Suhail Khan at CPAC: “No Muslim Brotherhood in US.”


As the late President Ronald Eagan used to opine: “there he goes again”.  We could say the same for Suhail A. Khan <> ,  sefl-proclaimed ‘moderatre Muslim”  who is a Washington lawyer,  Senior Fellow  for Christian-Muslim Understanding of the Institute for Global Engagement, <>    a former senior Bush political appointee, and board  director of the American Conservative union- the sponsor of this weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washingvton, DC.

Suhail Khan is a palpable example of radical Muslim infilitration at the highest levels of our political institutions in America. Read what Frank Gaffney, Jr. President of the Center for Security Policy (CSP) wrote about Khan’s ascension to the board of the ACU  in this 2007 FrontPageMagazine article, “Kahn Job. <> “.

Diana West in her current weekly column  “No matter their U.S. name, they’re the Muslim Brotherhood,”  <> cited what  Gaffney had chronciled as the Khan family connections to radical Islamic groups, part of the Muslim Brotherhood  in America:

But could it also come from a former Bush administration appointee? A board director of the American Conservative Union (ACU), sponsor of the C-PAC convention in Washington, D.C., where the newest batch of 2012 presidential hopefuls have been speech-o-flexing before 10,000 grassroots activists? The surprise answer is yes. The former Bush official and ACU board member who I am quoting above is Suhail Khan, a protege, you might say, of the weirdly influential, not-very-conservative activist Grover Norquist. Khan’s shocking quotation — shocking, that is, for a classic conservative, but not for a classical jihadist — comes from a 1999 speech Khan gave at another convention, that of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). As Suhail Khan has said himself, his father, Mahboob Khan, helped found and was very active in ISNA. He said so in that same 1999 speech, further pledging as his “life’s work, inspired by my dear father’s shining legacy … to work for the umma,” which means transnational Islam.

According to a key internal document of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISNA is a Muslim Brotherhood front, probably the largest one in America. Which means that no matter what CNN’s Anderson Cooper ignorantly accepted from Khan as fact recently, Khan’s father, Mahboob Khan, was part of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB or Ikhwan) in America.

His enabler is none other than Grover Norquist ,

Republican K Street lobbyist king, President of Americans for Tax Reform  who was viewed as untouchable by many because of  his alleged co-authorship of the 1994 GOP Contract with Anerica and the Bush tax cuts. Norquist  had ready access to the oval office in the Bush Administration via Karl Rove and facilitated Muslim outreach during the fractitous 2000 Election campaign. Remember the photos of convicted felon Sam Al Arian,  <> former University of South Florida computer science orofessor and his family  at the gathering of  160 Muslim activitts in the Bush Rose Garden in  June 2001,  Al Arian  had funelled funds to Palestinian terror group Palestinian Islamic.

Then there was  Norquist’s association with  Abdurahman Alamoud <> i, now serving a term of 23 years as a convicted felow in a federal prison for funneling funds to al  Qaeda. Norquist and Alamoudi had founded the Islamic Free Market Institute <> .  Paul Sperry had documented these an other aspect  in his groundbreaking book, Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington. <>

This weekend at CPAC an intrepid band of conservatrives and anti-Jihads led by Gaffney of the CSP including several members of the Florida Security Council (FSC), Tom Trento, Randy McDaniels, and  J. Mark Campbell  are assisting in documenting the Norquist radical Islam connection to the ACU.  Watch this fascinating brief video <>   posted on Pajamas media PJ Tatler  of  a confrontation yesterday  between J. Mark Campbell of the FSC and Suaeil Kahn during which Campbell asks Khan if the Muslim Brotherhood exists in America. Note Suhel Kahn’s response: ‘there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the US”

Here is the full PJ  tatler post of the confrontation:

Video: ACU’s Suhail Khan declares that there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States
Suhail Khan is a member of the American Conservative Union’s board of directors <> . ACU hosts and operates the Conservative Political Action Committee’s annual conference, and during this week’s CPAC conference in Washington, Khan has come under fire for alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood. During a panel on conservative inclusion at CPAC on Saturday, Khan flatly declared that there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. The Tatler has obtained video of Khan’s remarks, below.

The Muslim Brotherhood identifies many front groups in their own internal documents, documents which were entered into evidence by federal prosecutors in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial. A simple Google search of “Muslim Brotherhood United States <> ” also easily proves Khan’s assertion to be false. Numerous groups working in the United States, in various capacities, have been provably linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

To note but one prominent example, the Council on American Islamic Relations, CAIR, has been identified by the FBI <>  as a group connected with the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas. Hamas itself is the Palestinian affiliate for the Muslim Brotherhood. The video was shot and brought to PJTV by the Florida Security Council, <> , led by Tom Trento, J. Mark Campbell and Randy McDaniels.

February 14, 2011 | 4 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

4 Comments / 4 Comments

  1. I grant you, he’s been quite noticeable of late. And his son, Rand Paul in KY, will keep the family name in the Tea Party’s attentions for the foreseeable future.

    And, yes, the media do seem to have discovered him (at long last). Remember, though, when the media take note of somebody, it’s not always for the purpose of embracing him/her. Sometimes they build somebody up whom they view (correctly or not) as vulnerable, in hopes that he/she will become a nominee who’ll be easy to beat [see, e.g., McCain, Sen. John, ca 2008].

    I remember Ron Paul from the mid-1980’s when he was a young congressman. He was interesting to me: He was pro-life, pro-real money [hard currency, etc] — and not the least bit afraid to say so; a novelty in those days. Of course, he was also isolationist in a way that you’d think had gone out of style on Dec. 8, 1941. And his attitude toward Israel sounded like something canned in a left-wing sausage factory; weird how the libertarian ship can list-to-port at the moment it puts out to sea.

    Romney looks the part, and he delivers a speech well. What’s more, he understands business, finance and corporate organization. That’s all to the good. But he has yet to come across with a credible MEA CULPA for the Massachusetts Health Care mess or for his insufferable flip-flop on abortion as Governor, or for presiding over the state’s sanctioning of same-sex ‘marriage.’

    That being said, I supported him in the 2008 primary — but only because, by the time the California GOP primary rolled around, Fred Thompson [too late coming in] was out of the running, and Romney was last man standing….. apart from McCain. I find it hard to imagine Romney in the Oval Office in Jan. 2013.

    Palin gets better all the time, but I’ve never thought she wanted the job — not THAT job. Here’s an excerpt from a post of mine from last November:

    Palin’s clearly an original — she’s a good friend to Israel, and she’s genuinely pro-life; I like her — but I don’t think she really wants the Oval Office. She’s keeping her name & face on the national stage, I know, but the Presidency’s a 24-hour-per-day job — the kind that turns a young man’s hair gray after four years — and she doesn’t have that kind of time….

    If she really had her eye on the Presidency, she’d be playing coy about now, like most of the real hopefuls are doing: to avoid premature peaking, and also to keep from being taken out early by the lamestream media (the Democrats’ cheering section, spying & character assassination service), the way they targeted George Allen, last time out.

    But she’s not playing coy. She’s not measuring her words when the media come calling. (You don’t REALLY think they’re battering down her door these days because they just “can’t get enough of her,” do you?) They’d love to ferret her out as early in the game as they can, in hopes of having the max amount of time to take her down before things heat up for the 2012 campaign; you know she really scares the pee-pee out of them….

    After the 2012 election, she could take a spot in a Perry or West or DeMint, etc, cabinet — maybe at Interior or Energy, whatever.

    If she didn’t have a special-needs child, then 2016 or 2020 might be a real possibility for her & the White House: the nest would be empty by then & she’d be ready to clear her decks for action. But Downs Syndrome is a full-time job — a PERMANENT full-time job, for a mother as much as it is for the actual child…. even WITH a man who’s solid, like Tod Palin, standing by. That’s just the way it is.

    Huckabee’s great to listen to when he delivers his daily report, and he’s for-real on Israel. But he’s got a problem with his own gubernatorial record on at least a couple of scores: a history of paroling or commuting the sentences of convicted felons who went on to kill cops, or were arrested for rape/sexual assault/murder. On top of that, his history as a “taxer” in Arkansas isn’t likely to sit well with the Tea Party if he seeks the GOP nomination.

    In any event, I’m quite certain that whoever it is will beat Obama in 2012.

    Keep your powder dry. A lotta things can happen yet.

  2. Dweller, I hope you’re right.

    At this point, I’m not making predictions.

    Four years ago, in February of ’07, Obama had just barely gotten to the level of national recognition. At that time, few took him seriously as national ticket material.

    Ron Paul was a fringe candidate who went nowhere in ’08. But now, not just at CPAC, he’s getting all sorts of coverage and “respect”. I’ve seen puff articles in my local newspaper, and even in the Atlantic Monthly. I understand he has a huge war chest.

    I’m sure he’ll run, and I expect he’ll be one of the last three or four standing through the primary season, at the very least.

    Again, I’m not making predictions as to who will get the GOP nod. Palin will also run, as will Huckabee, as will Romney. Those are for sure, and there will be others.

    I hope it is Palin or Huckabee. In any event, I’m quite certain that whoever it is will beat Obama in 2012. That is, unless Obama pulls a “Marcos” and suspends elections due to some kind of manufactured “national emergency”, or unless Obama rigs the election Iran-style (I don’t consider either of those two scenarios likely, but they are at least possible; I don’t put anything past Obama and his people). Barring those two scenarios, there is no way Obama is in office as of January 2013.

    But if Ron Paul somehow does pull it off, then as far as U.S.-Israeli relations are concerned, it is “game over”. The Saudis will have achieved here what they did in Britain: co-opting both major parties with respect to the issue of Israel.

  3. And who won the CPAC straw poll for the second year in a row? Ron Paul, by far the most anti-Israel Republican in Congress, and among the two or three most anti-Israel legislators of either party in Congress.

    He always packs the hall with his supporters, so of course he repeatedly wins the damned thing.

    No way he’ll ever get the GOP nod, however.

  4. …And who won the CPAC straw poll for the second year in a row? Ron Paul, by far the most anti-Israel Republican in Congress, and among the two or three most anti-Israel legislators of either party in Congress.

    I keep warning everybody: Ron Paul is Saudia’s “Plan B” insurance policy against Obama.