 years, on account of the wages of political correctness and the onslaught of progressive messages in media, academia, and among our political elites. Look no further than the question of gay marriage.

In the final analysis, politicians follow the public and the donors. Cultural changes lead to political changes.

And there is one last element at play largely unnoticed when we talk about the handling of Islamic supremacism in America. As Daniel Horowitz has documented so trenchantly, America has brought in well over 1.5 million individuals from Muslim-majority countries since 9/11.

The Wall Street Journal notes in a recent article about American Muslim voters that:

Muslims make up only about 1% of the U.S. population, according to the Pew Research Center. But the community is concentrated in several large swing states that could influence the November election, including Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

…The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, the largest coalition of national and local Muslim groups, aims to register one million voters by the Nov. 8 election.

It declared Monday as “National Muslim Voter Registration Day,” with mosques all over the U.S. hosting voter-registration tables as worshipers streamed in to celebrate the holiday. The Council on American-Islamic Relations estimates 300,000 Muslims have registered to vote since 2012.

In 2011, Pew conducted an extensive study of Muslims in America. Among its findings were that:

  • 21 percent of those polled indicated there was a great deal or fair amount of “support for extremism among Muslim Americans”
  • 19 percent did not indicate that “suicide bombing/other violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies”
  • 70 percent indicated that they viewed Al Qaeda “very unfavorably”

Are we to believe that this growing constituency has no impact on the positions our politicians take?

Don’t Miss:

Editor's note: This piece has been updated to correct minor typographical errors.

Ben Weingarten is a contributor to Conservative Review. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter.