- Spitfire List - http://spitfirelist.com -

FTR #953 Saint Bernard: Rebel Without A Clue

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained HERE [1]. The new dri­ve is a 32-giga­byte dri­ve that is cur­rent as of the pro­grams and arti­cles post­ed by ear­ly win­ter of 2017. The new dri­ve (avail­able for a tax-deductible con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more.) 

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE [2].

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [3].

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [3].

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE [4].

This broad­cast was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment [5].

Gabbard and Bernie Sanders [6]

Gab­bard and Bernie Sanders

Grover Norquist [7]

Grover Norquist

Intro­duc­tion: Against the back­ground of Trumpian polit­i­cal volatil­i­ty made man­i­fest in Syr­ia, we look at St. Bernard [Sanders] and the impli­ca­tions of actions he has tak­en.

This pro­gram is pre­sent­ed in the con­text of the “shock to the sys­tem” that Steve Ban­non and oth­er Trump advis­ers see as nec­es­sary and immi­nent.

After detail­ing more about the Hun­gar­i­an fas­cist man­i­fes­ta­tions [8] of Sebas­t­ian Gor­ka, the Trump admin­is­tra­tion’s point man for counter-jihadism,  the pro­gram turns to the pos­si­ble use of the Sanders cam­paign as a vehi­cle for the GOP to infil­trate and/or maneu­ver jihadist ele­ments into promi­nence in the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty.

In numer­ous pro­grams, we have not­ed the sup­pres­sion [9] of Oper­a­tion Green Quest [10], which tar­get­ed indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions [11] linked to the Al-Taqwa/­Mus­lim Broth­er­hood [12] milieu on the one hand, and to the Karl Rove/Grover Norquist-gen­er­at­ed [13] Islam­ic Free Mar­ket Insti­tute on the oth­er. Karl Rove, Grover Norquist and Gra­ham E. Fuller, the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood’s and jihadis’ most sig­nif­i­cant backer in the intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty, fac­tor into this analy­sis:

Rove financed Sanders cam­paign [14] through the Amer­i­can Cross­roads super-PAC. ” . . . Amer­i­can Crossroads—founded by for­mer Bush advis­er Karl Rove—and sev­er­al oth­er con­ser­v­a­tive-backed super PACs have spent the last month inten­tion­al­ly fuel­ing the Bern, but their zeal has more to do with an effort to weak­en Hillary Clin­ton, whom they still see as the like­ly Demo­c­ra­t­ic nom­i­nee and hard­er to defeat in the gen­er­al elec­tion. . . . Cross­roads is one of sev­er­al groups that has released ads that have been aimed at brand­ing Sanders as the only true pro­gres­sive in the race—a strat­e­gy the Ver­mont senator’s cam­paign also embraces. . . .”

  1. Gra­ham E. Fuller says [15] that he was ” . . . . gal­va­nized at watch­ing the spec­ta­cle of Bernie Sanders pro­claim­ing issues in his cam­paign that had been vir­tu­al­ly off lim­its for polit­i­cal dis­cus­sion for decades: gap between rich and poor, rapa­cious inter­na­tion­al trade deals, a fair wage, free uni­ver­si­ty edu­ca­tion, the call for US bal­ance (gasp!) in han­dling the Arab-Israeli, issue, etc. The great thing about Bernie — even if he prob­a­bly won’t get nom­i­nat­ed — is that he has pushed hawk­ish, friend-of-Wall-Street Hillary to the left. . . .”
  2. Fuller’s actu­al views [16] are the oppo­site of Sanders pol­i­cy points: “. . . Fuller comes from that fac­tion of CIA Cold War­riors who believed (and still appar­ently believe) that fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam, even in its rad­i­cal jiha­di form, does not pose a threat to the West, for the sim­ple rea­son that fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam is con­ser­v­a­tive, against social jus­tice, against social­ism and redis­tri­b­u­tion of wealth, and in favor of hier­ar­chi­cal socio-eco­nom­ic struc­tures. Social­ism is the com­mon ene­my to both cap­i­tal­ist Amer­ica and to Wah­habi Islam, accord­ing to Fuller. . . ‘There is no main­stream Islam­ic organization...with rad­i­cal social views,’ he wrote. Clas­si­cal Islam­ic the­ory envis­ages the role of the state as lim­ited to facil­i­tat­ing the well-being of mar­kets and mer­chants rather than con­trol­ling them. Islamists have always pow­er­fully object­ed to social­ism and communism....Islam has nev­er had prob­lems with the idea that wealth is uneven­ly dis­trib­uted.’ . . . .”
  3. Faisal Gill, a for­mer oper­a­tions direc­tor [17] for Norquist’s Islam­ic Free Mar­ket Insti­tute and offi­cial with George W. Bush’s Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty is now the head of Ver­mon­t’s Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty [18], a post he has used to join Bernie Sanders and Tul­si Gab­bard to pro­mote Kei­th Elli­son as head of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Com­mit­tee. Elli­son is now the deputy chair of the DNC, the post for­mer­ly held by Gab­bard. ” . . . . Yet some offi­cials remain con­cerned that Gill appar­ent­ly enjoys the polit­i­cal pro­tec­tion of Norquist, the archi­tect of the 1994 Repub­li­can elec­tion sweep that brought Geor­gia Repub­li­can Newt Gin­grich to pow­er as House speak­er. Norquist speaks of ‘crush­ing’ his polit­i­cal oppo­nents and dis­miss­es those who don’t agree with his anti-tax, anti-gov­ern­ment agen­da as ‘Bol­she­viks.’ His pow­er derives from a for­mi­da­ble coali­tion of evan­gel­i­cal, busi­ness and oth­er con­ser­v­a­tive groups that he con­trols to push favored GOP issues, as well as from his close rela­tion­ship with White House polit­i­cal chief Karl Rove. . . .”

The pro­gram also notes a num­ber of oth­er things about the Sanders cam­paign:

  1. He was pro­mot­ing open pri­maries [19] for the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, which would enable Karl Rove and the Repub­li­cans to choose the Demo­c­ra­t­ic nom­i­nee.
  2. Sanders was a Pres­i­den­tial elec­tor for the Social­ist Work­ers Part [20]y, embrac­ing a stance which would have made him ter­mi­nal­ly vul­ner­a­ble had he got­ten the Demo­c­ra­t­ic nom­i­na­tion. ” . . . . In 1980, Sanders served as an elec­tor for the Social­ist Work­ers Par­ty, which was found­ed on the prin­ci­ples of Leon Trot­sky. Accord­ing to the New York Times, that par­ty called for [21] abol­ish­ing the mil­i­tary bud­get. It also called for “sol­i­dar­i­ty” with the rev­o­lu­tion­ary regimes in Iran, Nicaragua, Grena­da, and Cuba; this was in the mid­dle of the Iran­ian hostage cri­sis. . . .”
  3. The SWP was a vehi­cle for infil­tra­tion and the acqui­si­tion of a “left cov­er” by Nazis and spooks, includ­ing Lee Har­vey Oswald [22].
  4. The Third Reich saw Leon Trot­sky’s method­ol­o­gy as wor­thy of emu­la­tion [23]. (The SWP is a Trot­skyite polit­i­cal par­ty.) ” . . . . ‘You should read his books,’ he [Hitler] barked. ‘We can learn a lot from him.’ . . .”
  5. To what extent have the GOP and the over­lap­ping Under­ground Reich focused on Sanders (with­out his knowl­edge) as a vehi­cle for infil­trat­ing the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty? In FTR #‘s 941 [24], 942 [25]and 945 [26], we not­ed the numer­ous fas­cist con­nec­tions of Tul­si Gab­bard, one of the dri­ving forces behind Sanders’ ascent. To what extent has the Trot­skyite tem­plate served as a vehi­cle for Gab­bard, and, per­haps, Elli­son to infil­trate the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty?

1a. Sebas­t­ian Gor­ka, Trump’s nation­al secu­ri­ty advi­sor for counter-jihadism, spoke pos­i­tive­ly on TV back in 2007 about the move by the far-right Job­bik par­ty to start its own “Hun­gar­i­an Guard” para­mil­i­tary mili­tia based on the WWII “Arrow Cross” Hun­gar­i­an Nazis [27].

“EXCLUSIVE: Con­tro­ver­sial Trump Aide Sebas­t­ian Gor­ka Backed Vio­lent Anti-Semit­ic Mili­tia” by Lili Bay­er; For­ward; 4/3/2017. [8]

As a Hun­gar­i­an polit­i­cal leader in 2007, Sebas­t­ian Gor­ka, Pres­i­dent Trump’s chief counter-ter­ror­ism advis­er, pub­licly sup­port­ed a vio­lent racist and anti-Semit­ic para­mil­i­tary mili­tia that was lat­er banned as a threat to minori­ties by mul­ti­ple court rul­ings.

In a video obtained by the For­ward of an August 2007 tele­vi­sion appear­ance by Gor­ka, the future White House senior aide explic­it­ly affirms his party’s and his sup­port for the black-vest­ed Hun­gar­i­an Guard (Mag­yar Gár­da) — a group lat­er con­demned [28] by the Euro­pean Court of Human Rights for attempt­ing to pro­mote an “essen­tial­ly racist” legal order.

Asked direct­ly on the TV inter­view pro­gram if he sup­ports the move by Job­bik, a far-right anti-Semit­ic par­ty, to estab­lish the mili­tia, Gor­ka, appear­ing as a leader of his own new­ly formed par­ty, replies imme­di­ate­ly, “That is so.” The Guard, Gor­ka explains, is a response to “a big soci­etal need.”

Hungary’s offi­cial mil­i­tary, he stressed, “is sick, and total­ly reflects the state of Hun­gar­i­an soci­ety…. This coun­try can­not defend itself.”

As he speaks dur­ing the pro­gram, a ban­ner head­line read­ing “UDK Sup­ports The Hun­gar­i­an Guard” runs across the screen. The Hun­gar­i­an acronym is a ref­er­ence to Gorka’s own, par­ty, known in Eng­lish as the New Demo­c­ra­t­ic Coali­tion.

Both the inter­view­er and Gor­ka refer to the move to estab­lish the para­mil­i­tary out­fit as “the Fidesz-Job­bik ini­tia­tive,” reflect­ing Gorka’s con­tention that Fidesz, a larg­er right-wing par­ty, was qui­et­ly back­ing Job­bik in its effort.

Gorka’s affir­ma­tion of sup­port for the far-right mili­tia echoed state­ments his par­ty post­ed on its web­site that same month, back­ing the Guard’s estab­lish­ment and refer­ring to it as “the Fidesz-Job­bik ini­tia­tive,” an appar­ent attempt by Gor­ka and his par­ty to some­what dis­tance them­selves from the con­tro­ver­sial mili­tia at the same time. In one such state­ment, [29] a par­ty fac­tion indi­cat­ed its aware­ness of the Guard lead­ers’ extrem­ism, declar­ing blunt­ly, “We sup­port the estab­lish­ment of the Hun­gar­i­an Guard despite the per­son­al­i­ties involved.”Anoth­er August state­ment [30] spoke more gener­i­cal­ly of “a need for guards” in dis­cussing the new militia’s estab­lish­ment.

The fol­low­ing month, anoth­er par­ty state­ment [31] attacked crit­ics of the Guard, alleg­ing that they opposed the mili­tia to please U.S. Rep. Tom Lan­tos, a Hun­gar­i­an-born Holo­caust sur­vivor who had pro­posed leg­is­la­tion to bar Guard mem­bers from enter­ing the Unit­ed States. Lan­tos, a Cal­i­for­nia Demo­c­rat, cit­ed the Guard’s affin­i­ty for “the fas­cist Arrow Cross regime” that ruled Hun­gary at the end of World War II, when it par­tic­i­pat­ed in the depor­ta­tion of Hun­gar­i­an Jews into Nazi hands and killed thou­sands more.

On the TV pre­sen­ta­tion, when his inter­view­er notes the ways in which the Guard “echoes Octo­ber 1944, or some­time around then” through its uni­forms, arms train­ing and street march­es, Gor­ka strong­ly defends his party’s sup­port for the Guard, though not with­out some ambiva­lence.

“I’m not say­ing it’s a good solu­tion, but nei­ther shoot­ing train­ing nor using the Arpad flag [is] uncon­sti­tu­tion­al,” he replied. The Arpad red-and-white flag, a nation­al­ist sym­bol embla­zoned on the Guard’s uni­form, was also used by the Arrow Cross dur­ing World War II.

As for the Guard’s black vests, which the inter­view­er cit­ed as rem­i­nis­cent of the Arrow Cross’s black shirts, Gor­ka said: “When the police shows up to deal with bank rob­bers in black uni­forms, who talks about a fas­cist police in Hun­gary? Nobody! Now, it is pos­si­ble that when they put togeth­er all these things, the effect in the end will be very bad, but it’s not my prob­lem. It would be Fidesz and Jobbik’s prob­lem.”

Dur­ing the 11-minute inter­view, which aired on Hungary’s Echo TV, Gor­ka dis­missed con­cerns expressed by the Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty, and in par­tic­u­lar fears that the Guard pro­voked among Hun­gar­i­an Holo­caust sur­vivors. As is often the case in Hun­gary, the inter­view­er refers to Holo­caust sur­vivors oblique­ly, as “peo­ple who expe­ri­enced 1944” — when hun­dreds of thou­sands of Hun­gar­i­an Jews were deport­ed to Nazi con­cen­tra­tion camps — or as those who expe­ri­enced “the Arrow Cross regime.”

Many such peo­ple, the inter­view­er not­ed, “are say­ing now is the time to leave Hun­gary. So in effect [the estab­lish­ment of the Hun­gar­i­an Guard] is facil­i­tat­ing the flar­ing-up of anti-Semi­tism?”

“This is a tool,” Gor­ka replied. “This type of accu­sa­tion is the very use­ful tool of a cer­tain polit­i­cal class.”

The Guard was well known for its mem­bers’ anti-Semi­tism. Mem­bers often attend­ed memo­r­i­al cer­e­monies for World War II-era Hun­gar­i­an fas­cists. In a 2008 speech, István Dósa, who served in the Guard as a high-rank­ing cap­tain, referred to Jews as “Zion­ist rats” and as “locusts” while also dis­cussing “Zion­ist-Bol­she­vik geno­cide” and call­ing Hun­gar­i­an Jews “nation-destroy­ers.”

