NRA launches ethics investigation into Grover Norquist

On Wednesday's radio program, Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, alleged that Grover Norquist was acting as an agent of influence on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood. Norquist is currently up for re-election to the board of the NRA, and Glenn said he had heard enough bad things about Norquist that he was going to drop his membership if the re-election was a success. Friday morning, Glenn revealed that he had spoken with Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, and the NRA was opening an ethics investigation in Norquist.

Related:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment from radio:

I have a -- an important and personal conversation with you about the NRA. I know that a lot of our listeners are NRA members. I am an NRA member. I am a member -- a lifetime member. And one that -- I'm a reluctant member to almost anything. The only two organizations I belong to are my church and the NRA. I believe in Wayne LaPierre and the direction he's set for the NRA. I don't always agree with him. But I believe they're honest people trying to do the right thing.

Two days ago I was on the air, and I brought up Grover Norquist. And he's a board member on the NRA, and he's running for reelection. And I said something then that I meant then and I mean now. That if Grover Norquist remains on the board of the NRA, I don't believe that I can remain a member of the NRA. I so deeply believe this is a very, very bad man. And I so deeply that he -- and I'm not assigning. I shouldn't say he's a very bad man. I don't know him. And so I don't want to assign his reasons. I don't know why he does what he does. And I just know the people that he hangs out with and the people that he helps empower, and they are agents of influence for the Muslim Brotherhood.

And many of the reasons why we're off on the wrong track now in the Middle East is because of the influence of Grover Norquist. He is a guy that the left used to say was the all powerful, all mighty and powerful Oz during the Bush administration. I used to mock that. I didn't know anything about Grover Norquist and I thought that was the most ridiculous thing ever heard. We heard it so many times that we started doing our own homework on it. And instead of mocking it, we decided, let's just dismiss this. We started doing our homework on Grover Norquist, and I'm sorry, he is Oz. And he is a -- it's really sad because what he does on taxes, I happen to agree with. I happen to agree with some of his policies.

But when it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood and Islam, this guy is on the wrong side. Whether he knows it or not, I don't -- I don't believe he's out trying to destroy America, but his efforts and his work will lead to the destruction of America. And he is one of 76 board members of the NRA. I am not saying to the NRA, it's either him or me, I'm just saying, he's up for election, and it is the lifetime members that vote for him. And if the lifetime members think that he is a guy that should be on the NRA, just like I did with General Motors, General Motors was my biggest client at the time. And I loved General Motors. And I loved the direction they were going in. And then they switched directions and they took money from the federal government.

And I had to make the hardest call I've ever made. I turned down seven figures for my business because it violated my principles. And I told General Motors, the minute you get out of bed with the government and you start doing the things that you told me you were going to do, I would love to represent you again. But I don't have an axe to grind against General Motors. It's a personal decision.

Yesterday, I spent about an hour on the phone with Wayne LaPierre at the NRA. And we discussed this issue. And I am happy to report that the NRA, after hearing this a couple of days ago, and they've been trying to get on my schedule the last couple of days and I haven't had the chance. But they reacted immediately because of your phone calls. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of phone calls have apparently come into the NRA and have said, if Glenn leaves the NRA, we leave the NRA. And I don't want you to be a lemming by any stretch of the imagination, I assume you've done your own homework on Grover Norquist as well. And don't ever take my word. Just because I do something, doesn't mean you should do it. And I don't mean to talk down to you. I know you know that.

PAT: It's more for the media than it is for --

GLENN: Thank you very much.

We can be in lockstep. But not mindless. And you must do your own homework. And I urge you to do your own homework on Grover Norquist. Because he is an influential player in the G.O.P. And he is, I believe, a dangerous man. Because of what he believes about Islam.

This is going to raise all kinds of charges. The game will be played. I have now thrown down the chips on the table, and so Grover Norquist is a very powerful man. And we don't have friends in Washington as it is, and I'm happy about that. But he is a very powerful man, and so I believe that, you know -- you know, we've started a little war here because of our principles.

But he is the first to lead the charges of, well, you're a racist and everything else if you say anything against the Muslim Brotherhood or him. And there's not a racist bone in my body. I don't hate Muslims. I just had Zuhdi Jasser here who I think is a guy that should be held up. He's a Muslim. He's of Arab descent. So please, shut up.

Now, let me tell you about the phone call. So Wayne calls me yesterday, and he said, Glenn, I understand your concerns. And before I say anything -- because I honestly expected some sort of defense. And he said, I want you to know, because of the phone calls that have come in, I want you to know and I want your audience to know, I take our members voice's seriously.

Now, I have been -- I have been in rooms with a lot of people, I have talked to a lot of company heads and everything else. There's no organization bigger than the NRA. More powerful than the NRA. And I was humbled and shocked by how seriously they take your voice. And when you called, they went into action. And they said that they were opening up an ethics investigation on Grover. They said they're going to get down to the bottom of this once and for all. Grover denies all of these allegations.

PAT: Always has.

GLENN: And always has.

