Norquist was bankrolled by terror supporter
Grover Norquist is a close ally of the arrested “moderate Muslim” terror supporter (and frequent White House guest
and speechwriter for the Clintons), Abdurahman Alamoudi. Since the original article
is in annoying pdf format, I’m reproducing the text here for easier reading.
SECURITY POLICY REVIEW
Vol. III, No.14, 3 October 2003
ALAMOUDI, NORQUIST’S ISLAMIC INSTITUTE PATRON, BANKROLLED TERRORISTS, FEDERAL AGENTS SAY
A leading Muslim political activist, charged with “illegally accepting money from Libya to influence U.S. policy,” also “funded terrorists in the United States and abroad,” the Washington Post reports.
Abdurahman Alamoudi, who provided seed money to help Republican activist Grover Norquist start the Islamic Institute, was arrested earlier this week on the Libyan money charges. Federal prosecutors allege that he funded terrorists abroad and inside the United States, including those linked to al Qaeda.
Alamoudi had a close relationship with the Clinton administration, but thanks to Norquist’s aggressive pushing of radical Muslim, including Alamoudi, the suspected terrorist funder built ties to now-President George W. Bush. The president’s enemies, starting with the New York Times, are now linking Bush to Alamoudi.
The Center for Security Policy has long warned the Bush Administration to sever ties with what it calls a “terrorist enabler,” citing potential “grave harm” to the president and to national security.
Before and since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Alamoudi, Norquist, and others aggressively lobbied to undermine the Bush Administration’s anti-terrorism legislative tools, and have attacked Attorney General John Ashcroft, who is leading the domestic war on terrorism. Federal agents allege that Alamoudi was behind funding terrorists in the United States. British authorities detained Alamoudi in August with luggage containing $340,000 in cash as he prepared to board a flight for Syria. The money, the US government alleges, “was intended for delivery in Damascus to one or more of the terrorists or terrorist organizations active in Syria,” according to the report.
Prosecutors displayed six checks from the Portland, Oregon, branch of Alamoudi’s American Muslim Foundation—four of which paid for the “salary” of Patrice Lumumba Ford, an alleged al Qaeda conspirator arrested last year, and two of which paid for expenses of Ahmed Bilal, a co-conspirator of Ford who pled guilty to federal charges.
An Alamoudi aide, Khaled Saffuri, became executive director of the Islamic Institute under Norquist’s chairmanship when Alamoudi made the cash contributions. The group operates out of Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform suite. Saffuri has said that at least one of the checks was not a donation but a “loan.” The Islamic Institute vigorously denies that it is tied to terrorists or terrorist supporters, and says such allegations are motivated by “racism and bigtry.”
The Islamic Institute has been subject of heavy criticism for its ties to radical operatives who support Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad, but the Alamoudi prosecution is the first evidence that anyone in the tight circle was linked to Osama bin Laden’s organization.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 06, 2003 11:06 AM | Send
With the recent arrests at Gitmo, and now this, it seems that radical Muslims have infiltrated our government better than the Communists ever did. You cannot simultaneously fight a war on terror while allowing this sort of thing happen. If Bush manages to lose the upcoming election, Republicans will hopefully spend the next four years thinking really hard about defeating Islamic terrorism. (Notably something that the Democrats have not done during their time out of power, surprisingly enough.)
But the important things to remember here are:
1) By bending over backwards to be nice to Islamists, we show the soccer moms how good-spirited the modern generation of “compassionate conservatives” are, especially in comparison to those mean-spirited conservatives of the past that they might have heard bad things about.
2) Bush’s pandering to Islamists, combined with his attack on Iraq, have produced a whopping 2% of American Muslims who claim they will vote for him in 2004.
“Bush’s pandering to Islamists, combined with his attack on Iraq, have produced a whopping 2% of American Muslims who claim they will vote for him in 2004.”
To paraphrase someone who is not very popular around here, Norman Podhoretz, for the same price, Bush could have spoken the truth.