In his cur­rent posi­tion as deputy assis­tant to the pres­i­dent, Gor­ka, who immi­grat­ed to the Unit­ed States and became an Amer­i­can cit­i­zen in 2012, serves as Trump’s chief con­sul­tant on counter-ter­ror­ism issues, and in par­tic­u­lar on fight­ing jihadists. He has char­ac­ter­ized the Unit­ed States in this effort as a coun­try “at war” and, in a recent inter­view, reaf­firmed [32] Trump’s call dur­ing his pres­i­den­tial cam­paign for sur­veil­lance of Amer­i­can Mus­lim com­mu­ni­ties. Nei­ther Gor­ka nor the White House respond­ed to emailed requests from the For­ward for a response to the infor­ma­tion the video reveals about Gorka’s sup­port for the Guard.

Crit­ics have ques­tioned Gorka’s exper­tise in the field of ter­ror­ism, which was the sub­ject of his doc­tor­al the­sis at Budapest’s Corv­i­nus Uni­ver­si­ty, where he received his doc­tor­ate. Some have cit­ed seri­ous flaws in his the­sis and not­ed his fail­ure to pub­lish any schol­ar­ship on the issue in peer-reviewed jour­nals. But his August 2007 TV inter­view also rais­es ques­tions about his under­stand­ing, at least at that point in time, of basic secu­ri­ty struc­tures and legal real­i­ties in key coun­tries that are fight­ing ter­ror­ism.

Asked dur­ing the inter­view if it was “nor­mal” for a polit­i­cal par­ty in “devel­oped democ­ra­cies” to estab­lish “in real­i­ty, a para­mil­i­tary group,” Gor­ka respond­ed: “Well it depends on which coun­try. If we look at the Swiss or Israeli exam­ple, then it’s com­plete­ly nat­ur­al…. Even in Amer­i­ca, where the largest and wealth­i­est mil­i­tary exists, there are such pro­grams where peo­ple can access weapons almost for free if they attend an orga­nized shoot­ing train­ing and always belong to an orga­ni­za­tion.”

Gor­ka dis­miss­es the interviewer’s objec­tion that the units in these coun­tries — mil­i­tary reserve units in Israel and Switzer­land, or, in the Unit­ed States, Nation­al Guard forces — “are in effect under the military’s con­trol.”

“It is clear after the dis­tur­bances in Hun­gary last year [that] a need has arisen” to which Job­bik is respond­ing, Gor­ka says.

Job­bik, which announced its estab­lish­ment of the Hun­gar­i­an Guard in June 2007, has a long record of anti-Semit­ic and anti-Roma posi­tions and state­ments [33]. One of the Guard’s found­ing mem­bers was Gábor Vona, Jobbik’s leader. The organization’s declared aim was to defend “eth­nic Hun­gar­i­ans,” since, its founders argued, Hun­gary lacked oth­er means of “phys­i­cal, men­tal or spir­i­tu­al self-defense.”

The Guard was for­mal­ly banned [34] in 2009, with the country’s high­est court rul­ing that its anti-Roma march­es vio­lat­ed the rights of the Hun­gar­i­an Roma com­mu­ni­ty. In 2013, two of its mem­bers were found guilty in a string of racial­ly moti­vat­ed mur­ders [35] of Hun­gar­i­an Roma, includ­ing the killing of a 5‑year-old, com­mit­ted in 2008 and 2009.

In 2013, the Euro­pean Court of Human Rights ruled that [28] Hungary’s unusu­al blan­ket ban on the group was legal. “The movement’s activ­i­ties and man­i­fes­ta­tions were based on the racial con­flict between Hun­gar­i­an major­i­ty and Roma minor­i­ty,” the court ruled.

Gorka’s inter­view was aired about three weeks before the Guard’s first offi­cial swear­ing-in cer­e­mo­ny. But at the time, many observers and Jew­ish groups were already protest­ing against the Guard and call­ing for a ban.

In an August 2007 open let­ter, [36] World Jew­ish Con­gress Pres­i­dent Ronald S. Laud­er and Euro­pean Jew­ish Con­gress Pres­i­dent Moshe Kan­tor warned then-Hun­gar­i­an Prime Min­is­ter Fer­enc Gyurcsány that the “impend­ing cre­ation of an armed guard, under the false guise of ‘sport­ing and shoot­ing clubs,’ with uni­forms resem­bling those worn by fas­cists in World War II” was a dan­ger to democ­ra­cy and should be stopped.

Gorka’s par­ty, which he had launched only recent­ly, was com­pet­ing intense­ly with Job­bik and Vik­tor Orbán’s Fidesz par­ty at the time. While con­firm­ing his sup­port for the Guard, its uni­forms and its para­mil­i­tary nature, when asked whether the Guard would, indeed, resolve the prob­lems he out­lined in Hungary’s mil­i­tary and soci­ety, Gor­ka remarked: “Ah, it’s not that sure. With some kind of pre­sentable orga­ni­za­tion, or sev­er­al orga­ni­za­tions, it could be pos­si­ble.”

Fol­low­ing the inter­view, the New Demo­c­ra­t­ic Coali­tion post­ed a link on its own par­ty web­site, under the head­ing “UDK Sup­ports The Hun­gar­i­an Guard: Sebestyen [Sebas­t­ian] Gor­ka on EchoTV.” But near­ly two weeks lat­er, the par­ty com­plained in a post on its web­site that his com­ments had been “mis­in­ter­pret­ed.”

Dur­ing the TV exchange, Gorka’s inter­view­er allud­ed to a pop­u­lar con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry in Hun­gary regard­ing Israeli secu­ri­ty com­pa­nies main­tain­ing an armed pres­ence on Hun­gar­i­an ter­ri­to­ry to back the gov­ern­ment. “As you all men­tion in the analy­sis you wrote as well, Israeli-owned secu­ri­ty com­pa­nies which also do gov­ern­ment tasks have to be liq­ui­dat­ed,” the inter­view­er told Gor­ka.

The coalition’s leader did not con­tra­dict his interviewer’s account.

The tele­vised inter­view was not the only time Gor­ka defend­ed the Guard. A month lat­er, in an inter­view [37] with a Hun­gar­i­an online por­tal, Gor­ka said that when it comes to the Guard, “it’s not worth talk­ing about ban­ning or a nation­al secu­ri­ty risk.”

Gor­ka left Hun­gary short­ly there­after, as his efforts to build a career in pol­i­tics there failed. In 2008, after a report sur­faced in a Ger­man-lan­guage pub­li­ca­tion about his sup­port for para­mil­i­tary orga­ni­za­tions, he wrote a let­ter deny­ing that he had ever sup­port­ed the Guard.

There is no evi­dence that Gor­ka him­self has ever engaged in overt­ly anti-Semit­ic acts or par­tic­i­pat­ed in any of the Guard’s activ­i­ties. But Gor­ka and some of his polit­i­cal sup­port­ers have argued that he has fought anti-Semi­tism through­out his career. The new­ly avail­able video footage sig­nals that Gor­ka not only failed to fight anti-Semi­tism, but also sup­port­ed an open­ly intol­er­ant para­mil­i­tary group and pub­licly reject­ed the Jew­ish community’s con­cerns about their own safe­ty and the safe­ty of oth­er minori­ties due to the group’s found­ing. . . .

 

. . . . Gorka’s par­ty, which he had launched only recent­ly, was com­pet­ing intense­ly with Job­bik and Vik­tor Orbán’s Fidesz par­ty at the time. While con­firm­ing his sup­port for the Guard, its uni­forms and its para­mil­i­tary nature, when asked whether the Guard would, indeed, resolve the prob­lems he out­lined in Hungary’s mil­i­tary and soci­ety, Gor­ka remarked: “Ah, it’s not that sure. With some kind of pre­sentable orga­ni­za­tion, or sev­er­al orga­ni­za­tions, it could be pos­si­ble.”

Fol­low­ing the inter­view, the New Demo­c­ra­t­ic Coali­tion post­ed a link on its own par­ty web­site, under the head­ing “UDK Sup­ports The Hun­gar­i­an Guard: Sebestyen [Sebas­t­ian] Gor­ka on EchoTV.” But near­ly two weeks lat­er, the par­ty com­plained in a post on its web­site that his com­ments had been “mis­in­ter­pret­ed.”

Dur­ing the TV exchange, Gorka’s inter­view­er allud­ed to a pop­u­lar con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry in Hun­gary regard­ing Israeli secu­ri­ty com­pa­nies main­tain­ing an armed pres­ence on Hun­gar­i­an ter­ri­to­ry to back the gov­ern­ment. “As you all men­tion in the analy­sis you wrote as well, Israeli-owned secu­ri­ty com­pa­nies which also do gov­ern­ment tasks have to be liq­ui­dat­ed,” the inter­view­er told Gor­ka.

The coalition’s leader did not con­tra­dict his interviewer’s account.

The tele­vised inter­view was not the only time Gor­ka defend­ed the Guard. A month lat­er, in an inter­view [37] with a Hun­gar­i­an online por­tal, Gor­ka said that when it comes to the Guard, “it’s not worth talk­ing about ban­ning or a nation­al secu­ri­ty risk.”

Gor­ka left Hun­gary short­ly there­after, as his efforts to build a career in pol­i­tics there failed. In 2008, after a report sur­faced in a Ger­man-lan­guage pub­li­ca­tion about his sup­port for para­mil­i­tary orga­ni­za­tions, he wrote a let­ter deny­ing that he had ever sup­port­ed the Guard.

1b. Sanders was a Pres­i­den­tial elec­tor [20] for the Trot­skyite Social­ist Work­ers Par­ty in 1980. In addi­tion to being an indi­ca­tion of Sanders being polit­i­cal­ly and intel­lec­tu­al­ly imma­ture, we won­der if sin­is­ter ele­ments may have focused on him, tab­bing him for even­tu­al manip­u­la­tion. (We do not feel that Sanders him­self is will­ful­ly sinister–we feel he is imma­ture, unin­tel­li­gent and vul­ner­a­ble to manip­u­la­tion.)

“Bernie Sanders’ Rad­i­cal Past” by Michelle Gold­berg; Slate; 2/24/2016. [20]

. . . . There’s more. In 1980, Sanders served as an elec­tor for the Social­ist Work­ers Par­ty, which was found­ed on the prin­ci­ples of Leon Trot­sky. Accord­ing to the New York Times, that par­ty called for [21] abol­ish­ing the mil­i­tary bud­get. It also called for “sol­i­dar­i­ty” with the rev­o­lu­tion­ary regimes in Iran, Nicaragua, Grena­da, and Cuba; this was in the mid­dle of the Iran­ian hostage cri­sis. . . .

1c. The SWP was used as a vehi­cle for giv­ing a left cov­er to spooks and Nazis, includ­ing Lee Har­vey Oswald.

The Mil­i­tant;” Wikipedia.com [22]

. . . . Cur­rent pub­li­ca­tion[edit [38]]

The Social­ist Work­ers Par­ty was found­ed on Decem­ber 31, 1937, by Trot­sky­ists fol­low­ing the expul­sion of the “Social­ist Appeal fac­tion” from the Social­ist Par­ty of Amer­i­ca. The SWP’s news­pa­per con­tin­ued to be known as Social­ist Appeal until 1941 when it was renamed The Mil­i­tant. This pub­li­ca­tion has con­tin­ued with­out inter­rup­tion into the decade of the 2010s.

In the sum­mer of 2005, The Mil­i­tant became a bilin­gual news­pa­per, pub­lished in both Eng­lish and Span­ish [39] (El Mil­i­tante), and with lead arti­cles and edi­to­ri­als appear­ing in both lan­guages. A French edi­tion was inau­gu­rat­ed in 2012 named Le Mil­i­tant.

The Mil­i­tant is not offi­cial­ly owned or con­trolled by the SWP. To pro­tect the par­ty and the paper, The Mil­i­tant is owned by a pri­vate group[cita­tion need­ed [40]], although the endorse­ment the paper gives to the SWP is clear.

Con­tro­ver­sy[edit [41]]

The Mil­i­tant became noto­ri­ous after a pho­to sur­faced show­ing Lee Har­vey Oswald [42], the sniper who assas­si­nat­ed pres­i­dent John F. Kennedy [43], hold­ing a copy of the pub­li­ca­tion along with a rifle. . . .

2. Many key Nazis saw the Trot­skyite polit­i­cal par­a­digm as a tem­plate for their own oper­a­tions. We won­der if Sanders is being manip­u­lat­ed by ele­ments look­ing to under­mine the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty.

The Nazis Go Under­ground by Curt Riess; Dou­ble­day, Doran and Co., Inc. [HC]; Copy­right 1944 by Curt Riess; p. 11. [44]

. . . . Strange­ly enough, among the under­ground move­ments for which the Nazis, or at least a few of them, have always had a par­tic­u­lar inter­est was the Com­mu­nist under­ground of the ear­ly twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry and the Trot­sky under­ground in the late nine­teen twen­ties and ear­ly thir­ties. On one occa­sion, dur­ing the late twen­ties, Hitler him­self asked a few of his lieu­tenants what they thought of Leon Trot­sky. Since Trot­sky was a Com­mu­nist and a Jew on top of that, these lieu­tenants pre­tend­ed to feel dis­gust and hor­ror at the mere men­tion of his name. The Führer, how­ev­er, did not agree with them. “You should read his books, “ he barked. “We can learn a lot from him. “

At least one of the Nazis besides Hitler did read Trotsky’s books and became very famil­iar with his ideas and meth­ods of orga­ni­za­tion. That man, of course, was Himm­ler. He also knew many things about Trotsky’s meth­ods, because Rudolf Hess and sev­er­al oth­er men of the Hess orga­ni­za­tion were at dif­fer­ent times in close touch with the Russ­ian Com­mu­nist leader. The devel­op­ment of the Trot­sky move­ment may have giv­en Himm­ler more than one idea for the under­ground move­ment he is now work­ing out. Trot­sky was deprived of any direct pow­er after his exclu­sion from the Russ­ian Gov­ern­ment. But even then he still retained con­sid­er­able indi­rect pow­er, because he did not lose con­tact with his adher­ents, many of whom kept their key posi­tions with­in the appa­ra­tus of the state. If, as fre­quent­ly hap­pened, one of these men was found out to be a con­spir­a­tor against the Sovi­et Russ­ian Gov­ern­ment, all he had to do was to say that he had been wrong, to repent, and in most cas­es he would be rein­stalled and could con­tin­ue exer­cis­ing his sub­ver­sive influ­ence. It was thus that Trot­sky, or, rather, Trotsky’s move­ment, con­tin­ued to hold a great num­ber of posi­tions par­ty, with­in the army, with­in the secret police, and, above all, with­in the diplo­mat­ic ser­vice. It was at least the­o­ret­i­cal­ly pos­si­ble that the day would come when all these men would take over their depart­ments in which they were work­ing. And thus, indeed, an under­ground move­ment could have tak­en over the whole gov­ern­ment and the run­ning of the coun­try with­out any great dif­fi­cul­ty. . . .