And they said, I want you to know, and when they said that, I thought, what does that mean? They said, I want you to know, it will be fully transparent. It will be posted on the web. You will know everything we did and everything we found. And then we will take action from that point. You know, they -- my feeling is, this really hurts the NRA. This really -- just the question of whether he's in with the Muslim Brotherhood or not really hurts the NRA. And the last thing I said to Wayne was: Wayne, if I were on the board, and when I said foolishly on Fox that morning, I think the president was a racist. And I was thinking out loud. And the gates of hell opened up. If I were on the board and people were starting to question the NRA because of what I said, do you think you would have had to call me?

And he said, no. And I said, no. I would have called you. The NRA is more important than me, I said. Take me off the board. Get this heat off of me. The fact that Grover Norquist hasn't said I won't run for reelection I think speaks volumes because he's one of 76 board members. He goes to the meetings, but he doesn't really even speak up. It's not like he's leading anything. So he's one of 76. What difference does it make that he's on the board of the NRA?

So I think that says a lot about his personal character, myself. But I also can understand someone digging in their heels if they think they're right. And I'm not leaving. I'm not going to be bullied like this. Et cetera, et cetera. I'm not trying to bully. I have nothing against the NRA. I think if we lose the NRA, we lose a lot. We cannot lose the NRA. And that's why I say this, because I believe Grover Norquist is an agent of influence. And I believe that he is influencing people to look the other way when it comes to people like the Muslim Brotherhood. And the facts are clear.

And I want to just give a story. This was written by Bill Gertz.

Islamists linked to the Muslim Brotherhood are seeking to influence the US conservative movement as a part of a nonviolent jihad against the United States. This is according to a group of retired national security leaders. Ten former US officials, including the retired attorney general, former CIA director, a retired general and an admiral, and a former counterterrorism prosecutor, among others, have challenged an assessment made years ago by the political outreach activities by the antitax activist, Grover Norquist.

Now, this story, you can read it online. It's from Bill Gertz. It's called Influence Operation. But I want you to hear the names of the people that put their name on a cover letter saying, he's an agent of influence.

Now, again, I don't have any firsthand knowledge. I will tell you that I have, A, been on Grover Norquist's side at the beginning. I thought this was ridiculous. We used to mock the people who used to say this about Grover Norquist. So it's not like I have an axe to grind. I don't know the guy. I like his other policies. And I also mocked the people who used to say this. But then we did our homework.

And there is enough smoke to worry about fire. And our homework has included talking to some very good, reasoned, well educated and well balanced individuals. Now, I want you to listen just to the names of the people who have signed this cover letter saying, there is fire here.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Pretty significant. Former CIA director James Woolsey. Allen West. Lieutenant general, retired, William Boykin. General Boykin is one of the most honest, decent, and clear-minded men I know. Former Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, a former federal prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy, who is really clear on this. Former FBI agent, retired admiral, James Lyons. Former commander of the US Pacific Fleet. Former Pentagon inspector general. An ambassador. Former Director of the Pentagon Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. And a former CIA officer, Clare Lopez.

I know many of these people. I find them to be sound and of sound mind and sound judgment. And I am warning you that Grover Norquist is an agent of influence. Whether he knows it or not, I'm not assigning in any ill will toward him. Whether he knows it or not, he's placing himself near and around members of the Muslim Brotherhood. And he is assisting, whether knowingly or not, agents of influence from the Muslim Brotherhood. And he's currently on the board of directors on the NRA. And I've said to Wayne last night that I -- I appreciate the NRA. I love the NRA. And I support the NRA. And I will wait to see what they do. And I know it will be open and transparent.

And he said, Glenn, I will take you and your audience through it every step of the way. And I believe him.

Now, I will tell you, I said to him, this is a matter of opinion. A lot of this. This is a matter of opinion on whether he is knowingly doing this or not knowingly doing this. I don't know how you remove somebody -- you know, from a position because you disagree with their opinion. And this might turn out to be, I disagree with the opinion -- I agree with the opinion of the former CIA director and the former generals and admirals and commanders of the Pacific fleet. I happen to agree with them and not the people defending Grover Norquist. And that doesn't make either of us wrong.

It's a matter of opinion. But I think when it comes down to something this important, of agents of influence. Of people who are intentionally trying to destroy us from within, we do not take a risk. Especially with an organization as important as the NRA.

So goes the NRA, so goes America. It's really critical that they remain healthy. And that's why I am bringing this to their attention. And I'm asking you, especially if you're a lifetime member to bring this to the attention of every lifetime member. Because it's the lifetime members that vote for the board. And no matter what it says, if the lifetime members with uneducated and they vote for him on the board, you are doing a grave disservice to the -- to the NRA.

And as I said to Wayne, I don't want this to happen. I don't want this to happen. And he said, Glenn, it's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. But, again, it's a matter of opinion. And my opinion is, he's a very dangerous man, whether knowingly or unknowingly. And if he remains on the board of the NRA, I will to have resign my membership. And that comes at great pain for me because I love these people. I really love them and I believe in them.

But let's play this out and see what they do. They have promised that they will be transparent. And I want you to know, Wayne was open and honest. Not hedging. There was nothing. It was -- he was so deferential to you. And I want to bring the message that this is one of the only organizations of this weight that I've ever seen that is truly reacting to you. They listen to their membership. They listen to their membership. So let's see how this plays out. But I want you to do your own homework on Grover Norquist. And see what you feel. He's a very dangerous man when it comes to Islam I believe.

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.