Here’s more on the odious reptile Norquist, by Michelle Malkin in Vdare.com (anyone needing a good emetic round about now, forget the ipecac — just read this piece):
More on the “brilliant” Norquist-Rove “strategy” in a Steve Sailer Vdare.com article up today, analysing the 2002 election results:
“What about the much-touted Muslim vote? The best evidence against my assumption that Rove is a sharp cookie is the ludicrous and possibly catastrophic effort he cooked up with immigration-booster Grover Norquist to win the supposedly crucial Muslim masses in the 2000 Presidential election. Incredibly, as part of Rove’s outreach, President Bush was supposed to meet with Muslim and Arab spokesmen to announce progress in eliminating airport security profiling of Muslim and Arab passengers on … the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001. Something or other came up.
“You would think that if Rove were going to expose Americans to a greater risk of terrorism, he’d at least sell out to a sizable voting bloc.
“Yet it turns out that the fraction of voters who declared themselves to be Muslims in 2002 was miniscule: no more than 0.3 percent. The sample size was much too small to be reliable—but, for whatever it’s worth, the interviewees voted 90 percent Democratic.
“Hmmm. Maybe Karl’s not such a ‘Boy Genius’ after all.”
( http://www.vdare.com/sailer/exit_poll_02.htm )
The antics of Karl Rove and Grover Norquist are certainly not doing the GOP any good or bringing it any closer to winning the next election. Norquist is a traitor to his country who accepts Arab money for touting their interests over ours, and Rove is one of the stupider political strategists to come down the pike in a long time, who had the last election handed to him on a silver platter by Ralph Nader’s decision to run (Gore-plus-Nader did beat Bush — and there won’t be any Dem spoiler in the next election, Karl: who’s going to save you?).
My guess is that Rove is strongly drawn to this counterproductive strategy for the following reason. To be politically smart is to be on top of whatever is new and emergent in a society. The diversification of America, and specifically the Moslemization of America, is in the forefront of what is new and emergent. Therefore to invest one’s political capital in this “cutting edge” phenomenon of Moslemization is the height of political adroitness, regardless of the facts on the ground. Basically, Rove pursues the Moslem card for its own sake.
Of course, another theory is that Rove/Bush know they’re getting nowhere with the Moslems, and do all this basically for the sake of the soccer moms.
“Of course, another theory is that Rove/Bush know they’re getting nowhere with the Moslems, and do all this basically for the sake of the soccer moms.” —LA
That is my belief. Rove knows how to use a calculator like anybody else. It is the same reason that large corporations spend millions on borderline fradulant “diversity” organizations to help make themselves more diverse.
But the soccer mom theory doesn’t explain why Bush would have continued meeting specifically with radically oriented Moslem groups. The soccer moms don’t know the difference between “radical” and “moderate” Moslems. Bush could have met with any Moslem group, had his photo op, and that would be that. Instead, he kept inviting the likes of CAIR to the White House, even after 9/11.
From the Sailer article, here is another fascinating bit:
“Hispanics voted 38 percent Republican, up from 35 percent in 2000.
“But the Hispanic vote always fluctuates in parallel with the white vote, just many points further to the left. The white-Hispanic spread was 20 points in 2000 (55 v. 35) and actually rose to 21 points (59 v. 38) in 2002. In the last dozen House races going back through 1980, this white-Latino ‘ethnic gap’ has held relatively steady at 19 to 28 points.”
The idea that tiny increases in the Hispanic pro-GOP vote, which GOP wise men treat as the most significant political fact since the Declaration of Independence, never amount to much, is well known among those on the right. What I didn’t know is that those fluctuations simply mirror the fluctuations in the white vote.
And here’s another remarkable statistic from Sailer: that 58 percent of married mothers vote for the GOP, but only 32 percent of unmarried mothers.
While his connection to terror organizations and the likelihood that he took huge sums to start and cultivate his own Islamic pac are reasons to be concerned, Grover Norquist’s power and influence at The White House is what we REALLY need to be concerned about.
That September 13th Times of India article showcasing Bush and Rove’s hatred for patriot Rep. Tom Tancredo, one of the only true conservatives in Congress, showed me that the ONLY way real conservatives—not neo-Cons like Grover Norquist—can “flex their muscle” and be heard is to either:
1) stay home on November 9th
2) vote for another candidate/party other than Bush
While a Bush defeat would bring heat to true conservatives like me, I would much rather have an enemy I know about (Dean) a president than a supposed “conservative” who is about to give millions of illegal aliens amnesty and God knows what else.
Also, a true conservative would never betray his country. Norquist is anything BUT “a conservative”. HAs anyone checked into how much slush or hush money he’s collected?