Which six people connected to White House have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood?

April 25, 2012

Writer

Glenn interviewed Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the American Center for Security Policy as well as former Assistant Secretary in the Defense Department under Ronald Reagan, on radio this morning about the rise of radical Islam and the threat it poses to the United States. More importantly, he discussed the legal implications that any politicians and journalists could face if they were found to have knowledge of treason against the United States.

Gaffney explained, "The technical term for it, the statutory criminal prohibition on it in the U.S. code is something called misprision of treason and what that fancy term means is if somebody either knows or had reason to know that seditious activity is underway, seditious activity like trying to overthrow the government of the United States or destroy Western civilization from within, for example, that is a criminal offense under our laws and should be treated as such."

"And it appears in the code right next to, you know, sedition because it's meant to say you can't let this kind of thing happen and not do something about it without being culpable yourself."

Gaffney said that there were six people connected to the White House who "on the basis of just the open source information had extensive ties themselves to the Muslim Brotherhood."

He added that at best these six people are ignorantly being manipulated by the Muslim Brotherhood and their agenda, or at worst going along with it willingly.

Who were the six individuals? You can find out tonight on Rumors of War 3: Target US on GBTV

Interview Transcript:

GLENN: Frank Gaffney is on the phone. He's part of this special. He was ‑‑ what were you? The assistant deputy Department of Defense? What were you? Secretary? What was that title?

GAFFNEY: It was an assistant ‑‑ I acted as an assistant secretary in the defense department under Ronald Reagan. Beck okay. And Frank, you have ‑‑ you've been on the show a million times, you've got tons of credibility in this kind of stuff. When I'm watching this special last night, I was shocked, and I'm ‑‑ I keep up on the news. I don't necessarily ‑‑ you know, I'm not somebody who misses a lot of stuff. I had no idea how much trouble we were in.

GAFFNEY: And if you don't, you can imagine how much further down the power curve most Americans are. And I just want to say, I thought Joe Weasel and your team, Glenn, did just an absolutely superb job.

GLENN: Thank you.

GAFFNEY: Of pulling this complex subject together in a highly accessible way and with what I think of as really, apart from myself, the best people in the country on the subject. And it's a real public service, and I very much hope that your listeners will tune in.

If I may, we have a kind of adjunct to your program that I'd also like to encourage them to take a look at because you've given them sort of a primer there but for a deeper drill‑down on how much trouble we're in and why and what we can do about it, we've just launched a new video course that is accessible via the Internet. It is available for free, ten‑part course at MuslimbrotherhoodinAmerica.com. And I hope that the combination of the two could really transform this from a country that is sleepwalking ‑‑

GLENN: Frank.

GAFFNEY: ‑‑ at the moment when a people who are waging a stealthy kind of jihad against us are getting away with it.

GLENN: We had a president who said he's going to start ‑‑ we're going to start helping small businesses through the Muslim Brotherhood. And then also that the war on terror is over because if you were going to be in Al‑Qaeda ‑‑ we've killed all the bad guys. And if you were going to be in Al‑Qaeda, now you pretty much know that you don't have to go there. You've got a different way of going instead of blowing yourself up. You can go through the Muslim Brotherhood and legitimate organizations.

GAFFNEY: Legitimate Islamism is the way a State Department official put it. And Glenn, what we're getting at in this course is that it's not an accident that we have the president of the United States and for that matter the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the secretary of the Homeland Security department and the attorney general of the United States or the Director of National Intelligence, even the national administrator all queueing increasingly to policy directions, to, you know, broad guidelines that are directing us to conform to the dictates of the Muslim Brotherhood. And why this is so important to understand, again why Rumors of War is such a service is that if you recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood's own stated mission in the United States is to destroy Western civilization from within by our hands, it's pretty clear, at least if you've got a lick of sense. Fortunately I know your listening audience does and I think most Americans still do, you're going to recognize this is crazy for us to be helping these guys.

GLENN: So I was watching the part about the Muslim Brotherhood and all the people that Obama has appointed and all the things that we're doing, and it's, Frank, it's shocking. And I paused it because I was watching the rough draft of it, what, yesterday, and I paused it and I looked at my staff and I said, "I'm sorry, but our president is an unindicted co‑conspirator. There's just no way these guys don't know all of this stuff. " Is there?

GAFFNEY: The course that we've prepared I think makes it unmistakably clear, at least just on the basis of common sense. And recognize you're like me dealing with what's in the public domain. This is not all of the information that's out there that, you know, congressional oversight committees could subpoena or, you know, extract on the basis of serious investigations, not the kind of information that inspectors general in these various departments could generate, not the kind of thing that, you know, criminal prosecutions could generate. But just on the basis of what's in the public domain, Glenn, we ‑‑ what we've got here at a minimum are useful idiots, as the Soviets used to say, people who are being put in the service of this Muslim Brotherhood civilization jihad agenda unwittingly, haplessly, but to the great benefit of our enemies. And at worse, what we have here is something that I think we've talked about on the show before. The technical term for it, the statutory criminal prohibition on it in the U.S. code is something called misprision of treason and what that fancy term means is if somebody either knows or had reason to know that seditious activity is underway, seditious activity like trying to overthrow the government of the United States or destroy Western civilization from within, for example, that is a criminal offense under our laws and should be treated as such. And, you know, Glenn, when we ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, hang on. I've got to write that down because I'm going to ‑‑ if Romney gets in, I'm going to be pushing for many members of the press to be tried ‑‑ what is the name of that?

GAFFNEY: Misprision, m‑i‑s‑p‑r‑i‑s‑i‑o‑n, misprision of treason. And it appears in the code right next to, you know, sedition because it's meant to say you can't let this kind of thing happen and not do something about it without being culpable yourself. And when you look at the six people we've identified, and I think there's some correlation to the ones you've looked at, the six people we've identified who either are in the Obama administration, in the White House, in the State Department or elsewhere, the people who are serving on advisory committees, in official capacities at the Department of Homeland Security and FBI and elsewhere, people who are being used for Muslim outreach by various agencies, six people who it is possible to show on the basis of just the open source information had extensive ties themselves to the Muslim Brotherhood, well, these folks are, I'm afraid, very much a part of the problem that we're confronting that's keeping us witless, willfully blind or, worse, actively submitting to the Muslim Brotherhood agenda in America.

GLENN: So let me go this because we also talk about in the special about the border and it is probably the biggest expose on the border I have seen on television. Let me go ‑‑ play Clip 1, please. This is Zach Taylor, former border guard agent and what he says he witnessed himself on the border. Here it is. You have Clip 1? Sara? You have Clip 1? He talks here about capturing of Syrian terrorists at the southern border and how that was treated and ‑‑

VOICE: And one worrying about daylights and border patrol agents caught a group of Middle Eastern people there. In the group, they did not catch the whole group, which is common. In the group they did catch were three people from Syria and some people from Yemen. And they brought them to the station. I was the supervisor on duty that day. And one of the agents called me into one of the write‑up rooms and said, this guy claimed he came here from Syria to be a terrorist. Says, you need to talk to him. So I went in there and I talked to the guy for quite a while. And he convinced me that he was serious, that he came here to engage in terrorism. He didn't know what type, what he was going to be expected to do but he was on his way to Chicago, Illinois.

GLENN: We let that guy go. Frank, there seems to be an uptick on connections between the drug cartels and Islamic terrorists. There is an uptick in Iran's activity in Venezuela. They just signed a deal to put missiles, Iranian missiles in Venezuela. And all of this stuff seems to be moving at a more rapid pace. Are we approaching an event, do you think? Your time in the defense DERNTHS is this, does this feel like event, events are coming?

GAFFNEY: Well, it is interesting we're having this conversation of course, Glenn, on the day that the Supreme Court is weighing the question of whether somebody should enforce the law, if the federal government is not going to do it, the State of Arizona should do it as they have asked to be able to do it. They've passed a law in the formal democratic process to do. And in the absence of that especially, I think we're looking at an event or a series of events.

We know, according to congressman Pete King who shares, as you know, the Homeland Security committee in the House that there are hundreds, as you know, hundreds of Hezbollah operatives in the United States right now.

GLENN: I think he said 200 just in New York.

GAFFNEY: Yeah. These are people who are presumably good to go, if the order is given to launch terrorist attacks against us. Heavens knows how many others of Al‑Qaeda or Hamas or other stripes the al‑Quds force of Iran, for example, are also either here or preparing to take the, you know, easy, well, relatively easy route into our country across a porous southern border without proper enforcement that imposes real obstacles to them doing it.

And here's the kicker: If you add to that violent jihad the prospect of it, the distinct possibility that we will find these guys killing Americans in the future, perhaps not so distant, as they have in the past, you add on top of that this other kind of jihad, not so much nonviolent but previolent jihad that actually we're helping to build to, according to the phase plan we talked earlier about the strategic plan of the Muslim Brotherhood, there was also a phased plan introduced into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial, Glenn, and what the phase plan says is you use these stealthy techniques until the point where you're able to seize control of the government. So it is all about building the violence, and under the doctrine of sedition ‑‑ of Sharia as we've discussed before, under that doctrine if they sense we are being submissive, their doctrine says they must redouble their effort to make us feel subdued; in other words, bring on the violence. So you put all this together and there's a, I think a very high probability, not just a possibility, probability that we will see death and destruction meted out at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and its other Islamist associates inside the United States, not just somewhere else, and it will be in part our own fault because we have been witlessly blind and we have been submitting, we have been encouraging, we've been enabling.

GLENN: Frank, I appreciate it. We'll see you tonight.

GAFFNEY: Sure.

GLENN: Frank Gaffney who is part of this documentary, Rumors of War III, really important documentary. I ask you as a 9/12 project or a Tea Party, gather your friends together. Get to watch it together. There's a live portion of this hour‑long documentary that will make your hair fall out. Hour‑long documentary on what we're facing. You'll understand the Muslim Brotherhood. You'll have a pretty good idea. And when you hear that anybody in the White House say, "Oh, Muslim Brotherhood," you'll know. You'll know they're lying to you. Ask the border and how this all ties together and the steps that people have tried to take to protect us and who's thwarting it. Rumors of War III tonight at 7:00, then an hour‑long special after that where we get together with all the players and we'll take your questions. You can tweet the questions during the broadcast when you're watching it or right after, and we'll address them live tonight, GBTV, my regular show at 5:00, which is powerhouse, and then real news and then 7:00 is the beginning of the special.

STU: Yeah, you can tweet your questions with the hashtag Rumors of War. Also to remind you you've got a two‑week free trial. So if you want to try it, this is probably a good time to try it because you'll get the documentary and you'll get the after discussion and everything else, see if you like it.

GLENN: Yeah. Rumors of War III tonight, 7:00, GBTV.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep