The real Khashoggi IS NOT who the media claims

October 22, 2018

TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images

CEO/Founder

I want to talk a little bit about this back and forth with Saudi Arabia. It's important that we get this right and we don't make this about American politics. We should make this about American interests, but not American politics. Right now people are saying, I can't believe Donald Trump would do that. But, George Bush, Bill Clinton, the second George Bush, all the way back to FDR, have been in bed with the Saudis.

I don't like this. I think we're in bed with really bad people. I was asked once if a rattlesnake made a bad pet. The answer is, no. It's a perfectly fine pet. As long as you always remember it is a rattlesnake and not a little puppy dog. It's a rattlesnake. It's not a bad pet. Just don't pet it and don't try to fashion a leash around its neck or take it for a walk. It ain't going to do it.

RELATED: Here's what audio allegedly reveals about murdered, dismembered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi

So how do we handle Saudi Arabia? Well, it should be the same way we handle Turkey. But we're not. Because we're looking at Saudi Arabia and Turkey with American eyes.

Stop it.

These are both Islamic states. Now they're warring with each other. Why? Because one is Muslim Brotherhood and one is a Wahhabiist. They don't like each other. They want death for everybody in the other state. Turkey wants the regime of Saudi Arabia stopped because they're Muslim Brotherhood.

We're being put in the middle of a fight between two Islamists; both of them want the caliphate.

And Saudi Arabia wants Turkey stopped because they're Wahhabiists. We're being put in the middle of a fight between two Islamists; both of them want the caliphate. Both of them want Islamic rule. Both of them want to rule with jihad. And they also want to rule with Sharia law. We don't. We don't want either of those.

So now, let's put this into perspective. Saudi Arabia, horrible place. Horrible, horrible, horrible place. They execute kids. As long as you've shown any kind of signs of purity, you're tried as an adult. They execute through beheading. There was a woman who was raped. Gang raped by seven men. Not sure if one of them was Supreme Court justice Kavanaugh yet. But a Saudi woman was gang raped by seven men.

Those men each got between two and nine years in prison. However, she received six months in prison, and 200 lashings with a whip because she was in the car without her husband. And then she dared to take her story to the media. These are the kind of people that we're dealing with. The crown prince? You and I are not going to like this guy. You can say, oh, look at what he's doing. He's making it easier for women to drive. Sure. Sure. Sure. He's still a Wahhabiist. Let's look at what both sides in this country have done.

We are currently fighting a proxy war with Saudi Arabia. We are involved in their war in Yemen. Did you even know that? President Trump announced 110 billion-dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia, last year. It was President Obama that vetoed a bill that allowed families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government. So both sides — everybody is in protecting these guys. When the crown prince came here to America, he met with Donald Trump. Oh my gosh. But he also met with Oprah Winfrey, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (for some unknown reason), Barack Obama, John Kerry, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Bloomberg, Thomas Friedman from the New York Times, Bill Gates, Madeleine Albright, Jeffrey Goldberg, Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Alan Gasher from Harvard, and Jeff Bezos. So they all met with him. Let's not pretend we don't know who this guy is.

Now, the guy who went missing — he's a reporter for the Washington Post. Is he, or does he have a point of view that Washington happens to like about Saudi Arabia? And that is, the Muslim Brotherhood perspective. So if you remember, the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in the 1920s, in Egypt. The only reason for its being was to reject the West and establish global Sharia law.

They exported this organization all over the Middle East. Anti-Semitism towards Jews; their biggest and most effective tool at harnessing the Arab rage. Muslim Brotherhood; they're the ones who invented modern day jihadism. They're the ones who inspired obstacles and the other founding members of al-Qaeda. To any administration member from the Obama administration, you cannot call them a largely secular organization. Just read their motto:

The Koran [is] our Constitution. Jihad our plan. And death for the sake of Allah, the lot of these of our wishes.

They're not primarily a sect similar organization. The industry of death. And they mean that in a good way. In their own words:

To a nation that protects the industry of death and which knows how to die nobly, God gives proud life in this world.

Okay. That doesn't sound secular. Doesn't sound like someone we should be in bed with. But the Muslim Brotherhood ran up against what we found as a problem. That was one of them, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Because it was backed by the West. Many of these kingdoms in the Middle East have been backed by the West. Jordan will be next. Anyone who stands in their way, they had to destroy. These are democracies, so how are we going to do it?

Well, the Muslim Brotherhood decided to switch tactics and weaponize democracy. Enter the Arab spring. The Arab spring praised by everyone. We told you their goal is a caliphate. Well, it never materialized. Did it? Not there. It materialized from the chain of events, with ISIS. Well, you were talking about the Muslim Brotherhood. Right. And what happened to the Muslim Brotherhood? Did they just choose not to do a caliphate? Oh, no, no. They were overthrown. The Muslim Brotherhood still wants their caliphate. So now you have two of our allies, Turkey; Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudis; Wahhabiists, who are both chasing the exact same dream.

The Muslim Brotherhood decided to switch tactics and weaponize democracy.

A Middle East and a world dominated by Sharia law. Both of them using jihadism as a means to their ends. So Khashoggi, you're calling him today, now we look at him. He is a guy who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. I want to say this; no one deserves this kind of death. This is not to excuse the Saudis. They're bad guys. But so is Turkey. And so was he. Everybody here says he's a Saudi progressive fighting for democracy. No. No. No. No. He was fighting for the Muslim Brotherhood. In the 1980s and '90s, he was one of the king's main allies.

He edited several Saudi newspapers. He was basically Winston Smith sitting in the Saudi version of the ministry of truth, editing out all thought crime. Making sure that there was never anything hostile said about Wahhabiism or the king. During this time, he scored several interviews with al-Qaeda as they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Saudi intelligence employed him to be the middleman between Bin Laden but in 2003 he fell out of favor with the Saudi royals. He had allowed to be published an article critical to the Wahhabiist movement. Why did he do that? Because he's a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. And they were at odds with the Wahhabiists.

Khashoggi was cast aside. And that's when the Western media fell in love with him. An active member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Not a smear or a conspiracy theory. In his own word:.

Yes, I joined the Muslim Brotherhood organization, and I was not alone.

His Muslim Brotherhood friends and clerics were all imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, during the Arab spring. He got out. He came to the US. He established a political party while in exile called "Democracies for the Arab World Now" party.

The liberals, the progressives and the press loved him because they heard the word democracy. It's the Muslim Brotherhood plan to subvert democracy by turning it against itself. He wanted to establish Sharia law in the region. He was also a wicked anti-Semite, who wrote, outside the context of history and logic, that Jews will have to die by force. Israel is outside the context of history and logic so we're going to have to kill all of them. This is not a smear campaign. When you hear somebody say that, you make sure you ask them, where are you doing your homework? Where are you getting that? Why is it a smear campaign to say he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?

He was clear in his own words.

So why is that a smear campaign? I thought the Muslim Brotherhood was largely secular. Ask people. How much do you know about the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood? How much do you really know about what this man really wrote? This man wrote that it was a mistake to think that you could have any kind of state in the Middle East without some form of Islamist. Now, that's different, remember, than Islam. An Islamist believes you have to use Sharia law.

That's the concept — wow does it sounds like the Muslim Brotherhood. That's our Constitution. That is our law. Sharia law. So let's just begin to tell each other the truth.

And here's the truth: Turkey is not a friend of ours. Turkey is in with the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia is a huge exporter of Wahhabism and has done it here in the United States. Has spent money building mosques that are very dangerous, here in the United States. It's true. They killed him. Could be. Probably. Seems like it. I don't trust the Muslim Brotherhood in Turkey. But I also don't trust those guys. One of them killed him. Probably Saudi Arabia. Did he deserve it? No.

Does he deserve to be called a freedom fighter? Only by either really uneducated progressives, or just liars.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

THE FACTS - Who was Jamal Khashoggi and what ties did he have to the Muslim Brotherhood?youtu.be

The double standard behind the White House outrage

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

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.