3a.  None oth­er than Gra­ham E. Fuller, the “ex” CIA offi­cer who is (arguably) the biggest advo­cate for the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood in the U.S. intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty describes him­self as being “gal­va­nized” by Sanders. The val­ues espoused by Sanders are the oppo­site of those advo­cat­ed by Fuller. WHY is Fuller so sup­port­ive of Sanders?

3b. To give us some depth on Fuller’s views and how frankly fishy his sup­port for Sanders is, we review the Broth­er­hood’s advo­ca­cy of cor­po­rate eco­nom­ics.

Ibn Khal­dun is high­ly regard­ed by the Broth­er­hood and that atti­tude has led the cor­po­rate busi­ness com­mu­ni­ty to sup­port the Broth­er­hood. Note that no less an author­i­ty than the World Bank views Ibn Khaldun—revered by the Brotherhood—as “the first advo­cate of pri­va­ti­za­tion”!

“Islam in Office” by Stephen Glain; Newsweek; 7/3–10/2006. [45]

. . . . The Mus­lim Broth­er­hood hails 14th cen­tu­ry philoso­pher Ibn Khal­dun as its eco­nom­ic guide. Antic­i­pat­ing sup­ply-side eco­nom­ics, Khal­dun argued that cut­ting tax­es rais­es pro­duc­tion and tax rev­enues, and that state con­trol should be lim­it­ed to pro­vid­ing water, fire and free graz­ing land, the util­i­ties of the ancient world. The World Bank has called Ibn Khal­dun the first advo­cate of pri­va­ti­za­tion. [Empha­sis added.] His found­ing influ­ence is a sign of mod­er­a­tion. If Islamists in pow­er ever do clash with the West, it won’t be over com­merce.

3c. We note that Karl Rove was help­ing to finance the cam­paign of Bernie Sanders.

 “Bernie Sanders’s Con­ser­v­a­tive Fan­boys” by Jack­ie Kucinich; The Dai­ly Beast; 2/22/2016. [14]

. . . . Amer­i­can Crossroads—founded by for­mer Bush advis­er Karl Rove—and sev­er­al oth­er con­ser­v­a­tive-backed super PACs have spent the last month inten­tion­al­ly fuel­ing the Bern, but their zeal has more to do with an effort to weak­en Hillary Clin­ton, whom they still see as the like­ly Demo­c­ra­t­ic nom­i­nee and hard­er to defeat in the gen­er­al elec­tion.

In the wake of Clinton’s close Neva­da win [46], Cross­roads claimed cred­it for dri­ving her num­bers down in favor of Sanders.

“Amer­i­can Cross­roads and Bernie Sanders helped Neva­da cau­cus-goers see right through Hillary Clinton’s man­u­fac­tured zeal on immi­gra­tion reform after spew­ing vir­u­lent Trump-like rhetoric—and that one-two punch shaved Clinton’s 50-point lead a year ago to a slim, sin­gle dig­it win,” Steven Law, Cross­roads CEO and pres­i­dent, said in a state­ment.

Cross­roads is one of sev­er­al groups that has released ads that have been aimed at brand­ing Sanders as the only true pro­gres­sive in the race—a strat­e­gy the Ver­mont senator’s cam­paign also embraces.

“If it helps push the nee­dle so that she los­es a state, and she comes out a weak­ened can­di­date, then fan­tas­tic,” said Ian Pri­or, com­mu­ni­ca­tions direc­tor for Cross­roads.

On Mon­day, Future 45, a super PAC report­ed­ly backed [47] by hedge fund bil­lion­aire Paul Singer, launched the lat­est in its own series of ads that seem to defend Sanders. . . .

. . . . Still, the Clin­ton cam­paign has cried foul, not­ing that Sanders’s sup­port­ers have been echo­ing Repub­li­can attacks on Clin­ton and that he cer­tain­ly has not been reject­ing the ads. . . .

5a. Sanders was an advo­cate of mak­ing all Demo­c­ra­t­ic pri­maries “open”–permitting Repub­li­cans to help choose the Demo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­den­tial can­di­date.

“Mak­ing Democ­rats’ Pri­maries More Open Could Be Hard­er Than You Think” by Scott Detrow; Nation­al Pub­lic Radio [48]; 5/21/2016.

As the Democ­rats’ pri­ma­ry process begins to wind down, the big ques­tion on a lot of peo­ple’s mind is, what does Bernie Sanders want?

The Ver­mont sen­a­tor now has a lot of clout with­in the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, and is in the posi­tion to demand some changes.

One thing Sanders has voiced con­cerns about is how Democ­rats vote for pres­i­dent: He’s made it clear he does­n’t like closed pri­maries, where only Democ­rats can vote.

Nei­ther do Sanders sup­port­ers. When Sanders men­tioned dur­ing a pri­ma­ry night ral­ly this week that Ken­tucky is “a closed pri­ma­ry, some­thing I am not all that enthu­si­as­tic about, where inde­pen­dents are not allowed to vote,” the Cal­i­for­nia crowd roared to life with boos.

So, per­haps Sanders will make a push the par­ty to embrace open pri­maries at the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion this sum­mer.

There are elec­toral stakes here. All year, Sanders has done bet­ter in con­tests where inde­pen­dents, or even reg­is­tered Repub­li­cans, were allowed to par­tic­i­pate.

Of course, has also done well in cau­cus­es, which are very closed and very lim­it­ed, com­pared to statewide pri­maries. . . .

5b. More about Sanders’ advo­ca­cy of open pri­maries for the DNC:

“Open Pri­maries Are a Ter­ri­ble Idea, Espe­cial­ly Know­ing the GOP is Mov­ing Toward Closed Pri­maries” by Bob Cesca; The Dai­ly Ban­ter; 5/25/2016. [49]

Basic log­ic dic­tates that mem­bers of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty should be exclu­sive­ly tasked with choos­ing the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty nom­i­nee for pres­i­dent...

. . . .Mean­while, the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty is under pres­sure from Bernie Sanders sup­port­ers to elim­i­nate closed pri­maries, thus allow­ing any reg­is­tered vot­er to chime in, regard­less of par­ty affil­i­a­tion. The idea is that too many inde­pen­dent vot­ers who want­ed to sup­port Bernie Sanders were unable to do so in 29 states because they weren’t reg­is­tered Democ­rats. But, see, you can’t have your Bernie cake and eat it, too. You can’t shun the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty then expect to have a voice in who the Democ­rats nom­i­nate. It’s up to the Dems to decide, not inde­pen­dent vot­ers who refuse to join a par­ty, or Repub­li­cans, for that mat­ter, who have a vest­ed inter­est in see­ing Democ­rats defeat­ed.

Frankly, there should­n’t be any open pri­maries in the first place. Basic log­ic dic­tates that mem­bers of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty should be exclu­sive­ly tasked with choos­ing the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty nom­i­nee for pres­i­dent, as well as con­gres­sion­al offices and so forth.

Sec­ond, it’s a huge mis­take for the Democ­rats to uni­lat­er­al­ly make a change like this since it’d leave the process com­plete­ly and lop­sid­ed­ly vul­ner­a­ble to Repub­li­can tam­per­ing, not unlike Rush Lim­baugh­’s “Oper­a­tion Chaos” in 2008 where­by Repub­li­cans, freed up after John McCain secured his nom­i­na­tion, were urged to cross over and vote for Hillary Clin­ton in order to stir up the con­tentious­ness of that race. Open pri­maries allowed it to hap­pen.

Nev­er­the­less, no one was dis­en­fran­chised by the exis­tence of 29 closed pri­ma­ry states. (Vot­er ID and local incom­pe­tence, on the oth­er hand, dis­en­fran­chised many.) Inde­pen­dents who man­aged to over­come an unfor­giv­ably glitchy reg­is­tra­tion process were allowed to vote in the Demo­c­ra­t­ic pri­maries, even in the closed states, by plan­ning ahead and reg­is­ter­ing as Democ­rats. Fur­ther­more, there’s always the oppor­tu­ni­ty to help decide the nom­i­nee from one of the third par­ties. Weird­ly, how­ev­er, it always seems like the third par­ties nom­i­nate the same peo­ple over and over (Gary John­son and Jill Stein, for instance). It appears as if the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, and even the GOP, has a much more stren­u­ous­ly demo­c­ra­t­ic (small “d”) process than the Lib­er­tar­i­an or Green par­ties, each of which mag­i­cal­ly nom­i­nate the same two can­di­dates every year with very lit­tle input from vot­ers. Fun­ny how that works.

Any­way.

And final­ly, elim­i­nat­ing closed Demo­c­ra­t­ic pri­maries is most­ly about Bernie Sanders fail­ing to win the nom­i­na­tion, and not out of an ide­al­is­tic demo­c­ra­t­ic need for inclu­sive­ness. This appears to be a post-mortem reac­tion after fail­ing to secure the nom­i­na­tion, hav­ing real­ized too late that closed pri­maries would hurt Bernie’s chances. Con­verse­ly, Bernie sup­port­ers would like­ly sup­port closed pri­maries if such a rule had helped, rather than hurt Bernie’s del­e­gate count. Clear­ly, there’s a bit of sour grapes here, and no deci­sions about elim­i­nat­ing closed pri­maries should be made while ten­sions are still high and feel­ings are still crushed. The con­se­quences would only serve to harm Demo­c­ra­t­ic can­di­dates and Demo­c­ra­t­ic whip counts, espe­cial­ly if the GOP choos­es to go with closed pri­maries across-the-board.

So, hope­ful­ly this par­tic­u­lar move­ment will die a quick death before any dam­age is done.

6a. In FTR #941 [24], we high­light­ed the push by Bernie Sanders and his promi­nent backer Tul­si Gab­bard to have Kei­th Elli­son, an African-Amer­i­can Mus­lim to be head of the DNC. He was not elect­ed head of the DNC, but is now deputy chair of the DNC, the posi­tion for­mer­ly held by Gab­bard.

We fleshed out Gab­bard’s inco­her­ent pol­i­tics and fas­cist links in FTR #‘s 942 [25] and 945 [26] as well.

Elli­son is net­worked with the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood [50], and the Nation of Islam as well.

With Elli­son now hold­ing down the #2 posi­tion in the DNC, the Democ­rats may be poised to be cast as “the Ter­ror­ist Par­ty” in the event of a future inci­dent or inci­dents.

“The Elli­son Decep­tion” by Jared Israel [edit­ed by Saman­tha Criscione]; The Emper­or’s New Clothes; 1/30/2017. [51]

 . . . . If you are like most peo­ple, you prob­a­bly don’t know much about Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, but after you read what I have post­ed below, you will see that describ­ing it as “rad­i­cal black Mus­lims” triv­i­al­izes the hor­ror of an appa­ra­tus of fas­cists – pho­to­graph­ic neg­a­tive images of David Duke and com­pa­ny – thus sup­port­ing the impres­sion, which David Corn and oth­ers wish to con­vey, that the Elli­son con­tro­ver­sy is noth­ing more than the polit­i­cal­ly moti­vat­ed harass­ment of a pro­gres­sive politi­cian, exploit­ing some minor indis­cre­tions, long, long ago. . . .

. . . . As Pio­neer Press, the sec­ond high­est cir­cu­la­tion news­pa­per in the Min­neapo­lis-St. Paul area, report­ed in a June 21, 1998 arti­cle on Ellison’s cam­paign for the office of State rep­re­sen­ta­tive, Elli­son had been the Min­neso­ta ‘coor­di­na­tor’ [7 [52]] of the so-called Mil­lion Man March.  Giv­en that Farrakhan’s march was a Nation of Islam project, it fol­lows that the Min­neso­ta coor­di­na­tor was either a mem­ber of the Nation of Islam or so close to the NOI as to be indis­tin­guish­able from a mem­ber.  Indeed, the June 21, 1998 arti­cle states that at that time – that is, three years after Farrakhan’s march – Elli­son was a mem­ber of the Nation of Islam:“Ellison has been active in the com­mu­ni­ty, but not with­in the estab­lished DFL par­ty [the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty in Min­neso­ta]. A mem­ber of the Nation of Islam, Elli­son was the coor­di­na­tor of the Min­neso­ta par­tic­i­pants in the Mil­lion Man March and the sub­se­quent com­mu­ni­ty group that formed.” [See foot­note 7 [52]]

In the next arti­cle in this series, I will present hard evi­dence that Elli­son was already a mem­ber in 1995, when he was orga­niz­ing for Farrakhan’s march.

(Dur­ing the cur­rent debate over Ellison’s Nation of Islam ties, nobody else has men­tioned the June 21, 1998 Pio­neer Press arti­cle, let alone post­ed it on the Inter­net.  You can read it in Appen­dix I [53], where we have copied it for Fair Use – very fair, since it con­tains infor­ma­tion vital for assess­ing a key politi­cian.  Let’s get this infor­ma­tion out to as many peo­ple as pos­si­ble!) . . . .

6b. We note that anoth­er of Kei­th Ellison’s sup­port­ers to head the DNC was Faisal Gill, a Grover Norquist pro­tege whom we cov­ered in FTR #467 [54]. Gill was the for­mer oper­a­tions direc­tor of Norquist’s Islam­ic Free Mar­ket Insti­tute.

“Ver­mont Elects First Mus­lim Par­ty Chair, Sends ‘Strong Mes­sage’ to Trump” by Alex Seitz-Wald; NBC News ; 3/6/2017. [18]

“To have a Mus­lim and immi­grant to be the state par­ty chair sends a real­ly strong mes­sage to Trump and his type of pol­i­tics that this is not where the coun­try is at,” he told NBC News.

The White House released a new exec­u­tive order [55] Mon­day restrict­ing trav­el from six Mus­lim-major­i­ty coun­tries after a fed­er­al court halt­ed an ear­li­er ver­sion. Trump says the move is nec­es­sary for secu­ri­ty, but Gill and oth­er crit­ics say it’s mere­ly an attempt to legal­ly dis­crim­i­nate against Mus­lims.

Gill is an out­sider in ultra-white, ultra-lib­er­al Ver­mont in more ways than one. In a state that is near­ly 95 per­cent [56] white, a Pak­istani-born for­mer Repub­li­can from Vir­ginia stands out.

