Save the NRA: The Solid Case Against Grover Norquist

April 25, 2016

Writer

Message From Glenn:

At the beginning of my speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), I mentioned Dr. Zuhdi Jasser was voted onto the Board of the American Conservative Union (ACU) which runs CPAC. This change will help ensure supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood are removed from the ACU. As you know, there is an effort underway at the National Rifle Association (NRA) to do the same thing. I have tremendous respect for Former Army Green Beret officer and Pastor Stu Weber for being man enough to take this on by submitting the original petition to remove Grover Norquist from the Board of the NRA. To change the world, it starts with one person. It's time to vote Grover Norquist off the board of the NRA. Not because I ask you to, but because you read the information below and decide it is the right thing to do. We must stand to defend our institutions. Support the NRA and support the brave men and women — like Stu Weber — who step forward to change the world.

DOWNLOAD THE BALLOT

Important Ballot in NRA Magazines

Current issues of NRA Magazines include two important ballots: one to elect board members and one to recall an association official. Don’t ignore either, but pay particular attention to the latter. Our long-term national security depends on your voting “YES” on this ballot and delivering it before May 1.

Recall of Association Official Ballot — Due Before May 1

Who is the “official” on this important recall ballot? His name is Grover Norquist, and he’s a 15-year Board Member of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Additionally, Mr. Norquist sits on the Board of the American Conservative Union, the nation’s oldest and largest conservative grassroots organization. Mr. Norquist is the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform and co-founder of the Islamic Free Market Institute.

Why Recall Grover Norquist?

While Mr. Norquist’s efforts on trying to reduce taxes are admirable, his co-founding of the Islamic Free Market Institute and its connections to highly suspect individuals are puzzling at best, very dangerous at worst.

Mr. Norquist has well-documented associations with radical Islamists, including Abdurahman Alamoudi who is serving a 23-year prison term on terrorism charges. Mr. Norquist’s Islamic Institute received two $10,000 contributions in 1999 drawn from the personal bank account of Alamoudi. But that’s only scratching the surface of Mr. Norquist’s connections to radical Islam.

The Center for Security Policy laid out a 101-page document that explicitly details Mr. Norquist’s history with Islamists directly connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.

This document is signed by ten influential national security practitioners, including:

• Bush ’43 Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey

• Clinton Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey

• Former Congressman Allen West

• Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy

• Former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons

• Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lieutenant General William G. Boykin

• Former Pentagon Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz

Additionally, former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons wrote an open letter published in March 2016 issues of NRA publications urging NRA members to give serious consideration to recalling Mr. Norquist’s Board position.

VOTE “YES” BEFORE MAY 1 TO RECALL GROVER NORQUIST

The Muslim Brotherhood: The Enemy Within

Why wage a bloody jihad on the greatest Western nation when you can slowly destroy it from within, using the shields of religious freedom and political correctness? It’s called “civilization jihad,” and it’s the secretly stated mission of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This form of warfare includes cultural subversion, the co-opting of senior leaders, influence operations and propaganda, and other means of insinuating Sharia Law into Western societies. Many Brotherhood leaders advocate patience in promoting their goals. Back in 1995, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, told the Toledo, Ohio Muslim Arab Youth Association convention, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through the sword, but through dawah (Islamic renewal and outreach).” The prime practitioners of this stealthy form of jihad are the ostensibly “non-violent” Muslim Brotherhood and their front groups and affiliates.

A strategic plan dated May 22, 1991, entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group [Muslim Brotherhood] in North America,” was discovered by the FBI in 2004. The “Memorandum” describes the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [the Muslim Brotherhood in Arabic] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny...

Sounding the Alarm

For years, respected security and military officials within the U.S. have sounded the alarm regarding Grover Norquist's troubling ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Those warnings, for the most part, have fallen on deaf ears.

Since Paul Revere’s midnight ride, the precedent has been set for American patriots to sound the alarm at threats to our liberty and way of life. After learning of Mr. Norquist’s connections to Islamists and his participation on the NRA board — an organization of which Glenn is a lifetime member — Glenn began speaking out about it.

In March 2015, Glenn announced on air he would resign his membership in the NRA if Mr. Norquist remained a member of the Board, prompting hundreds of listeners to call the NRA. The organization subsequently opened an ethics investigation into Mr. Norquist. Later that same month, Mr. Norquist joined Glenn on air to defend himself against accusations that he is an agent of influence for radical Islamists. In the contentious interview, Glenn hammered Mr. Norquist on his connections to known terrorists.

VOTE “YES” BEFORE MAY 1 TO RECALL GROVER NORQUIST

Hearing No

Mr. Stuart Weber, an NRA member, sponsored the original petition to remove Mr. Norquist from the Board. A Hearing Committee appointed to review the petition ultimately voted against it, citing three reasons for voting “No” to removing Mr. Norquist (see below why these reasons are wholly unacceptable). Interestingly, Mr. Weber was unable to attend the hearing, as he was given very short notice. Based on NRA bylaws, Mr. Weber had no input on the hearing date.

The Solid Case Against Grover Norquist

Reason #1: The Truth Is Ageless

The Hearing Committee based its decision on “old charges” that have gone stale. Since when does the truth have an expiration date? Pursuing truth and exposing nefarious — or at the very least suspect — intentions should be a constant, never-ending effort. The Hearing Committee is not a court of law, and there should not be a statute of limitations. Further, when Mr. Weber filed the petition, the board never declared the ‘staleness’ rule — it was only after the fact.

The charges against Mr. Norquist do not fade away because of other people’s delay in recognizing their seriousness. Moreover, the stated tactic of the Muslim Brotherhood to patiently and slowly wage their “civilization jihad” indicates their willingness to spend years, even decades reaching their goal. Shouldn’t Americans commit an equal amount of time to exposing the truth and protecting liberty?

Reason #2: The Facts Are Overwhelming

The Hearing Committee based its decision on a “lack of factual support.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The Center for Security Policy prepared Agent of Influence, a 101-page document with 87 Statements of Fact signed by 10 influential security experts at the highest levels of government. The Statement of Facts establishes that:

• Islamist enemies of the United States, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, are engaged in a concerted effort to destroy this country and impose their supremacist doctrine of Sharia worldwide.

• Muslim Brotherhood front groups and operatives have targeted, among others, the Republican Party and conservative movement.

• Leaders of organizations identified by the federal government as Muslim Brotherhood fronts—and, in some cases, tied to terrorists—were involved in influence operations targeting the GOP and conservatives during the late 1990s and some or all of the decade that followed. Such leaders included, notably: Abdurahman Alamoudi, Sami al-Arian, Nihad Awad and Khaled Saffuri.

• Over the past fifteen years, Grover Norquist has had personal, professional and/or organizational associations with each of these Muslim Brotherhood operatives.

• Norquist’s connections, organizations and personal efforts have enabled the influence operations of Islamists, including those of Iran.

The Hearing Committee, which had full access to the dossier of information with 87 supporting facts, was unable to define who is right or wrong in its Process Overview. But it seems, based on its decision, the Committee was reviewing for a criminal prosecution which requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt, rather than the much less exacting preponderance of the evidence standard. Regardless of right or wrong, there is overwhelming evidence to call into question Mr. Norquist’s associations and the appropriateness of his position on the Board of the NRA.

Reason #3: Distractions

The Hearing Committee based its decision on the petition not rising to the level of being a “distraction to the NRA.” On the contrary, Mr. Weber’s original petition states the very presence of Mr. Norquist on the NRA board presents a distraction the NRA cannot tolerate, particularly during a heated and contested election season. All available NRA resources in time, staff and money must be invested to advance the candidates who hold similar principles.

Reason #4: Jury of Your Peers

The Hearing Committee was put into an unenviable position: Voting on the outing of a long-term board member, possibly a friend, and frankly, a powerful person within the GOP establishment. While members of the Hearing Committee did their best under the circumstances, those close affiliations — direct or indirect, implicit or explicit — undoubtedly impacted the outcome.

Power to the People

The Hearing Committee’s vote is nothing more than a recommendation. NRA members have the power to rise up and vote “YES” to remove Grover Norquist.

By using the recall ballot in current NRA magazines, NRA lifetime members — or yearly members in good standing for five consecutive years — are eligible to vote on this critical decision. Should eligible members need a copy of the ballot, they are encouraged to contact the NRA.

In the event members have already cast their vote, but feel moved to vote differently based on the information provided here, they can request the NRA void their original vote and issue them a new ballot.

The evidence gathered by The Center for Security Policy is overwhelming and can lead to only one conclusion: Grover Norquist has engaged in conduct on behalf of jihadists and their associates that is incompatible with service in a leadership role with the NRA or any other conservative organization.

VOTE “YES” BEFORE MAY 1 TO RECALL GROVER NORQUIST

Featured Image: Caption:WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 05: Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform, visits 'SiriusXM Patriot Forum with Grover Norquist' at SiriusXM Studio on March 5, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Leigh Vogel/Getty Images)

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.