“Us and Wyoming keep going back and forth for least diverse,” Gill quipped.

After emi­grat­ing to the U.S. and going to law school, Gill served five years in the Navy’s JAG corps before enter­ing Repub­li­can pol­i­tics in Vir­ginia. That led to a post in the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty under George W. Bush. . . .

6c. In FTR #467 [54], [54] we dis­cussed a Fifth Col­umn that Mr. Emory believes facil­i­tat­ed the 9/11 attacks. One of the prin­ci­pal ele­ments in the devel­op­ment of this Fifth Col­umn is GOP king­mak­er Grover Norquist’s active recruit­ment of Islamists to the Repub­li­can cause. Many of Norquist’s Islamist recruits had ter­ror­ist ties. Among the Norquist recruits is Faisal Gill, whose sen­si­tive posi­tion with the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty places him in pos­ses­sion of top-secret infor­ma­tion about the vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty of America’s sea­ports, avi­a­tion facil­i­ties and nuclear pow­er plants. Gill, in turn, is linked to Abdu­rah­man Alam­ou­di, part of the Al Taqwa milieu impli­cat­ed in the financ­ing of Al Qae­da. Gill’s appoint­ment is all the more alarm­ing in light of his appar­ent lack of intel­li­gence qual­i­fi­ca­tions.

Now, Gill is in the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty and was tout­ing Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and Nation of Islam fel­low trav­el­er Kei­th Elli­son to head the DNC.

Recap­ping a por­tion of FTR #467 [54], [54] the pro­gram high­lights the appoint­ment of Faisal Gill—a Norquist protégé—to a sen­si­tive intel­li­gence posi­tion with the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty. Note that Gill, in turn, is close­ly asso­ci­at­ed with Abdu­rah­man Alam­ou­di, an inti­mate of the Al Taqwa milieu.

It is fright­en­ing to note the infor­ma­tion to which Gill’s appoint­ment has giv­en him access.

Doc­u­ments seized from Sami Al-Ari­an indi­cate that the Fifth Col­umn about which Mr. Emory has hypoth­e­sized in con­nec­tion with 9/11 was indeed con­tem­plat­ed by peo­ple tar­get­ed by the Oper­a­tion Green Quest raids of 3/20/2002. (Alam­ou­di and Al-Ari­an are part of the milieu tar­get­ed in those raids. For more about Al-Ari­an, see—among oth­er pro­grams—FTR #s 462 [13], 464, [57] 538 [12].)

As is the case with Elli­son, can the Democ­rats now be cast as “the Ter­ror­ist Par­ty”? Will Faisal Gill be in a posi­tion to com­mu­ni­cate use­ful intel­li­gence for a future ter­ror­ist inci­dent?

“How Secure is the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty?” by Mary Jaco­by; Salon.com; 6/22/2004.  [17]

The pol­i­cy direc­tor for the Depart­ment of Home­land Security’s intel­li­gence divi­sion was briefly removed from his job in March when the Fed­er­al Bureau of Inves­ti­ga­tion dis­cov­ered he had failed to dis­close his asso­ci­a­tion with Abdu­rah­man Alam­ou­di, a jailed Amer­i­can Mus­lim leader. Alam­ou­di was indict­ed last year on ter­ror­ism-relat­ed mon­ey-laun­der­ing charges and now claims to have been part of a plot to assas­si­nate Sau­di Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdul­lah.

After a flur­ry of inter­a­gency meet­ings, how­ev­er, Home­land Secu­ri­ty decid­ed to leave the pol­i­cy direc­tor, Faisal Gill, in place, accord­ing to two gov­ern­ment offi­cials with knowl­edge of the Alam­ou­di inves­ti­ga­tion. A White House polit­i­cal appointee with close ties to Repub­li­can pow­er bro­ker Grover Norquist and no appar­ent back­ground in intel­li­gence, Gill has access to top-secret infor­ma­tion on the vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty of America’s sea­ports, avi­a­tion facil­i­ties and nuclear pow­er plants to ter­ror­ist attacks. 

The FBI raised con­cerns with Home­land Secu­ri­ty offi­cials in March after dis­cov­er­ing that Gill had failed to list on secu­ri­ty clear­ance doc­u­ments his work in 2001 with the Amer­i­can Mus­lim coun­cil, the offi­cials said. The advo­ca­cy group, which was con­trolled by Alam­ou­di, has been under scruti­ny in an inves­ti­ga­tion of ter­ror­ism financ­ing. The lead agent in that inves­ti­ga­tion works for an arm of Home­land Secu­ri­ty. Gill’s omis­sion of the infor­ma­tion on his ‘Stan­dard Form 86’ nation­al secu­ri­ty ques­tion­naire is a poten­tial felony vio­la­tion. There is no evi­dence, how­ev­er, that Gill has tak­en any action to com­pro­mise nation­al secu­ri­ty.”

A Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty spokes­woman would not com­ment on Gill or when he was hired, except to say that a ‘thor­ough inves­ti­ga­tion’ by the department’s Office of Secu­ri­ty found no basis to deny the 32-year-old lawyer a secu­ri­ty clear­ance. Among gill’s polit­i­cal patrons is Grover Norquist, head of Amer­i­cans for Tax Reform and a key ally of the White House. Gill list­ed Norquist as a ref­er­ence on employ­ment doc­u­ments, the gov­ern­ment offi­cials said. Gill also worked in 2001 for a Mus­lim polit­i­cal out­reach orga­ni­za­tion that Norquist co-found­ed with a for­mer top aide to Alam­ou­di. [That is the Islam­ic Institute—D.E.] Norquist did not respond to phone calls, a fax and an e‑mail seek­ing com­ment. . . .

. . . . Mark Zaid, a lawyer in pri­vate prac­tice in Wash­ing­ton who spe­cial­izes in secu­ri­ty clear­ance cas­es, said it would be unusu­al for an agency to over­look omis­sions on a secu­ri­ty clear­ance appli­ca­tion. ‘Most agen­cies get real­ly upset and sus­pi­cious and act antag­o­nis­ti­cal­ly toward appli­cants if they find they with­held infor­ma­tion,’ he said, adding that a minor vio­la­tion might be for­giv­en. But he said if the issue con­cerned fail­ing to list employ­ment at ‘a ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion or one that’s being inves­ti­gat­ed, all sorts of red flags would go up.’ Gill’s place­ment in the sen­si­tive intel­li­gence job has alarmed gov­ern­ment offi­cials because it fits the oper­at­ing the­o­ry of pros­e­cu­tors and inves­ti­ga­tors that Alam­ou­di was part of a long-term scheme by Islam­ic extrem­ists to place friend­ly, if per­haps unwit­ting, asso­ciates in key U.S. gov­ern­ment posi­tions.

A doc­u­ment seized in a 1995 raid of a close Alam­ou­di friend and polit­i­cal ally, for­mer Uni­ver­si­ty of South Flori­da pro­fes­sor Sami Al-Ari­an, out­lined a plan to ‘infil­trate the sen­si­tive intel­li­gence agen­cies or the embassies in order to col­lect infor­ma­tion and build close rela­tion­ships with the peo­ple in charge of these estab­lish­ments.’ The unsigned doc­u­ment, which author­i­ties believe was authored by Al-Ari­an in part because it was found among his papers, added: ‘We are in the cen­ter which leads the con­spir­a­cy against our Islam­ic world . . . Our pres­ence in North Amer­i­ca gives us a unique oppor­tu­ni­ty to mon­i­tor, explore and fol­low up.’ It instruct­ed mem­bers of the ‘cen­ter,’ thought to refer to an Islam­ic think tank that Al-Ari­an found­ed, to ‘col­lect infor­ma­tion from those rel­a­tives and friends who work in sen­si­tive posi­tions in gov­ern­ment.’

Al-Ari­an is in a Flori­da prison await­ing tri­al next year on charges he was the North Amer­i­can leader of the Pales­tin­ian Islam­ic Jihad, a group that has tar­get­ed Israel with sui­cide bomb­ings. He denies all the charges. But inves­ti­ga­tors believe Al-Ari­an and Alam­ou­di were part of a broad­er polit­i­cal Islam­ic move­ment in the Unit­ed States that con­nects sym­pa­thiz­ers of Hamas, Islam­ic Jihad and al-Qai­da.

‘This move­ment, the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood, is the umbrel­la under which ter­ror groups have forged ‘a sig­nif­i­cant degree of coop­er­a­tion and coor­di­na­tion with­in our bor­ders,’ for­mer White House coun­tert­er­ror­ism chief Richard Clarke told the Sen­ate Bank­ing Com­mit­tee last year. ‘The com­mon link here is the extrem­ist Mus­lim Brotherhood—all of these orga­ni­za­tions are descen­dants of the mem­ber­ship and ide­ol­o­gy of the Mus­lim Broth­ers.’ Alam­ou­di, for exam­ple, has spo­ken open­ly of his admi­ra­tion for the anti-Israeli Hamas, which evolved from a branch of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood. Al-Arian’s cir­cle of asso­ciates, mean­while, over­laps with mem­bers of the Brook­lyn, N.Y., pre­cur­sor to al-Qai­da that was respon­si­ble for the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing.

The ties among Alam­ou­di, the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and Gill help explain why offi­cials are con­cerned about whether Gill was ade­quate­ly vet­ted. These rela­tion­ships are dif­fi­cult to under­stand with­out immer­sion in the indict­ments, court tran­scripts and case exhibits; the con­cerned offi­cials said they fear that busy polit­i­cal oper­a­tives in the admin­is­tra­tion sim­ply do not grasp the nation­al-secu­ri­ty issues at stake. ‘There’s an over­all denial in the admin­is­tra­tion that the agen­da being pushed by Norquist might be a prob­lem,’ one offi­cial said. ‘It’s so absurd that a Grover Norquist per­son could even be close to some­thing like this. That’s real­ly what’s so insid­i­ous.’ . . . .

. . . . In 1999 a group of reform­ers oust­ed Alam­ou­di as AMC exec­u­tive direc­tor amid ques­tions about the group’s opaque finances and mys­te­ri­ous Mid­dle East­ern fund­ing sources. Alam­ou­di took a posi­tion at the affil­i­at­ed Amer­i­can Mus­lim Foun­da­tion but remained in con­trol of the AMC through friend­ly board mem­bers, the reform­ers said. ‘I had con­cerns about the reluc­tance to reveal infor­ma­tion about the finances. They said they’re not doing well, that they need­ed more mon­ey, but I looked at their office [in Wash­ing­ton], and it was very big,’ said one of the would-be reform­ers, Ikram Khan, a sur­geon in Las Vegas. Khan said he resigned from the AMC board when his friend, Nazir Kha­ja, a Pak­istani-Amer­i­can physi­cian from Cal­i­for­nia who was try­ing to open the group’s books, told him that Alam­ou­di was not coop­er­at­ing. ‘I said, ‘if this is the case, I can­not con­tin­ue to serve in the group,’ and I sent in my res­ig­na­tion let­ter,’ Khan said. . . .

. . . . U.S. Jus­tice Depart­ment is exam­in­ing whether Alam­ou­di was con­spir­ing with a Lon­don group the Sau­di gov­ern­ment says is linked to Osama bin Laden. Who is Abdu­rah­man Alam­ou­di? We real­ly don’t know,’ one of the con­cerned gov­ern­ment offi­cials said.’ So how can we say there is not a prob­lem with his for­mer aide? He [Gill] has access to infor­ma­tion about all our vulnerabilities—aviation, ports. He knows what is pro­tect­ed and what is not.’

Yet some offi­cials remain con­cerned that Gill appar­ent­ly enjoys the polit­i­cal pro­tec­tion of Norquist, the archi­tect of the 1994 Repub­li­can elec­tion sweep that brought Geor­gia Repub­li­can Newt Gin­grich to pow­er as House speak­er. Norquist speaks of ‘crush­ing’ his polit­i­cal oppo­nents and dis­miss­es those who don’t agree with his anti-tax, anti-gov­ern­ment agen­da as ‘Bol­she­viks.’ His pow­er derives from a for­mi­da­ble coali­tion of evan­gel­i­cal, busi­ness and oth­er con­ser­v­a­tive groups that he con­trols to push favored GOP issues, as well as from his close rela­tion­ship with White House polit­i­cal chief Karl Rove.

In 1998, Norquist and a for­mer deputy to Alam­ou­di at the AMC co-found­ed the non­prof­it Islam­ic Insti­tute as part of a dri­ve to win Mus­lim vot­ers for Bush in 2000. Alam­ou­di donat­ed $35,000 to the insti­tute, records show. Soon, the Islam­ic Insti­tute, the AMC and Al-Ari­an were all work­ing togeth­er on a top pri­or­i­ty for Amer­i­can Mus­lims: an end to the use of clas­si­fied intel­li­gence to jail nonci­t­i­zens as nation­al-secu­ri­ty threats. Al-Arian’s broth­er-in-law had been jailed on the basis of such secret evi­dence link­ing him to Pales­tin­ian Islam­ic Jihad, and Al-Ari­an lob­bied heav­i­ly on Capi­tol Hill to end the prac­tice. In Octo­ber 2000, through the efforts of Norquist and Rove, Bush came out against secret evi­dence in a debate with Al Gore, and the AMC endorsed Bush for pres­i­dent. Al-Ari­an would lat­er claim that the Mus­lim votes he round­ed up for Bush in Flori­da helped decide the elec­tion.

Gill was in the mid­dle of these advo­ca­cy efforts. As direc­tor of gov­ern­ment affairs at Norquist’s Islam­ic Insti­tute, Gill lob­bied against the use of secret evi­dence, accord­ing to a May 2001 release on the institute’s Web site. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Gill was quot­ed in news arti­cles as a spokesman for the AMC. A Wash­ing­ton Post arti­cle from May 2001, mean­while, iden­ti­fied Gill as a spokesman for the ‘fledg­ling’ Tax­pay­ers Alliance of Prince William Coun­ty, Va., which is affil­i­at­ed with Norquist’s Amer­i­cans for Tax Reform. Accord­ing to the Post arti­cle, Norquist was slat­ed to appear with Gill at an anti-tax ral­ly. . . .

7. The pro­gram con­cludes with an excerpt from Mis­cel­la­neous Archive Show M11: Uncle Sam and the Swasti­ka [58].

At the same that St. Bernard was a Pres­i­den­tial elec­tor for the Social­ist Work­ers Par­ty, Mr. Emory was doing this [59]: